A N T I OC Η Ο S I I I A N D T H E C I T I E S OF W E S T E R N ASIA M I N O R

Antiochos I I I and the Cities of Western Asia Minor
J O H N MA

OXFORD
U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

OXFORD
U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS G r e a t C l a r e n d o n S t r e e t , O x f o r d 0X2 6DP O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s is a d e p a r t m e n t o f the U n i v e r s i t y of O x f o r d . It f u r t h e r s the U n i v e r s i t y ' s o b j e c t i v e o f e x c e l l e n c e in r e s e a r c h , s c h o l a r s h i p , and e d u c a t i o n b y p u b l i s h i n g w o r l d w i d e in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Cape T o w n Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Calcutta Istanbul Mumbai Warsaw C h e n n a i D a r es S a l a a m D e l h i F l o r e n c e H o n g K o n g Melbourne Mexico City Ibadan

Nairobi Paris Säo Paulo Singapore Taipei T o k y o T o r o n t o a n d a s s o c i a t e d c o m p a n i e s in B e r l i n

O x f o r d is a r e g i s t e r e d trade m a r k o f O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s in the U K a n d in certain o t h e r c o u n t r i e s P u b l i s h e d in the U n i t e d S t a t e s by O x f o r d University Press Inc., N e w Y o r k © J o h n M a 1999 T h e m o r a l r i g h t s of the a u t h o r h a v e b e e n a s s e r t e d D a t a b a s e right o f O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ( m a k e r ) F i r s t p u b l i s h e d 1999 A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t of this p u b l i c a t i o n m a y be r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d in a retrieval s y s t e m , or t r a n s m i t t e d , in a n y f o r m or b y a n y m e a n s , w i t h o u t the p r i o r p e r m i s s i o n in w r i t i n g of O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , or as e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d b y l a w , or u n d e r t e r m s a g r e e d w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e reprographics rights organizations. Enquiries concerning reproduction o u t s i d e the s c o p e of the a b o v e s h o u l d be s e n t to the R i g h t s D e p a r t m e n t , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , at the a d d r e s s a b o v e Y o u m u s t not c i r c u l a t e t h i s b o o k in a n y o t h e r b i n d i n g or c o v e r a n d y o u m u s t i m p o s e this s a m e c o n d i t i o n on a n y a c q u i r e r B r i t i s h L i b r a r y C a t a l o g u i n g in P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a D a t a available L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g in P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a M a , John. A n t i o c h o s I I I a n d the cities o f W e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r / J o h n M a . p. cm. I n c l u d e s b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e s (p. ). I S B N 0-19-815219-1 hb ι . C i t i e s and t o w n s , A n c i e n t — T u r k e y . - T o 1500. 2. Greeks—Turkey—HistoryI. Title. 3. A n t i o c h o s I I I , K i n g o f S y r i a , ca. 2 4 2 - 1 8 7 B . C . DS155.M293 939'.2—dc2i 13579 1999 99-23236 10 8 6 4 2

4. S y r i a — H i s t o r y — 3 5 5 B . C . - 2 8 4 A . D .

ISBN0-19-815219-1

Typeset by Regent Typesetting, London P r i n t e d in G r e a t B r i t a i n on a c i d - f r e e p a p e r b y Biddies L t d . , G u i l d f o r d and K i n g ' s L y n n

PREFACE

T h i s work (the revised and expanded version of a D . P h i l , thesis) is not a biography of A n t i o c h o s I I I and does not cover all of this interesting figure's reign. Rather, it concentrates on a particular region, Asia M i n o r , and on a particular theme, the relation between the Hellenistic empire and its structures of control and exploitation, and the Hellenistic polis. Both aspects can be studied thanks to a b o d y of epigraphical material; for convenience, the relevant inscriptions are reproduced and translated in a separate annexe to the main text, where these inscriptions are referred to by their n u m b e r in the annexe (in the form 'document 4, 1', meaning no. 4 in the dossier at line 1). T o treat the theme through this particular test-case, I drew on a n u m b e r of historiographical approaches in Hellenistic studies: political narrative, analysis of power structures, and, to m y mind the most exciting development, close attention to language, rhetoric, and self-presentation. T h e issues surrounding presentation (analytical essay rather than biography) and sources (principally the epigraphy of the Hellenistic kings and that of the Hellenistic poleis) are explored in the introduction and (indirectly) the conclusion, where I try to j u s t i f y m y historiographical choices. I attempted to make the material and its treatment accessible to Classicists and historians w h o were not specialists of the third century BC. M o r e specifically, in its present form, the work is addressed to two c o m munities within Classics: epigraphist-historians of the Hellenistic period (in the hope of showing that a little bit of theory or at least an attempt at conceptual and abstract approaches to the material cannot harm), but also interpreters of texts (in the hope of drawing attention to material w h i c h is gripping in its details and its directness, 'good to read' and underexploited). W h e t h e r I will have succeeded in reaching any of these audiences is not for me to say. D u r i n g the elaboration of the work, I incurred many debts: it is a pleasure to list some of them, with expressions of m y thanks and m y gratitude, w h i c h of course do not imply agreement, or responsibility for remaining mistakes in content. First, I take great pleasure in thanking some of m y teachers. T o m y supervisor, F. Millar, I owe thanks for guidance during and

beyond the conception and the writing of the thesis, and for encouragement throughout the process. A n u m b e r of methodological traits were developed under his advice: attention to detail and concrete processes, coupled w i t h awareness of the very real, 'performative', force of language as preserved in our documents, written both in 'king-speak' and in 'city-speak' (the association of the two approaches is paradoxical only in appearance). A t least, these were the most basic principles I attempted to follow in the present work. I am also glad to thank S. H o r n b l o w e r , m y college academic adviser, for c o m m e n t and criticism on every chapter and assistance at every stage; in addition, as m y undergraduate tutor, he first introduced me to the work of L . Robert and urged me to conduct research on the G r e e k East. N . Purcell also was m y college academic adviser for a term, and taught me how to bear geography and resources in mind w h e n writing political history (and even non-political history). Furthermore, I wish to thank J. O b e r for showing, both in his written work and in discussion, that it was possible to conceive of analyses w h i c h w o u l d take into account both the realities of power and the importance of language in shaping these realities. O n another front, I have been very fortunate to learn something about epigraphy and Hellenistic history, in more or less formal ways, f r o m the scholarship and the standards of three historians: Ph. Gauthier (who assisted me in crucial ways at the beginning of the thesis, and whose seminar I was lucky to attend for a few weeks); C h r . Habicht (who gave a lecture course and a graduate seminar I attended in H a m b u r g in 1995, and read the thesis at various stages); P. H e r r m a n n (who helped me very greatly early on, and w h o kindly advised me often and on many matters during the writing of the thesis). T h e y m a y not always approve of what I say in this work or of the ways I say it, but I could not have said it without having learnt very m u c h f r o m them, and I am deeply grateful for their teaching and their advice. Finally, I w o u l d like to thank P. D e r o w and M . A u s t i n , the examiners of m y thesis, for many considerate and helpful c o m m e n t s on substance and on style; and the anonymous committee w h i c h saw fit to award the thesis the C o n i n g t o n Prize for 1997. Likewise, it is a pleasure to acknowledge m y great debt to the following, for assistance, advice, criticism, or simply discussion: A . Bertrand, W . Blümel, G . Bowersock, A . Chaniotis, C . C r o w t h e r (especially for his help with the epigraphical dossier), P. D e r o w , Ph. Gauthier, C h r . H a b i c h t , K l . Hallof, D . H e i m a n n , P. H e r r m a n n , L . H o l f o r d - S t r e v e n s , R. L a n e F o x , J. L i g h t f o o t (for reading through

an earlier version of this text), H . M a l a y and his assistant C . T a n r i v e r , A . M e a d o w s (for discussing written work, sharing ideas, and helping me on the Ptolemaic side of things), S. Price, N . Purcell, G . Rehrenböck, G . Rogers, M . Sayar, Ε. Vassilika and P. W i l s o n at the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m (for help with the Ilion decree, OGIS 219, or rather the physical object itself, the m o n u mental text qua carved stone). Individual remarks in the text make clear the magnitude of m y debt. Finally, to A l l Souls C o l l e g e I o w e thanks for material support and help with travel abroad, to look at inscriptions, sites, and landscapes of Asia M i n o r in S e p t e m b e r 1995 and A p r i l 1997; and to H . O ' S h e a and G . G o d w i n at O U P for the making of this book. J.M. September igg8 All Souls College and Princeton

.

5. P. 3. . 3.1 9 2 BC) 5. 4. T h e Reconquest of Asia M i n o r : A Narrative (226-192 BC) ι . Sulpicius G a l b a ' s History L e s s o n C h a p t e r 2. A c h a i o s (223-213 BC) 2. Seleukid Asia M i n o r 3. Philip V . A f t e r the Expedition to the U p p e r Regions (204-202 BC) 3. Just as under our Grandfather 2. and the R o m a n s (201-200 BC) 4. Seleukid Collapse in Anatolia 5. Empire as Structures C o n q u e s t and Control Officials and Administration C i t y Statuses: T h e T y p o l o g y of Subordination B e y o n d Structures Empire as Interaction T h e L a n g u a g e of Euergetism T a l k i n g to: Instrumental Functions L o c a l M e a n i n g s and the Self-Identity of the Polis T h e Successes of Royal Discourse Conclusion: L a n g u a g e and P o w e r in the Hellenistic A g e C h a p t e r 4. C o n t e s t i n g the Seleukid Space ( 1 9 7 . the Rhodians. ι.1 9 2 BC) 6.C O N T E N T S List of Documents in Epigraphical Abbreviations Maps Dossier xi xiv xviii ι BC) Introduction: T h e Great K i n g and the Cities Chapter i. In all the L a n d beyond the T a u r u s . Beyond Narrative C h a p t e r 3. A Seleukid Past? 4. ι. 4. C o n s t r u c t i n g a Seleukid Space ( 1 9 7 . 2. 2. T h e Seleukid Past in Asia M i n o r (281-223 26 26 33 39 43 50 53 54 63 74 82 94 102 106 108 122 150 174 179 182 194 214 228 235 ι . Attalos I.

T h e D a t e of OGIS 219 T h e D a t e of the D o c u m e n t s f r o m T e o s Dubia ΜΙγas and βασι. 4. Envoi: 'Once there was a K i n g . 5· 6. 2.λβνς μίγας Stratonikeia A n Invasion of the Attalid k i n g d o m in 198 BC? T h e Settlement of 188 BC Dossier 243 254 254 260 266 272 277 279 282 284 373 393 396 Epigraphical Bibliography Index of Primary Sources General index .' Appendices ι. Epilogue.Conclusion. . . 7. 3. A n t i o c h o s the Great .

Letter of Laodike I I I and A n t i o c h o s I I I (June 213) 3. 15. 2 0 3 . the epistates of the Artemision ( N o v e m b e r — D e c e m b e r 201) D e c r e e of the A m y z o n i a n s for N i k o m e d e s (c.L I S T O F D O C U M E N T S I. 10. Letter of Z e u x i s to the A m y z o n i a n s ( M a y 203) Letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the A r m y (203) Dedication of Z e u x i s at A m y z o n (203) T w o D o c u m e n t s Pertaining to the asylia of the Artemision at A m y z o n (203 or later) Decree of the A m y z o n i a n s for Chionis. 19. 2 1 6 .200?) D e c r e e of the A m y z o n i a n s for I Iermias (c.200?) Decree of the A m y z o n i a n s for Soldiers and their Officer (c. Decree of the Sardians. 16. A n t i o c h o s III to Z e u x i s (209) 284 285 287 288 I I . 6. 17.2 0 9 BC ι . 12.P r i e s t h o o d of Nikanor: Correspondence of Philotas to Bithys. 13. Dossier C o n c e r n i n g the H i g h .2 0 1 BC 5. the G o v e r n o r of A l i n d a ( O c t o b e r . 8. 14. Letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the Sardians ( M a r c h 213) 2. Letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the Sardians ( S u m m e r 213) 4. 18.200?) Letter of Z e u x i s (?) to the A r m y at L a b r a u n d a (203) A m p h i k t i o n i c Decree for the asylia of Antiocheia/Alabanda (201) First D e c r e e of the T e i a n s for A n t i o c h o s I I I and Laodike I I I (probably 203) Second Decree of the T e i a n s for A n t i o c h o s I I I and Laodike III (probably 203) Royal Correspondence A d d r e s s e d to the T e i a n s (between 203 and 190) 292 294 295 296 297 298 300 301 302 303 304 305 308 311 317 .N o v e m b e r 202) Decree of the A m y z o n i a n s for Menestratos of Phokaia. 7. χ ι. Z e u x i s to Philotas.200?) D e c r e e of the A m y z o n i a n s for a Royal Official (c. 9.

the T r i b u n e s .1 9 0 BC 20. ' N e p h e w of the K i n g ' . 196) Decree of Iasian T r i b e C o n c e r n i n g Rituals for A n t i o c h o s I I I and his F a m i l y (c.I I I . probably c.197) Royal Enactment C o n c e r n i n g the State C u l t for Laodike ( F e b r u a r y / M a r c h to M a y 193) Letter of M . and the Senate of R o m e to the T e i a n s (193) 321 321 323 324 325 327 329 335 336 338 339 340 345 348 350 351 352 354 356 . Son of Thraseas. 1 9 7 . for A n t i o c h o s I I I . 196) Decree of the Iasians in H o n o u r of A n t i o c h o s I I I and his Family (c. 196) A g r e e m e n t between Z e u x i s and the Philippeis/Euromians C o n c e r n i n g their Alliance with A n t i o c h o s I I I ( A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 197) Decree of the E u r o m i a n s on Constitutional Matters (after 197) Letters of A n t i o c h o s I I I and Z e u x i s to the Herakleians (between 196 and 193) Decree of the citizens of Laodikeia on L y k o s for Foreign Judges f r o m Priene (between 196 and 190) Decree of the Prienians for A m e i n i a s (between 197 and 190) Letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I (?) to Ilion (Winter 197/6 or S p r i n g 196?) Alliance between A n t i o c h o s III and Perinthos (196?) L e t t e r of a Royal Official (?) C o n c e r n i n g an Indeterminate C i t y (between 209 and 193. Valerius Messalla. an Ilian Rhetor (196) Decree of the Xanthian neoi. Laodike I I I . A n t i o c h o s the Son. to H e r m e s . for L y s o n (August 196) Letter of Z e u x i s to Kildarians (probably 197) L e t t e r of Laodike I I I to Iasians. Dedication at Aigeai by T h e m i s o n . and the Royal C h i l d r e n (probably 197) Dedication at Soloi by Ptolemais. Decree of the Iasians for Laodike (c. Herakles. and A n t i o c h o s I I I (probably 197) Inscription Recording the Consecration of X a n t h o s by A n t i o c h o s I I I (197) Decree of the Xanthians for T h e m i s t o k l e s Son of Aischylos.

Letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the Nysaians 44. Letter of the Scipios to the Herakleians (late 190) Letter of the Scipios to the K o l o p h o n i a n s (189) D e c r e e of the A m y z o n i a n s for D i o n y s i o s (after 188) Decree of the Citizens of Apollonia under Salbake for Pamphilos (after 188) 49. Statue Base of A n t i o c h o s I I I . 46. Royal D o c u m e n t s f r o m Sardeis ( 2 1 3 .v o t o Erected at G o r d o s for the Safety of A p o l l o p h a n e s . (between 213 and 190) 358 359 360 362 363 364 IV. Physician of A n t i o c h o s I I I 40. E x .IV. DATE UNDETERMINED. Decree of the Citizens of Apollonia under Salbake H o n o u r i n g the Seleukid H i p p a r c h . . Philo . AFTERMATH 45. Honorific D e c r e e of the Sardians (between 209 and 193) 4 1 . . 47. Attalid Dossier C o n c e r n i n g the L i s t of mystai of A p o l l o Pleurenos (after 188) 366 368 369 369 371 . Erected at K l a r o s (between 197 and 193) 43. 48.1 9 0 ) 42. BUT C E R T A I N L Y III UNDER ANTIOCHOS 39.

1914: 162-442. Didyma Inscr. Mylasa I.. Stratonikeia (IK 43). 1 9 7 2 .. (IK 21. Poljakov.2) Die Inschriften von Iasos. Engelmann. Ricl. 2 vols. w i t h Inschr. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions (Altertümer von Pergamon 8. Berlin and I.g. 3). Fouilles de l'acropole IQ02—IÇI4. Tralleis Inschr. Chr. 2 vols. Iscrizioni di Cos (Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene et delle missioni italiane in Oriente 6).1) Die Inschriften von Tralleis. in G. 2 vols... 1973). I.. Alexandreia Troas I. vol. Iasos I. M. Didyma II: Die Inschriften. W.1. R. Iasos (to be e x p a n d e d into Die Inschriften von Iasos) refer to v o l u m e s in the series Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasten (IK). T h . starting e.2) Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Frisch. Segre. Merkelbach. Rome. Inscriptions. 1990).1-28. O t h e r a b b r e viations.A B B R E V I A T I O N S INSCRIPTIONS A l l a b b r e v i a t i o n s of the f o r m I. Die Inschriften von Alexandreia Troas. §ahin. 1935-50· Rehm. 3 vols.. Laodikeia am Lykos 1. (1972. (1981. (IK 36. Das Delphinion in Milet (Milet. Habicht. Chr. Cret. Bliimel. are earlier publications. 1988). Erythrai I. Cos Iscr. 1969. Guarducci. 1958. P. 1982. 1. M.. Teil 1: Die Inschriften (1997). Inscriptiones Creticae. (1985). 22. Rehm. Berlin.. Inschr. Kawerau and A.3). (IK 3) Die Inschriften von Ilion. ed. (IK 34-5) Die Inschriften von Mylasa. (1987. Berlin. Wiegand.. W . (IK 28. ι (1989). (IK 1) Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. T h . M. F. (1997). B o n n . w h i c h do not b e l o n g to the IK series. 2 vols. 2 vols. M . Blümel. I lion I. Lindos . H. Α. II.. B. Α. Rehm. Delphinion Inschr. vol. Rome. Corsten. 1993. Lindos. (1975)· (IK 49) Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos. Blinkenberg. Asklepieion Iscr. Ç. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. 22. fasc. Berlin.. 4 vols.

W. Magnesia Inschr. . Sardis V I I .. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander. Die Inschriften von Pergamon (Altertümer von Pergamon 8). unchanged reprint. 1906. M. BE CIG FD 3 GUI GIBM G VI ISE LEW ML OGIS RC Sardis SEG Syll. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche. i960). Berlin. (eds. A.. 1941.). Bourguet. 1903-5 (orig. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. 3 vols. W . T o d . Hildesheim.Inschr. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. and Lewis. Newton. Epigraphie. Hirschfeld. . Fouilles de Delphes 3. Leipzig. Hiller von Gaertringen.. Hicks. 1851-70. Greek and Latin inscriptions. M. Supplementum sylloges inscriptionum Graecarum. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. Leipzig. (3rd edn. Oxford. Paris. 1934 (orig.. and Robinson.).. London. . M. Ph. 1948.. W . N..H . C. G ... Leyden. 1895... L. A.. 1828-77. and Waddington.. vol. 4 vols. G . Oxford. 4 vols. Chicago. D. 1955. Grieschische Vers-Inschriften. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. E. Moretti. Die Inschriften von Priene.. 1929. E. unchanged reprint. L·.. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Schuchhardt).. Α. F. 2 vols. Berlin. M.. F. W. D. and Marshall. and Kirchhoff.. Meiggs. 1915-24 (orig. 2 vols.. D. unchanged reprint. Böckh..). Part I. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum.. PI. 1974)· Buckler. Berlin. O. Colin. (eds. Bulletin Epigraphique (referred to by year and rubric number).). Kern. E. J.. Franz. Berlin. . Priene Copenhagen. Florence. W. Fabricius and C. 1874-1916. Pergamon Inschr. Berlin. A Study in Greek Epigraphy. 4 vols. 2 vols.. 1900. Welles. 1932. (with Ε.. edn. Dittenberger. Daux. R... 2. Hildesheim i960). and Salaç. .. Oxford. L e Bas... 1890. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (rev.. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Curtius. B. Paris.. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae. 1967—75. Frankel. Peek. C.. 1988. Dittenberger.

Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. A. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochos III (American Numismatic Society. . (2nd edn. Cairo... F.) 2 vols.).. . Malcovati. 1941. H. Aufschriften. T . New York.). Numismatic Studies 4). Munich. Berlin and Leiden. E. vol. F. Robert. HC A F GrHist ORF Staatsvertr. Newell. Bengtson.). 1901. P A P Y R I AND COINS PCZ P. Berlin. L. 1942. Wörterbuch Robert. Ord Ptol BMC WSM Edgar. M . aus Aegypten.T h . HCP Bosworth. 2 vols. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften. Walbank. A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. B.. 1952. W. 1925-31. E. 1976-9. Opera Minora Selecta. Mumienschilder usw. 3 vols. H. Preisigke. 1957-79· SECONDARY LITERATURE CAH Preisigke. Copenhagen. PRIMARY LITERATURE Bosworth.. Jacoby. A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander. 4 vols. Papyri Graecae Haunienses.).. 3 vols.. . Larsen. Epigraphie et . OMS Cambridge Ancient History. H.. Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Brussels. 1. Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées...ΤΑΜ Tit. Ostraka. Oxford. Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae (4th edn.. Turin. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Zenon Papyri. (ed.1873. Cal. 1962-9. C. C.. London. and Schmitt. Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vienna.. Lenger. 2 vols. F. 1925—31. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. M. Haun. (ed..).. Tituli Calymnii. (ed. Oxford. C. (ed. Walbank. Bergamo. T . Segre. 1980-95. 1923-62. 1980.

Baltimore. 1951-60. R.. T .Wilhelm. 2 vols. Sammelausgaben seltener und bisher nicht selbständig erschienener wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen 8).. 1974· Frank. 3 vols. Ad. Amsterdam. Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Opuscula. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. η vols. Wilhelm. T . Leipzig. and supplement. New York.. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Broughton. S.). ESAR MRR . 1933-40. (ed. Akademieschriften antiquités grecques. 1969-90..

Map ι. after Magnesia. Antiochos II I or his armies travelled on this road in 216. and one last time in winter 190/189. .203. Achaios took this road on his unsuccessful attempt on the Seleukid throne in 220. in 197. Anatolia and the Seleukid road from Antioch to the i a n d on the other side of the Taurus'. c.

Smyrna 300 Kilometres Wùil· A a ea pmi W>J Ά •TîSt Klp o oo h n .Tralleis oi n Magnesia Acipayait. u * .Thyateira . '_uo* Ala b n a . . 'iasos. Jj 'jM y}·} Ta bai ". / —^M . Ionia. * Gördes Aigai -οςM rn · ' ia Hea o e ir k m w Kyme. plein y Ephesos T b ai a A yo Alinda \Iarsyas Plaie a · mz n u Apollonia Priéne X .·—[ . · ·. . as well as mountains. .. .HieraPo1 Lebedos./J Herakleia cE * m saban d r *Al a o Κ I i 5 Pedasa * · Stratonikeia r/f/iY^ûm.. rivers.· . ^ . and some important regions or plains.tniolos . "· pjsye" Bargylia . . . a ' Λ·:*. M a p 2. L y d i a . Ns ya Laodikej· Lauu N to · 9.. Karia: the better documented regions of Asia M i n o r . Relevant cities are indicated.\ T. Magnesia . ' . •Cy' W®. Te/nnosv1^ CJ } " · Magnesia Phokaia· «Sardeis ί . iy. Sinu ri "ri» ta.

.

1 9 ) .I N T R O D U C T I O N T h e Great King and the Cities H o w to talk about the Hellenistic world? T h e topic is well agreed on (if not always defined w i t h rigour). Mehl 1986. Huss 1976 (foreign policies of individual kings). Chaniotis 1996. Grainger 1990. Habicht 1997 (Athens). A m o n g countless thematic studies. Migeotte 1984 and 1992. Ager 1996. in Cartledge. treaties between the C r e t a n poleis. L e Bohec 1993 (biographies). S h e r w i n . Will 1982. L u n d 1992. K u h r t have studied in From Samarkhand to Sardis. RostovtzefT 1941 (synoptic treatments). a sense of the recent research can be gained from the series 'Hellenistic culture and society' brought out by the University of California Press or the 'Studies in Hellenistic civilization' from Aarhus University Press. Billows 1990. G r u e n 1986 (political histories). so that the diversity of this world and of possible approaches can be illustrated by some recent (or not so recent) works. M o s t topics handled have been institutional: asylia (the recognition of a c o m m u n i t y ' s immunity f r o m plunder and reprisals). followed by a critical edition and a commentary. w h i c h S. T h e r e have been synoptic treatments of the period. Cartledge. without any claim at comprehensiveness. Robert: the gathering of all the evidence (predominantly documentary) for a p h e n o m e n o n . T h i s method allows for the clarification of issues and focused discussion. and Gruen 1997: 1 .W h i t e and K u h r t 1993 (Seleukids). Garnsey. Works alluded or referred to include G r e e n 1990. W o r k s have been devoted to regions or single cities. 1 ' T h i s is not the place for a full bibliographical essay (see for instance the recent introduction by P. S h e r w i n . insisting on its Eastern dimension). other large-scale w o r k s have examined its political history. Individual Hellenistic kings have been treated in biographies or studies of their foreign policies. another approach has been to study dynasties or kingdoms (like the Seleukid realm. the scholarship plentiful.W h i t e and A . international arbitration. Documentary-dossierscum-studies: Rigsby 1996. the best-documented case. textbooks or essays rather than intensive scholarly studies (the exception still being M . Franco 1993. for instance Athens. Walbank 1992. . Schmitt 1964. a fertile development is the increasing n u m b e r of 'dossiers par thème'. the financial institutions of the Hellenistic city. and the c o m i n g of Rome. along a model preconized by L . Rostovtzeff's Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World)·.

3. and their men. its origins lie in a p a g e of L i v y ( 3 3 . but Smyrna and Lampsakos were claiming their freedom.3. and ordered the troops at Abydos to be led out to besiege Lampsakos. edited and briefly c o m m e n t e d . c o m p l e x . 3 8 . he sent troops from Ephesos to besiege Smyrna. by addressing them gently through ambassadors and by reproaching them for their rashness and their stubbornness. 35. Nor did he only try to frighten them with force. would accept the yoke without difficulty. nihil neque mirari neque suscensere Antiochum debere. also 5. Zmyrna et Lampsacus libertatem usurpabant. depending on their strength. their arms. 7. after wintering at Ephesos. Nec vi tantum terrebat. 2 the great historian of the Hellenistic w o r l d . sed per legatos leniter adloquendo castigandoque temeritatem ac pertinaciam spem conabantur facere. cum hibernasset Ephesi. r e c o n q u e s t . b e y o n d its i m m e d i a t e political and c h r o n o l o g i c a l context (the c a m p a i g n of c o n q u e s t . 2 § 4. ab rege impetratam eos libertatem. rather. Therefore.77. other cities would follow the example of Smyrna in Aiolis and Ionia. but. or. In the same year. omnes Asiae civitates in antiquam imperii formulam redigere est conatus. sed cum satis et ipsis et omnibus aliis appareret.7 ) . Igitur et ipse ab Epheso ad Zmyrnam obsidendam misit et quae Abydi copiae erant praesidio tantum modico relicto duci ad Lampsacum oppugnandam iussit. haud difficulter videbat iugum accepturas. it e m b o d i e s cardinal t h e m e s or areas of interest. Adversus quae respondebantur. aut quia locis planis positae erant aut quia parum moenibus armisque ac iuventuti fidebant. n a r r o w l y defined t h e m e . see Pol. he also tried to create the hope that they would soon have what they sought.T h e present s t u d y superficially r e s e m b l e s the latter class. .9.15. And he saw that the others. si spem libertatis diferri non satis aequo animo paterentur. but only when it was sufficiently clear both to them and 2 For parallels. in that it gathers in an annexe a dossier of epigraphical d o c u m e n t s . and there was a danger that if they got away with what they wanted.62. r e p r o d u c i n g the language and c o n c e p t s of his source P o l y b i o s . King Antiochos. B u t the f o c u s is not quite a single. after leaving only a small garrison. of Lampsakos in the Hellespont. 5 O n date (winter 197/6 rather than spring 196).66. f r o m the S e l e u k i d v i e w p o i n t . T h e passage d e s c r i b e s a m o m e n t w h i c h is v i v i d . Lampsacum in Hellesponto aliae urbes sequerentur. 3 Eodem anno Antiochus rex. periculumque erat ne. u n d e r t a k e n b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in 197 and 196). 5.2. si concessum iis foret quod intenderent. Zmyrnam in Aeolide Ioniaque. or did not readily trust their walls. because they were located on open sites. C h . Et ceteras quidem. w h i c h m a k e it a m e a n i n g f u l topic. attempted to reduce all the cities of Asia into the ancient structure of sovereignty. non per occasionem raptam habere. 5. 1 .6: cities resisting or not resisting Antiochos III in KoileSyria. and i m m e n s e l y evocative for the m o d e r n scholar of this period. brevi quod peterent habituros.6. T h r o u g h the actors and the relations it portrays.

Y e t all the elements involved immediately call for further commentary. physical and human. and explains the profusion of ancient communities in Asia M i n o r . and diversity collaborate even nowadays to create a very large n u m b e r and range of environments for human habitation. Robert 1937: 7 4 . presented as he levels an imperialist gaze on future subjects.5 and 11. Arkeoloji Dergisi 3 (1995). see Magie 1950: chs. Ephesos.to all the others that they had obtained their liberty from the king. simply to speak of omnes civi. Ilion. Phokaia. Magnesia on Maeander. 'All the cities of Asia M i n o r ' : the first topic that the L i v i a n passage introduces is the landscape itself.tat. K o l o p h o n (in reality two communities. evoking the map of royal strategic interests. T o these words. and did not enjoy it as the result of grasping at opportunity. and the way in w h i c h size.es Asiae as if that bald expression. in that age of kings. living as a single polis). the more striking a feat of historical writing for the fact that Magie apparently never went to T u r k e y . 1 . 'All the cities': the phrase immediately evokes the old G r e e k cities—to name the most prominent. S m y r n a . 'All the cities of A s i a ' — t h e expression regroups communities of widely differing sizes: at one end of the scale. 1 For a sense of Asia Minor as landscape. L a m p s a k o s . mentioning Zeus Pigindenos: this document substantiates a notation of Steph. ancient.v. in danger of being forgotten because of its very ubiquity in the plot w h i c h it helps to shape. its lushness and variety. it is important not to adopt the same generalizing perspective as Antiochos. Piginda is mentioned provisionally by F. T h e same features characterized this region in ancient times. such as great harbour towns. T h e passage gives us the perspective of one of the central figures in Hellenistic history: a king. with their great territories and their expansionist urge to annex their neighbours. T e o s . impressive agricultural cities in the river plains. and the history that took place there. 5 O n Aigai and T e m n o s . editing an inscription from the site. s. 5 A n o t h e r way of looking at the diversity of this world is to examine the origins of the communities. Erythrai. could substitute for historical analysis. smaller. or recently discovered Piginda in the M o r s y n o s valley. remote communities. large. Olmez. if they did not suffer with an even spirit the prospect that their hope of liberty be deferred. 165-6. T h e work also covers most of the cities. scattered villages in the highlands w h i c h are such a noticeable feature even in the Western part of the country. their answer was that Antiochos should be in no way surprised nor angry. .1 1 0 . O l d K o l o p h o n and N o t i o n . resources. wealthy cities like Miletos or Mylasa. In the first place. and at the other end of the scale. Byz. with a very full and still useful roster of references. Piginda. 4 Significant facts about this region are its magnitude. like the Aiolian cities of A i g a i and its neighbour T e m n o s .

the hilltop fortress of T a b a i . Mylasa. 3 § 3. great cities such as Stratonikeia in western Karia or A p a m e i a in Phrygia. beyond the cities: the villages (two of w h i c h . humbler affairs such as Apollonia under Salbake on the east Karian plateau near T a b a i . in 202/1. But the category must also be extended to include the communities w h i c h had adopted G r e e k political forms (decision-making assembly. also smaller communities such as Kildara or A m y z o n . illustrates how integrated Hellenistic K a u n o s was in the world of G r e e k poleis. this profusion of poleis. ζπιθαλάσσιοι πόλζις (the western end of the Propontis. Laodikeia am Lykos 1). see also Sartre 1995: 104-5. Iasos. BofTo 1985. For the purposes of the present study. Pamphylia. but also because of the richness of the documentation. ' T h e L i v i a n passage quoted earlier concerns a historical landscape w h i c h is fascinating because of its diversity. in western Karia. Halikarnassos. Pedasa. Karia. Herakleia under L a t m o s . D o c u m e n t 16 shows how Alabanda. on a pass north of M y l a s a ) . 526-32. Ionia. was fully accepted on a diplomatic level of interaction by the Delphic Amphiktions (though admittedly they referred to the Alabandans as 'kinsmen of the Greeks' rather than simply fellow-Greeks). in Eastern Karia. S m o o t h Kilikia). Finally. as far as we can tell. Aiolis. they considered themselves. Bargylia. A n o t h e r category yet is that of the communities founded or renamed by the kings ( C o h e n 1995): military settlements such as T h y a t e i r a in L y d i a . R o u g h Kilikia. E u r o m o s . A r y k a n d a . K a u n o s . Robert 1987. In addition. m u c h of this material has been treated by the peculiarly concrete and appealing genius of the epigraphist-historian. K i d d i o u k o m e and Neonteichos in Phrygia.Priene. w h i c h is already very large and increases yearly (see below). were considered by others aspoleis. T h i s includes the river valleys 6 See further C h . Miletos. and. most importantly. . and. the area concerned will be the 'Seleukid' portion of Asia Minor: m u c h of the coastal strip with its maritime cities. produced a remarkable joint decree honouring the agents of their landlord). magistrates) along with the language: in the third century. whose lifetime's work focused on Asia M i n o r and explored its historical geography. Labraunda: the material is published by Crampa 1969. should not obscure other forms of settlement in Asia M i n o r . L o u i s Robert. mentioned above). T h e topic of Anatolian shrines is treated in D e b o r d 1982. mainly epigraphical. 3. council. the Straits and the T r o a d . O n the royal land. the great shrines (the best documented of w h i c h is the Karian shrine of L a b r a u n d a . see C h . 6 S u c h communities include Sardeis in L y d i a . in L y k i a . the 'royal land' and the estates of the royal favourites. L y k i a . and the western third of the Anatolian landmass. hill communities of western Karia (like Piginda. 7 T h e village decree is in Wörrle 1975 (/. L i m y r a . X a n t h o s . each with its o w n particular physical setting and identity.

and. and Sardeis). Byzantion (not strictly in Asia M i n o r . fertile triangle in western L y d i a . . Rostovtzeff 1941: 71. military and political. T h e L i v i a n passage. Instability: Austin 1986. other areas in the region will be mentioned only as they impinge on the narrative outline: cities in or near northern Asia M i n o r . only at greater length: we can examine the period w i t h o u t the hindsight that makes it into the prelude to R o m a n conquest. between Magnesia under Sipylos. w h i c h was a naval power. w h i c h was never marked by stagnation or equilibrium (Rostovtzeff's 'balance of power'). the kingdom of K a p p a d o k i a . 72.w h i c h descend f r o m the higher inland: the K a i k o s valley (the heartland of the Attalid kingdom). w h i c h completed the great valley with secondary. the Hellespontic plains. these years were as vital (or unstable) as the earlier age of the Diadochs. but involved in its history). most importantly. the k i n g d o m of Bithynia. even at the time of imminent collision with Rome: f r o m this point of view. Off this road lie two important and increasingly w e l l . the western. Finally. the H e r m o s valley (which helps define the 'Hyrkanian plain'.k n o w n regions: the highlands of Pisidia w i t h its cities. Rhodes. Herakleia Pontike. at the end of the 'Seleukid road' w h i c h starts w i t h the M a e a n d e r valley and connects with northern Syria. T h y a t e i r a . or 'decay' merely because the period in question was immediately followed by the R o m a n s ' success. w h i c h temporarily assumes the viewpoint of Hellenistic actors in a Hellenistic world. the K a i k o s corridor. Morsynos). O t h e r areas fall within this definition and will be mentioned often. invites us to do the same. and their subsequent hegemony. 'exhaustion'. as M . the plateau of Phrygia and Lykaonia. but f r o m a Seleukid. but important lines of communication (Marsyas. It is a mistake to speak of the Hellenistic w o r l d ' s 'weakening'. T h e decision by A n t i o c h o s I I I to impose 'the yoke' on 'all the cities of Asia' manifests the vitality of the high political history of the period (the late third and early second centuries BC). to produce a chapter in the political history of the Hellenistic world. A u s t i n has pointed out. 8 8 Decline: Walbank 1992: 227. Harpasos. most importantly. the M a e a n d e r plain and its tributaries. but always in constant flux. the principalities of the Galatians. but also possessed a continental territory (the Rhodian Peraia) and harboured further territorial ambitions on the mainland. or Hellenocentric viewpoint. and. though lack of precise evidence for our period prevents new or concrete treatment: the hills of M y s i a . such as K y z i k o s . T h e narrative outline w h i c h determines the limits of the geographical context is part of the second theme the L i v i a n passage brings in: the high political history of the Hellenistic age. and the P a m p h y l i a n plain.

the following year. a campaign w h i c h ended w i t h his defeat at Magnesia under Sipylos and the dismantling. of the Seleukid dominion in Asia M i n o r . T h e s e events are analysed and reconstructed in C h a p t e r 2 of the present volume. A n t i o c h o s I I I . A n t i o c h o s I I I thought that the Seleukid past justified present conquest.1 9 6 (as described in the L i v i a n passage discussed here). to K o i l e . 'the land on the other side of the T a u r u s ' . and finally during the Roman—Seleukid W a r . the sixth in the Seleukid dynasty. T h i s usage can be traced both in the literary sources and the documentary material (Ch.) areas lost by his ancestors. actual or proclaimed. the Seleukid dominion was founded by the victory of Seleukos I over L y s i m a c h o s in 281. but belonged to a past of relations between the Seleukids and Asia M i n o r . A r m e n i a . Baktria.2 1 3 . Hence the latter's repeated campaigning in the region. 1). one Sophagasenos). Seleukid authority in Asia M i n o r had gradually collapsed. Nonetheless. T h e Seleukid past in Asia M i n o r . T h e Seleukids had indeed controlled m u c h of Asia M i n o r . in 190. as well as the narrative of A n t i o c h o s ' military activities. and 'India' (in fact he dealt with a local ruler. 1 9 7 . in (re)establishing control. A n t i o c h o s III repeatedly campaigned in the region through his viceroy A c h a i o s in 223-220 BC in person in 2 1 6 . in addition to the cities of Ionia and Aiolis w h i c h A n t i o c h o s I I I took over in 1 9 7 . to the point of nearly total loss at the accession of A n t i o c h o s I I I . in antiquam imperii formulant redigere. f r o m 246 onwards. we must be aware that it belongs to a w i d e r context: apart from Asia M i n o r (and T h r a c e ) . H o w e v e r . άνακτάσθαι. only makes it the more intriguing (Ch. and referred to in the C o n c l u s i o n . most importantly. and which determines the geographical limits of the present study. he looked back to the past. is that of the Seleukid interests in Asia M i n o r . £-203 (probably). was not untypical. but reconquering (literally 'reacquiring'.1 9 6 . T h e fact that this Great Idea was largely a trick of selective m e m o r y . as L i v y writes. 193 (in Pisidia). imposed on a complex political history where the Seleukids took severe territorial losses. A n t i o c h o s III lay similar claims. the description of his actions. to inscribe his actions within his o w n Seleukid narrative. . in terms of legitimacy and historical claims: he was not conquering. the activity of this one king. justified by this Seleukid past: these will be important themes of the present study.In specific terms. based on historical rights. For all the energy and tenacity displayed. 1 § 1). A n t i o c h o s ' project was framed in terms of this Seleukid past in Asia M i n o r : 'to reduce all the cities of Asia into the former structure of subjection'.S y r i a . the narrative history w h i c h L i v y evokes. and. both by contemporaries and by himself.

'he notion was evoked b y S h e r w i n . and in 188/7 o n his way to these same U p p e r Regions. the main promoters of this view. i n Babylon.B a b y l o n i a n locations. T h e long reign of A n t i o c h o s I I I does not support this view: out of the thirty-nine years he ruled (223-187 BC). C . 1 0 If we must speak of a centre. briefly. 36-7 (discussion of Antiochos I as portrayed in a Babylonian building inscription. his actions are also documented in Babylon. so to speak.W h i t e and A . I n Babylon. K u h r t . where he is seen to p e r f o r m ritual duties in the various shrines of the city. of the dynasty'. in 204 and. the further eastern regions (210-205). 9 T h a t the eastern parts of the empire. 10 For whereabouts of Antiochos I I I during his reign. it can be more justifiably placed in northern Syria. lines 1 4 .H e acted on these claims in his eastern campaign. in 204 on the w a y f r o m the U p p e r Regions.W h i t e and K u h r t 1987: 16). the 'Borsippa cylinder').W h i t e — as a corrective to an aegeocentric view of the Seleukids ( S h e r w i n . he made only punctual appearances. . rev. wrote letters to cities and bestowed benefactions on them. 2 0 I . Briant. Reactions to S h e r w i n .W h i t e and K u h r t . A n t i o c h o s I I I . no.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993). S. to 9 S h e r w i n . w h i c h the reign of A n t i o c h o s I I I illustrates forcefully. or 'expedition to the U p p e r Regions' of 210-205 (see.10. T h e picture of polycentric empire and wandering ruler seems closer to the reality of Seleukid rule than the Babyloncentred picture defended by S h e r w i n . and Babylonia in particular. were important to the Seleukids is clear enough. T h e political role of wandering kingship has been studied for the Achaimenid period by P. 2 § 2). such as Asia M i n o r (see above: a total of nine years). Polybios has the physician of A n t i o c h o s I I I . -204. S h e r w i n . and the present work in no way challenges this point. most seem to have been spent in n o n . and the multiple contexts in w h i c h the Seleukid ruler behaved. fulfilled the role of traditional Babylonian kingship. C h . A n t i o c h o s I I I appears not only in western Asia M i n o r . repeated in a G r e e k source. 253-73. have gone further.1 8 (Antiochos in Babylon in 204). and could be described in traditional Babylonian terminology. t o which add Sachs and Hunger 1989. Antiochos' longest stay in Babylon was probably before his accession: FGrHist 260 F 32. speak of Seleukeia in Pieria as 'the hearth. with great p o m p . o r K o i l e Syria (221—217. T h i s is the view of a G r e e k .2 (1994). 130-1 (general discussion). Apollophanes. receiving honours in return. Schmitt 1964: 85. Iranica Antiqua 23 (1988). like his ancestors.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993 are gathered in Topoi 4. T h i s draws attention to an important characteristic of the Seleukid empire: its extension and diversity. Asia M i n o r and Central Asia alike being frontier zones and hence peripheral concerns ( S h e r w i n .. where he w a g e d war. in 188/7. reinterpreting the Seleukid empire to claim that its geographical heart lay in Babylonia. in 220 in the aftermath of a revolt.I 9 9 ) . H o w e v e r .W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 216 (Antiochos III in Babylon in 188/7).

the A e g e a n world remained the arena for their competition with their peers. unwieldy Hellenistic empire (see C h . in A n t i o c h .g. ι). fatal for the large. 3 § ι). T h e expression 'kings of Syria'. It supplied the Seleukid empire with personnel. O t h e r factors make clear the practical value they derived f r o m the region (these are explored at length in C h . reflects his awareness of the central role played by northern Syria in the actions and the self-definition of the dynasty. Hence. 'kingship of Syria'. a fact reflected even in the Babylonian sources. most importantly military manp o w e r f r o m the 'military colonies' installed in the countryside (on w h i c h see C h . 12 Asia M i n o r was more important as a source of military manpower from the countryside than as a source of administrators and courtiers from the cities (as sometimes claimed. the belief in inherited historical claims conceived as property rights. in itself. 1 2 T h e Seleukids also raised revenue " Briant 1994 (though Briant's remarks on Antiochos I I I must be qualified: the rebuilding of Lysiniacheia as a residence for one of his sons does not imply his own desire to 'govern from a Near-eastern base' (467)—at the time. and L a o d i k e I I I was later proclaimed queen. other M a c e d o n i a n kings. 1 § 2. or busy with his Thracian and Anatolian campaigns). K i n g l y honour. Ptolemaic (especially) and Antigonid: the scene where the ambitions the Seleukids harboured and the figure they cut could be measured against other Hellenistic kings. e.be sure. is a sufficient reason to explain the Seleukids' constant involvement with and concern for Asia M i n o r . Asia M i n o r lay in the front line. T o maintain kingly honour by claiming. Asia M i n o r . 3). Bertrand 1992: 150-2 for the lure of the Aegean ('tropisme maritime'). or preserving territory was to ward off the perception of weakness. seem to bear out the importance of northern Syria (the so-called 'Seleukis'): A n t i o c h o s was proclaimed king. as recorded in Polybios. the Seleukids never forgot their ethnic origins and identity as Macedonians. that these claims were contested in the realm of international high politics. T h i s . Greeks could work for a king without their city being subject to him: Hegesianax of Alexandreia T r o a s was a Friend and diplomat for . even if it was a frontier zone. recovering. at the very least. Furthermore. and the duty to look over the state as patrimony: these were not ideological superstructures. C h . 2 § 5). Billows 1995: 78-80). Antiochos was mostly in Sardeis or Ephesos. 1 1 In the superpower competition between the dynasties. mattered to the S e l e u k i d s — i f only for the reason that they laid historical claims to it. and that the region was the scene for competition with the other dynasties. a fact reflected by its complicated political geography and history for m u c h of the third century (see C h . but A n t i o c h o s ' actions. but necessities of the exercise of kingship and its perpetuation by the projection of strength in a fluid world of superp o w e r rivalry. w h i c h Polybios applies to the Seleukids.

sophisticated. and A .38: an essay on the workings of the Seleukid empire. T h i s theme presents another way to c o m m e n t on L i v . K u h r t on the Hellenistic empires. not from the cities of Asia M i n o r . and the resulting dominion as a structure of power. but also attempted to negotiate with the recalcitrant cities: his behaviour shows that empire cannot be Antiochos III (Olshausen 1974: 191-3). officers. also requires consent or at least quiescence. 33. 1 4 But an awareness of the nuanced realities of empire is urged on us by the L i v i a n passage itself. w h i c h hints at two important truths: at first sight. S. L i v y ' s expression is imperii formula: whatever that translates. tion to M . L a m p s a k o s and S m y r n a . . and one need only remember the 1760 silver talents w h i c h it supplied to the Seleukids' A c h a i m e n i d predecessors (Hdt. 3. Crawford). tribute. processes. and a complex. then attempt to extrapolate and explore realities.f r o m their Anatolian dominions. 3 § 2): even though no exact figures are known. Military colonies and imperial revenue evoke another theme in the L i v i a n passage: the Hellenistic kingdom as an imperial stateformation. because this w o u l d endanger the whole balancing act. as made clear by A n t i o c h o s ' confidence that most cities will give in to these means. drawing on wider parallels in the hope of attaining general insights on Hellenistic empires (see C h . and had long been independent of the Seleukids (Herrmann 1987). ideological means. nonetheless. 3). 1 3 it presents A n t i o c h o s ' conquests as a state-building activity. but the new Seleukid foundations of northern Syria: Gauthier 1985: 169-75. in the form of agricultural rent. and specifically on the Seleukid realm and its A c h a i m e n i d forebear.W h i t e . but at the same time. research by P.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993. T h i s topic was already handled in classic treatments by Bickerman (Bikerman 1938) and M u s t i (1966). S u c h an essay should aim at presenting the evidence for the structures of power. the size and richness of the region hint at its economic importance as source of income for the Seleukids. empire is based on the components of c o n q u e s t — v i o l e n c e and military c o m pulsion. S h e r w i n . its nature and its workings. M a n y Seleukid officials. Briant.90). Milesians served Antiochos I V at a time when Miletos was free. get away with a state of f r e e d o m that did not depend on his o w n decision. and the illusion or representation of p o w e r — in other words. network of indirect taxation (Ch. Rostovtzeff 1941: 524-5· 13 It conflates formula provinciae and informam imperii redigere (I owe this observa14 Briant 1982. at a time when his native city was resisting that king. T h e latter point appears clearly f r o m A n t i o c h o s ' determination not to allow the recalcitrant cities. A n t i o c h o s I I I threatened. but far-reaching. and Friends came. S h e r w i n . it has been renewed by recent. O n the importance of the region. and ideology.

15 16 . Rostovtzeff unabashedly called the history of some communities 'thrilling to follow' (Roztovtzeff 1941: 35-6). Giovannini in Bulloch et al. irrelevance. affected the poleis. 1993: 265-86.p o w e r s m e a n t that any H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g ' s control o v e r cities w a s fragile. J. For recent. Polis a u t o n o m y appeared in f o r m s s u c h as the will of s u b o r d i n a t e cities to constrain rulers t h r o u g h a formal language e x p r e s s i n g reciprocity rather than p o w e r . d i s p r o v i n g an a t t e m p t by A . and the realities of interaction and negotiation b e t w e e n rulers and ruled should alert us against any s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d m o d e l of direct control and passive subjects. T h e y offer a test-case f o r the old.studied p u r e l y as structures. O r t h 1977). yet cardinal issue of Hellenistic history: the relation b e t w e e n the Hellenistic k i n g d o m and the polis}5 T h e test-case is w o r t h s t u d y i n g . T h e t h e m e of the relations b e t w e e n e m p i r e and city is interesting. Rhodes with L e w i s 1997: 542-9. t h r o u g h direct control and l e g a l . H e u s s (1937) at d e n y i n g any f o r m a l s u b o r d i n a t i o n of the polis. T h e story of A n t i o c h o s I I I and the cities challenges this v i e w . or to protect their civic p r i d e and identity t h r o u g h local representations. the necessity f o r local collaboration. T h e e v i d e n c e p r o v e s the existence and explicit f u n c t i o n i n g of s u c h structures.g. 304-20. Habicht 1997 presents the test-case of Athens in the Hellenistic age. some have c h a m p i o n e d or f u r t h e r e d the view that the polis w a s abject and defenceless b e f o r e the m i g h t of the Hellenistic k i n g d o m s (e.i d e o l o g i c a l structures (such as A n t i o c h o s ' determination that the cities' liberty s h o u l d exist e x c l u s i v e l y t h r o u g h his grant. illustrating a variety of situations and v i e w p o i n t s (see below). t o u c h y . and p o w e r l e s s n e s s b e f o r e the Hellenistic k i n g d o m s . T h e general instability of the political situation and the c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n the s u p e r . Gruen 1993. In reaction to H e u s s . and Hellenistic e m p i r e s in general. balanced treatments. w h e t h e r physical or i d e o l o g i c a l — a s p r o v e d b y the case of S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s .16 P u r s u i n g this t h e m e is one of the crucial tasks of recent Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y : the revision of clichés about the p o s t . b u t also because it is based on a remarkable series of epigraphical d o c u m e n t s . K . because it entails a n u a n c e d appreciation of the c o n d i t i o n of the H e l l e n i s t i c polis. in CAH2 vii. It is clear that A n t i o c h o s ' e m p i r e . ab rege impetratam:). T h e poleis' strategies a i m e d at c o n v e r t i n g straight d o m i n a t i o n into interaction. on centrality of this issue. not only because it presents this relation as c o n f r o n t a t i o n (conquest and resistance/accommodation) and w i t h i n a defined period of time (216—190 BC). H i s imperial projects took place at the expense of the poleis. Billows 1995: ch. Davis. T h e poleis w e r e capable of resistance. and articulate social organizations. A .C l a s s i c a l polis' decadence. t h e m s e l v e s c o m p l e x . and their w o r k i n g s will Will 1988: 335. 3.

are minutely and admirably d o c u m e n t e d . must have had with hostages (for instance the Seleukid hostages held on the terms dictated to Antiochos III after Magnesia) or ambassadors from all over the G r e e k world. because the high political history of the superpowers was causally linked with local politics. periods in Hellenistic history. Walbank 1972: 74-84. . L i k e w i s e . many being oral informants f r o m the Seleukid court or the Asian cities. about his long-term plans and vision.i n f o r m e d about. T h e timespan I am considering (226-188 BC) is well documented in comparison with other. T h e reign of A n t i o c h o s I I I falls within the ambit of P o l y b i o s . no doubt thanks to a variety of sources. A s for Asia M i n o r specifically.be analysed in C h a p t e r 4. 17 A n t i o c h o s ' accession and early years are so well documented in the early. earlier. about the king's m o v e m e n t s and strategic dilemmas. himself a detainee in R o m e after 168. Polybios tells us about the circumstances and actors involved in the usurper Achaios' attempt on the Seleukid throne. emphasizing the difficulty of precisely tracking down any individual source. w h o was interested in. and consolatory expedition into Pisidia). A c h a i o s ' expedition of 218 against the Pisidian city of Selge. but also to illustrate and explore L . the Seleukid k i n g d o m and Seleukid activities in Asia M i n o r . T h e actual treatment all these themes receive is shaped by the sources. and the reorganization of the governorships in the U p p e r Satrapies after a revolt. especially as concerns the topography of military m o v e m e n t s and the reactions of the local communities. Walbank HCP i. 26-35. disaffection of troops on the borders of L y k a o n i a . especially since appeals to Rome from the Greek cities and kingdoms became increasingly frequent after Pydna. and quite w e l l . and also about the topography in w h i c h this attempt took place (royal proclamation at Laodikeia on L y k o s . their state and the consequent issues of presentation can be reviewed in the remaining part of this introduction. 'la cité grecque n'est pas morte à Chéronée': such detailed studies are necessary if R o b e r t ' s w o r d s are to be meaningful. it is clear that Polybios was aware (as many modern historians of the period are sometimes not) of the importance of the local communities. and insisting on the personal contacts Polybios. In offering a thematic study on the cities' relation with their ruler. and the opportunistic campaign Attalos I mounted in A c h a i o s ' absence. and because 17 On Polybios' sources. F r o m Books 4 and 5. Polybios provides detailed information about administrative dispositions at the king's accession. fully preserved books of Polybios that a Seleukid courtier has been suggested as a source (Hofquelle: S c h m i t t 1964: 175-85). Robert's oft-repeated dictum. I hope not simply to move away f r o m the simplistic clichés about the Hellenistic polis.

14). in 209. sometimes quite puzzling (as for the purported invasion of Pergamene dominions by A n t i o c h o s I I I in 198: A p p e n d i x 6). 1 0 . also used n o n .6 . and in its broad outlines convincing. to the interests of the local communities. some incidents in the R o m a n .34. tiny narrative fragments for A n t i o c h o s ' great campaign of 1 9 7 . Polybios w o u l d have provided the sort of detailed narrative record w h i c h could have meshed in with the epigraphical documents to produce a closely textured history of the cities for the years 226-188 BC sensitive to broad political developments. 1 5 . A p p i a n ) is not entirely helpful w h e n it comes to reconstructing the narrative for Seleukid activity in Asia M i n o r .S e l e u k i d W a r . and a complete account for the negotiations between the king and the R o m a n envoys at Lysimacheia in 196. U s e f u l or intriguing snippets of evidence survive in the collections of excerpts: a description of the capture of Sardeis. a major Seleukid campaign in Karia and probably in Ionia on the king's return f r o m the U p p e r Satrapies 18 Brodersen 1991 provides a detailed. we know nothing of the situation after the king left for the U p p e r Satrapies. fits in the political situation between Attalids and Seleukids). T h e context for these fragments is supplied by L i v y and A p p i a n .P o l y b i a n .2-9. but seems to have relied exclusively on Polybios. finally. influencing their behaviour towards the conquering Seleukid.2 1 3 . A s it is. some details on the expedition of Philip V in Asia M i n o r (16. it is difficult to understand how the invasion of Attalid territory by Prousias I of Bithynia. external and internal. 1 5 . sometimes useful for the present purpose (as for the excellent information he provides on the settlement of Asia Minor). annalistic material.1 8 . attempt to prove that Appian relied solely on Polybios. and to the complicated factors. . finally. and a problematic description of the aftermath of the R o m a n victory. 1 6 .1.1 2 ) . because of the fragmentary state of Polybios after Book 5.the description of the experience of empire involves close attention to local conditions. L i v y . and transmitted Polybian details quite faithfully. w h o depended on Polybios. the situation is more complicated and less satisfactory. including the final settlement of Asia M i n o r in 188 (see A p p e n d i x 7). 1 8 T h e combination of the three literary sources (Polybian excerpts. W e are left in the dark as to the exact events of A n t i o c h o s ' campaign against Achaios in 2 1 6 . 16. L i v y . the capital of the rebel A c h a i o s ( 7 . completed by the fate of A c h a i o s himself at 8 . w h o quotes P o l y b i o s at length. A p p i a n ' s Syriake is more concise.2 1 ) . after appointing Z e u x i s to the governorship of 'the regions on the other side of the T a u r u s ' (for instance. an assessment of the impact of A n t i o c h o s ' eastern expedition (11.

T h e amount of detail that L i v y and A p p i a n did not see fit to record points out the extent to w h i c h P o l y b i o s was a G r e e k historian. compressed Polybios. L u c e 1977: 205-13. 19 Brodersen 1991. for the diplomatic confrontation between the two powers ( 1 9 6 . though elsewhere L u c e points out that L i v y used Polybios extensively. T h e s e two authors handled Polybios to suit their o w n interests. 2 § 5). M u c h of the Polybian detail that w o u l d have filled in the picture has been lost. 1977: 43-4. L i v y explicitly declares that he finds this level of detail tiresome. taken f r o m the totally lost Book 19 of Polybios. A p p i a n . and mostly accurately ( L u c e 1977: 181 and 20 Millar 1987. since m y efforts are hardly adequate to the events of the R o m a n war' (33. and wider segments of oblique. closely interested in the Hellenistic G r e e k world. though sometimes more faithful than L i v y in preserving details unfavourable to R o m e . 2 1 Nonetheless. the conflict between Seleukids and R o m e . these accounts illuminate Seleukid conceptions and anxieties about the Anatolian dominion (see C h . these details illustrate the condition of the poleis and the choices they faced at a time of superpower conflict (see C o n c l u s i o n . as he notes after giving information on the beginning of A n t i o c h o s ' campaign of 197 and Rhodian resistance to it: 'non operae est persequi ut quaeque acta in his locis sint. E v e n A n t i o c h o s ' greatest expedition to Asia M i n o r .1 9 6 . and between Ephesos and T h r a c e ) and for the activity of the land army after its departure f r o m northern Syria in spring 197. culminating in the R o m a n Seleukid W a r . for the analysis of a few instances).20. and too remote f r o m the dramatic theme of the conflict between R o m e and the Seleukids to interest L i v y and A p p i a n . points out that the function of the passage is in fact to provide an apology for including any of these details at all.13). . the joint campaign by land and by sea of 1 9 7 . conscientiously. c u m ad ea quae propria Romani belli sunt vix sufficiam'.is barely alluded to. he was quoted extensively by these authors. 99. 21 Luce. n. is scantily recorded in its latter parts. and there is no direct literary evidence for many of the king's m o v e m e n t s with his fleet (between L y k i a and Ephesos. too devoid of moralizing or didactic force for inclusion in the collections of Polybian excerpts. often to the point of being misleading or inaccurate. T h e y transmit informative accounts. L i v y varies between carefully written episodes drawn f r o m Polybios (Einzelerzählungen). and sometimes inaccurate summary. 2 0 In contrast.1 9 2 ) . 'there is no need to go into the detail of every action in this region. L i v y and A p p i a n also preserve the outline and many details f r o m Polybios' account of the R o m a n .S e l e u k i d W a r . 1 9 W h e n Polybios did touch on the theme relevant to both L i v y and A p p i a n . 221). concentrated.

within the Einzelerzählungen. T h o u g h Polybios does not allow any straightforward and integral narrative reconstruction of A n t i o c h o s ' campaigns. Other passages illustrate royal conquest and its aftermath.18): not. and the condition of the polis in the Hellenistic age. because of the portrayal of the Seleukid empire as a military-imperial organization and because of the numerous royal documents quoted in these . shows us a ruler and potential subjects deploying strategies for interaction and submission. 3 8 . A n o t h e r example is the paragraph describing the confrontation between A n t i o c h o s I I I and the recalcitrant cities ( L i v . mercenaries f r o m Laodikeia on L y k o s .9).L i v y often preserves interesting evidence. now attested epigraphically on an honorary decree erected at Stratonikeia ( M a 1997).1 1 . but almost certainly m e m b e r s of a c o m m u n i t y in south-western Karia under Rhodian control.S y r i a offer 'crowns. the diplomacy. 1 . the /laoSi/ceis (or το kolvov των Λαοδικέων). this is a good example of the locally e m b e d d e d and informative details w h i c h L i v y on occasion transmits f r o m Polybios. as had long been supposed. In this respect. including Laudiceni ex Asia (33. he is nonetheless invaluable as a source of parallels w h i c h indirectly illuminate the broad historical context and the issues w h i c h I outlined earlier: the workings of the Hellenistic kingdoms as power structures. the processes involved. the relation between city and ruler.7 ) — the passage on w h i c h I have been offering a commentary throughout this introduction. F o r instance. ranging f r o m straightforward violence to symbolical acts like gifts or royal grants of local privileges. as it evolves f r o m συμμαχικών to δζσποτικώς according to expediency and circumstances (15.5-8) or a crucial (but difficult) passage assessing royal behaviour towards cities. the cities of K o i l e . the political role of ruler cult (at 5 . . such as an analysis of royal euergetism and civic evvoia (5. among w h i c h figure the accounts of the Maccabaean revolt f r o m the Seleukids. 3 3 . his account of the Rhodian campaign waged in 197 against the M a c e d o n i a n troops left in Karia by Philip V mentions Rhodian levies f r o m various parts of the Rhodian Peraia.24a). 8 6 . one example is the interaction between A n t i o c h o s I I I and the Gerrhaians (Pol. P o l y b i o s as indirect source for the world in w h i c h the Great K i n g and the cities interacted can be completed by other literary texts. as preserved in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and 1 .2 M a c c . Further insights can be gained f r o m the narrative: A n t i o c h o s ' eastern expedition.90. even though it does not directly concern the cities of western Asia M i n o r . altars and all this sort of thing' to Ptolemy I V after his victory at Raphia). Polybios provides extended passages of political analysis. sacrifices. 13. 8 .

alluding to the reduction of the usurper Achaios by A n t i o c h o s I I I (Fleischer 1972-5). the summaries in L e Rider 1972/3. 23 Nonetheless. Besides the literary sources. direct or indirect. First. and a monumental and sacral centre. and. and by the cities can be used to talk about a variety of themes. and also important Seleukid centres such as Sardeis. M o r k h o l m 1969: 1 4 . and thus helps us imagine other cities. Ephesos. 24 See the pages by Robert. 2 2 Second. even Iasos. Laodikeia on L y k o s . Miletos. T h e latter is the case for cities such as S m y r n a . with some examples. most importantly for the issues I wish to treat in this book. Bickerman's classic treatment of the 'Seleukid institutions' (Bikerman 1938) drew on the Maccabaean material. about city privileges and royal domination. s e e C h . Royal portraiture: M o r k h o l m 1969: 15 (portraiture of Achaios).1 5 (movements of Seleukos III). structures of control. plentiful across his long reign. or because later building activity radically altered their shape. because they await full excavation (Alabanda. or imperial finances. and shrines. 23 Aigai: Robert 1937: 74-89. City privileges and royal domination: the whole issue still needs clarification. numismatics: the coins struck by A n t i o c h o s I I I . A n o t h e r example is Aigai. there is a small amount of art historical evidence: ancient sculptural groups representing M a r s y a s flayed before A p o l l o may reproduce a Seleukid original. archaeological r e m a i n s — t h o u g h this evidence is disappointing: it provides a visual and material context (rather than new information) for the story and the themes of this book. M o r k h o l m 1991. A d m i t t e d l y . to describe the army.g. for instance. the narrative of royal campaigns and conquests. public spaces. A m y z o n : Robert 1983. after the Seleukid presence in Asia M i n o r had been removed. E u r o m o s . A n u m b e r of these can be enumerated. other types of evidence are helpful. OMS iv. w h i c h shows the deep impact of Attalid architectural patronage in the second century. Likewise. or Apameia. T e o s ) . there are too many cities for whose material forms in the Hellenistic period we have only vague ideas. but the principles I have followed in this work are those traditionally accepted (silver coinage means civic autonomy) and underlying e. it is true that some sites provide material evidence: the ruins of Priene even now present the striking picture of a city w h i c h kept its general Hellenistic shape. 2 4 Because 22 Generally. . Royal movements: L e Rider 1990 (Antiochos II at Mylasa). 3 1 0 . 3 § 3. their setting articulated by m o n u m e n t s .sources and w h i c h are (in the main) authentic. on Antiochos I I I . T h e situation may improve with the continuing excavation and surveying work at and around Ephesos and Miletos.1 6 . 1973/4. Newell WSM 395-401. 1975/ 6 . such as the image of the ruler in royal portraiture. T h e site of A m y z o n presents another physical model for the polis: a territory with villages or forts. where the religious and political institutions were located.

or s i m p l y h o w it lived in. w h e r e G . R o g e r s has studied the f o u n d a t i o n of V i b i u s Salutaris in its c o n t e m p o r a r y u r b a n context: b y s t u d y i n g the actual inscription and the c e r e m o n i e s in their m o n u m e n t a l context. both perspectives are impossible (at least at that level of detail) for the modern historian of the Hellenistic world. O n e e x c e p t i o n to the thinness of archaeological material is the series of w e l l . 2 6 . the m o r e m o d e s t w a l l s put up by the cities to d e f e n d their u r b a n nucleus. say. and 242-59 on the geography of revolutionary festivals in Paris. the extensive and sophisticated d e f e n c e w o r k s erected b y the Hellenistic kings.S e l e u k i d W a r ( L i v . 5 . at least for a w h i l e . in contrast w i t h the Classical period. w e have a l o n g text d e s c r i b i n g h o w the T e i a n s reordered their ceremonial life around a n e w sacral centre (a statue of A n t i o c h o s I I I and an altar to the k i n g and the C h a r i t é s in the bouleuterion). if the b r o a d e r political context was right: N o t i o n / K o l o p h o n b y sea s u c c e s s f u l l y w i t h s t o o d a siege b y A n t i o c h o s I I I d u r i n g the R o m a n . Geländemauer reminiscent of the great royal walls. T h i s is an i m p o r t ant characteristic of the condition e n j o y e d b y the cities of w e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r . a S e l e u k i d fort. 36 M o s t of the evidence is catalogued and studied by M c N i c o l l 1997. . let alone to a m e a n i n g f u l s y m b o l i c a l g e o g r a p h y of T e o s . e x e m p l i f i e d b y E p h e s o s and H e r a k l e i a u n d e r L a t m o s . w e cannot relate in detail the textual evidence w i t h the relevant material remains. In contrast. for the routing of processions in Caen during the French Revolution. let alone h o w rural p o p u l a t i o n w a s distributed in the 'royal land'. or a 'military c o l o n y ' looked like. E r y t h r a i . and the w a y in w h i c h they e x p r e s s the c i t y ' s identity. R o g e r s interprets the c e r e m o n i e s ' social and ideological m e a n i n g . a m b i t i o u s .p r e s e r v e d city w a l l s f r o m the Hellenistic period.c e n t u r y AD E p h e s o s .8 . because t h e y created the possibility of resisting c o n q u e s t b y a king. w h e r e m a n y of 25 Ephesos: Rogers 1991. 3 1 . especially in relation to the R o m a n e m p i r e . 2 5 F i n a l l y . 4 § 36. b u t w e cannot relate the detailed i n f o r m a t i o n to a specific u r b a n layout. N o t i o n / K o l o p h o n b y sea. w e need o n l y look to s e c o n d . 3 ) . T h e s e fall into t w o categories: on one h a n d . w h i c h p r o m p t s us not to u n d e r e s t i m a t e civic resources and determination. on the other h a n d . 3 7 . T o u n d e r s t a n d h o w h e a v y a h a n d i c a p this is. Generally. so that w e have little idea w h a t a rural shrine. there is v e r y scant archaeological i n f o r m a tion for the c o u n t r y s i d e in this period. or K o l o p h o n — t h e latter w a s d e f e n d e d b y a late f o u r t h c e n t u r y . 3 7 . It would be even more depressing to compare the situation for Hellenistic T e o s and the case-studies offered for more recent periods: see O z o u f 1976: 225-42. 2 6 T h e cities' fortifications matter. T e o s : document 18 and C h . O z o u f is able to analyse both the intentions of festival-organizing authorities and the ambiguous realizations of these intentions.of this situation. as can be seen at Priene. Hellenistic P h r y g i a or L y d i a .

Likewise. quoting early travellers as a substitute for serious historical geography. rather than any necessary outcome determined by material conditions. and the ways in w h i c h these limitations can be qualified. Seeing the mass of M t L a t m o s . bus or minibus. the land still allows us to study ancient sites—specific places in their relation w i t h the geography. tractor. for Roman Switzerland. 28 T h e awareness of geography as a source of understanding about the past is nothing new. or on foot. 1841. 28 Apart from the work of L . w h i c h lie close on the map. illustrates its importance and possibly illuminates the m o v e m e n t s of A n t i o c h o s I I I in the region in the same years (Ch. the limitations they impose. in the work of L . separating A m y z o n and Herakleia under L a t m o s . going along the M e n d e r e s (Cumaovasi)-Ivavakdere corridor. T r a v e l in Asia M i n o r gives a sense of its wealth and size. W e s t e r n Asia M i n o r (as I defined it earlier in this introduction) still survives as a physical entity. for the Hellenistic world. and van Berchem 1982. It also creates a sense of the relation between places and hence promotes the concrete understanding of military movements. see also Millar 1994. C u i n e t 1894. by train. T h e most significant non-literary source is the body of epigraphical documents. . one of the crossing points f r o m the S m y r n a plain to the coast (now the road between the coastal resorts and Izmir airport). both explaining w h y an imperial p o w e r w o u l d covet it and problematizing the realities of controlling such a vast area. de Planhol 1958. and selectively. going along many of the historically important routes. A n t i o c h o s I I I in winter 197/6 felt confident that he w o u l d conquer 'all the cities'. as long as attention is given not just to the cities. car. mountains and the w a y s through them.i i . but also to routes. because of their lack of trust in their walls and their fighting men. But see Strobel 1996: i o . Robert. helps to understand w h y the Seleukids took the former but not the latter place in c. 203. 2 § 3).these cities were unwalled (ατείχιστος) and hence enjoyed a far smaller margin of manoeuvre. as can be seen in T h u c y d i d e s ' narrative of the Ionian W a r . it was particularly developed. I twice had the chance of travelling through this region. 27 or by travel to modern T u r k e y .2 1 5 for Pisidia and Pamphylia. A d m i t t e d l y . T h i s source of evidence. for parallels. by exhortation and by example. and it is worth reflecting on the nature of these documents. the approach is exemplified by S y m e 1995: 1 7 7 . already 27 For instance Fellows 1839. Robert. plains. but this opinion reflected royal ideology and confidence. A third non-literary source is the array of Anatolian landscapes: m u c h more instructive for our purposes than 'ancient ruins'. w h i c h can be studied on maps and in the accounts of earlier travellers. for qualifications about the practice of exclusively. bicycle.

though Piejko's restorations for lines 5 . B. . or C . Malay 1987. see the list at the introduction to the epigraphical dossier presented as an annexe. several new documents appeared. inscriptions correct the narrative written f r o m the 29 For documents from Asia Minor. A m y z o n . like the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. S c h m i t t ' s m o n o g r a p h on A n t i o c h o s I I I (1964). Herrmann 1965a. has been spectacularly increased by recently published texts. Fischer. W e l l e s ' s Royal Correspondence·. 131-8. (1991). Fellows (1839. A sense of the material's abundance and fascination emerges even f r o m older corpora. Other regions: for the Skythopolis dossier.7 4 ar>d Fr.1613. and the issues it raises modified. . 54-70. Landau. 1841). Robert 1967. 3 0 T h e epigraphical material provides important information for the topic of A n t i o c h o s III and his relations with the cities. by new publications. republished by T h . and civic decrees. and enrich the analyses we can elaborate. etc. governor of the region) and Media.M . Piejko. Hamilton (1842). Gauthier 1989. along with a few records of dedications. Ant Class 60. H.S y r i a (the ' S k y t h o p o l i s dossier' concerning the estate of Ptolemaios. A m o n g modern examples of discoveries making important contributions. Bertrand. statue bases.respectable in quantity at the time of H . ZPE φ (1982).7 and his construction of the syntax in lines 2 1 . Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien. revised by J . 30 T h e earliest epigraphical works quoted are Chishull 1728. It now counts forty-nine items relevant to the king's activity in Asia M i n o r alone. 1 6 7 . most of the first importance ( n o t a b l y — i n order of p u b l i c a t i o n — t h e finds f r o m Iasos. as reviewed in the Bulletin Epigraphique and republished in the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum: a glance at the bibliography to the present work will show how the epigraphical material steadily increases. A s the case of A n t i o c h o s I I I illustrates. 245-7. T e o s . N o r are these documents isolated: they can be read in a context provided by the rest of Hellenistic epigraphy. followed by traveller-epigraphists like Leake (1824). with new discoveries w h i c h make adjustments to our political narrative of the Hellenistic world. Hessel 1731. Herakleia under L a t m o s . Orientis Graecae Inscri.ones Selectae (volume 1 concentrates on Hellenistic kings). ZPE 33 (1979). one great advantage to this material is the way in w h i c h it is constantly increased. A s mentioned above. 2 9 T h e y mostly are royal letters (administrative or diplomatic). usually honorific. w h i c h offers many parallels with w h i c h to expand or qualify conclusions drawn f r o m the inscriptions concerning A n t i o c h o s I I I and the cities. the text was published by V . to these can be added important documents concerning A n t i o c h o s I I I f r o m K o i l e . Media: Robert 1949. IEJ 16 (1966). many cities of Asia M i n o r have their inscriptions gathered in convenient w o r k i n g collections. I will quote the text as SEG 29.pti. and Sardeis).4 are not convincing. published in the C o l o g n e series. D u r i n g the three or four years taken by the research and the writing of the thesis on which this book is based.

In the case of the crucial campaign of 197/6. civic decrees) do not merely mirror the interaction between ruler and city: they are this interaction. thus enabling us to reconstruct or deduce military narrative. and C h . T h e other important feature is the nature of the inscriptions as immediate historical documents. implications. and ideology. the 'official in charge of the regions on the other side of the T a u r u s ' . to be explored and teased out by close 31 D o c u m e n t 4. A l l these aspects combine to help write an essay on empire. the epigraphical evidence unfortunately does not fully complete the lacunas in L i v y . a 'text-aware' approach to the documentary material: taking the inscriptions seriously as texts. T h e increase in documentation has sharpened our perception of this theme: we now have some idea of the activities of Z e u x i s . T e o s : A p p e n d i x 2.203. A single Seleukid document coming f r o m northern M y s i a and published by H. T h e consequence is not that inscriptions are unimpeachably real and objective. because it mattered to the power actors w h o uttered them. 12 C h . and its efforts to come to terms with its rulers through the m e d i u m of honorific language ( C h . C o n c e r n i n g the latter topic. the record is almost exclusively epigraphical. 2 § 1. but is constitutive of empire ( C h . other texts. T h i s point illustrates one strength of the epigraphical evidence: it reveals a diversity of situations and v i e w p o i n t s — t h e campaigns of a Hellenistic king. the texts w h i c h the inscriptions record (royal letters. T h i s approach seeks out meanings. so that the documents mostly show the effect of the campaign at the local level. A n important part of this book is devoted to applying what m i g h t be called. on the contrary. 2 § 2. Nikanor. rather than an author's elaboration of events. their value lies in the fact that they are actual instances of official languages in action. historical events. . as lived by the poleis. the local experience of war and empire. the institutions of imperial control and their workings. 3 1 In the case of the Seleukid campaigns of c. as spoken by historical agents and e m b o d y i n g ideologies and images as well as representing. 4). or the high-priest and official in charge of sacred matters. f r o m A m y z o n and (probably) Teos: 3 2 the documents picture the aftermath of conquest. 3 § 3). express the identity of the polis. in themselves. M a l a y in 1987 disproved a reconstruction of Seleukid territorial concessions to the Attalids in 216 and of the subsequent political history of the region. in a broad sense. whose language matters to us as interpreters. w h i c h I proposed earlier as one of the themes raised by the seminal passage of L i v y . w h i c h is not only practically oriented. the civic decrees. S o m e texts document the language of empire.fragmentary literary sources.

all utterances are actions. nor do t h e y p r o v i d e any direct indication of m o t i v e s or the s u r r o u n d i n g military context. b u t are still far f r o m a l l o w i n g any c o m p l e t e account for the m o r e o b s c u r e sections in the history of A n t i o c h o s ' c a m paigns. that the recipients. a H e l l e n i s t i c polis. S u c h an a p p r o a c h c o m p l e m e n t s the m o r e traditional positivist m o d e . inscribed the missive and p e r h a p s p r o d u c e d a d o c u m e n t of their o w n : all these things in t h e m s e l v e s are v e r y real historical facts w h i c h deserve attention. b y its nature. A n o b v i o u s p r o b l e m is the p a t c h y nature of the e v i d e n c e f o r w r i t i n g c o n t i n u o u s narrative: the inscriptions s o m e w h a t palliate the fragm e n t a r y record. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of the epigraphical material only makes it m o r e i m p o r t a n t to u n d e r s c o r e the difficulties inherent in its exploitation. nor do w e have e n o u g h e v i dence to correct the affirmations of the king (to say w h a t he really t h o u g h t w h e n he m a d e his benefactions). that the k i n g did say these things to the recipients of his missive. p e r f o r m e d in a certain c o n t e x t w h i c h influences t h e m and is influenced b y t h e m ( M i l l a r 1992: 637). W e do not k n o w if the s u b j e c t s w e r e truly loyal. B u t the i n c o m p l e t e n e s s of the e p i graphical material has far m o r e significant c o n s e q u e n c e s than j u s t h i n d e r i n g the w r i t i n g of political narrative. T h i s is especially true for the e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g the polis. whatever its reality. and that. b l a n d discourse of honours. Verr. A u s t i n . T h e m a j o r i t y of the d o c u m e n t s are honorific decrees. 'we decide to praise y o u ' ) are acts w i t h practical c o n s e q u e n c e s . and also explains their u n i q u e value. L .readings. o f t e n f o r the ruler or his officials: a crucial d i m e n s i o n of dissent or resistance. T h a t utterances are in t h e m s e l v e s acts is crucial to the s t u d y of the d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . in all such cases. in most cases. 33 A salutary experience is to read Cic. a royal letter m i g h t speak of the s u b j e c t s ' loyalty. w h e r e b y d o c u m e n t s m e r e l y d o c u m e n t historical facts. cannot ever i m p i n g e on the s m o o t h . at least raises the possibility of insincerity and reluctance behind the institutionalized enthusiasm of the honorific decrees surviving in our evi- . because of the dearth of c o n t i n u o u s d o c u m e n t a t i o n . and d e v e l o p i n g A u s t i n ' s insight that certain utterances ( Ί grant y o u f r e e d o m ' . 3 3 F u r t h e r m o r e . where Cicero describes a Syracusan honorific decree (laudatio) as issuing veiled criticism of Verres.4. F o r instance. and his b e n e f a c t i o n s . w h i c h lie b e y o n d the d o c u m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s and w h o s e reality is a s s u m e d to be readily reconstructible. nor w h e t h e r the k i n g w a s truly b e n e v o l e n t . T h e story.140-4. w e do not e v e n k n o w if p r o m i s e d b e n e f a c t i o n s actually took place. the k i n g ' s b e n e v o l e n c e . 2. in a sense. is that the letter w a s w r i t t e n and received. pioneered by J. W h a t w e can say. the citizens of that s u p r e m e l y articulate b o d y . by praising him in areas where he had precisely failed to perform his duty (or so Cicero claims). T h i s a p p r o a c h is inspired b y 'speech-act t h e o r y ' .

1 1 . 4. reviewing Orth 1977 in CR 30 (1980). Loraux 1997: 18: 'les décrets . . their severity should not be exaggerated. 1 5 .9. For an example illustrating how to read stereotypical archival documents. and possibly of wider groups of supporters.the set forms in the decrees present a picture of politics as consensus. being too 'monolithic'. as a unified c o m m u n i t y with a single voice and purpose. H o w e v e r . loin de rendre compte du déroulement effectif d'une assemblée. but in his detailed narrative of the end of the M y t i l e n e a n revolt. totally mobilised. polis·. or of the attitude of the citizenry (or groups of citizens) over a period of time concerning the changes brought about by royal conquest and its aftermath. .'. changes.) the A m y z o n i a n s . with reservations expressed by Gauthier. L i v . T h e concern about the picture of the Hellenistic city.1 4 . 308-22. 22). O n the omission of debate in the epigraphical evidence. 37. Fraser. rather than as differences: έ'δο^ε τηι βονλήι καΐ τώι δήμωι.S e l e u k i d war mirrored internal tensions and shifts. Phokaia: Pol. 103. indifference.g. . for Attalid courtiers and their cities). T h e s e difficulties must be borne in mind. let alone conflict. between individuals or groups within the élite. but it seems to me that the evidence is still insufficient for this sort of research (though note Carsana 1996. RC 17.: €π€ίδη .1-4. O z o u f 1976: 198-9. T h e picture in the epigraphical sources is of a monolithic. . ma}' rather reflect our appetite to know more about the conditions in w h i c h the decrees were produced than c o n d e m n dence. w h e n trying to interpret the results of close readings to the epigraphical material. 31 Mytilene: T h u c . likewise. T h e s e divisions often became apparent in the stress of wartime: T h u c y d i d e s documents the process not just in his set-pieces on stasis. 104. 3 4 T h e case of Phokaia (preserved through literary accounts. AJP 92 (1971). in the form of well-disposed 'family friends' (e. Gillis. with D . 3 5 T h e inscriptions simply talk of (e. 151 and a critical review b y I. BE 97. shifts in policy. . Osborne for showing me a paper on this issue. 1 1 0 . as derived f r o m inscriptions. . tensions. leading to unitary decisions and actions..84. there is no hint of internal debate.27-8. 158. 3. argues that a study of the interaction between the Seleukids and cities should take the role of individual élite families into account. or of the role played by individuals. . Y e t we know that both the Classical and postClassical polis experienced divisions: between rich and poor. 'it seemed good to the city: since . and not documentary material) illustrates how the Hellenistic kings had supporters in the cities. the rapid changes in allegiance w h i c h Phokaia underwent during the R o m a n . Brasidas: T h u c .6.g.' I also am grateful to R. 35 P. 38-47. 21. M . construisent et limitent le souvenir qu'il convient d'en garder. SavalliLestrade 1996. Savalli-Lestrade in REG 1 1 1 (1998). the T e i a n s taking a decision and reacting to events en masse. or of the T h r a c i a n cities' reactions to Brasidas' overtures.

and firmly imposed on the c o m m u n i t y as authoritative by the canonical forms of the decree. and shared ideology. support for divergent foreign policies. consensual polis behaviour as unusable for the historian. the decrees can be considered as a legitimate and fascinating object of study. civic. W i t h these remarks on the way in w h i c h the sources. especially since it is difficult to see beyond them (so that. but also where (ideally and. often. in normal times. 36 A s a well-documented example. see Ober 1989 for 4th-cent. or at least reaching the appearance of consensus for the pragmatic purpose of getting on with the life in c o m m o n . In the present study. 3 6 F o r g i n g consensus. in reality) they were overcome through politics. T h e inscribed decrees do not allow us to study conflict and disagreement: what they present is the normal outcome of internal processes—the decision attained. political opposition. they are all we have). for instance the M i d d l e A g e s already or the early modern period. we are back at our starting-point: what form to adopt to talk about the Hellenistic world. Athens. T h e way to stud}' this language and these documents without believing that they are the whole story is to bear in mind the pervasive violence and structures of exploitation that the Hellenistic empires lived off. c o m m o n decision-making. and partly because the focus on the figure of the king leaves out the experience and viewpoint of the local communities. implemented by the city's authorities. to realize this). all too often. T h e polis was a place where divisions and differences existed. T h e fact that the inscribed decrees present us with a limited w o r l d v i e w (their information is restricted to the outcome) and a particular. class differences. T h e s e decisions represent the public face of the polis: as long as that fact is never forgotten. shape our perceptions and the forms we use to talk about the past. all these sources of conflict were compatible with a democratic model of decision-making and a shared c o m m u n a l existence. I have avoided the increasingly popular form of the royal biography: partly because I think that the ancient evidence is insufficient for this sort of exercise (one needs only think of later periods. especially epigraphical.the picture of unified. was precisely the point of democratic decision-making. and presented to the world and to posterity by publication and inscription. and w h i c h form the general context in w h i c h the civic decrees were produced. and since the communal language of the decrees is the m e d i u m w h i c h creates the polis' public face. . ideology does not detract f r o m the status of the decisions reached and acted on by the c o m m u n i t y as a whole.

T h e themes treated have already been sketched out above: the setting. indeed. was a m o m e n t in Hellenistic history w h i c h dramatized an important issue. the relation between king and city. and each uses the sources in different ways. interpretations: they rather reflect different understandings of the same material and different ways to talk about it. city by city. all written around the confrontation between A n t i o c h o s I I I and the cities of western Asia M i n o r . so that the advantages of the approach (antiquarian delight. I avoided the full 'dossier par thème' model. 1). in a particular context. actual and ideological. In this model.T h e starting-point I chose. and the cities of Asia M i n o r . Y e t these approaches do not lead to divergent. as e m b o d i e d in a passage of L i v y (or his source. fragmentary information to produce histoire événementielle·. But such attempts are hindered by the lack of a full record for any single city. appealing to various techniques and approaches: reconstructing and piecing together disparate. T h e present work is structured as a series of thematic studies. teasing out the practical implications and the ideological assumptions of administrative documents. the existence of power as interaction between rulers and ruled (Ch. Polybios). a test-case with a particular narrative origin and outcome. between the traditional political narrative. 3). reading the imperfect dialogue between royal letters and civic decrees. 2). Furthermore. the .g. 4). A n o t h e r format I did not want to adopt to study the relation between a specific king. with the uncertainties entailed by the lacunary evidence. For the actual treatment of this issue. subsumed in the commentary to these documents. A n t i o c h o s I I I . attention to specifics) dissolve into uncertainty and speculation. and. T h e s e studies run through the material and the broadly defined topic at different angles. the structures. and the synchronic analytical chapters. hopefully as a basis for more general interpretations. of Seleukid Asia M i n o r ( C h . where the main text is subordinate to the presentation of epigraphical documents. both geographical and political.) 'royal policy' towards any polis. is the catalogue of evidence. T h e results of these different modes of enquiry are predictably varied in tone and feel. or contradictory. entries are devoted to the evidence for each individual city along w i t h a thumbnail sketch of narrative history as experienced locally: these entries are followed by attempts at interpretation for (e. w h i c h can palliate evidence problems by drawing on parallels in the documentary material. of imperial power (Ch. the narrative history of Antiochos' (re)conquest of Asia M i n o r ( C h . philological rigour. by taking seriously and analysing the language of interaction.

they present an e m b e d d e d test case. through the realization that its o w n results are only part of the historical reality that the whole book seeks to describe and understand.studies are not. practical and. I am not using them to talk about idealized entities. physical and ideological. the study of the structures of power. for lack of a complete documentary record. precarious nature of the Seleukids' domination over Asia M i n o r . the work is structured as a succession of interlocking studies. and obligation: in order to avoid taking statements made in this language for the whole story. inadequate to describe the exercise of imperial power. the m o v e m e n t s and vicissitudes of the historical actors: it thus grounds the more thematic sections. especially. and hence enable generalizations about the diverse spectrum of possibilities but also the unity of language and institutions w h i c h characterized the Hellenistic world. and hence as important an instrument of domination as armies or taxation). w h i c h illuminate each other by providing background and context for individual series of insights. T h e first way in w h i c h these studies are linked is that each leads to the following one. M o r e generally. and hence helps determine the exact methodological status of the parallels adduced in those sections. the test-case of A n t i o c h o s I I I has to be expanded b y parallels. and also further tested against other individual cases. T h e narrative of A n t i o c h o s ' conquests leads to an awareness that military narrative and its concepts are. w h i c h itself ends with the awareness of the role played by ideology and language. C o n v e r s e l y . In turn. or not only. parallel exercices de style in the field of Hellenistic historiography. hence a chapter on the structures of empire. in themselves. the narrative establishes the precise context. ideological (the imperial power's claims to ubiquitous efficacy and the monopoly of definitions are part of the illusion of inevitability. w h i c h helps us approach the issue of the relation between Hellenistic king and city. but (as I hope to make clear in the body of the argument and in the transitional sections) closely linked thematically: together. honours. we must keep awareness of the role played by violence in constituting a . T h e narrative. and therefore is continued by a chapter on political language. by establishing the characteristics of continual violence and the problematic. w h i c h establish its typicality. the K i n g and the C i t y . T h e s e generalizations in turn can be qualified by the specific aspects of the test-case I examine. provides the background for the interaction between rulers and ruled through a formalized language of benefactions. another function of the parallels in the thematic chapters. provides a significant context to understand the workings of empire.

whereas any individual supra-poliad empire is oddly precarious and labile. the structure of the work attempts to mirror the m o v e ment in the passage f r o m L i v y . T h e latter opens with a statement of imperialist vision and imperial institutions. this work starts with two chapters driven by the Seleukid viewpoint. embodied in the reply given to A n t i o c h o s III by the recalcitrant cities: they proclaimed their determination to preserve f r e e d o m even in the face of a starkly threatening imperial power and its offer of accommodation within the framework of its institutions and its ideology. . Finally. w h i c h we can draw f r o m the confrontation between the Great K i n g and 'all the cities of Asia M i n o r ' . but ends with local civic pride and values. W h e n approaching the Hellenistic world.Hellenistic empire and of the structures of compulsion or exploitation. but the book ends with a chapter w h i c h seeks to show the resilience and potency of civic language and ideals. naturally shaped by the m o v e m e n t s and projects of the king. w o r t h exploring in depth. the conclusion and envoi tries to characterize the Hellenistic age as one where the cities matter. Likewise. it is crucial to pay attention to this p h e n o m e n o n and to find a historiographical mode that can accommodate the imperial and the local. w h i c h transformed straightforward relations of power-as-possession into a complicated interaction. T h e w h o l e of the present work is structured around this insight. because of their local persistence. T h i s is one last implication. either in the form of the Seleukids' imagined past in Asia M i n o r or of the narrative of A n t i o c h o s ' conquests.

f u r t h e r m o r e . In All the Land beyond the Taurus. 10. Just as under our Grandfather O n 23 D y s t r o s . N i k a n o r . . the g o v e r n o r of c i s . on the k i n g ' s 1 2 ! D o c u m e n t 4. w h i l e on m a j o r c a m p a i g n s . . ' h i g h . the prostagma on N i k a n o r deserves closer attention. T h e άρχιερεύς των Ιερών πάντων a p p o i n t e d over all the land b e y o n d the T a u r u s has been interpreted as a h i g h . Documents 9. B u t the d o c u m e n t n o w h e r e m e n t i o n s ruler cult. ' w e t h o u g h t necessary that N i k a n o r s h o u l d be in charge of the sanctuaries. sent a πρόσταγμα to Z e u x i s . S h e r w i n .p r i e s t of all the shrines in all the land b e y o n d the T a u r u s ' . . N i k a n o r w a s to be m e n t i o n e d 'in the contracts and the other d o c u m e n t s for w h i c h it is usual'. on the eve of his eastern e x p e d i t i o n . 1 Z e u x i s d u l y passed on the instructions: a c o p y w a s f o u n d in n o r t h e r n M y s i a . A n t i o c h o s I I I .p r i e s t of the ruler cult o r g a n i z e d b y the S e l e u k i d state. to keep the e m p i r e ticking over'. 23.C H A P T E R 1 T h e Seleukid past in Asia Minor (281-223 BC) ι .p r i e s t ' in d o c u m e n t s f r o m A m y z o n and X a n t h o s . that the king routinely dealt w i t h . and that their r e v e n u e s and the other m a t t e r s should be a d m i n i s t e r e d b y h i m . 29-41.p r i e s t s of A n t i o c h o s I I I and his πρόγονοι.204. 44—5. f u r t h e r m o r e . at N i k a n o r ' s o w n request. 3 B u t in spite of its m u n d a n e appearance. the state cult for A n t i o c h o s I I I w a s p r o b a b l y f o u n d e d only in c. unlike the e n a c t m e n t of 193 w h i c h (in instit u t i n g cult for L a o d i k e I I I ) e x p l i c i t l y refers to h i g h . year 103 SE (210/9). 2 T h e prostagma apparently b e l o n g s to 'the c o n t i n u i n g administrative w o r k . N i k a n o r is n a m e d as ' h i g h . j u s t as u n d e r our g r a n d f a t h e r b y D i o n ' .W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 198. In addition. T h e k i n g a p p o i n t e d his c h a m b e r l a i n . for it is based on arresting S e l e u k i d a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t the g e o g r a p h y and history of A s i a Minor.T a u r i c A s i a .

6 SEG 3 6 . 21-2. the royal enactment created a unified space. in Bulloch et al.return f r o m his eastern expedition. but about imperial practice and language. not linked with state ruler cult) needed before setting up a stele listing initiates of the god. rather than a priesthood within the state-organized ruler cult? See Welles RC. State cult for Antiochos III only after 205: J. T h e parallel brings out the character of N i k a n o r ' s appointment: he is to be high-priest of every shrine in c i s . 29) and at Soloi (document 21. for parallels. 1. whose authorization a local shrine (the sanctuary of A p o l l o Pleurenos. 1 2 1 8 — a Xanthian legal document dated to the fourth year of Ptolemy I V (202/1). 11. akin to the dating in local documents by the Seleukid era and by the reign of A n t i o c h o s III.1 5 . T h i s interpretation is confirmed by the activity of N i k a n o r ' s successor as 'high priest' in Attalid Asia M i n o r . Bengtson 1944: 130 n. Instructions to include N i k a n o r in the heading of documents imposed the signs of an unified Seleukid dominion. T h e same symbolic effect of 'imperial' chronological markers appears in the 'Ptolemaic' city of X a n t h o s .1613. 5 T h e prostagma of 20g is not about royal cult. a priest of the cult of the Ptolemies). T h e consequence is that in the document found at P a m u k ç u . άρχιερωαύνη for the imperial overseer of local religion in Roman Egypt. he will administrate the shrines' income. Euthydemos: document 49. perhaps occupied a similar function for his province. as representative of the state. Bengtson 1952: 141-3: the Ptolemaic governor of C y p r u s was also 'high-priest of the shrines in the island' (as well as. 4 It is unlikely that the document abbreviates the title of Nikanor. T h e geographical sphere of N i k a n o r ' s c o m petence was patterned on the c i s . with authority over the local priests of these shrines.v. 6 In addition to the content of the pros4 Nikanor priest in ruler cult. T h e size and diversity of the region underline the forcefulness of A n t i o c h o s ' imperial vision. admittedly. in almost identical terms to the inscription concerning Nikanor. E u t h y d e m o s . lines 10. since it is the official act of appointment.T a u r i c c o m m a n d held by Z e u x i s ( C h . Koenen. s. 3 § 2). 'he. . Enactment of 193: document 37. 7. 159 n.T a u r i c Asia. furthermore. and L . north of Sardeis. 5 Ptolemaios. where individual difference and geographical expanse could be integrated under a single. centrally appointed official. A l s o Welles. Robert 1983: 168 n. had supervision and control over particularly the finances of the temples in his satrapy'. A n t i o c h o s III simply appoints a high-priest: the immediate parallel is RC 44. the 'strategos and archiereus' of Koile-Syria w h o appears in the Skythopolis inscription ( S E G 29. 40. 2). and to the time when 'those in Alexandria' were priests of Alexander and of the deified Ptolemies: the formula clearly indicates that the preamble performs a symbolical function as well as a practical one (see L . RC 319. in virtue of his functions as 6 επί των Ιερών. 1993: 46—8). where he appoints a Friend high-priest of A p o l l o and A r t e m i s Daittai at D a p h n e . in a document dated by the regnal year of Ptolemy III and by the tenure of various priesthoods at Alexandria. Malay 1987: 1 3 .

A f t e r his usurpation. before the usurpation of this region by Attalos I 7 T h e office was later held by one Demetrios: document 44 (unless this is a local subordinate). 4.11). . in all of c i s . 40-1.11). and that. for Achaimenid control of shrines.20. this overseership of local shrine finances also a s s u m e s — c l o a k e d in the language of euergetical solicitude—authority and control.3. 8. Seleukids and shrines: Bickerman 1938: 121-2. 7 A n t i o c h o s ' decision was made in reference to 'our grandfather'.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . Rostovtzeff 1941: 504-7.48.2. 4. and took control of all the rest. L e s s grand than the high priesthood.48. T h o u g h the form used is consistently hτίταδε τον Ταύρου ('on this side of T a u r u s ' ) instead of the expression επεκεινα ('on that side') preferred by A n t i o c h o s I I I in his prostagma. its very production assumes that A n t i o c h o s III has the authority to name N i k a n o r to a position of control over all the shrines in c i s . By framing present action in reference to an earlier m e m b e r of the dynasty. T h e appointment of N i k a n o r contains a dialogue between perceived past and present actions. 'to acquire back'.48.6. Briant 1982: 327. Heliodoros: Bickerman 1980: 159-91. 4. Achaios undertook to recover all of the land on this side T a u r u s (Pol. 1 1 7 0 for Antiochos I and his co-regent Seleukos 'giving back' incomes to the shrine of Apollo T o u m o u n d o s (perhaps adjudication over land-dispute?). Polybios writes of A c h a i o s ' successes unambiguously: he shut Attalos I into Pergamon.48. A parallel is the language in w h i c h Polybios describes the vicissitudes of Seleukid power in 'the region on this side of the T a u r u s ' .T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . exemplified in nonAnatolian examples such as Heliodoros' interest in the wealth of the T e m p l e at Jerusalem (probably accumulated surplus f r o m subsidies). 4. των δε λοιπών πάντων ην εγκρατής (Pol.10): the verb used is άνεκτατο. 4. 5 D o c u m e n t 4. 8 combining imperial discourse about geography and power with awareness of the past. both in the symbolic form of the high priesthood and the actual administrative p o w e r over temple finances. Achaios is regularly referred to as the master of c i s . this attitude must be located within the context of Seleukid m e m o r y about the geography and the history of Asia M i n o r .9 Polybios' references to Achaios assume that all of Asia M i n o r was part of the Seleukid πράγματα. A f t e r the m u r d e r of Seleukos I I I .tagma. 8 D o c u m e n t 4. simply referred to as 'our grandfather'.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r (Pol. A n t i o c h o s II. 29—30.7) and hastens to defend his πράγματα. SEG 3 5 . to be appreciated. Seleukos III hears that Attalos I 'had already subjected all of the land on this side of the T a u r u s ' (Pol. A n t i o c h o s I I I claims to be acting within a history of Seleukid control. U p o n his accession. manifest in continuity of administrative practice and of dynastic rule.

and Achaios. N o w . the Seleukid claims could be brought forth more explicitly. 12). spear-won territory. the Seleukid ambassador M i n n i o n w o u l d appeal to historical claims in order to j u s t i f y A n t i o c h o s ' right to levy tribute f r o m the cities of Ionia and Aiolis: hello superatas a maioribus. 10 11 . stipendarias ac vectigales factas in antiquum im repetit. he contrasted A n t i o c h o s ' ancestral rights to these regions with the lack of any R o m a n claim to A s i a ( L i v .3). [Antiochos] has recovered within their ancient status' ( L i v . A n t i o c h o s was not taking possession (κτασθαι) of these places. 6). this implicitly justified A n t i o c h o s ' rights to the cities of Asia M i n o r as well.58. Pol. Antiochos claims Ionia and Aiolis because they used to belong to the 'former kings of Asia'. it had entirely and unproblematically been under Seleukid control. 35. Syr. '[these cities. 1 3 T h e verb άνακτάσθαι. Literary evidence: Schmitt 1964: 86.4-6. A t a conference held at Ephesos later the same year. conquered by Seleukos I. 12 Presumably Ptolemy I I I . 1 1 the king stated that he had crossed into Europe 'to recover (άνακτησόμενος) the Chersonesos and the cities of T h r a c e . and the claims w h i c h this history enabled in the present. as Βορίκτητος.40 rearranges the order of the arguments.6).16. 33. A p p . T h e consistency of the vocabulary corresponds to the unity of Seleukid conceptions about their history in Asia M i n o r . 1 2 then by Philip V . A n t i o c h o s appealed to history: victory over L y s i m a c h o s had made Seleukos I master of all of his adversary's former k i n g d o m . since rule (αρχή) over these places was rightly his more than that of anyone else' (Pol.51. i. 18. also appears in direct address to a city. 1 0 A n t i o c h o s I I I asserted ancestral claims to ownership in his diplomatic exchanges with the Romans: at the conference of 196 at Lysimacheia. presumably the Achaimenids. after some opportunistic inroads by P t o l e m y III. A n t i o c h o s ' envoy Hegesianax of Alexandreia T r o a s protested against the injunction that A n t i o c h o s should evacuate 'Europe' (his conquests in T h r a c e ) if he wished the R o m a n s to keep out of Asia: Hegesianax rehearsed the Seleukid rights to L y s i m a c h o s ' former possessions of T h r a c e and Chersonesos.51. but 're-taking possession.6). 18. in virtue of his o w n rights': ανακτασθαι τοΐς Ιδίοις δίκαιοι? συγχρωμενος (Pol. In super-power diplomacy. 34. 18. 13 In Appian (Syr. since the area under dispute is T h r a c e and the Chersonesos. Syr. In 193. but not quite the same as appeal to ancestral rights. 3). L i v y ' s repetit must translate the verb ανακτάσθαι.] w h i c h were conquered in war by his ancestors and made to pay tribute. w h i c h appears twice in the speech of A n t i o c h o s I I I at L y s i m a c h e i a as well as in the description of A c h a i o s ' campaign against Attalos I. A p p . which is similar.51 (Liv.

justified himself before an audience of ambassadors f r o m pro-Ptolemaic cities Documents 26 A . Atropatene. 5. .14. II 8-10. άνακτησάμενος. 1 1 .67. Parthyene. την νμετεραν πάλιν .S y r i a . 'as w e had recovered for the king the city.43. A n t i o c h o s I I I . to w h i c h Baktria rightfully belonged (Pol. just as Antiochos I I I (and Polybios) could speak about c i s .6 (the rebel M o l o n secures his relations with 'the neighbouring satrapies'). Walbank 1965: 264. 5. It is therefore an accident of preservation that we only have these two cases of historical claims to authority and ownership in direct interaction with the cities: such references to rights based on past ownership must have been c o m m o n in royal discourse addressed to the cities.2). 11.43. Asia M i n o r was not the only area where claims were justified by appeal to inherited rights. 31 Β.prefix) is found in Z e u x i s ' letter to Herakleia under Latmos: άνακεκομισμενων ημών τώι βασιλεΐ την πάλιν εζ άρχής ύπάρχονσαν τοις πρόγονοις αυτοί». 3 4 .34.S y r i a to Seleukos I (Pol. w h i c h originally belonged to his ancestors'.S y r i a (Pol. κνριωτάτas και δικαιότατα? κτησε^. 1 4 T h e s e documents show that Polybios' and L i v y ' s accounts preserve the vocabulary of Seleukid m e m o r y . 14 15 . 5. these 'satrapies' must be the former Seleukid provinces which had seceded earlier in the third century. 5. Likewise. but does not disprove Schmitt's interpretation of Pol. A related expression (with the same άνα.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r as if Seleukid authority in that region were absolute. and Seleukos I over A n t i g o n o s M o n o p h t h a l m o s (the original ruler of K o i l e . since the actual Seleukid provinces that neighboured M o l o n ' s province resisted him later.S y r i a ) and on the victors' agreement to concede K o i l e .2 ) . A n t i o c h o s I V . . 1 5 Just as cities of Asia M i n o r were addressed as historically subjects of the Seleukids. based on the victor}' w o n by L y s i m a c h o s . In the conflict over K o i l e . Walbank's criticism of the latter point is justified. were still mentioned by the Seleukids as 'satrapies'. In the following century. determined to prevail in the field of armed conflict (τοις οπλοις) and of legal rights (τοις δίκαιοι?). claimed not to have acted unjustly in invading K o i l e . A n t i o c h o s I I I during the eastern expedition asserted his position in respect to the Baktrian k i n g d o m by accusing the Baktrian king E u t h y d e m o s of being a rebel (αποστάτη?) seceding f r o m the Seleukid empire. independent principalities. Kassandros. since he could lay historical claims to 'the most p o w e r f u l and just titles of property'. bases his disagreement with Schmitt's view on a discussion of Pol. Schmitt 1964: 123. an even more explicit statement than Laodike's.6. where the expression 'the upper satraps' is taken b y Schmitt also to designate independent princelings. on Pol.67. during the Sixth Syrian W a r (168). I 6-8.6-8). 1 . and Baktria.L a o d i k e III refers to the benevolence of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the Iasians after 're-acquiring y o u r city'.

whilst proclaiming their rights to Koile-Syria. diplomatic difficulties b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s III and the R o m a n s thus resulted f r o m a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n different legal c o n c e p tions in matters of property.1 7 . commemorating the recovery of Delos by A t h e n s in 167 (Robert 1983: 249 quoting A . 5. Chaniotis 1988: 1 1 4 n. 1 ' H o w could these t w o apparently contradictory principles coexist? B i c k e r m a n argued that rights to o w n e r s h i p w e r e not established by mere takeover. no. according to B i c k e r m a n . A n epigraphical d o c u m e n t .10). did not create rights to o w n e r s h i p (in contrast. Curty 1989. T h e parallels provide a context for any interpretation of the claims f o r m u l a t e d in regard to Asia M i n o r . O b v i o u s l y . the)' p e r f o r m a legal f u n c t i o n .S y r i a . 9). aggression f o l l o w e d by o c c u p a t i o n . but also his audience that he was right' (Pol. m e n t i o n i n g the establishment of S e l e u k i d p o w e r in Asia M i n o r . lines 132-3.2 ) and mere forcible occupation: this leads him to misunderstand the rights of conquest as interpreted by Bickerman. succinctly m e n t i o n s both principles: ' S e l e u k o s having gained p o w e r (έπικρατήσαντος) in the battle against L y s i m a c h o s . resulting in his extinction (as in the case of A n t i g o n o s at Ipsos or of L y s i m a c h o s at K o u r o u p e d i o n ) or in the formal surrender of his title to o w n e r s h i p . 28. having succeeded to the kingship (διαδεξάμενος την βασιλειαν)'. A n t i o c h o s I V . 28. Bikerman 1950: 123: mere occupation by force does not create 'droit de propriété'.20. 17 OGIS 335. originating in the history of the D i a d o c h s (Pol. 2 0 because the rights established by the victory over L y s i m a c h o s still held true.20. his son. . admitted the Seleukids claim to 'all of Asia'. 3.67. B i c k e r m a n regarded as the legal u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the S e l e u k i d empire: the right of conquest. the claims of A n t i o c h o s I I I to the cities of A s i a M i n o r and T h r a c e w e r e justified w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of G r e e k legal thought. H e referred to τα άρχής δίκαια. by asserting titles to property 1 6 f o u n d e d on two principles w h i c h E. 395. Plassart.bent u p o n brokering a peace.2 . his original rights to o w n e r s h i p (κτήσις) over K o i l e . 1 8 T h e r e f o r e . w i t h these a r g u m e n t s . A s P o l y b i o s o b s e r v e s . A n t i o c h o s . and the right of inheritance. Bikerman 1938: 1 4 . 20 Bickermann 1932a: 53. but b y the utter defeat of an o p p o n e n t . see Holleaux 1938a: 404 n. BCH 36 (1912). even for a length of time. 19 Bickermann 1932a: 5 1 . 16 On past narratives (in the poets and historians) as legal justification (μαρτύρια) of titles to ownership. abetted by Ptolemy I himself (Pol. b u t the antiquity of the claim: for B i c k e r m a n . in the negotiations during the Fourth Syrian War. A g y m nasiarch on Athenian-ruled Delos inscribed the list of gymnasiarchs άφ' ov 6 δήμος 8ià Ρωμαίων άνεκτήαατο την νήσον. further references in M e h l 1980/1: 175-6· 18 Mehl 1980/1 neglects the distinction between debellatio (Bickermann 1932«: 5 1 .1-9). Parallels for 'reacquiring': Bikerman 1950: 123-4. 237.10). T h e envoys of Ptolemy I V . 1 9 W h a t mattered was not length or continuity of o c c u p a t i o n . R o m a n law a c k n o w l e d g e d o c c u p a t i o n (usucapio) as a source for legitimate ownership). 'convinced not only himself.

the violent takeover of cities and the imposition of control in oppressive manifestations such as tribute or garrisons (Pol. 2. RC 22. Mastrocinque speaks of a 'conflitto di diritto internazionale' and of the views held by the 'giurisprudenti seleucidici'. 21. in terms of ownership rights. w h o inaugurated a joint state cult to himself and his ancestors.T h i s view might be too simple. this description strikes the w r o n g note (Mastrocinque 1983: 9 1 .1 6 for celebration of the ancestors under Antiochos III. written. 23 S c h m i t t speaks of A n t i o c h o s ' policy of restoring his ancestors' empire ('Restitutor orbis').5 ) . notably in Seleukid literature. line 23 (under Antiochos II?). 24 M o s t importantly. p.1 2 . Schmitt 1964: 85.1 9 f ° r a short account of Antiochos' actions and long term plans. 109. T h e problematic nature of conquest. the Great Idea to w h i c h A n t i o c h o s devoted his life. T h e Seleukids spoke about the past.41. T h e insistence of A n t i o c h o s I I I on his inherited rights to regions w h i c h in his view were rightfully Seleukid can be interpreted as a programme of reconquest. White has argued that historical narratives impose moralizing agendas and authoritative meanings that enable social control (White 1992: 1-25). specific contingencies and o p p o r t u n i s m played their role. 2 2 reached a new level of intensity under A n t i o c h o s I I I . 24 Schmitt 1964: ch. this view is appropriate for the Seleukid version of the past. Introduction). 25 H. 86—90. Bikerman 1938: 247-50. 21 T h e theme of Seleukid 'ancestors' of Seleukid kings. . by a plan of conquest (jEroberungsplan). is clear in the passage of L i v y describing the resistance of S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s to A n t i o c h o s I I I (above. to the point that πάτριος χώρα is often used for territory w h i c h was pre21 Bikermann 1932a: 51.38). mostly in the epigraphical documentation. Mastrocinque 1983: 1 1 4 . G r u e n 1986: 6 1 2 . but in order to cover up or legitimize aggression against other kingdoms. T h o u g h there existed accepted norms of international behaviour. not simply in reference to accepted legal principles. code of international law or Kriegesrecht (Mehl 1980/1: 177). and of royal power. D o u b t s on a master plan of reconquest: Badian 1966fr: 7 1 1 . line 2 (under Seleukos II) with Welles's comments. for nuances. though Schmitt is careful to point out that within this master-plan. 22 RC 15. w h e n A . 25 O t h e r examples. bring out the legitimizing role of allusion to the past. T h e legalistic approach passes over the fact that the language of property disputes is applied to acts of conquest and warfare. important in royal ideology. 23 Rostovtzeft" 1935. a legalistic approach overlooks the political nature of the claims to 'ownership'. policy: 85—8 (Eroberungsplan). 33. Debatable in general. T h e same passage also shows how conquest is deproblematized by being grounded in the past: A n t i o c h o s decided to reduce all the cities of Asia in antiquum imperii formulant ( L i v .2). there was no universally acknowledged. Will 1982: 52-3.

Seleukos I started reorganizing his new Anatolian province. 29 Expedition to Europe: M e m n o n FGrHist 434 F 8. Will 1979: 10. at variance with the Seleukid claims but providing insights into their meaning. no. w h i c h was still riven by super-power warfare. C o h e n 1995: 369-71. see L e Rider 1971/2: 238 on cities that went on striking lysimachuses after 281.9 1 ) and Lysimachos ( L u n d 1992: 184-206.cisely contested between two states. this m o m e n t (and its aftermath in the years d o w n to 279) marked the resolution of the complicated. to confront the Seleukid version with our o w n narratives. 281 BC). and L. fluid history of the Diadochoi into a more recognizably stable system. 32 and 47).4 (seven . Franco 1993: 58-64). 26 T h e functions performed by the Seleukid version of the past call for an exploration of what we know about Asia M i n o r before A n t i o c h o s I I I . 'recovered' after 167. For a detailed.2. the victory of Seleukos I over L y s i m a c h o s at K o u r o u p e d i o n in the L y d i a n plain (Feb. 1 M a c c . T h e r e is some evidence for cities that did not come to terms with Seleukos I: apart from Herakleia Pontike ( M e m n o n FGrHist 434 F 7). so that the two items we can ascribe to Seleukos I probably date before 281 (the foundation of Seleukeia on Kalykadnos. w h e n 'all of L y s i m a c h o s ' k i n g d o m became spear-won to Seleukos'. used against the Seleukids. Dem.' 2 7 T h e r e is no surviving continuous account of Seleukid activities in Asia M i n o r . Grainger 1990: 1 7 3 . its great advantage is that it provides direct evidence for the relations between the Seleukids and the local communities. Seleukid Asia Minor T h e starting point is obvious enough: the f o u n d i n g act of violence.51. the Hellenistic world. 21 Pol.4. 15. 18. but saw far less radical changes in the political make up. 28 M o s t of the evidence is gathered in Orth 1977 (in 'decreasing order of amount of evidence available'). CIL ι2 725 speaks of the Lykians' ancestral liberty. OGIS 337 speaks of the 'paternal democracy' (in the sense of independence) of P e r g a m o n — b o t h of which are pious inventions. Robert 1989: 75-6. so we must rely heavily on the epigraphical documentation. 269. these produce a picture of fluctuating powers and local responses. up-to-date narrative of the last years of the Diadochoi. Strobel 1996: 186-205. Bringmann and von Steuben 1995: 5 1 7 .33-4. In the seven months between K o u r o u p e d i o n and an ill-fated expedition to Europe to claim the rest of L y s i m a c h o s ' k i n g d o m . w h e n used to piece together politicalmilitary narrative relations. 2 9 U p o n his 26 J.1-3. the benefaction of Seleukos 1 to the temple at Olba: M a g i e 1950: 268. Rough Kilikia is a special case: it had already come under Seleukid control in 295 (Plut. but only fragments of literary evidence. 2. T h e events are covered in the recent biographies of Seleukos (Mehl 1986: 290-9. Justin 17. 2 8 It is possible to offer a summary narrative by reign. 460). T h e latter requires patience and ingenuity.

assassination (by his protégé Ptolemy K e r a u n o s , a son of Ptolemy I) in 281, he was succeeded by his son and co-regent, A n t i o c h o s I (281-261), whose reign is marked by wars. 30 Early on, he fought a war against the ' N o r t h e r n L e a g u e ' of recalcitrant cities on the Black Sea allied with the k i n g d o m of Bithynia; he also fought against the king of the Macedonians, A n t i g o n o s Gonatas. M o r e serious was the arrival of Celtic invaders, in a mass migration, part of the Celtic population m o v e m e n t s w h i c h disrupted the high politics of the Hellenistic world in the years 280-^.275. T h e Galatians crossed into Asia M i n o r (some b r o u g h t over by N i k o m e d e s I of Bithynia during his fight against Antiochos, some crossing the Hellespont of their o w n volition). T h e y w r o u g h t great havoc, vividly attested in inscriptions, in L y d i a and Ionia in the 270s and in Phrygia in 268/7; but A n t i o c h o s I defeated them in the 'Elephant Battle', of u n k n o w n location and uncertain date (t.269?); the Galatians remained in possession of a vast territory in central Anatolia. 3 1 T h e evidence illustrates the violence of their onslaught and the permanent threat of depredations, but also the survival of the Seleukid state and the continued operation of its forms, as implied by documents such as the village decree found near Denizli (I. Laodikeia am Lykos 1, f r o m W ö r r l e 1975) or the L y d i a n d o c u m e n t s with their Seleukid dating formulas ( Τ Α Μ 5.2.881). A n t i o c h o s I also had to face a superp o w e r rival, P t o l e m y II, in the First Syrian W a r , fought in A s i a M i n o r and Syria; finally, he was confronted w i t h a recalcitrant local power, E u m e n e s (I), the dynast of P e r g a m o n , w h o defeated h i m and asserted the independence of his principality. T h e wars of A n t i o c h o s II are even less well documented, though he seems to have been successful in them. H i s activity can be traced on the Straits ( M e m n o n FGrHist 434 F 15 mentions a war against Byzantion), and possibly in T h r a c e (Polyain. 4.16). 3 2 T h e well-

months). O n Seleukos after Kouroupedion and before his western expedition, Grainger 1990: 183-7; M e h l 1986: 299-315.
30 On Antiochos I, Will 1979: 135-52; S h e r w i n - W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 2 1 - 3 7 ; Strobel 1996: 206-14. 31 Will 1979: 143-4; Wörrle 1975: 6 1 - 7 1 , proposing the date of c.269 or even later for the Elephant Battle; Robert, OMS vii. 538-9; Mitchell 1993: 13-19; and now especially Strobel 1991 and Strobel 1996 (reconstructing two main conflicts between Antiochos I and the Galatians: 278-C.275, when the Galatians supported Nikomedes I of Bithynia; c.269, when, on this view, they invaded the Seleukid dominion before being defeated at the Elephant Battle). 32 On Antiochos II, Will 1979: 234-48, 293-4; collection of documents with discrete analyses of them in Orth 1977: 149—72. Bella quam plurima of Antiochos II: Porphyry, FGrHist 260 F 43 (=Jer. Comm. in Dan. 11.6). T h r a c e : the alliance between a king Antiochos and Lysimacheia is perhaps to be attributed to Antiochos II rather than Antiochos I (but certainly not Antiochos III: A p p e n d i x 3). Straits: the alliance between

k n o w n Samian decree honouring Boulagoras ( S E G 1.366, lines 5-20) reveals that A n t i o c h o s II annexed parts of the Samian A n a i t i s — a n d that a n u m b e r of his Friends helped themselves to estates on Samian territory. W i t h i n this time-span, one area of early Seleukid activity w h i c h left its mark on the landscape of Asia M i n o r was royal 'colonization', the foundation of new cities, the refounding or renaming of previously existing cities, and the settlement of soldiers (often Macedonians) in 'military colonies'; the latter are well attested in L y d i a , for instance at T h y a t e i r a ( O G I S 211). S o m e of these foundations reflect the involvement of a particular king, such as Antiocheia in the T r o a d (founded out of K e b r e n and Birytis, detached f r o m Alexandreia T r o a s ) , established by A n t i o c h o s I or II, both of w h o m were active in north-west Anatolia and T h r a c e ; or Stratonikeia, in south-western Karia, probably founded by A n t i o c h o s II as part of his campaigns west of the M a r s y a s (next section). Others were located along the routes, especially the 'southern route' f r o m T r a l l e i s to northern Syria, via the Kilikian gates 33 in the M a e a n d e r valley (Tralleis, renamed Seleukeia; N y s a , the product of a Seleukid synoikism; Antiocheia on Maeander; Laodikeia on Lykos, Hierapolis, Apameia/Kelainai), and at the start of the central Anatolian segment (Antiocheia near Pisidia; perhaps Apollonia in Pisidia; Seleukeia 'Sidera'; Laodikeia Ivekaumene). Routes branching off this main road also received Seleukid foundations: Apollonia under Salbake on the T a b a i plateau, on the short-cut off the M a e a n d e r valley, up the G e y r e valley, and to the A c i p a y a m plain; A l a b a n d a , renamed or refounded as Antiocheia, at the north end of the M a r s y a s valley; Seleukeia on K a l y k a d n o s , on the road f r o m the coast through R o u g h Kilikia to central Anatolia. 3 4 Exact attribution to w h i c h e v e r of the first three Seleukids is often difficult, in the state of the evidence (because of the brevity of his stay in Anatolia, Seleukos I is unlikely to have been the most active). W h a t is striking is the large n u m b e r of foundations, and their presence in the Anatolian lieux de passage: they constituted visible signs of Seleukid power, expressed though dynastic names, and wrote the Seleukids into the landscape.

Lysimacheia and a king Antiochos must be attributed to the time of Antiochos II (or perhaps I) rather than Antiochos III: Gauthier and Ferrary 1981.
33 S y m e 1995: 3-23 on 'the Royal Road', from the Maeander valley to the east, via the crucial crossroad in Phrygia, near modern A f y o n . T h i s is the route taken b y the T e n T h o u s a n d : X e n . Anab. 1.2.7—21. 34 T h e evidence and the bibliography are gathered and discussed in Cohen 1995; Billows 1995: 145-82 for a general survey.

Other manifestations of Seleukid presence were the structures of state power, w h i c h I will discuss later, drawing on both the earlier evidence and the documents f r o m the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I ( C h . 3). For the present purposes of filling in the background to the prostagma issued by A n t i o c h o s III in 209, it might be e n o u g h to evoke an impression of the structures in Seleukid Asia M i n o r : the governors and their subordinates, the financial officials, the 'bureaucracy' through w h i c h royal orders flowed both vertically to reach subject communities and horizontally between officials, 35 the armies, the fortresses and their commanders; the 'provincial capital' of Sardeis, the world of the ancient Hellenic cities (mostly near the sea), the sanctuaries, the tributary lands stretching f r o m the Hellespont to the Taurus, 3 6 the villages, the cities in the royal land, usually royal foundations; and finally the routes 37 such as the southern highway mentioned above. T h e picture can be capped by the figure of A n t i o c h o s II as he appears in the Boulagoras inscription, m o v i n g up country from the royal residence at Ephesos, on his w a y to the 'provincial capital' of Sardeis, followed by a Samian embassy intent upon reclaiming estates seized by the king's Friends and finally restored to the Samians after a hearing before the king. T h e evidence suggests an increase in intensity and sophistication of these structures under A n t i o c h o s II. His northern activity is reflected in the coinage of some cities in the T r o a d , whose issues of alexanders were replaced by royal Seleukid coinage, in an assertion of royal authority; likewise, L y s i m a c h e i a , allied to A n t i o c h o s I, seems to have been taken over by A n t i o c h o s II, under w h o m the city minted Seleukid tetradrachms. 3 8 T h e same intensification of royal control can be seen in documents recording a sale of royal land to Laodike I (Inschr. Didyma 492, cf. RC 18-20), and attesting to complex forms of Seleukid land-administration (a similar transaction under A n t i o c h o s I, documented in RC 1 0 - 1 3 , allows us to measure the difference). A t Aigai, a boundary-stone records a survey marking out civic territory under A n t i o c h o s II (Herrmann 1959), perhaps implying the same desire to record and clarify the Seleukids' cadastral knowledge of the immense Anatolian province.
For instance, RC 19; royal archives, RC 18, lines 27-8 and RC 19, lines 1 5 - 1 6 . Laffi 1971: pi. 10.2, gives a photograph (June 1970) of the plain near the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi, in Phrygia: the rolling agricultural plain just after the harvest, a wagon heaped high with corn, the small figures of peasants in the landscape, help imagine (without any pretension at rigorous historical ecology) the inland swathe of Seleukid Asia Minor. 37 RC 20, lines 1 0 - 1 1 , proves that there was a distinct category of 'royal roads', όδος
35 36

βασιλική.

38 Seleukid coinage replacing alexanders at Lampsakos, A b y d o s , and Alexandreia T r o a s : L e Rider 1971/2: 234-9. Lysimacheia: Ferrary and Gauthier 1981.

In the context of increasingly active and complex royal control, it comes as no surprise to hear of D i o n , the official in charge of the shrines and their income, appointed under A n t i o c h o s II; nor is it surprising that A n t i o c h o s I I I should seek precedent f r o m the time of his active and successful grandfather (see § 1 ) A n o t h e r aspect of Seleukid Asia M i n o r was the relation between king and city. M o s t of the documentary evidence comes f r o m the cities, w h i c h are at pains to present a positive image. Cities paid honours to the Seleukid king, from physical objects such as the crown and the golden 'hospitality gifts' offered by the Erythraians (RC 15), to more impressive f o r m s — f o r instance, honorific statues (εικόνες), attested at Priene for Seleukos I and A n t i o c h o s I, and at Ilion for (probably) A n t i o c h o s I, in a lavish version: a gilt equestrian image set up in the most visible spot of the temple of Athena Ilias. 39 T h e erection of statues belongs to the idiom of civic honours for benefactors; more intriguing are the quasi-cultic and cultic honours w h i c h acknowledged royal power: the naming of civic subdivisions or of months in the civic calendar after kings, the celebration of festivals in honour of a king or named after h i m (such as the Antiocheia of K o l o p h o n ) and the offering of sacrifices to the king (for instance T e o s for A n t i o c h o s I). 40 A good example is S m y r n a , w h i c h multiplied cultic honours for the Seleukids. M o n t h s received Seleukid names: A n t i o c h e o n , Stratonikeon, and L a o d i k e o n , implying festivals for their namesakes (attested in the case of the Antiocheia). C u l t s are specifically documented for A n t i o c h o s I ('god and saviour'), A n t i o c h o s II, Stratonike (under the title 'Aphrodite Stratonikis': the main civic shrine of A p h r o d i t e now associated a Seleukid queen to the goddess), and Seleukos II. 41 A s in the case of the inscriptions w h i c h record them, these 'honours w o r t h mentioning' (τιμαι αξιόλογοι'. OGIS 22g, line 10) were intended as permanent additions to the civic landscape: the Seleukid months of S m y r n a survived into the imperial period (Robert ig66b: 15). H o n o u r s for the king were part of a dialogue, where the king heard petitions and granted benefactions (as in RC 15), in an atmosphere of mutual goodwill (evvoia: e.g. OGIS 229, lines 5 - 1 o) 42
55 Priene: Inschr. Priene 18, line 86; Ilion: OGIS 219, lines 35-8 (for attribution see A p p e n d i x 1). 40 O n honours for kings, Gauthier 1985 and Price 1984: 25-40. T h e evidence for cultic honours to the Seleukids (after Seleukos I) is discussed by Habicht 1970: 83-5 for Antiochos I at Ilion, and 9 1 - 1 0 5 for the Ionian League ( O G I S 222), Erythrai (probably), T e o s ( C I G 3075) and Miletos (honours for Antiochos II). 41 Habicht 1970: 99-102 (but see Rigsby 1996: 97—9, arguing that the title was a preexisting epithet and not invented to honour the Seleukid queen). 42 O n this theme, in the context of Antiochos I I I , see C h . 4.

T h i s picture of the relations b e t w e e n city and ruler as d i p l o m a c y and cordial reciprocity is of course exactly the image w h i c h the rituals and the d o c u m e n t s of the cities s o u g h t to p u b l i c i z e in p e r m a n e n t f o r m . T h i s is not a reliable source to evaluate the place of the cities w i t h i n the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e and their relation w i t h the kings; H e u s s ' s excessive reliance on the discourse p r o d u c e d b y the cities resulted in his m u c h - c r i t i c i z e d view of royal de iure respect for city a u t o n o m y ( H e u s s 1937). A t the other e x t r e m e , W . O r t h has a p p r o a c h e d the d o c u m e n t s w i t h suspicion, and e n d e a v o u r e d to s h o w h o w the cordial language of h o n o u r s and reciprocity d i s s i m u lated a tense relationship of authoritarianism and s u b j e c t i o n ( O r t h 1977). O r t h ' s treatment is occasionally simplistic and overstated, 4 3 t h o u g h his refusal to take the city d o c u m e n t s at face value is a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y s o u n d starting point, and he has m a n a g e d to dispel the picture of the early S e l e u k i d s as disinterested f r i e n d s of the cities in A s i a M i n o r . B u t the fact that the image of cordiality and b e n e v o l e n c e p r e sented b y the cities is a construct does not m e a n that it s h o u l d be c o n d e m n e d as n o n - f a c t u a l and d e v o i d of interest. W e can still o b s e r v e h o w the S e l e u k i d past was refracted and p r e s e r v e d in m u l t i p l e local histories and traces of royal activity. T h e s e s u b stantiated the S e l e u k i d claims to authority and l e g i t i m a c y : the cities offered the visible f o r m s of m o n u m e n t s and m e m o r i a l rituals, w h i c h a royal interlocutor c o u l d pick out, to resume a dialogue located in c o n t i n u i t y w i t h the past. T h e letter of S e l e u k o s II to the M i l e s i a n s (RC 22) s h o w s h o w the dynastic past c o u l d be used in c o m m u n i c a tion b e t w e e n city and ruler, by linking t h e m e s of royal ideology w i t h local m e m o r i e s , and e v e n local h u m a n agents, the πατρικοί φίλοι to w h o m S e l e u k o s II refers (line 9); c o n v e r s e l y , a city s u c h as Ilion c o u l d e v o k e its h o n o u r s for S e l e u k o s I in a decree for his son, A n t i o c h o s I (OGIS 219, lines 4 6 - 7 ) . S o this, too, w a s S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r : traces of the S e l e u k i d past, local histories w h i c h presented an image of royal b e n e v o l e n c e and civic gratitude in the f o r m of τιμ,αι αξιόλογοι, an image w h i c h in turn c o u l d substantiate present claims and define the p a r a m e t e r s for f u r t h e r r o u n d s of interaction.

43 For instance Orth overinterprets when he reads Inschr. Priene 18 between the lines to produce a story of Prienian discontent manifested through slow implementation of an honorific decree for a Seleukid official (Gauthier 1980).

3. A Seleukid

Past?

T h e preceding section was written f r o m the point of view of Seleukid m e m o r y , in search of a Seleukid Asia M i n o r — a deliberate over-simplification, leaving out the complexities of political history. 4 4 If one does not write solely within the Seleukid claims, it is possible to sketch out a narrative history w h i c h w o u l d have been unpalatable to the Seleukids, since it was essentially a story of their losses. T h e most serious omission is the Ptolemaic presence, w h i c h is also absent f r o m the Polybian descriptions of Achaios' activities: Achaios takes back, then rules over 'all of the land on this side of T a u r u s ' — w i t h no mention of the Ptolemaic empire in Asia Minor. 4 5 H o w and w h e n the Ptolemies gained this dominion is o b s c u r e — perhaps in 281, immediately after Seleukos I was m u r d e r e d — t h e so-called ' W a r of Syrian succession', 4 6 but possibly earlier, during the war between Seleukos I and L y s i m a c h o s , as suggested by epigraphical evidence f r o m Lykia. 4 7 T h i s intriguingly implies that Seleukid presence in L y k i a and Karia was never actualized, but remained virtual, L y s i m a c h a n control being immediately succeeded by Ptolemaic presence; this certainly was the case for Samos. 4 8 A n o t h e r possibility is that Ptolemaic conquest took place in several stages. L y k i a may have become Ptolemaic early on, and Kilikia conquered later, during the First Syrian W a r : a recently published inscription indicates that the Nagidians participated in the foundation of a city named [Antiojcheia, perhaps under A n t i o c h o s I. T h i s dating (on palaeographical grounds) is compatible with the earliest extant evidence for the Ptolemaic presence in Kilikia, the foundation of Arsinoe in the 260s. 49 Two things are established. T h e first is the earliness of the

44 Orth 1977 does not integrate the non-Seleukid elements of the period (for instance, never mentioning the Ptolemies), a serious problem with his final picture. 45 Bagnall 1976: 80-116, 168-75 f ° r Asia Minor; Huss 1976: 188-209, completing Magie 1950: 929 η. 25. T h i s section is heavily indebted to A. Meadows. 46 For a standard account of the 'War of Syrian succession' or 'crise successorale', Will 1979: 139-41, with sources and further references. 47 It is possible that Lykia was already taken over by Ptolemy I in c.295, if Wörrle's dating of a L i m y ran inscription to 288 ('year 36' of Ptolemy I) is correct (Wörrle 1977, cf. SEG 27.929); but M e a d o w s has pointed out to me that one could date this inscription to 247 (year 36 of Ptolemy II), and also reject the dating to Ptolemy I of an A m y z o n i a n inscription (J. and L . Robert 1983: no. 6 ) — i n which case the earliest evidence is a Telmessian decree dated to 282 (Wörrle 1978). 48 Seleukid authority remaining purely virtual at Samos between Lysimachan control and Ptolemaic presence: Habicht 1957: 2 0 9 - 1 1 . I. Stratonikeia 1001 should be dated to Seleukos II rather than Seleukos I (Cohen 1995: 271). 45 Nagidos: Jones and Russell 1993: no. 2; Arsinoe: Jones and Habicht 1989.

Ptolemaic presence in Asia M i n o r , from the late 280s—at the same time as the earliest Seleukid documents. T h e second fact, equally incontrovertible and impressive, is the extent of the Ptolemaic dominions. T h e o c r i t u s could write that Ptolemy II 'gives orders to all the Pamphylians, the Kilikian spearmen, the L y k i a n s , and the warlike Karians' (17.88-9): the encomiastic vision rests on the reality of a majestic overseas empire. It is now clear that the Ptolemaic holdings, far f r o m simply being a string of harbours controlled by sea, stretched inland on all fronts. Ptolemaic Karia included maritime cities such as Iasos, Halikarnassos, M y n d o s , and K a u n o s (and perhaps the Milesian peninsula as well), but also cities further east, such as A m y z o n , E u r o m o s , M y l a s a , and whatever c o m m u n i t y there was on the site of the future Stratonikeia; it is likely that the province of Karia, under its o w n governor (strategos), comprised all of Karia west of the river M a r s y a s (the former Hekatomnid satrapy). 50 In L y k i a , Ptolemaic control, starting from the coastal cities (such as Lissa, T e l m e s s o s , Patara, and Andriake), reached inland to the communities located along the river valleys, for instance along the X a n t h o s (Xanthos, T l o s , Araxa), or the A r y k a n d o s ( L i m y r a , Arykanda). A n epigram f r o m T l o s shows a Ptolemaic general and courtier, N e o p t o l e m o s , beating off an invasion of the X a n t h o s valley. 5 1 T h e one piece of evidence for P a m p h y l i a shows that the authority of the Ptolemaic Παμφνλιάρχης included the city of T e r m e s s o s , some way inland (Robert 1966a: 53-8). For Kilikia, the evidence for Ptolemaic cities on the coast (taken over b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in 197: M a l l o s , Z e p h y r i o n , Soloi, Aphrodisias of Kilikia, K o r y k o s , A n e m o u r i o n , and finally Korakesion, and other nameless castella, L i v . 33.20.4) has been supplemented by two discoveries: an inscription recording an episode in the vicissitudes of a Ptolemaic foundation named Arsinoe, on the coast near N a g i d o s , and a Ptolemaic-held site at M e y d a n c i k Kalesi (about 15 kilometres f r o m the c o a s t ) — c o n trolling the shortest way f r o m Kelenderis even further inland, to
50 Karia: the evidence is gathered b y Magie 1950: 926 η. 2i and 929 n. 25; Bagnall 1976: 89-102; Huss 1976: 193-200; Euromos: Errington 1993: no. 3. T h e strategos of Karia is honoured by the Amyzonians (J. and L . Robert 1983: no. 3) and by the Samians under Ptolemy II (Habicht 1957: 218, no. 57). I owe the observation that Ptolemaic Karia was equivalent to the Hekatomnid satrapy to A . M e a d o w s . 51 T h e evidence is gathered in Bagnall 1976: 105-10 and Huss 1976: 191-3, with Bousquet 1986 providing freshly discovered evidence for Xanthos. T l o s : Robert OMS vii. 531-48, on Neoptolemos, honoured at T l o s for defeating a force of Agrianians, Pisidians, and Galatians; since the Agrianians were traditionally crack Macedonian troops, the people defeated by Neoptolemos must have been a mixed force of mercenaries under Seleukid command (Strobel 1991: 125-6) rather than roving Galatians with allies.

the K a l y k a d n o s valley. 5 2 T h e latter case shows that 'Euergetes' dominion in R o u g h Cilicia constituted a network of places and routes, not merely a string of defensible sites along the coast' (Jones and Habicht 1989: 335): this remark applies to the Ptolemaic empire in Asia M i n o r generally. T h e o c r i t u s spoke of the fleet of P t o l e m y II as well as his 'many horsemen and many shield-bearing soldiers, girt in shining bronze' (17.90-4); prosaically, Polybios mentions the mercenaries stationed in at εξω πόλεις, 'the cities abroad' (5.63.8). T h e overseas dominions formed a defensive system protecting E g y p t : the Ptolemies 'stretched out their arm afar' (μακράν εκτεταχότες τας χείρας, Pol. 5·34·9)· T h e holdings in Asia M i n o r clearly show how deep inland, f r o m an early date onwards, the long arm of the Ptolemies could reach. It is against this background of extended and durable Ptolemaic rule in Asia M i n o r that we should evaluate the Seleukid claims to authority over Asia M i n o r , starting with A n t i o c h o s II and his achievements as conqueror and organizer. 5 3 Ptolemy II reacted to the death of A n t i o c h o s I in 261 BC by attacking the Seleukid empire, as he (possibly) did at the death of Seleukos I. T h e details of the ' S e c o n d Syrian W a r ' fought by A n t i o c h o s II between 261 and c.254, in Syria as well as in Asia M i n o r , are heavily disputed. W h a t is clear is the consequent 'fine Seleukid resurgence'. 5 4 A n t i o c h o s II cut deep into the Ptolemaic possessions, favoured by the revolt of 'Ptolemy the son', the co-regent of Ptolemy II and in high c o m m a n d in Asia Minor. 5 5 Miletos, Ptolemaic since c.280, was 'liberated', after the interlude of an Aitolian adventurer's tyranny, by A n t i o c h o s II, w h o received divine honours f r o m the Milesians. A t the same occasion,

52 Arsinoe: Jones and Habicht 1989: 328-35; Meydancik Kalesi: references at Jones and Habicht 1989: 335 η. 44 (admittedly the evidence is only for occupation under Ptolemy III; the general point of Ptolemaic control reaching inland still holds). 53 Rather than reconstruct an earlier inroad under Antiochos I, on the basis of I. Stratonikeia 1030, a decree from an unnamed community, found at T u r g u t (Lagina) and dated to 268 by Seleukid kings and era, I prefer to assume that the stone is a pierre errante from Seleukid-held eastern Karia ( A p p e n d i x 5, n. 1). 54 Antiochos II and the 'Second Syrian War': Will 1979: 234-43. 55 T h e co-regent, Ptolemy the son, appears in RC 14, line 9 (letter of Ptolemy II to the Milesians); his revolt ( T r o g . Prol. 26) must have taken place after the last known mention of him as co-regent, in April/May 259 ( P C Z 3) (following M e a d o w s per litt., I would date 'Ptolemy of Ephesos' (Athen. 13.593b) to the period of Ptolemy III). Ptolemy the son is also mentioned in a subsequent inscription from Mylasa (Crampa 1969: no. 3; the document does not prove, as Crampa believed, that Ptolemy the son was still alive and active—in Seleukid service—c.240). Gauthier, in BE 95, 523, suggests a mention to Ptolemy the son in an Euromian inscription (Errington 1993: no. 3); contra, Blümel 1996 (arguing that the space is too short for Gauthier's restoration). T h e evidence is summarized, and re-evaluated (somewhat speculatively) in Huss 1998.

n. Byz. the king founded Stratonikeia. Bargylia: Syll. but no longer in the list of lands which Ptolemy I I I inherited from his father ( O G I S 54). and. at the other end of the Marsyas valley. on a site distinguished by its great shrines and its strategic position on important routes (the M a r s y a s valley. made under A n t i o c h o s I I I . and A p p e n d i x 5 of the present work.18. Stratonikeia: Debord 1994. 31 B. contiguous to the Seleukid dominions. Iasos. O l y m p i c h o s .88). whose long career is documented later on. on territory w h i c h may have been taken over by Seleukos I and w h i c h could be construed as legally belonging to the Seleukids. A n t i o c h o s II was a reconqueror: his activities in northern Asia M i n o r and in T h r a c e perhaps show his intention to recover territory once ruled over by Seleukos I. 773-5). perhaps even Iasos and Herakleia (if mentions. was perhaps appointed at this time. T h e Seleukid viewpoint was expressed in terms of rights over 'all of the land b e y o n d the T a u r u s ' . generally. 1. near Stratonikeia ( M a 1997). he must also have controlled A m y z o n (though it then becomes odd that Zeuxis. T h e evidence for attributing to Antiochos II the partial conquest of Western Karia is circumstantial rather than direct (though L e Rider 1990 proposes numismatic evidence for Mylasa. in the south. 57 On Olympichos. Herakleia: documents 26 A . 5 6 Better documented is the advance into the inland Karian province of the Ptolemies. Robert 1983: 149-50: since Olympichos was based in the city of Alinda. Alabanda: Robert 1973. A l a b a n d a was probably renamed Antiocheia as a result of the Karian campaign of A n t i o c h o s II. also BCH 120 (1996). 3. since they are mentioned in T h e o c r i t u s (17. the 'Laudiceni ex Asia' of Liv. in his letter to the Amyzonians in 203 did not mention a Seleukid past: document 5). Seleukos II. A Laodikeia. T h a t the activities of A n t i o c h o s II were a reaction to the Ptolemies is in itself significant. 426 should be dated to Antiochos II rather than Antiochos I (the official Alexandros mentioned there later appears under Seleukos II: Bengtson 1944: 94-110). 4. for Mylasa. Rough Kilikia and Pamphylia were lost to Ptolemy II. 5 7 But the extent of the Seleukid success does not diminish the fact that it was a reaction to Ptolemaic power: a reaction to the Ptolemaic aggression w h i c h started the Second Syrian W a r . of earlier Seleukid dominion do not refer to the blanket claims to Asia M i n o r : above. 56 Samos: SEG 1. . and the route leading eastwards f r o m M y l a s a past M o b o l l a to the T a b a i plateau). 33. the narrative context suggests Antiochos II as founder rather than Antiochos I (Steph. Bargylia. but also. He took Alinda and Mylasa.366. 1. further west. a reaction to the presence in Asia M i n o r of the Ptolemaic empire. he must have taken P a m p h y l i a and Kilikia.he took the Ptolemaic base of Samos. leading f r o m the M a e a n d e r plain southwards. see C r a m p a 1969: nos. T h e Seleukid governor of the region. and L . J. once a Ptolemaic city).3. seems like a further Seleukid implantation in the region. a large portion of w h i c h passed to Seleukid control (as is attested under the successor of Antiochos II. section i).): see further A p p e n d i x 5.

obvious in the appointment of N i k a n o r . his grandfather. power. the Brothers' W a r . 4. is an admission of the Seleukid losses. the prostagma. T h e need. . is in itself significant: either there was no clear trace of Seleukid practice in those intervening years. T h e events themselves are badly d o c u m e n t e d . But the Ptolemies controlled a sizeable portion. or the losses deprived the c i s . Seleukid Collapse in Anatolia Perhaps A n t i o c h o s I I I drew general inspiration f r o m A n t i o c h o s II. A t any rate. But there was another. to the history of the Seleukid Anatolian dominion. but the dynastic conflict provided the opportunity for interss Bagnall 1976. as the epigraphical material amply shows. hence the reference to precedent f r o m the time of A n t i o c h o s II. we n o w know) by a Ptolemaic princess. and that traces of Seleukid presence could be found in various forms.shading into a belief in continuity of control. taken simultaneously to the Seleukid conquest of L y s i m a c h o s ' empire.T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r was in Seleukid hands. f r o m the start. so that it is difficult to produce a sequence for the major developments (chronology is especially insecure): the Laodikeian W a r . (re)conqueror and administrator. the T h i r d Syrian W a r . at least initially. a dynastic conflict within the Seleukid empire. took the same forms as the Seleukid empire (administration and exaction) 5 8 and left the same traces of dynastic euergetism. or perhaps A n t i o c h o s I I I chose not to acknowledge or mention the arrangements taken by the usurper. A n t i o c h o s Hierax. m u c h simpler reason. through its attempt at denial. w h i c h . in the appointment of Nikanor. on his death in 246: his baby son (named Antiochos. Laodike I. It is true that the greater part of c i s . Jones and Habicht 1989.T a u r i c office of any meaning. between two claimants to the succession of A n t i o c h o s II. to refer back to a past of strong rule located before this confused period of losses. T h e years between the death of A n t i o c h o s II (246 BC) and the accession of A n t i o c h o s III (223 BC) saw the collapse of Seleukid power in Asia M i n o r . T h e first Seleukid reverses took place between 246 and 241. and history were confronted by the continuous challenge of the Ptolemaic possessions. and Seleukos. and the successes of Attalos I. Seleukos (II) prevailed. T h e history of the Ptolemaic overseas holdings runs parallel. his son by an earlier wife. Seleukid claims about geography. through a combination of intra-dynastic conflict and external wars. later divorced. Berenike. T h e Laodikeian W a r was.

64 For R o u g h Kilikia. a letter of Seleukos II to Miletos (RC 22).vention by Ptolemy I I I — t h e ' T h i r d Syrian W a r ' . reproduced as SEG 42. the actual rewards were the result of petitions by the local c o m m u n i t y . though the actual decision is lost (leaving only the dynastic rhetoric). Priene 59 Sources in Magie 1950: 736 η.6 = FGrHist 260 F 43. the ravages of the same w a r 6 0 — y e t also brings out. Telmessos: OGIS 55. and the Meydancik Kalesi site. exemption f r o m tribute and the restoration of 'ancestral' land ( O G I S 228 and 229. 22. S m y r n a received recognition of asylia. lines 10-12). Mylasa also received liberty at this time (Crampa 1969: 82—3). 6 4 in Ionia. a grant of autonomia. Justin's attention to the cities' behaviour shows the importance of local support. Ephesos. Divorce: Jer. Kildara was rewarded for good behaviour by the Ptolemaic official T l e p o l e m o s (Blümel 1992. 6 3 Ptolemy I I I cancelled out the (re)conquests of A n t i o c h o s II in Kilikia and Pamphylia (though probably not in Karia). 61 A n echo of this fact is preserved in Justin 27. Will 1979: 259-61. 528). Similarly. taking over Magnesia on Maeander. and Samos. In Dan. 31. and the Aegean. E v e n more spectacular were the conquests in Asia M i n o r . 5.994) reveals that Berenike's son was named (unsurprisingly) Antiochos. with G a u t h i e r in BE 94. the war affected the local c o m m u n i t i e s — t w o cities on opposing sides ( S m y r n a in the Seleukid camp and T e l m e s s o s on the Ptolemaic) could mention. probably concerned an analogous grant. 6 2 N o t all of his gains in this region were short-lived: Seleukeia in Pieria was kept by the Ptolemies down to 218 (Pol. the most important evidence comes from the recently published inscription from Arsinoe (Jones and Habicht 1989). of w h i c h Ptolemy I I I boasted (OGIS 54. 11. T h e land sale recorded in RC 18-20 is probably part of a divorce settlement.10). acting on its awareness of its master's need for its collaboration. OGIS 229 does not mention a 'siege of S m y r n a ' (Elwyn 1990: 179). . An inscription from Kildara in Karia (Blümel 1992. line 10. Ptolemy III made inroads into the Syrian and M e s o p o t a m i a n heartland of the Seleukid empire (a fragment of his report survives). lines 3-5 . In many of these cases. but merely the ravaging of the city territory (as common an occurrence in Hellenistic as in Classical warfare). the report of Ptolemy III (the famous G o u r o b papyrus) in FGrHist 160. in decrees. w h i c h took place in Syria. w h o describes 'all the cities of Asia' supporting first Berenike. Mesopotamia. the importance of the local communities' collaboration w i t h the Hellenistic empires. to the m o d e r n observer. 63 Magie 1950: 936 η. 5 9 T w o features are important. and extended Ptolemaic control into Seleukid territory. 6 1 T h e documentary record shows Seleukos' willingness to ensure the cities' loyalty by benefactions. and the latter's need for local loyalty. with Ilolleaux 1942: 281-310. First. lines 14-15). he retook Miletos. 61 Justin 27 for the course of the war. then Seleukos II. 60 Smyrna: OGIS 229. T h e second feature is the vast Ptolemaic gain by the end of the war.58. even if this account is too schematic.

at Lysimacheia (Ferrary and Gauthier 1981: 343) and at Sardeis ( L e Rider 1972/3: 251-2. et à Ephèse. and finally in Karia (OGIS 275. Eusebius (preserving P o r p h y r y : FGrHist 260 F 32. 8). OMS iv. striking his o w n coinage. S o m e of these territorial gains were perhaps made during the troubled period of the Brothers' War or the conflict with Attalos I. in Hellespontine Phrygia. 278. K o l o p h o n . Maroneia: the decrees for Hippomedon. Samos: SEG 1. on the south coast of Propontis.8. Ainos: a decree professes concern for the well-being of Ptolemy III and his family.(perhaps). 280). which implies Ptolemaic occupation (Herzog and Klaffenbach 1952. strategos of T h r a c e and Epinikos. Lebedos: Inschr. the first scholarly editor of the inscription. L e b e d o s (renamed Ptolemais). 280. defeating Seleukos II before A n k y r a . the H a w k ) . no.and L . 267 (correct 'Philadelphe' to 'Evergète'). A b y d o s . 149. T e o s : apart from the Kolophonian decree mentioned above. 183-4). celebrating his victories in a triumphal m o n u m e n t (the famous 'long base'.2. with the help of Galatian mercenaries. Parion (Le Rider 1971/2: 232—8). Cohen 1995: 157-9 (with bibliography). 6 7 A t some point. with its inscriptions and the sculpture it once supported). H i e r a x turned against Seleukos II. but beyond them. republished b y Gauthier 1979.366. and hence implying Ptolemaic control not just at the Straits. Magnesia 53. son of Ptolemy III. are cautious about identifying the Hippomedon honoured at Priapos with the Ptolemaic governor. and T h r a c e show clear evidence for Ptolemaic structures of control. Prol. an unpublished T e i a n inscription found by the Roberts mentions Ptolemaic queens: OMS iv. J.8) gives the date of 229/8 for K o l o e and 228/7 f ° r the battle in Karia. Galatian mercenaries in Justin 27. based on M o r k h o l m 1969). Priene: Inschr. seceded f r o m Seleukid authority and. A n t i o c h o s Hierax ruled in Asia M i n o r as an independent king.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . 6 6 T h e next phase of Anatolian warfare brought even graver reverses for the Seleukids. the Hellespont. 61 Will 1979: 294-6 (based on the chronology of Bickerman 1943/4).1256 (both Çahin. w h i c h give us the locations of these battles: at the A p h r o d i s i o n near Pergamon. and possibly even at Priapos. line 153 mentions a Ptolemaic official. à notre avis. at Maroneia and Ainos. and Gauthier in BE 87. as a result of his victory in the Brothers' W a r .8). and hence about the dating to Ptolemy III). Larisa (refounded as Ptolemais). Ankyra: T r o g . Priene 37. et aussi. worsted in 65 Magnesia on Maeander: FGrHist 260 F 32. after being appointed over c i s . Robert 1989: 53 η. comme à Lebedos. Lampsakos. resisted attempts to subdue him. Ephesos was in Ptolemaic hands during the Brothers' War (FGrHist 260 F 32. à T é o s ' (Robert. at a place called K o l o e in L y d i a . certainly. Hierax's coinage is documented in the T r o a d . . 279. found at Klaros. Hierax and his Galatian allies attacked Attalos I — w i t h disastrous results. and perhaps Teos. to Asia M i n o r against Seleukos II or I I I (Huss 1977) indicates close attention to Asia M i n o r after the truce of 241/0. T h e battle at Ankyra perhaps implies an invasion of Galatia by Seleukos II. 27. T h e y o u n g e r brother (and co-regent?) of Seleukos II. at Ilion. Alexandreia T r o a s . attests 'une occupation lagide à Colophon. 6 5 T h e T r o a d . Attalos I defeated Hierax repeatedly. 66 Larisa: Robert 1987: 281-95. A n t i o c h o s (nicknamed Hierax. the dispatch of Magas. Priapos: SEG 34. Kolophon: an unpublished decree for a Ptolemaic official. line 79: Πτολεμαίος ol ττρότίρον καλούμενοι Λeß(8ioi. the governor of Maroneia.

since c. 7 0 63 D i f f e r e n t solutions in B i c k e r m a n 1943/4 (high dating for B r o t h e r s ' W a r . i m m e d i ately f o l l o w e d b y attack on A t t a l o s I). it has been argued that the Brothers' W a r broke out later. i.9 .228. S m y r n a presumably became a free 'ally'. 5 . f o l l o w i n g Beloch 1927: 5 4 1 . T h e cities of the T r o a d probably became 'allies' of Attalos I. a clear statement that these cities had been A t t a l i d p r e v i o u s l y . Since T e o s and K o l o p h o n had been taken over by P t o l e m y I I I in the aftermath of the L a o d i k e i a n W a r . w h i c h w e r e taken over 'on the same agreements (συνθήκαι) as f o r m e r l y ' . Prol. b u t at that stage H i e r a x was p r o b a b l y already an adventurer w i t h o u t a k i n g d o m . 44 ( A E 1940.3) or Galatians ( T r a g u s . Allen 1983: 35. even though Attalos I did take over the vast majority of Seleukid possessions in Asia M i n o r . as H i e r a x was on his w a y to T h r a c e . until H i e r a x attacked the Attalid k i n g d o m c.e. the picture in Polybios is certainly exaggerated. 68 For the present purpose. S m y r n a . though S c h w e r t h e i m 1988: 73 suggests Attalos II). the same assumption m u s t be m a d e for the other cities.7): 'Attalos had subjected to himself all of the dynasteia of the land on this side of the T a u r u s ' .230.48. Both the Brothers' W a r and Attalos' victories are badly documented. in the late 230s. as well as T e o s and K o l o p h o n . followed by several years of calm. W e n o w k n o w that the date of A t t a l o s ' control of the site of A i z a n o i is n o t c .239 BC. . 2 1 6 (as had been suggested b y H a b i c h t 1956: 93-4): see C h . and Ilion are m e n t i o n e d as faithful allies. then Prousias I — p r e s u m a b l y A t t a l o s I.8 : in 218. A t t a l o s I exploited the absence of A c h a i o s to embark in a c a m p a i g n of reconquest: K y m e . Phokaia. or regained their independence). 27). before meeting a violent end at the hands of bandits (Justin 27. A n inscription f r o m the city of Aizanoi. alternatively. T h e absolute chronology and the relation between the two sets of events remain obscure: one solution is to locate the Brothers' W a r c. in Phrygia. and on T e o s and K o l o p h o n . though it is also possible that Hierax's attack took place earlier. in parallel to the war between Hierax and Attalos I. T e m n o s are n a m e d . 2 § 1. he took to flight. 44). this document preserves a trace of Attalos' conquest of the Seleukid hinterland. with the related epigraphical dossier f r o m the temple of Z e u s itself. the Pergamene victory m o n u m e n t s celebrate achievement and completion. and not yet elucidated by new epigraphical discoveries. L a m p s a k o s . it seems that A t t a l o s I took these cities f r o m the P t o l e m i e s (unless they had in the m e a n t i m e fallen to S e l e u k o s II or Hierax. also republished. A l l e n 1983: 1 9 5 . in a geographical progression w h i c h took over the inland masses of Seleukid Asia M i n o r . 6 9 T h e outcome is described by P o l y b i o s (4. it is better to focus on the suggestive location of the battles between Attalos I and Hierax: Attalos I drove Hierax southwards. believes that the battle in H e l l e s p o n t i n e P h r y g i a occurred after the others. no. first p u b l i s h e d (non vidi) in Bolletino del Museo dell'Impero Romano 9 (1938).M e s o p o t a m i a . H o w ever.3 for a low dating of the B r o t h e r s ' W a r . 70 Pol. A l e x a n d r e i a T r o a s . soon after the end of the Brothers' W a r . 7 7 . 65 T h e inscription (a letter of H a d r i a n reconfirming a Hellenistic donation by ' A t t a l o s ' . in L a f f i 1 9 7 1 . more direct rule was imposed on the cities of Aiolis. records a land donation by Attalos I to the city and to its shrine of Zeus: rather than reflecting Attalid advances around 216. A i g a i .

O n D o s o n ' s Karian expedition. the former Seleukid governor over parts of western Karia under Seleukos II. . king of M a c e d o n . disputed by Price 1991: 321. " O n O l y m p i c h o s as Antigonid official. as 'autonomous' city under the Attalids. but to R h o d e s (I. 73 T h e " Seyrig 1986: 39-42. A n t i g o n o s D o s o n . One possibility is that local powers (such as individual cities. since the Sardeis mint struck coins of Seleukos II. because of the presence of a Sardian alexander in mint condition in a hoard of Larisa dated to the 160s (but Price admits difficulties with this dating. w h o assigns the coinage to the 180s. T h e latter mounted a seaborne expedition to Karia. B y the time of his conflict with Iasos (c. argues that Miletos stayed under the Ptolemies. since after 188. Inschr. and it even seems that Seleukos II managed to recover some measure of control. the Iasians did not appeal to a P t o l e m y for help. Iasos 150. Sardeis soon escaped Seleukid authority (at the beginning of the reign of Seleukos III): the former Seleukid capital may even have struck its o w n coinage after 226.215).In contrast. he had become a subordinate official of Philip V . 72 T h e Iasian document illustrates two further developments in the years after the fall of Hierax. and outcome remain a mystery. n Haussoullier 1902: 137-49. w h o had inherited authority over parts of Karia f r o m his predecessor. Pergamon 36) might have taken place against Seleukos II rather than Seleukos III (as usually asserted). T h e battles w h i c h Attalos I fought against 'Seleukos' and his generals (OGIS 277. T h e dynast w h o invaded the Iasians' territory was O l y m p i c h o s . L e Bohec 1993: 327-49 (dating. in the early years of D o s o n ' s reign (probably a single campaigning season by the king himself. But the Seleukid hold over Asia M i n o r was shattered. for detailed argument. there are no traces of Attalid presence in Karia. Robert 1983: 147-9. Nonetheless. in 227 or 226 or 225). execution. such a development was made possible by the disintegration of Seleukid power (or more accurately of Hierax's kingdom) in Asia M i n o r and the subsequent confusion. though with considerable autonomy. motivation: anti-Attalid position of Olympichos). or even O l y m p i c h o s ) appealed to A n t i g o n o s D o s o n for assistance against Attalos I. also M e a d o w s 1996 for a new edition and historical considerations. Magnesia on Maeander: none of the royal letters acknowledging the asylia of the temple of Artemis Leukophryene (RC 31-4) implies control over the city. 361 (assessment). Its rationale. Iasos seems to have been free f r o m Ptolemaic control around 215: w h e n faced with incursions f r o m a local dynast. Will 1979: 366-71 with attempts at interpretation. 7 1 O t h e r cities asserted and preserved genuine independence: Magnesia on M a e a n d e r and Miletos were possibly independent (under nominal Ptolemaic authority?). reflecting Seleukid efforts late in the reign of Seleukos II. Iasos 150). Iasos: I. Sardeis was an Attalid city and a cistophoric mint).

for I. at the beginning of Rhodian rule. or for Ptolemaic 7< See M e a d o w s 1996. the local communities of Asia M i n o r are passive objects of conquest: ut quisque fortior fuisset. the incident should be dated in the period of confusion caused by the war between Hierax and Attalos I ( S E G 44. . a striking example is the plight of the T e i a n s . f r o m the T r o a d to Karia. the result was clear: the dissolution of the Seleukid c i s . Against the narrative background. we turn to the documentary evidence f r o m the subject communities. in rejecting the dynastic name to become 'Trallians' again.366) provides evidence for A n t i o c h o s II and Seleukid rule in Asia M i n o r . Frustrated by the deficiency of the narrative sources. and. G o n e were the inland provinces and all of the coastal holdings with their cities. were committing a political act w h i c h affected their o w n history and identity. this must reflect the disappearance of Seleukid overlordship. But the period also saw local vitality. if a recently published Milesian citizenship grant to a Trallian dates f r o m the 220s ( G ü n t h e r 1988). Erythrai. referred to earlier.3). Iasos 150 is the earliest evidence for wider Rhodian involvement in the rest of Karia. T h a t the wars of the years 246-226 BC inflicted sufferings on the cities is obvious: apart f r o m the cases of S m y r n a and T e l m e s s o s . the Seleukeia in parallel with the Dionysia (Habicht 1970: 85). 27. powerless to resist an attack by pirates. after the T r e a t y of A p a m e i a (188).T a u r i c dominion. I. yet persistent. T h e s e interests w o u l d become more prominent by the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I .949).other feature w h i c h the Iasian inscription illustrates is the Rhodian influence in Karia. D o c u m e n t 48 illustrates the reactions of one Karian community. they culminated in twenty years of rule over K a r i a (along with L y k i a ) . Asiam velut praedam occupabat (Just. we can reconsider the documents produced by the local communities in the context of their o w n history. whatever the circumstances. ceased to celebrate a cultic festival c o m m e m o r a t i n g Seleukos I. and use this material to write the history of super-power conflict. T h e citizens of Seleukeia. F r o m this perspective. though the exact circumstances are unclear. T h e case of the T r a l l i a n s is instructive. T h e signs of the Seleukid presence could be erased w i t h ease. w h o exacted a tithe on all the citizens' property: in m y opinion. at some point in the very late third century. Rhodian interest in Karia. T h e Boulagoras inscription ( S E G 1. ' 4 By the accession of A n t i o c h o s I I I . Iasos 150 as evidence for early. Apollonia under Salbake. R h o d e s already o w n e d territory on the mainland (the 'Integrated Peraia') as well as a subject dominion on the mainland (the ' S u b j e c t Peraia'). T h e citizens of Seleukeia/Tralleis may have reverted to calling themselves Τραλλιανοί.

a generation later. 76 Lampsakos. 7 6 S m y r n a is particularly interesting. beyond condemnation. such as public trials. and royal sponsorship of its main temple's asylia. But we can also shift our viewpoint. S o o n afterwards. Alexandreia Troas: L e Rider 1971/2: 234. they p r o m p t l y reannexed the latter as soon as Ptolemaic control disappeared. w h e n Seleukid power collapsed in the N o r t h . w h e n it functioned as a mint for A n t i o c h o s I and A n t i o c h o s II. and had to be placated w h e n Arsinoe was refounded. . its troubles and its relations with different masters (and also. the S m y r n i a n s struck an 'agreement' with the military colonists at Magnesia under S i p y l o s ( O G I S 229). 7 5 In the vicissitudes of the conflicts between the superpowers.reconquests in the Laodikeian W a r — a reading w h i c h looks away f r o m S a m o s to superpower conflict. 238—9. In the crisis of the Laodikeian W a r . T h e transaction is suffused with the language of loyalty towards the interests of 71 See further Chaniotis 1993. to look at the Boulagoras inscription in its local context: this inscription documents the experience of one city. reabsorbed by N a g i d o s w h e n Kilikia fell to A n t i o c h o s II. by the face-saving solution of having the newfoundation designated as a 'colony' of Nagidos. education. in exchange for evvoia during the war ( O G I S 228. religion. Even more striking is the case of Arsinoe in Kilikia (Jones and H a b i c h t 1989). then recreated under Ptolemy I I I — b y the son of the original founder. importantly. S m y r n a seized the opportunity to demand privileges f r o m Seleukos II. and corn supply). § 2). a city founded by a general of Ptolemy II. shortly after the cordial dealings documented in RC 22 (Seleukos II responded w a r m l y to an embassy and probably granted a petition for the asylia of the D i d y m e i o n ) . the Milesians defected f r o m the Seleukid cause to Ptolemy I I I . analysing the Ptolemaic power's attempts at saving face for all parties involved. w e must be aware of the resilience of the cities. and might assert themselves as actors in their o w n history. Miletos alternated between Seleukid and Ptolemaic control.W e s t : a solid golden bit of city-state pride. T h e behaviour of the Nagidians deserves attention: despoiled of part of their territory for the Ptolemaic foundation. It had a past under Seleukid control. the cities preserved their identities. and offered cultic honours to the early Seleukids (above. exemption f r o m taxes. T h e city received autonomy. Welles c o m m e n t e d w r y l y on the lack of gratitude of the Milesians. and in spite of the varying degrees of royal control. C i v i c resilience and identity are e m b o d i e d in the exceptional issue of gold staters w h i c h L a m p s a k o s and Alexandreia T r o a s struck to celebrate their newly found independence. around 226. 229). the continuity of its o w n concerns and activities.

and hand over a royal fort to the S m y r n i a n s . Indeed. some under Philip V . Sulpicius Galba's History Lesson In 193. because they illustrate two related features: the local survival of civic identity and values. the resistance of these cities w o u l d play an important part in Antiochos' worsening relations with Rome. at w h a t w o u l d turn out to be the last conference between the R o m a n s and the Seleukids before war. Austin 1981: 302 n. some of w h i c h had been under the Ptolemies. 5. M i n n i o n restated Antiochos' claims over the cities of Ionia and Aiolis. to extend the city's territory into Lydia: the Seleukid colonists are to become S m y r n i a n citizens. L a m p s a k o s . E l w y n 1990. 2 § 5). T h e cases of S m y r n a . the brutally frank P. but the agenda was the local interests of S m y r n a . T h e s e individual stories form the prehistory to the difficulties w h i c h A n t i o c h o s I I I had with these particular cities. by 197 could resist A n t i o c h o s I I I . the possibility of rapid 'deprovincialisation'. 'conquered by his ancestors and made to pay tribute and taxes'. and some of w h i c h had become independent (alias earum in Philippi. " It is likely that the attempt ultimately did not work.Seleukos II. Sulpicius Galba (consul in 211 and 200). by pointing out that the Seleukids had not enjoyed continuous power over the cities of Asia. P. w h e n they resisted his attempts at reconquest in 196 (see Introduction and C h . . admit a S m y r n i a n magistrate. In effect. alias per multos annos nnllo ambigente libertatem 77 On the date of OGIS 229. w h i c h paid such handsome honours to the early Seleukids. nonetheless. especially as a m e d i u m of communication with the soldiers and colonists. w h i c h A n t i o c h o s had simply restored to their former status. the S m y r n i a n s try to carry out the take-over of a royal military colony. in the name of a civic ideology of true independence ( L i v . One of the R o m a n envoys. 33. challenged this claim. 10: 'under a profession of loyalty to Seleucus II the city is in effect extending its influence'. alias in Ptolomaei fuisse potestate. S m y r n a . and S m y r n a w o u l d fight on the side of the R o m a n s and Rhodians against A n t i o c h o s I I I — o n the w i n n i n g side.38). even after decades of provincial control by the Seleukids. the resourcefulness of the S m y r n i a n s in exploiting the language of loyalty to the royal power to pursue local interests shows that in the Hellenistic polis utterances of loyalty need not imply 'internal surrender' or the loss of civic values through 'toadying'. w h i c h reappeared after half a century of Seleukid domination. and Alexandreia T r o a s are important.

1 7 . MRR 272. (Also Hornblower 1985: 317 η. 1 6 . 8 0 It is hard not to detect a note of aggressive anxiety in the insistence on ancestral rights and the unique status of the Seleukids 78 P. with a curt ' N o long speeches'.4. O n the other hand. Παϋσαι των πολλών. since Philip had expressly given up these places by treaty. and T h e s s a l y is debatable.7-8) refers both to historical rights and to the forcible έγκτησις b y Antiochos III.usurpasse).4-6: the Seleukid envoy Hegesianax of Alexandreia T r o a s describes the conquests of Antiochos III under a variety of headings. as parla (acquired.58.'* Sulpicius G a l b a ' s history lesson m i g h t be challenged on particulars. in spite of their original ktesis: the arbitration of Lysimachos seems to have favoured length of occupation. T h i s was the result w h i c h A n t i o c h o s I I I himself. 208-9): in the Fourth Syrian War. G a l b a then introduced embassies f r o m the cities themselves: 'a very great n u m b e r was admitted. and mingled the just with the unjust. Conference at Ephesos in 193: L i v .52. whereas the Seleukids never renounced their claims to Asia M i n o r (Bickermann 1932a: 53).\ Pol. Chalkis. T h e legal validity of the Seleukid claims does not cancel out this history.1. Nonetheless.20. also M e h l 1980/1: 212. Nachtrag 2. Antiochos I V reflects that ktesis through war is the safest and the finest. Sulpicius: 34.1-2 for outspokenness. in addition. but disputed over the contents of the convention between the victors of Ipsos. and hence (Pol. the legal situation is ambiguous. Demetrias. and as each bought forth complaints alongside requests. 18.4: concerning Koile-Syria. 8 for disagreement with M e h l 1980/1). confronted with the assertive. Sulpicius' general argument is right. For instance. 323. . especially for the Ptolemies (197-205. since there are examples where length of occupation constituted grounds for o w n e r s h i p ' 9 — t h e Seleukids themselves sometimes considered mere armed takeover as creating rights to property. 3 5 . 79 M e h l 1980/1: 205-6 on RC 7: the Prienians do not get the Batinetis. his view that to admit the validity of Seleukid claims w o u l d be to allow Philip V to reclaim C o r i n t h . with its competing super-powers and its latter phase of Seleukid collapse. by cutting d o w n on the speeches of the envoys f r o m L a m p s a k o s and S m y r n a . 28. 28. they turned the debate into a quarrel' (ex disceptatione altercationem fecerunt). w h i c h underlay ways of referring to the region. the Ptolemaic envoys did not contest the principle of 'victors' rights'. ' N o long speeches': Pol. 80 Liv. and overdetermines Antiochos' right to them.59. multiple voices issuing f r o m the cities as independent actors—a direct reflection of the palimpsestic history of the region. M e h l minimizes the importance of Speererwerb. generally. taken over) as well as recuperata. T h e unitary Seleukid claim to historical rights over all of Asia M i n o r broke down. or the roster of Seleukid setbacks f r o m 246 to 223. had prevented at the conference at L y s i m a c h e i a . more skilful or more arrogant. T h e grand Seleukid claims to Asia M i n o r . should be confronted w i t h other narratives—the history of the Ptolemaic empire in Asia M i n o r . 34.

the exaction of arrears symbolically establishes the crucial element of continuity whose absence Sulpicius Galba so priggishly denounced. 8 1 Belief in ancestral rights since K o u r o u p e d i o n allowed the Seleukids to ignore the intervening events. once A n t i o c h o s III had re-established Seleukid power. representing his actions within a history w h i c h reinterpreted the humiliating events of the third century.as possessors of such rights.23. . A n t i o c h o s I I I contrasted his activities in T h r a c e . A t L y s i m a c h e i a . rather than the history lesson given by P. the same logic informs A n t i o c h o s ' reclaiming of tribute arrears f r o m the cities of Asia M i n o r (Diod. he could look back on the troubled past as an accident. and to speak as if Seleukid authority pertained. by virtue of selective m e m o r y and skewed geographical perspectives: Achaios could be described as holding authority over all of c i s . built around the premiss of the historical rights enjoyed by A n t i o c h o s III in Asia M i n o r . a 'story-line' or intrigue (Veyne 1978: 35-42). of his success in reasserting these rights. furthermore. in other words. the figure w h o casually refers to the Seleukid losses as the result of 'distractions' is a Polybian creation.4). the historical claims could legitimize the process of conquest. and also abolishes any interruption. Sulpicius Galba at E p h e s o s in 193. exploiting the distractions (περισπασμοι) of his ancestors. T h i s action asserts continuity of authority in spite of interruptions. but in that it presented an authoritative discourse that enabled forms of power. with Lewis 1977: 97. or happy ending. not in that it was a total fabrication.5.5. and the telos. 8. for the Sassanian dream of 'reimposing' tribute on the lands which had once paid it to the Achaimenids. in order to reclaim the past. 8. w o u l d turn out to be valid. and abolish it by demanding tribute arrears.51). W h e t h e r this story-line. H e was not taking advantage of Philip's troubles to take over his T h r a c i a n possessions. w o u l d be determined by the balance of power and the outcome of warfare. 2 8 . O f course. since he was recovering his o w n (Pol. Fowden 1993: 29-30. 1 5 . it acted as a ' m y t h ' . T h e Seleukid past played a crucial role in the definition of present successes and past humiliations.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . and Nikanor could be appointed to a supreme priestly dignity over the whole region. 2 ) — a s he did with X e r x e s of A r m e n i a (Pol. T h e Seleukid version is a selective arrangement of facts into a meaningful relationship. But the attitude found in Polybios' A n t i o c h o s can be matched with the documentary evidence. 81 Parallels can be found in T h u c . C o n v e r s e l y . natural and just ( r e c o v e r i n g — άνακτάσθαι—what was rightfully his) w i t h the opportunistic grasping of P t o l e m y I I I or Philip V . 18. Antiochos rewrote the past.

over a fantastic distance. that A n t i o c h o s I 'left his . Brown 1961. . the stele directs attention to the history of A n t i o c h o s I I I as one of military m o v e m e n t s across the Seleukid empire: Asia M i n o r 'on the other side' of the T a u r u s . A Babylonian diary records. son of Apollophanes. f r o m the H i n d u K u s h to T h r a c e .58.1 9 6 . or the activity in 204-203. of Seleukeia in Pieria'. the w e l l . 5 For a parallel for restless campaigning as a demonstration of royal success (baraka) in traditional Moroccan kingship: Geertz 1993: 134-42. 5. this makes a lower date difficult. . Apollophanes was already physician to Seleukos II (regn. in ancient north-eastern L y d i a . passed though north-eastern L y d i a or close enough to concern an officer stationed t h e r e — b u t w h e n did this take place? Perhaps during Antiochos' campaign in 2 1 6 . line 2. 3 § 2). O n dating. was ό άπολζλειμμενος ύπο τον βασιλέως Άντιόχον επι τών επιτάδε τον Τανρον πραγμάτων. or a march to T h r a c e . no doubt at Antiochos' side. 'in gratitude for the safety of Apollophanes. Antiochos' movements. 3 T h e king constructed the empire in the wake of his campaigning. 1 T h e inference is that Apollophanes. on his return from his eastern expedition. Arkesilaos. the eastern satrapies.T a u r i c Asia. or the campaign of 1 9 7 . 'the official left in charge of affairs on this side of the T a u r u s ' (see C h . to strengthen the guard'. 246—226 BC): SEG 33. w h i c h swept f r o m Syria to the Straits. for the year 274. erected by a Seleukid officer.56. Pol.R o m a n War. were dedicated to the violent reimposition of c o n t r o l — a n d the stele f r o m G ö r d e s . a 'First D o c u m e n t 39. 5.673. Syria and K o i l e . the governor of c i s . 2 By its very chronological incertitude. m u c h later.C H A P T E R 2 T h e R e c o n q u e s t of Asia M i n o r : A Narrative (226-192) A stele found at m o d e r n G ö r d e s . T h e full title of Zeuxis. However.2 1 3 B C t o subdue the usurper Achaios. his wife and a famous official in the land Sardeis. preserves the dedication of a Seleukid ήγεμών. belongs to this geography of war. 1 2 .. or even the S e l e u k i d . Herrmann 1970: 95—7.S y r i a (tabulated in S c h m i t t 1964: 85).d o c u m e n t e d physician of A n t i o c h o s I I I .

. f r o m a family closely Seleukids and with a past of imperial service. 6 J. locally and internationally (§ 5).20. 56: gaps in the epigraphical record at A m y z o n . and L . 7 Family ties with Antiochos III: Schmitt 1964: 30-1. the processes of conquest and imperial control w h i c h the cities experienced at their expense. It is worth laying out what we know of A n t i o c h o s ' campaigns. as he is described in a dedication found at Acre. 4. the narrative provides the necessary context for the documents produced by the c i t i e s — n a m e l y . First. then seceded f r o m 4 Zeuxis: document 29. T h e process is the more interesting for the difficulties and the resistance it met with. the narrative of these campaigns brings the historical geography of Asia M i n o r to the forefront. 2 for comment and further examples. for several reasons. in his movements. Babylonian calendar: Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. Acre: Landau 1961.5 1. over twenty-six years (223—197). new epigraphical discoveries have modified the standard picture (Schmitt 1964. 5 T h e officer Arkesilaos. But Asia M i n o r was the focus for repeated efforts to assert control. 5 Bengtson 1937: 19 n.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . ι. Finally. 4 T h e king. -273. Even though our knowledge is lacunose. B. 93.' Achaios governor for c i s . or define more sharply the schedule of events.Friend' of A n t i o c h o s V I I was άπολελειμμενος 8è καΐ èirl των τόπων. 6 w e can now rewrite some areas. Robert 1983: 53 n. cousin of A n t i o c h o s I I I .4 and 8. W i l l 1982). one of the better-documented sites. A n t i o c h o s I I I moved f r o m one zone of his empire to another. his last campaign took him away f r o m his defeat in Asia M i n o r . rev. appointed governors and left them at their posts: the participle άπολελειμμενος represents the king's absent authority and his having-been-there. Achaios (223-213 BC) place under linked to the first acted as the Seleukid T h e first stage in the reconquest of Asia M i n o r took A c h a i o s . line 29. Cousin of Antiochos III: Pol.11. 'also left as governor of the area'. but Schmitt and Meloni argued convincingly against Beloch's view. was also 'left behind' at his post (a garrison? a 'military colony'?) by the king. alternating his focus of attention. held that Achaios must have been uncle and not cousin to Antiochos III (followed by Billows 1995: 96-9). 3-5. within this framework. the narrative portrays the constitution of an imperial space through administrative and ideological structures (§ 4). w h o dedicated the G ö r d e s inscription. Second. Bengtson 1944: 102 on provincial office as representation of an absent ruler. Beloch 1927: 205-6. back to the eastern provinces (where he met a violent death). . no doubt during one of his campaigns. Meloni 1949: 536-7.

and. a high-ranking Seleukid officer. Andromachos (Achaios' father) was captured and sent to Alexandria (Pol. taken by Attalos. Kolophon. driving Attalos I back into the original Pergamene dominion. 1 0 H e retook the cities of T e o s and K o l o p h o n (but not Smyrna). In spite of the recently published inscriptions f r o m Sardeis.7). though A c h a i o s did achieve substantial results. he had already established control over all of c i s . 4. and murdered in s u m m e r 223. 'to see to his interests' and recover c i s . and Myrina. 1 § 4. 4.48. in 223. Achaios' advance deep into Aiolis explains Polybios' description of Attalos I shut in his ancestral kingdom. 4. more likely it was struck under the supervision of some of Seleukos' Friends. In late s u m m e r 223. A n t i o c h o s I I I . our evidence is the fact that in 218. and marched into Mysia: Pol. and now accompanied the king on his expedition. short-lived kingdom. the episode is still poorly documented.48. Attalos I treated the Smyrnians well. refusing the diadem offered by the troops.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r (Pol. Loss of Sardeis: C h .51. M o r k h o l m suggests that this coinage was struck under the authority of the mint of Antioch. Achaios had accompanied an expedition by Seleukos I I I . Pergamon 36.11). saved the βασιλεία for Antiochos. appointed Achaios governor of c i s .48. " For the cities of Aiolis. of Achaios' king-like powers.empire to create his own.9—10). L y d i a . eastern and central Karia).10. a reflection. have been located by Robert on the border between Mysia and the T r o a d : Robert 1937: 194-6.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . and the subsequent loss of Sardeis. the younger brother of the king (Pol. and Achaios set out to 'recover all the land of this side of the T a u r u s ' (Pol. K y m e . his presence in M y s i a implies that he had re-established Seleukid authority over the regions further east (Lykaonia. the places of Karseai and D i d y m a T e i c h e . A c h a i o s punished the murderers. Phrygia. Clashes between Seleukid and Attalid forces may have prompted Ptolemy III to send his son Magas to Asia Minor: Huss 1977. with places on the border with the T r o a d . Coinage: M o r k h o l m 1969: 15.2. conscious or not.9).77-8. 1 1 It is possible that Achaios' successes motivated the 8 Pergamene victory: OGIS ζηη\ Inschr. 5. Attalos I had to take these cities back. the personal intervention of the king followed the defeat of his generals at the hands of Attalos I.48. according to Polybios (4. on his accession.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . 9 he was faced with insubordination from his army. Schmitt 1964: 161. and struck coins where the portrait of A n t i o c h o s III exhibits features recalling A c h a i o s ' o w n . 8 Seleukos III reached Phrygia ( F G r H i s t 260 F 32. with Schmitt 1964: 1 0 9 . T h e s e issues bear monograms also found in coins struck at Antioch. 4.48.1). T e o s . Polybios' statement is exaggerated. 10 For the chronology. who had previously exercised similar functions at Antioch. T e m n o s . M y r i n a . where coinage in his name was struck under the supervision of courtiers. 4.1 1 ) . Aigai. Sardeis became the Seleukid 'provincial capital' once more. and the region of M y s i a . Phokaia. 9 M a r k h o l m 1969: 14-15. because they had 'preserved to the greatest extent their faith towards .

the revolt of M o l o n . A c h a i o s was forced to return. and that Attalos recovered them soon afterwards. 13 Meloni (1949: 536 n. since Attalos' expedition of 218 seems the first time he took the military initiative. when Achaios' forces were diverted to Pisidia. and the local communities caught in the alternation between Seleukids and Attalids. Gera 1998: 3-20 on Fourth Syrian War.223. Will 1982: 17-23. he marched on Syria. Piejko 19916: 33. 5. 1 2 H o w ever. Habicht 1980. Achaios may have thought of himself him' (Pol 5. 15 Leake 1824: 44-5.5-6. where L a m p s a k o s . with a detour to regain the troops' goodwill by allowing them to plunder Pisidia. 2) believes that Pol. 5. 3). T h e sequence of events is difficult to explain. w h o declared himself king before being crushed by Antiochos. also Holleaux 19386: 33-4 (Mysians in Achaios' army. but went through the T r o a d only because of the revolt of his Aigosagian auxiliaries. to Asia Minor. the governor of the eastern provinces. Schmitt 1964: 185-8. Attalos I did not need to reconquer the cities of the T r o a d (as has been written). and that this was the occasion when the Ilians offered sacrifices and prayers at the accession of a king Antiochos—on this interpretation. line 5. 5. during the entwined events of the years 222-219: first. Pol.77.3-8): assuming the diadem and the royal title at Laodikeia in Phrygia. the Fourth Syrian W a r . 12 Huss 1977 prefers this context for the presence of Magas in Asia Minor: 'Seleukos h a v i n g j u s t died' in P. 1 3 Polybios mentions that the cities of Aiolis and near Aiolis had 'gone δια τον φόβον: over to A c h a i o s out of fear' ( Ά χ α ί ω ττροσ€Κ€χωρήκ€ΐσαν 5-77· 2 ). and Ilion resisted him. For Mysia.78.6 imply that in 218. 1 6 T h e breakaway k i n g d o m of Hierax perhaps offered inspiration (Will 1982: 26). specific information on A c h a i o s ' reconquest w o u l d greatly contribute to our knowledge of Seleukid Asia M i n o r . Haun 6 being Seleukos III rather than Seleukos II. 1 4 In 220 Achaios attempted to usurp the Seleukid kingship (Pol. secondly. but was thwarted w h e n the troops mutinied. It is unlikely that Achaios took over cities in the T r o a d c. on the frontiers of L y k a o n i a (perhaps on the approaches to Ikonion.dispatch of Magas.6). for the ridge before the plain of Konya. detailed treatment of Molon in Schmitt 1964: 116-50. Attalid rule between c. 16 Against the 'conspiracy theory' in Will 1982: 23-6 and Will 1962 (Achaios' usurpation directed against Hermeias). lines i 6 .78. a parallel for this usage is found in RDGE 18. Achaios probably did not achieve such results in the T r o a d . Alexandreia T r o a s .6 (Sià το τΐτηρηκέναι την προς αύτον [sc.57. Attalos I] πίοτιν) means the three cities of the T r o a d surrendered to Achaios after resistance (also Schmitt 1964: 165 and n.78. 14 On both. 5.227 and 223.78. but not active. and especially 5. . upon Attalos' invitation—into the T r o a d . the son of Ptolemy I I I . 2 and 1950: 175 n. 1 5 on realizing that they were marching against 'their original and natural king'. A c h a i o s is referred to.i 8 ) . the problems of reimposing Seleukid authority. However. holds that Achaios took over Ilion. fought over K o i l e Syria (219-217). the last important stopping-point before the road headed towards the Kilikian Gates). held by or sympathetic to the Attalids: Pol. though these could simply be mercenaries). the latter 'crossed to Asia'. Antiochos III ( O G I S 219.

had reverted to i t — i n 223.5) has survived. 5. 1 ' A c h a i o s ' rule lasted about six years. Rigsby 1996: 180. 1440) and by the fact that A c h a i o s never again tried to attack the Syrian heartland of the dynasty. 18 A t the local level. line 9.8). same document I. of a governor (στρατηγός). conceivably king Achaios. and Phoenicia (but the last two regions were not Seleukid). argues that Themistokles was appointed by Achaios when he was governor of Asia M i n o r rather than independent king. Tralleis 20 (stephanephoria of Epikrates in Miletos. on the shield of the admittedly un-Seleukid A t h e n a Alkis: WSM no.6. Embassy: the alliance between Miletos and Tralleis/Seleukeia mentions Menodoros T i m e o u (Inschr. Tralleis 26. line 1) in honour of a citizen who went on embassy 'to the king'. 19 Magnesia: Inschr. 1 9 17 Will 1982: 26. Delphinion 143.1 7 .57. an alliance between Miletos and Seleukeia/Tralleis. W e know of a governor of Sardeis. on the grounds of Menodoros' eminence.9). o n account of Wörrle's redating of the Milesian stephanephoroi list. could provide parallels for the history of A n t i o c h o s III in western Asia M i n o r . A puzzling passage in Polybios (8. w h o seem to have dropped the Seleukid ethnikon in the 220s. and. . Delphinion 143. few documents refer to events under Achaios: an unsuccessful attempt in 221/0 by Magnesia under M a e a n d e r to have a contest for A r t e m i s L e u k o p h r y e n e acknowledged as panhellenic.2. [Antio]chos (see A p p e n d i x 3). and the negotiations with the subject communities. 1 7 . w h e n he was still the general of A n t i o c h o s III?). 7 . A r i b a z o s (Pol. 188-9. Inschr. to 218/17.within Seleukid legitimacy. a close connection in time between Menodoros' stephanephoria and the alliance between Tralleis and Miletos (for which Menodoros represented Tralleis). But none of the letters written b y 'king A c h a i o s ' to the cities (Pol.77. 8. line 5).17. 18 Bengtson 1944: 1 1 6 . as 'ό στρατηγός'. seen from the inside. especially for the mechanisms of control.57. even when A n t i o c h o s I I I was at war in K o i l e . f r o m the usurpation in s u m m e r 220 to his capture and the surrender of the citadel at Sardeis in autumn 214 or winter 214/13. and possibly an honorific decree for a Trallian ambassador to 'the king' (Achaios?). it is conceivable that this inscription preserves a letter of Achaios. repeating Seleukid symbols (especially the anchor. but should be dated earlier. in M y s i a or Hellespontic Phrygia. 5. Delphinion 124: Wörrle 1988: 428-37). and referring to the decision by an earlier Seleukid king. who also is named as stephanephoros in a Trallian inscription (I. Alliance: Inschr. as is suggested by the coinage he issued at Sardeis. 9 . Magnesia 16. T h e m i s t o k l e s (Pol 5. concerning the city of Tralleis. A T h e m i s t o k l e s appears in the Trallian document RC 4 1 .21. Koile-Syria.2. if we posit.11) concerns Achaios' plan. T h e k i n g d o m of Achaios. which R e h m dated to 212/11. in winter 214/13 to go to Syria and seize power thanks to a movement in his favour in Antioch. 4. probably the governor of Karia (or Lydia?). under compulsion by Achaios.S y r i a . dated to 218/17 (showing that the Trallians.

23 On the region. 5 . 4 .4 . A c h a i o s avoided entanglements w i t h the great powers. the A i g o s a g e s . the other d o c u m e n t e d event is the campaign undertaken b y A t t a l o s I.5 7 . 5.48. 4.63. minimize the Ptolemaic connection. Schmitt 1964: 262-4. Phokaia. an episode well d o c u m e n t e d t h r o u g h P o l y b i o s (5. 5. 7 7 .7. 1442. such as the war between Byzantion and R h o d e s in 220 (Pol. Pogla). based on an excessively narrow interpretation of Ιγχΐΐρίζειν in Pol. Holleaux 1942: 1 3 1 .10. 2 3 A c h a i o s ' intervention in Pisidia illustrates the m e s h i n g of local d y n a m i c s and high politics characteristic of the Hellenistic period. 2 5 H e next 20 Pol. through which Achaios necessarily passed on his way to Pamphylia. probably including Asia Minor. and T e m n o s .77. 1 ) — T e r m e s s o s and Sagalassos m a y have fallen to him. 4.6. 22 Pol. Olbasa. specially ferried f r o m E u r o p e to A s i a M i n o r . Schmitt 1964: 166-71 and Will 1982: 25-6. 1450. 1445. as well as the smaller cities of the M i l y a s ( K o m a m a . w h e n A c h a i o s was o c c u p i e d in Pamphylia. A i g a i . Allen 1983: 4 5 . 1448. but a subject city . also the eagle clutching a palm branch or a wreath figured on Achaios' bronze coinage: WSM 1441. u p o n the same terms as before (in the case of T e o s . 21 Support by the Ptolemies: Pol. and recovered K y m e . 25 Pol.2: that Achaios and Attalos I were both contacted by the Byzantines in their search for allies against the Rhodians does not prove that the two kings were at peace (Schmitt 1964: 263) since Attalos was still 'shut up in his paternal kingdom'. the T e i a n s and the K o l o p h o n i a n s sent in embassies to 'hand themselves o v e r ' .48. Polybios' account is silent about Erythrai.77. H e also intervened in local conflict. 2 4 A t t a l o s started out w i t h a force of Galatians. A c h a i o s 'subjected to the yoke the M i l y a s and most of P a m p h y l i a ' (Pol. on w h o m he w a g e d war t h r o u g h o u t his r e i g n 2 2 — i n a continuance of the mission assigned to h i m in 223. also 5. in 218.It is difficult to relate any of these d o c u m e n t s or these events to the reign of 'king A c h a i o s ' . without fear of aggression on Achaios' part. 16. b y keeping away f r o m the dominions of P t o l e m y I V (who supported him w i t h aid) 21 and the A n t i g o n i d holdings of Karia. proposes an unacceptable interpretation of the status of the Teians: pace Allen. M y r i n a .5). the city was probably Attalid in 201 (Pol. 7.g. t h o u g h an attempt to capture Selge failed. 1 . t h o u g h Ptolemaic pressure soon forced A c h a i o s out).77.5).2 .72—6). and. as a tribute-paying subordinate c o m m u n i t y ) .4—6. T h e absence of d o c u m e n t a t i o n is the more regrettable because A c h a i o s ' activity and military might 2 0 were centred on Anatolia. the war between Pednelissos and Selge. cf. 4 8 . 1446. largely in reaction to earlier scholarship which saw Achaios as entirely motivated by 'Alexandrian gold' (e.12. T e o s was not a vaguely 'free' city under some form of Attalid protectorate and making occasional payments to the Attalids (47. his main target was A t t a l o s I. 24 Holleaux 19386: 17-42. further south. 8. whether from Laodikeia or Apameia ( S y m e 1995: 204): S y m e 1995: 177-203 (with Hall 1986).15. Attalos also received courteously the e n v o y s of independent Smyrna. 30-1. A p a r t f r o m the Pisidian episode.16.1.8: Ptolemy I V recalls forces from 'cities of the exterior'. 5. 134).

But his plans for m a r c h i n g into eastern M y s i a w e r e thwarted by a m u t i n y a m o n g the A i g o s a g e s . 5 . A n t i o c h o s 'came to an arrangement' w i t h A t t a l o s I. T h e expedition into A s i a M i n o r of 216 came u n d e r a double heading of legitimacy: the reconquest of ancestral S e l e u k i d holdings. 5 . 16. 33 (military colonies.1.7 with Robert 1962: 38. starting in 216. 2 ' W h e n A c h a i o s returned f r o m Pisidia to Sardeis. 1 2 . the spring after his defeat at R a p h i a in 2 1 7 (Pol.7-78. 2 8 T h e simultaneous events ( A c h a i o s ' P a m p h y l i a n i n v o l v e m e n t . T h i s second round of reconquest was less successful than the c a m p a i g n of 223—222. αποστάτης'· in winter 219/18. 2 9 A n t i o c h o s had refused to a c k n o w l e d g e A c h a i o s as anything else than a rebel. κοινοπραγίαν paying tribute.77. ravaging the plain of A p i a (the m o d e r n Bahkesir plain). preferable to Meloni 1950: 166-76 (who emends Polybios to have Attalos I cross the Kaikos instead of the L y k o s and reach the Karesene via Adramyttion). its vulnerability. 26 Pol. . 5. and reached the P r o p o n t i s . the latter was surrendered by A c h a i o s ' g o v e r n o r . as well as T e o s . 7 7 . On the 'Mysian katoikiai' (Pol. Robert 1937: 184-97. he o p p o s e d attempts by P t o l e m y I V to include A c h a i o s in any treaty (Pol. p r o b a b l y taken over in 218 on the m a r c h to Mysia. and the fact that Attalos I took hostages from the city. 3 §§ 2-3.78. 2 6 w h e r e he dealt cordially w i t h L a m p s a k o s . taking o v e r K a r s e a i and D i d y m a t e i c h e ( p r o b a b l y the w e s t e r n m o s t places held by A c h a i o s in the region). A t t a l o s retained control of the A i o l i a n cities. Schwertheim 1988: 74 η.7). See further C h . Schmitt 1964: 173-5. since he crossed the L y k o s . A l e x a n d r e i a T r o a s . forcing h i m to w i t h d r a w to the T r o a d . 27 T r o a d : Pol. 4 ) — w h i c h freed A n t i o c h o s f r o m the d i l e m m a of choosing b e t w e e n K o i l e . 29 O n the strategic dilemma. A t t a l o s ' n o r t h . for their loyalty. but w h e r e he also settled the A i g o s a g e s (they w o u l d cause havoc in the f o l l o w i n g two years). at the same time. and finally reached the river M e k e s t o s . For the topography. 28 Pol. A t t a l o s then turned south again.1 3 ) . 5. and taking over T h y a t e i r a in the process. this is proved by the first T e i a n decree for Antiochos III (document 17) which explicitly mentions tribute to Attalos).3 (villages in a region devoid of cities). 1 ) .S y r i a and the need to reduce his rebellious relative. Robert 1937: 1 9 1 . K o l o p h o n .6. T h e m i s t o k l e s . since they would have presented Attalos I with a valuable objective: not compelling). 1 0 7 .77. 5. 5 .w e s t e r n campaign) show the extension of A c h a i o s ' d o m i n i o n ( f r o m the A e g e a n into inland Anatolia) and. and Ilion. t h o u g h P o l y b i o s is silent on this city). he 'warred continuously w i t h A t t a l o s ' (Pol. and the suppression of a rebellious subordinate. to recover lost territory.m o v e d into M y s i a and the ' M y s i a n katoikiai' (probably t h r o u g h w e s t e r n L y d i a . 6 7 . and T h y a t e i r a . T h e final act was the c a m p a i g n w a g e d by A n t i o c h o s I I I across the T a u r u s .

39. It is not clear when Seleukid authority was established over northern Phrygia: perhaps as late as 197 (§ 4). who translates L i v . been inserted into the text. RE s. quam Prusia rex ademerat) as 'Mysia. Antiochos) had taken from Prousias'. mentions Prousias. 3 1 Greater Phrygia and L y k a o n i a must have been recovered earlier. 1092-3).10. whereas (Προνοίας) has usually. 38. T h e solution is probably that Prousias seized parts of Mysia before 216 from Attalos I (in the aftermath of Attalos' campaign of 218?). Prousias. Schmitt believed that the price paid by A n t i o c h o s I I I was the cession of an enormous tract of territory in north-west Asia M i n o r . rather than the 190s or after the battle of Magnesia (Dittenberger). but from Pergamon itself. see Schwertheim 1988: 73-6. ovs πρότερου αυτοΰ παρεσπάσατο: Schwertheim would interpret the subject of this sentence as being Antiochos I I I .107. since it established 'the historical claim of P e r g a m u m to possession of M y s i a ' (Baronowski 1991: 452 n. translating Polybios. including M y s i a and Hellespontine Phrygia up to Aizanoi (Schmitt 1964: 2 6 4 . where the text reads Μυσους. Allen 1983: 58—65. and that Antiochos III seized the region from Prousias (since Mysia was definitely Seleukid down to the Peace of Apameia). since Attalos I was allowed to retain his other dominions outside of the Pergamene k i n g d o m itself). But this is difficult to reconcile with Pol.(Pol. Plellespontine Phrygia was recovered by A n t i o c h o s I I I . Sagalassos may have fallen into Seleukid hands at this occasion. imply that Prousias retained control of northern M y s i a for several years. his campaign against Achaios might provide a context. In 188. Eumenes II receives from the Romans Mysiarn. which the king (sc.v. 28. discussing the introduction of the cult of Magna Mater to Rome in 205: the sacred stone came not from Pessinous (since the Attalid holdings were not so extensive at that point). î0 On the koinopragia of 216. against Achaios.10. 4). the seizure of Mysia by Prousias was the one which Eumenes II and the Roman commissioners referred to. 5 . w h o also seized A c h a i o s ' conquests in Pamphylia and Pisidia. Pamphylia: Schmitt 1964: . and that he invaded the Attalid kingdom in 208 (Liv. 3 0 If OGIS 219 can be dated to A n t i o c h o s I I I . H a b i c h t . Far f r o m allowing a vast amount of land to pass over to Attalos.15 (in 188. 1 1 1 . implying Seleukid activity deep into the T r o a d (unlikely.4). erected by the citizens of P e r g a m o n ( O G I S 236). M o s t or all of M y s i a was brought back under Seleukid dominion. and rightly. might date to this collaboration.7. before Seleukid authority was re-established. also Gruen 1996: 1 6 . 21. though the fact that Prousias was active near A b y d o s in 216 (when he exterminated the Aigosages: Pol. S1 Hellespontine Phrygia: Schwertheim 1988: 70-3 (Hellespontine Phrygia was Antiochos' since it belonged to the territories at the disposal of the Romans in 188).46. 302 for map). 5. suggesting that the most important concession made by Antiochos III was to recognize the Attalid kingdom as a separate and sovereign state.7 . and arguing against the view of massive territorial concessions by Antiochos III. 6 ) . A n t i o c h o s I I I recovered most of A c h a i o s ' kingdom. In fact the stele discovered near Balikesir shows that most or all of M y s i a was taken back by A n t i o c h o s I I I : Attalos I was simply left in control of whatever he had saved f r o m A c h a i o s ' counter-campaign. T h e statue to Zeuxis. On Mysia. since L i v y .1 9 . Wörrle 1988: 460 (Antiochos III in Hellespontine Phrygia).

Piejko 1987 further attributes Sardis. 5.1. or even Achaios. 5. 3 6 T h e city was fined. Achaios was caught in late 214 (Pol. 3 4 T h e symbolical message was reflected in immediate and concrete measures of repression and reorganization. S h e r w i n .41.9. 'it was resolved first to cut off the unfortunate man's extremities. but perhaps the city fell under Seleukid control in Antiochos' Pisidian campaign of 193. I see no reason for preferring Antiochos I I I to Eumenes II. 8 .6. then Antiochos had conquered Pisidia at this time (as proposed by Waelkens. Billows 1995: 144 η. Achaios was cornered in Sardeis.54. like Marsyas) by A n t i o c h o s I I I (youthful and beardless. T h e same message was perhaps expressed in a G r e e k visual vocabulary: the famous Hellenistic group representing M a r s y a s on the point of being flayed before a seated A p o l l o might be a Seleukid work of art dramatizing the punishment of A c h a i o s (elderly and bearded. T h e mutilation and the impalement were taken f r o m Near-Eastern imperial practice. in Polybios' words. 36 D o c u m e n t 36 does not concern Sardeis after Achaios (Piejko 1987): Gauthier 1989: 1 7 1 . Sagalassos: Κ . they publicized Seleukid authority. Marsyas: Fleischer 1972-5· 35 T h e land-conveyance to Mnesimachos (Sardis.21. the citadel surrendered shortly afterwards. 34 Van Proosdij (1934).1 9 (much swifter progression of Antiochos' campaign than had been believed). or the physical deference shown to Achaios by his companions: Pol 8. in late 215 or early 214. 88. 8. 32 Gauthier 1989: 1 5 . by 214.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 189. Vandorpe. T h e punishment undid A c h a i o s ' pretensions to royal charisma (expressed in numismatic portraiture.57. in Waelkens 1993: 42).2—3). in the immediate aftermath of the campaigns against Achaios. as happened w h e n the king took to the field against the usurper M o l o n : 'it is difficult for rebels to risk attacking kings in daylight and face to face'.46.8.T h e reconquest of inland Asia M i n o r took place with ease. 3 2 A n t i o c h o s I I I must have been helped by the dynastic loyalty of (ex-)Seleukid troops and officials rallying to him. thanks to epigraphical documents dating to 213. no. also 5. 5. then to cut off his head and sew it up in an ass-skin.20. 3 3 A n t i o c h o s presumably was also aided by the quiescence or opportunism of the local communities.15—18). 3 5 T h e one city we knowabout is the 'provincial capital' of Sardeis. in Waelkens and Poblome 1995: 299-305. like Apollo).8 . and a new 5 per 279 (Pamphylia recovered by Antiochos III around 216: the accounts of Antiochos' progression by sea in 197 do not mention any conquests between R o u g h Kilikia and Lykia). N o t h i n g suggests that Achaios. 1) should not be dated to this time (Atkinson 1972): Debord 1982: 244-7. 35 Quote from Pol. .3-4). for city seal with a Seleukid elephant. to Antiochos III.9. while impaling the b o d y ' (Pol.2 1 ) . 5. 1 5 . no. 70. while trying to smuggle himself out of the citadel of Sardeis. 7.52. for loyalist feelings in Achaios' army. Sardeis was captured and sacked (Pol. after the interlude of the usurpation.

'we also e x e m p t y o u f r o m the rent w h i c h you pay on the workshops. 3 9 O n departing (winter 213/12?). about 8. w h o later granted benefactions: a securely funded yearly grant of 200 metretai. royally o w n e d workshops: άπολύομεν δε υμάς και του ενοικίου ου τελείτε άπο των εργαστηρίου. certainly a highranking financial official). 3 7 T h e documents suggest that A n t i o c h o s I I I and Laodike stayed in Sardeis.213. T h i s was A n t i o c h o s ' first stay in Asia M i n o r .8 . Billeting: document 1. of oil for the y o u n g men in the gymnasion (restored to the city). troops were billeted on the population. 5-6. G i f t of grain: 41 C (assuming it concerns the city and not. T h e s e conditions were alleviated upon petition to Antiochos. the king accepted the a r g u m e n t — b u t was unable to confirm the particulars. 38 T h e first letter of Antiochos III (document 1) was issued in M a r c h 213. cult for Laodike: document 2.7 (gymnasion) and document 3. T h e fragmentary letters 41 A and Β could also date to c.000 litres. . 4. C h . and were perhaps a response to benefactions f r o m her as well. A n t i o c h o s III 'left behind' the officer Z e u x i s as governor of c i s . and perhaps the terms for the payment of a fine. T h i s festival belonged to a set of cultic honours for A n t i o c h o s ' spouse. 3 § 2.cent tax was perhaps imposed as a punitive measure. H i s unfamiliarity is apparent in his reply to the Sardians' petition for release f r o m rent on εργαστήρια. though the additional tax which Antiochos is seen to suppress in that document may have been imposed b y Achaios.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . T h e Sardians had supported their petition with appeals to parallels and precedents f r o m other cities. O n Ktesikles (perhaps ό [em των προσόδω]ν. 40 D o c u m e n t 1. thus helping the city restart its agricultural cycle after the disruption of war. both for consumption and for sowing. It also is possible that A n t i o c h o s granted the city exemption f r o m agricultural taxes and gave grain. at least if it is true that the other cities do not pay for it'. with Gauthier 1989: 85-96. and 'we have written to Z e u x i s and Ktesikles concerning all these m a t t e r s ' — t h e restitution of the commandeered gymnasion. and tax-exemption for a festival in honour of Laodikeia. Laodike's letter (document 2) in June. and no doubt f r o m other communities of the reconquered regions. είπε ρ και αΐ άλλαι πόλεις μη πράσσονται. Gauthier 1989: 107. and Antiochos' 'second* letter later still (document 3: after Laodike's letter). and commandeered the city's gymnasion for their use. the installation of colonists). His responsibilities are already apparent in the first letter of A n t i o c h o s III to the Sardians: timber for the reconstruction (συνοικισμός) of Sardeis is to be cut and brought in 'as Z e u x i s sees fit'. for instance. 7 .40 T h e recon" Fine: document 1. with Gauthier 1989: 33-6. Laodike I I I . Benefactions: document 3. 8-10. 2 (with Gauthier 1989: 20-2). 6 . where over several months 3 8 they received embassies f r o m the Sardians. but this is not certain. Supplementary tax: document 1. 35 D o c u m e n t 3. 6-8. the cancellation of the additional tax.

2. the geography implies renewed Seleukid control over K o m m a g e n e and northern A r m e n i a ( S h e r w i n . A n t i o c h o s issued to Z e u x i s the prostagma concerning N i k a n o r ( C h . T h e fragmentary inscription f r o m Tralleis (RC 4 1 ) m i g h t be a letter of Z e u x i s . in this case. A n t i o c h o s mustered his forces in M e d i a (Justin 41. T h e b o u n d a r y stone MAMA 4. In 209. 1 4 7 . on the hypercritical view of G a u g e r 1977.1 2 .1 5 3 . all of w h i c h could be construed as 'ancestral possessions' belonging to Seleukos 1.2 1 0 . D r e w . implying a Seleukid presence) to western Karia and L y k i a . the king of southern A r m e n i a . b u t in fact is m u c h later ( u n p u b l i s h e d paper b y T h . though it w o u l d be m o r e likely addressed to Z e u x i s than to the Sardians. the king ordered the settling of 2000 Jewish families in L y d i a and Phrygia. . 4 2 B y 213. the context might provide a clue to Antiochos' intentions: recreating the office of 'high-priest of all the shrines in the land b e y o n d the T a u r u s ' publicized the fiction of u n i f o r m Seleukid 41 For the r e b u i l d i n g of Sardeis after the sack. 8.7).W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 190-7).23). B e n g t s o n 1944: 1 1 0 .5. and almost all of w h i c h had been under actual Seleukid control. 89. to the south. A fter the Expedition to the Upper Regions (204-202 bc) Between 212 and 204.struction of Sardeis (documented in the archaeological record) is the only securely documented instance of the long-term activity of reorganizing Asia M i n o r . O n RC 4 1 . w h o defected to Attalos I in 218 (Pol. 1). also A p p e n d i x 3. A n t i o c h o s was in the east. 5. 41 In a letter to Zeuxis. 42 O n the letter. is cautious on the theory that partisans of A c h a i o s caused the unrest. addressed to the citizens of Seleukeia/Tralleis on the subject of some financial obligation. and even retaken P a m p h y l i a (earlier lost to P t o l e m y III). after unrest in these regions: assuming that the document is authentic. the context must be the continuing pacification of inland Asia Minor.77. with references to the literature. But the resurrected Seleukid dominion lacked the western and coastal zones. and.8) and w h o then w o u l d have defected back to A n t i o c h o s I I I 111 216. In 212. A p p e n d i x 3.B e a r : see A p p e n d i x 3). in the aftermath of the war against Achaios. and tells us n o t h i n g about S e l e u k i d reorganization. he reduced X e r x e s . D o c u m e n t 41 C could concern the settlement of military colonists near Sardeis. to submission (Pol. f r o m the T r o a d (unless OGIS 219 is to be dated to this period. R o u g h Kilikia. G a u t h i e r 1989: 41 η. preserved in Ajf 1 2 . where he endeavoured to reimpose Seleukid authority. f r o m the Kilikian gates to M y s i a . G a u t h i e r 1989: 32-3. A n t i o c h o s I I I had recovered inland Asia M i n o r . In 2 1 1 . the 'general T h e m i s t o k l e s ' mentioned in line 9 could be the governor of M y s i a under Achaios.75 has been dated by its editors to 2 1 1 / 1 0 .

he sacrificed at the Esagil in Babylon (Sachs and H u n g e r 1989: no. Gerrhaians and Persian G u l f : Pol. otherwise u n k n o w n (206). to celebrate his exploits and the reimposition of Seleukid authority over the possessions in the East. A n t i o c h o s I I I imposed the same f o r m of settlement as in Armenia: the grant of the 'subject' kings' right to rule.49 a n d 11. envoys f r o m Magnesia on Maeander. 44 A n t i o c h o s ' dealings with the 'rebel' states in the eastern regions offer parallels and contrasts with the negotiations between the king and the cities of western Asia M i n o r (Ch. OGIS 233): the first time we see the king concerned w i t h the west since the prostagma about Nikanor. A t this time (205).W h i t e and .205: J.1—11. 1. and in spring 204 (month I. lines 14-18). 1 1 . Rostovtzeff 1941: pi. generally 13-20. he continued his westward march.1.1 4 . 4 5 A p p i a n describes A n t i o c h o s as 'having invaded M e d i a and Parthia and other peoples w h i c h had already revolted before his time. 'India' and the return to southern Iran: Pol. A n t i o c h o s withdrew to southern Iran (where he spent the winter 206/5). king of Baktria. Salles in S h e r w i n . in exchange for a 'grant' of liberty.28-31 and Justin 41. or ransom. rev.-F. 13. T h e only evidence is a reference in the prostagma on cult for Laodike: document 37. T h e earliest evidence for the epithet appears in 202. in all metals. 46 But the title ' G r e a t K i n g ' (βασιλεύς μέγας) was not taken on at this time: A p p e n d i x 4. 'king of the I n d i a n s ' — i n fact a local dynast. 47 State cult founded in c. S h e r w i n .9. w h e n c e he sailed against the Gerrhaians in Arabia. seeking acknowledgement of their contest for A r t e m i s L e u k o p h r y e n e as isopythian (and of their city as asylos. O n Seleukids in the Persian G u l f . Antiochos the son: J. 1 2 .7. 40. C .W h i t e and K u h r t 45 WSM. 4 3 A n t i o c h o s I I I then set out on his 'expedition to the U p p e r Regions'. Schmitt 1964: 13 and n. day 8). 3). must reflect the results of the eastern expedition. 4 6 T h i s epithet may reflect the creation by A n t i o c h o s of the state cult for himself and his ancestors.34. the representation of elephants on several issues may allude to the 150 elephants A n t i o c h o s extracted from Sophagasenos. c o m pounded with tribute or payment of ransom-money. of silver and spices. 10. 10. 1. -204. L e s s easy to date as precisely as the king's movements. Antiochos. 75-109. during an absence in the east. Robert 1983: 168 n. and finally Sophagasenos. confirming Appian. A n t i o c h o s further designated co-regent his eldest son. Syr ι). and L . directed against Arsakes II.5.authority in western Asia M i n o r . O n all three. 32. 7. 3 4 . 44 Parthians: Pol. king of the Parthians (209). E u t h y d e m o s . met A n t i o c h o s I I I in Antiocheia in Persis (RC 31.. and receiving the name A n t i o c h o s the G r e a t ' (και μέγας Άντίοχος άπο τούδε κληθείς: A p p . J. and L. then to Persis. 397. and having performed many great things. A f t e r the winter. he received a gift. inviolate). 1987. Robert 1983: 163 n. an increase in coinage. Baktria: Pol. 4 7 43 Nikanor the high-priest: document 4.

Polybios' statement should not be watered d o w n to speak of the 'propaganda effect' in Asia Minor: the passage is informed by the claim that Asia M i n o r had rightfully been a Seleukid possession ever since the victory of Seleukos I at K o u r o u p e d i o n in 281 ( C h . A n o t h e r possibility is that this passage preserves a garbled trace of Seleukid military and diplomatic activity in Asia M i n o r . αλλά και τοις κατά τήν Εύρωπην.k n o w n passage: ου μόνον τον s άνω σατράπας υπηκόους εποιήσατο της Ιδίας αρχής. άλλα και τάς επιθαλλαττίους πόλεις και τους επί τάδε τοΰ Ταύρου δυνάστας.14 a s directly describing the Seleukid activity of c. Positive reassessment in S h e r w i n .T a u r i c Asia M i n o r — A n t i o c h o s ' destination. having intimidated all his subjects by his daring and industry: for it was through this expedition that he seemed worthy of the kingship not only to the inhabitants of Asia. και συλλήβδην ήσφαλίσατο τήν βασιλείαν. are equated as two g r o u p s within the Seleukid empire. 11 ·34· Ι4 — 1 6) he made not only the upper satraps subject to his own rule.203 in Asia Minor. 'Eau bénite de cour': Will 1982: 65-6. rather than implying that priests of Antiochos III were being appointed at that very moment (193). the latter being included in the ύποταττόμενοι w h i c h A n t i o c h o s impressed with his daring and industry. and the maritime cities and dynasts of Asia M i n o r . during the eastern expedition and in its immediate wake.34. G r u e n 1986: 613 and n. but also the cities by the sea and the dynasts on this side of Taurus. in the same places. but also to the inhabitants of Europe. (Pol. in short. high-priestesses of her also' (document 37. καταπληξάμενος τη τόλμη και φιλοπονία πάντας τους υποταττομενονς· δια γαρ ταύτης της στρατείας άξιος εφάνη της βασιλείας ού μόνον τοις κατά τήν Άσίαν. 4 8 what exactly does P o l y b i o s mean? H e implies that the expedition to the U p p e r Territories reduced to subjection the communities of Asia M i n o r . for instance at T e o s (if the K u h r t 1993: 209-10. so there should be established. 21-4). 1). 11. 'Propagandistische W i r k u n g ' : Schmitt 1964: 90—2. in the form of benefactions. their vacillating loyalties secured by the demonstration of Antiochos' energy: Polybios perhaps echoes the official Seleukid presentation. after his activity in the Persian G u l f . T h e king probably spent part of 204 in north Syria. T h e 'upper satraps'. and.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 197-201. L e a v i n g aside the problems connected with A n t i o c h o s ' eastern achievements. 4 9 A t any rate. w h e n c e he made initial contacts with the επιθαλάσσιοι πόλεις of Asia M i n o r . but I prefer to interpret the present tense as describing general practice.P o l y b i o s appraises the 'expedition into the U p p e r regions' in a w e l l . if the present tense in the prostagma on cult for Laodike is to be taken narrowly: 'just as high-priests of us are appointed throughout the kingdom. he secured the kingdom. suggest that the cult was created in 193. 48 49 . Polybios links the end of the eastern expedition with c i s . which is not what the text says). 6 (interprets Pol.

T e i a n decrees date f r o m c. the Ptolemaic minister A g a t h o k l e s sent an ambassador to A n t i o c h o s 'in Asia'. Attribution: M a . ad 15. 5 4 It is 50 D o c u m e n t 17. in or soon after 203. letters by A n t i o c h o s to the army at A m y z o n and L a b r a u n d a (below) do not entail his presence in western Karia. Walbank ( H C P ii. 50 In late 204 or in spring 203. without any hint at a long journey to northern Syria. and hence not attest Seleukid aggression c.25. document 31 A. the king's instructions were passed on by Zeuxis. especially since at L a b r a u n d a . unlike document 4. long attributed to A n t i o c h o s I I I .25. at Labraunda: referred to in document .13) points out that ολοσχερέστεροι' might mean 'in any significant way' rather than 'in any more significant way'. and L . by the time of Philopator's death. T h e most complete evidence comes f r o m A m y z o n . has been reinterpreted by M e a d o w s (below). 51 On the death of Ptolemy I V . 'In Asia' must mean Asia M i n o r rather than Asia in the broadest sense (including northern Syria): document 14 shows an Amyzonian ambassador reaching the king. L a t m o s . confirming and expanding Zeuxis' arrangements. the takeover of A m y z o n . is perhaps a letter of Antiochos III. is rather the work of the governor of c i s . cf. no. 5 2 A n inscription on the architrave of the temple of A r t e m i s states that Z e u x i s dedicated land to the shrine while in A m y z o n . D e r o w . they also provide a picture of local responses in the aftermath of takeover by the Seleukids. T h i s document. A p a r t f r o m locating at least some of the m o v e m e n t s and (re)conquests of £. 15. 484. 13. J. T h e earliest inscription is a letter dated to 15 Daisios in the year 109 SE ( M a y 203 BC). the m o m e n t of the takeover by the Seleukids: the author tries to reassure the A m y z o n i a n s of his good intentions towards 'all those w h o have handed themselves over to us'. A n t i o c h o s crossed the T a u r u s .13). f r o m western Karia. 'in case A n t i o c h o s should try to break the treaties with them more c o m pletely' (eàv ολοσχερεστερον αυτούς Άντίοχος εττιβάληται -παρασπονδεΐν). A r o u n d this time.203: A p p e n d i x 2). after the death of Ptolemy I V (204). I 9 " Dedication: document 7. 29-30). 5 3 In contrast. on the northern flank of M t . requesting that he keep to the truce struck with P t o l e m y I V in 217 (Pol.203 on the map. T h e case usually adduced for aggression against the Ptolemies. T h e formulation might imply that the Seleukids had started aggressions against Ptolemaic dominions. 51 T h e activities of A n t i o c h o s are partially documented through contemporary inscriptions. and M e a d o w s 1995 and commentary to document 5. 54 Letter to the army at A m y z o n : document 6. another envoy was sent to ask for assistance f r o m Philip V . Schmitt 1964: 189-237.1 0 ('the other side of the T a u r u s ' in this case designates the city's point of view. with (probably) another series of documents for the Ionian city of T e o s . Robert 1983: 144. 6 .204.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . 52 Letter to the Amyzonians: document 5. Against the thesis of Seleukid aggression. Zeuxis. the implication is rather to the contrary.

mentions 'the king's presence'. Alabandan asylia·. 55 Preambles of Amyzonian decrees: documents 9 (quoted here) and 10. no. μηνός Δίου. 69. and the imposition of various forms of Seleukid state p o w e r ( C h . 3 § 1 ). and the general phrasing of the D e l p h i a n decree might veil a mention of a grant of asylia by A n t i o c h o s to the city. Nikanor: 4. εττΐ άρχιε[ρεως Νικάνορος. 2. recovering Alabanda/Antiocheia for the Seleukid empire. M a c e d o n i a n month. and not a voluntary alliance between A m y z o n and the Seleukid state. . 23. but not previously to the inception of the campaign for Antiocheian/Alabandan asylia. W h e n an Antiocheian ambassador to D e l p h i asked for acknowledgement of his city's asylia in 202/1. believes that the OGIS 234 shows that Antiocheia/Alabanda was declared inviolate by an oracle. Robert 1983: 204-6. J. where he seems to be a locally elected official (but still imposed by the Seleukids?). according to the disposition of his ancestors'—a clear sign of Seleukid takeover.important to grasp that what took place was an act of conquest. writes that the campaign for asylia was a reaction to protect the city against Antiochos' aggressive attentions. he also praised A n t i o c h o s I I I . 'the benefactor of the Antiocheians. it has been 15. concrete (such as the plethora of officials attested) and symbolical. (kings. T h e A m y z o n i a n material documents a single c o m m u n i t y in the aftermath of conquest. or could simply mean 'in cis-Tauric Asia M i n o r ' . Pounder 1978: 56. F r o m the M a e a n d e r plain. but Alabanda had not been continuously Seleukid since Antiochos II. such as the 'regnal f o r m u l a ' — the city's decrees now started with a fixed Seleukid formula: Βασιλευόντων Άντιόχου Μεγάλου και Άντιόχ[ου του υιού. but need not refer to this time. and L . as Wörrle seems to say). 5 5 A m y z o n is the best documented of a series of cities w h i c h Z e u x i s took over (referred to by Zeuxis). imperial e p o n y m o u s officials such as the highpriest N i k a n o r or the mysterious priest of Z e u s Kretagenetes and Diktynna). thanking him for preserving the democracy and the peace for the Antiocheians. erouç] εν[8]εκάτ ου και εκατο[σ]τοϋ. T h e s e were followed by a declaration of the shrine's asylia. but OGIS 234 clearly implies that the city was 'Seleukid' at this point (Wörrle 1988: 441 η. 3 § 2). T h e letter of A n t i o c h o s to his army at A m y z o n (above) is eloquent e n o u g h about the military operations forming the background of such lenifying utterances. Piejko 1991a: 20. in fact. του] δε Δι os τον Κρηταγενετα και Δικτνννης Τιμαί[ον]. T h e Alabandan embassy also went through Athens: Pounder 1978. Seleukid era. but also was a reflection of royal authority over local statuses. T h e priesthood might be related to contemporary Seleukid involvement on Crete (next section). w h i c h protected it f r o m spoliation. and the brevity of the letter to the A m y z o n i a n s may indicate how busy the viceroy was. document 16. the inscription refers to Pausimachos consulting the oracle at Delphi. and there is clear evidence of the violence and spoliations (see C h . line 16. 5 6 Furthermore. Z e u x i s marched up the M a r s y a s valley. 56 Other cities: document 5. Priesthood of Zeus Kretagenetas and Diktynna: also 30. See A p p e n d i x 2.

contrasting with 'the kings' (plural) found in Amyzonian documents after 202. E u r o m o s was not taken by Z e u x i s — it too was available for (re)capture by Philip V in 2 0 1 — t h o u g h the city lies close to Mylasa. is usually dated to the time of Antiochos I I I . is to be attributed to the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I (rather than A n t i o c h o s II). s5 Mylasa: document 15. However.22).31. is not convincing). Antiochos II argued for by Robert 1973.1003. 5 8 f r o m there. 1 2 . T o the east of M y l a s a lay the territory of Stratonikeia. 661. goes against a dating before the death of Antiochos the son in 193). Sinuri: Robert 1945: 12 (the reconstruction offered by Piejko and noted in SEG 39. certainly struck under Seleukid control. 644. who was active in the region (Ch. Mylasa: Z e u x i s ordered troops to respect the M y l a s a n shrine at L a b r a u n d a . 187-209. but is more likely Ptolemaic: A p p e n d i x 3 (at any rate. 57 58 . Nonetheless. it is possible that both these documents pertain to Antiochos II. gives the whole series of Cretan documents found at Mylasa).1122. honouring an άρχιδικαστής in the δίκαοτήριον of Karia. 1 § 3).1 0 . and a fragmentary letter found in the sanctuary of Sinuri. the result of a grant by Seleukos II. 2-3.6). Mylasa 643. 60 A u t o n o m y : C r a m p a 1969: no. T o the south-west of Mylasa.recently shown that the coinage of Antiocheia/Alabanda. and L . 1004. the expression 'Friend of the king'. in the territory of Mylasa. who was also 'a Friend of the king'. and they had kept control of it continuously until Philip V captured it in 201 ( A p p e n d i x 4). 5 9 Z e u x i s . 5 . Robert 1983: 147 (Alinda controls A m y z o n and m u s t have been taken over first).1 3 . 30. 5. and A l i n d a . presumably respected the formal 'autonomy' of Mylasa. T h e advance into Karia Waggoner 1989.7 — t h e last two published in E A 19 (1992). the Rhodians had been given the city b y Seleukos II (the most likely interpretation of Pol. Rigsby 1996: nos. and. w i t h important cities such as M y l a s a . I. 5 7 Further west. perhaps in relation to grants b y Antiochos III (I.1 3 . Asylia: documents dating to the last years of the third century show the Mylasans asking Cretan cities for acknowledgement of their asylia and aphorologesia. he took over A m y z o n . and Bargylia were available for Philip V to take over in 201 (see § 3). A l i n d a fell to Zeuxis. 660. 60 H o w far did the Seleukid advance into Karia reach in 203? It did not affect the K a r i a n coast: cities such as Herakleia under L a t m o s . to the south. M o s t puzzlingly. lines 8 . 7 . a former Seleukid foundation. now SEG 42. T h e explanation for the incompleteness of the Seleukid conquests in the region probably lies in the 'pact' with Philip V (§ 3). Alinda: document 9. Fulfilment of the Seleukid ambitions in the region w o u l d have to await the campaign of 197. Iasos. or acknowledged such a status. the Seleukid gains amounted to a sizeable portion of the K a r i a n 'interior' (μεσόγαια: Strabo 14. since Philip V controlled it later. and A n t i o c h o s I I I . J. the city of Kildara probably did not fall to the Seleukids. It is also possible that A n t i o c h o s III granted asylia to the city. is perhaps f r o m A n t i o c h o s III. Mylasa 126. Alabanda.

§ 4). Bargylia. Iasos 150. W h e n A n t i g o n o s D o s o n took over parts of W e s t e r n Karia around 227. under Seleukos II.1. It is tempting to call this region 'Chrysaorian K a r i a ' . several Chrysaorian communities were under Rhodian control. f r o m the name of the religious league regrouping communities such as Antiocheia/Alabanda. F r o m his base in A l i n d a . 64 T h e dating is assured because I. the region was governed by O l y m p i c h o s . 6 4 he undertook incursions against the territory of Iasos (I. with the federal shrine of Z e u s Chrysaoreus. lines 1 5 . and L . including Stratonikeia. w h i c h explained the dispatch of an ambassador f r o m A l e x a n d r i a to Asia M i n o r with a warning for A n t i o c h o s to refrain f r o m infringing the truce struck in 217 after Raphia (above). Euromos. 65 Wörrle 1988: 442: Herakleia under Latmos was 'Ptolemaic' continuously down to 201. a Mylasan inscription (Crampa 1969: no. O l y m p i c h o s must have controlled A m y z o n (though probably not Herakleia under Latmos). T h e soldiers sent by Zeuxis under Ophelandros and the siege of the χωρίον mentioned in document 13 are probably related. Herakleia was probably Ptolemaic close to 196. we know that the inland portion of W e s t e r n Karia was taken f r o m the Ptolemies by the Seleukids (under A n t i o c h o s II. Oppermann 1924.201.recovered substantially the same territory w h i c h A n t i o c h o s II and Seleukos II had once controlled. IG 2 2 2313. 173.1-2). above C h . at Alexandria. a subsequent E u r o m i a n decree of c. the Seleukid governor passed into his service. as proved by the material published in J. in speaking 61 O n the Chrysaorians.3 2 . Iasos 150 mentions a Rhodian ambassador (lines 38. a Ptolemy. speaks of a war (τον ττεριεστηκότα π[όλεμον]). where his presence is well attested. J. 5. 1 1 2 . have been interpreted as aggression against the Ptolemaic empire. 95).14). 13. Furthermore. and active in this period. so that the Chrysaorian League straddled two major Hellenistic states. 62 including the takeover of A m y z o n . Robert 1983: 223-5. before being warned off by the Rhodians. 16. D o c u m e n t s 11. for existence in this period. before 254: see C h . and Pedasa in the negotiations between Philip V and the Romans during the Second Macedonian War (Pol.1 6 ) distinguishes between Chrysaorians and 'the other Karians'. 6 1 Z e u x i s ' military operations of 203. T h i s version (Schmitt 1964: 227. . line 54. in 213 (Cook 1966: 24 no. on embassy to request Aitolian intercession with the Herakleians' ruler. W i l l 1982: 109. If both documents refer to the same Menekrates. and therefore belonged to the Ptolemaic cities Philip was summoned to restore to Ptolemy V (Pol. 18. whose territory his troops crossed on their w a y to attack Iasos. 1 § 3). who died. 9). a Herakleian Menekrates appears both in IG 92 1. 18. A l i n d a . and in the letter of Zeuxis to Herakleia of 196 (document 31 B) as an envoy to the Seleukid viceroy. However. and A m y z o n . A m y z o n certainly was a 'Ptolemaic' city under P t o l e m y II. 6 3 in addition to M y l a s a . and L . T h i s is likely: Herakleia is never named alongside Iasos. Robert 1983: 1 1 8 . Mylasa. T h i s activity implies that O l y m p i c h o s controlled E u r o m o s . 1.1 3 ) is n o longer the obvious one. H o w e v e r . 62 D o c u m e n t 9. when Philip V conquered the city. Between 221 and 214.

J. Robert 1983: 17 and 147. in the last years of Ptolemy I V . the city of E u r o m o s was probably independent for a few years. line 5). no. Robert 1983: 150. and L . 65 M a . 6 5 By 201. RC 38. but (for instance) is confirming a decision taken by a subordinate named Ptolemaios (or even by one of O l y m p i c h o s ' subordinates bearing that name?). Robert 1983: 2 1 7 . 5.34. But the eisphora decree cannot date to the years after 188. since it does not have the compulsory 'Rhodian' preamble mentioning the priest of Helios at R h o d e s and the Rhodian calendar (see J. 6). . S u c h a reaction might seem strange under Ptolemy I V . and L. before being (re)conquered by Philip V (see below). T h e decree is dated by the stephanephoros and by the Ionian month Heraion (rather than by a M a c e d o n i a n month. destroyed O l y m p i c h o s ' dominions. D e r o w .]. was recovered for Ptolemy V . 28). and L . T h i s w o u l d explain w h y Zeuxis. under the local governorship of Olympichos. and L . no. 66 Disappearance of the Antigonid province of Olympichos: Wörrle 1988: 440. the reference in Z e u x i s ' letter might simply designate some precise privileges once granted by a Ptolemy. O n Alinda controlling A m y z o n . a feature suggesting possible autonomy and the concomitant absence of royal subsidies (J. Euromos under Olympichos: J. 64: εν τε τήι άποκαταστάσει της πόλεως εις τ ά τον βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου πράγματα).4. 6 6 It is possible that a Ptolemaic resurgence. captured by Philip V. T h i s is suggested by the formulary of an A m y z o n i a n inscription recording the decision to impose a special tax (εισφορά) on all citizens. unlike the Seleukid documents of 202 and 201 (above). Ptolemy I V neglecting empire: Pol. as under the Ptolemies or Seleukids): the decree shows no sign of subjection to a royal state. and reasserted control over north-west Karia. in his letter to the A m y z o n i a n s . under Rhodian domination. and M e a d o w s 1995. w h o apparently neglected the overseas empire. the A n t i g o n i d zone under O l y m p i c h o s had broken up. subsequent Euromian decree: Errington 1993: 21. to reimburse a loan taken by the city towards contributions to the Chrysaorian L e a g u e . might date to a period of independence after the disappearance of Olympichos. 4.of the city being 'restored' to Philip V . O n the other hand. 6 ' A n o t h e r possibility is that Z e u x i s is not referring to a king of the Ptolemaic dynasty. though perhaps under some degree of Rhodian influence. seems to promise the status quo w h i c h had prevailed under Ptolemy (α και εν τήι Πτολεμαίου [. after a siege of the akropolis by Ptolemaic forces (Habicht 1957: no. It is equally possible that many of the cities in north-western Karia were genuinely independent. . T h e inscription referring to depredations by some person or community (Errington 1993: 27. alludes to this period of A n t i g o n i d control. no. 67 Letter of Zeuxis: document 5.2 7 . the capacity for reaction of the local Ptolemaic forces should not be underestimated: Samos. line 3. .

specifically f r o m the heavy contributions (συντάξεις) w h i c h the city had been paying to Attalos I. T h i s document was likely produced after the disappearance of O l y m p i c h o s ' authority over this part of Karia. at some time between 213 and 203.69 68 A n objection is that the list of citizens who paid the eisphora is headed by Pankrates and Menippos. 'Holy. T h e impression f r o m the T e i a n documents is of a more peaceful takeover than at A m y z o n : the T e i a n s thanked the king for the πίστις he showed w h e n staying in the city with troops. honoured in another Amyzonian inscription. H o w e v e r . inviolate. and L . and L. A p a r t f r o m western Karia. but part of the Chrysaorian L e a g u e . and free f r o m tribute'. gewaltlosen Ubergangs braucht . A n t i o c h o s I I I went before the assembled T e i a n s . J. it is possible that Laodike accompanied him. 18-20. T h e eisphora decree starts by listing important citizens (J. or gained. since the T e i a n s also respond to her benefactions (Herrmann 1965a. Robert 1983: 204-9. but note Herrmann 1965a: 110: ' D e r Anschein eines ruhigen. 23: this inscription refers to the activity of the two brothers in the time of the Great K i n g (line 15). w h o held office in the Seleukid period: would Pankrates and Menippos. Robert 1983: 137. in spite of their incompleteness (imposed by external factors: see § 3). with his Friends and contingents of his army. presumably Antiochos (line 6). 68 Rather than aggression against the Ptolemaic dominion. at a time w h e n A m y z o n was independent. and free from tribute': document 17. Robert 1983: 226).Robert 1983: 250-1). and 'released the city as holy. Peaceful takeover: J. νεώτεροι. the activity of Pankrates and M e n i p p o s would then have started earlier than under Antiochos III. 19. Z e u x i s imposed the 'simplification through conquest' of Seleukid takeover. 1). 47-8. Z e u x i s ' K a r i a n campaign intervened in a complex situation created b y the interaction of super-power politics and local players. no. and there is no mention of garrisons or governors. the Ionian city of T e o s provides evidence for Seleukid activity in Asia M i n o r in the last years of the third c e n t u r y — i f the two important T e i a n decrees are to be dated to this context (which I prefer) rather than 197 (see A p p e n d i x 2). T h e T e i a n documents give a vivid picture of the king's passage through T e o s . inviolate. in the middle of the inscription. αποκατέστησε τα πράγματα εις συμφερουσαν κατάστασιν. since the first T e i a n decree elides the specific events by w h i c h A n t i o c h o s was allowed. have been important enough (or old enough) to figure at the beginning of a list of citizens drawn up before 203? However. and L . U p o n this landscape. this might be misleading. and how the brothers had something to do with a king. to distinguish him from the king referred to earlier at line 6. and his activities are typical of the Seleukid project in the region ( C h . 18. entry into the city: 'he restored the affairs (or his affairs) to a satisfactory conclusion'. sons of Melaineus. young men under Antiochos I I I . it is possible that the king in question is not Antiochos III: this would explain w h y the expression βαοιλεΐ μεγάλω appears in line 15. 110). when they were still young. 33-4. 69 T e i a n inscriptions: documents 17.

f r o m this plain it w o u l d be easy to reach T e o s . may have accepted the fait accompli of A n t i o c h o s ' foray. or surrendered them against c o m p e n s a t i o n — p e r haps the 400 talents owed by A n t i o c h o s I I I in 189? (Pol. 1 7 . followed by consolidation and further fighting. tentatively). by the M e n d e r e s / K a v a k d e r e corridor.A likely context is a foray by A n t i o c h o s f r o m Sardeis. Asklepieion. conduct a reconnaissance in force. though that statue is probably to be dated after 197. with only a brief stay at Teos. since Antiochos III is 'the great king'. attested c. has been redated by Habicht to the 150s (Habicht in Inschr. L i v . 10—11. 'Satisfactory conclusion': document 17. 71 Herrmann 1965a: 1 1 4 . then southwards on the h i g h w a y towards E p h e s o s (Pritchett 1982: 272) into the plain south of S m y r n a .200. A decree for the Attalid prince Athenaios. points to the city being 'Seleukid'. interrupted because of events in Egypt. implies a different r h y t h m . T h e Karian activities of Z e u x i s constituted a sustained campaign of conquest. Kolophon: document 42.15. 37.45. make a probe at Ptolemaic Ephesos. 2 1 . the presence of A n t i o c h o s I I I at T e o s . proposes a campaign aimed at reconquering Asia Minor. then by a conflict with Prousias I. it is likely that he visited the 'provincial capital'.205 and in the 190s. would hardly have persisted under Seleukid domination. T h e r e is thus no need to see T e o s as an isolated Seleukid outpost or enclave (as H e r r m a n n had proposed. 70 D o c u m e n t 17. 1-5) and hence does not support Attalid possession of Kolophon c. to make his presence felt again after an absence of over nine years. W h e n A n t i o c h o s crossed the T a u r u s . in favour of the offensive in Koile-Syria.1 6 . I think it possible that the name Ptolemais persisted under Seleukid domination. 27-8 nn. 141. 72 Herrmann 1965a: 118. taken back by Attalos I in 218 (above. at the end of the plain south of S m y r n a — p e r h a p s the aggression about w h i c h the Ptolemaic minister A g a t h o k l e s complained (above). . Attalos I. 116. which Holleaux dated around 197 (Holleaux 19386: 51-60).1 3 ) . T h e king himself may have embarked on an armed tour of Seleukid c i s .' 1 Both T e o s and K o l o p h o n had been 'Attalid' cities. if it is to be dated to 203. 7 2 If the Ilian decree for a natürlich nicht unbedingt der Wahrheit zu entsprechen'. weakened by his efforts in the First M a c e d o n i a n W a r . a statue base for Antiochos the son. over the Ionian mountains. 29-36: that Antiochos instructed the T e i a n s to send him an embassy suggests that he had already left. If T e o s was taken over in 204 or 203. on this geographical argument. A c t i v i t y in the region might have been directed at the Ptolemaic base at Ephesos. then the same probably happened to neighbouring K o l o p h o n ('Seleukid' in the 190s). w h e n c e he dispatched Z e u x i s to Karia. § 1). 5 . on this line of reasoning.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r . Sardeis. with H e r r m a n n 1965a: 1 1 0 . arguing that the dynastic name Ptolemais. Lebedos: Herrmann 1965a: 1 1 4 and n. Ptolemais/Lebedos did not fall to Antiochos III in 197 either. and exploit local disaffection with the Attalids. it is likely that L e b e d o s also fell to A n t i o c h o s then. 7 0 T h e route might have taken A n t i o c h o s towards S m y r n a .

533-4. for reasons w h i c h belong to international high politics (§ 3). 16. see Habicht's comments in Jones and Habicht 1989: 335-46: Ptolemaios belonged to an Aspendian family of long-standing tradition of service to the Ptolemies.27. T h i s enterprise (the F i f t h Syrian W a r ) ended w i t h the defeat of the Ptolemaic forces. if some local Seleukid aggression took place in 198. Walbank. Warrior 1996. 350-1. until Ptolemaios deserted to Antiochos III (Gera 1987). A n t i o c h o s ' armed tour. in 200.9-16.2 1 . Holleaux 1957: 159 with further references. Gera 1987.8. while still in K o i l e . 32. that he invaded it himself). ' G r e a t K i n g ' ( A p p e n d i x 4). and both founded (in successive generations) the Ptolemaic colony of Arsinoe (Habicht and Jones 1989). A t any rate. had been governors of Koile-Syria for the Ptolemies. a parallel to the A m y z o n i a n documents. 74 B y the time a R o m a n embassy came to broker a settlement between A n t i o c h o s I I I and Ptolemy V (Pol. in 198.138-44).1613.27. 60 in A g e r 1996. Gera 1998: 20-34. with comments and bibliography. 71 O n this embassy. before w i t h d r a w i n g after an intervention f r o m R o m e ( L i v . O n Ptolemaios. Will 1982: 1 1 9 . . 74 Estates: SEG 29. HCP ii.king A n t i o c h o s ( O G I S 219) should be attributed to A n t i o c h o s III (see A p p e n d i x 1).5). I incline to reject the account as an annalistic invention ( A p p e n d i x 6). Ptolemaios' father. m o v i n g into M y s i a .S y r i a . like Z e u x i s ' campaign of conquest in Karia. It is certain that the king did not travel from a major war in Syria back to Asia M i n o r for the sake of a minor expedition and quickly relinquished territorial gains. It was at this time that A n t i o c h o s III took the title of βασιλεύς μέγας. L i v y writes that. however. and Ptolemaios himself. e m b o d y i n g claims to be 'king of Asia'. and w o n the city over (Mastrocinque 1983: 67-9). S o m e scholars have suggested that L i v y records some anti-Attalid activity by local Seleukid forces. A n t i o c h o s organized an invasion of the Attalid kingdom (literally.2 1 . it is also catalogued.1). and 32. was interrupted. around 202. at Panion (200).S y r i a was complete. /S the Seleukid conquest of K o i l e . his father and grandfather had served as governors of Kilikia. 345. it was dwarfed by the third expedition into western Asia M i n o r launched in 197. /3 T h e process of conquest is illustrated by documents such as a letter of A n t i o c h o s III to the governor Ptolemaios concerning the status of Jerusalem {AJ 13. as no. w o u l d have made contact w i t h Ilion. or the dossier of petitions and enactments concerning Ptolemaios' private estates at Skythopolis. the closing years of the third century might provide a satisfactory context: the king. his reward for defecting to the Seleukid side. " Fifth Syrian War: Will 1982: 1 1 8 . A n t i o c h o s turned f r o m Asia M i n o r to K o i l e Syria.

Diod. It is difficult not to see Philip's actions in c.17.1. " It was Philip's ambitions in the eastern A e g e a n w h i c h led to an agreement with A n t i o c h o s I I I . Philip V. he complied with a similar request (Pol. asked Z e u x i s for supplies κατά τάς σννθήκας.5. Antiochos III in Crete: Holleaux 1952: 1 9 1 . 7 6 A f t e r the peace of Phoinike (205) w h i c h ended the inconclusive war fought against the Aitolians and the R o m a n s (the 'First M a c e d o n i a n W a r ' ) .24.20. perhaps to reduce the disruption in the coastal region of Asia M i n o r . by competition with the Rhodians in the eastern A e g e a n . and by the desire to weaken the great naval power of the region as a prelude to invasion. in the winter 203/2. and Samos. 13. Philip V sponsored a privateer to operate in the K y k l a d e s and along the coasts of Asia M i n o r . 28. 4 7 2 . Pol. Holleaux 1952: 124-45 a n d r 6 3 . for instance over K o s and the K y k l a d e s . around T e o s (above. later.T a u r i c Asia M i n o r cannot be viewed in isolation f r o m the context of international politics. 78 C h r o n o l o g y : Schmitt 1964: 229-37. 76 77 . 16. during his expedition in the k i n g d o m of Pergamon. no. 27. A n t i o c h o s and Philip agreed on the partition of the empire of the child he had left behind [Ptolemy V ] . the Rhodians. 8 ) — to Polybios' indignation (15.3 3 5 . 2 .S y r i a and Phoenicia' ( 3 . 5. K r e u t e r 1992: 5 7 . 547. especially the ambitions w h i c h Philip V entertained in the eastern A e g e a n and in Asia Minor.3 . § 2 ) .3). and sent an agent on a mission to damage the Rhodian fleet. on Crete. A r o u n d this time. and the T e i a n request for asylia. A p p i a n ( M a k . HC Ρ ii.54.3.2. Holleaux 1952: 2 1 1 . stipulating nothing less than the partition of the Ptolemaic empire.6 1 .14. Schmitt 1964: 237-9. supported the Cretans in their war against the Rhodians.1.5) seems to follow Polybios.8.4-5 and Polyainos. 73 C o m m e n t e d list of sources.7 7 . Philip laying hands on E g y p t .8-9): Philip. 28. Attalos I. and initiated evil deeds. Antiochos I I I . 13. A n t i o c h o s I I I attempted to broker a peace between the Cretans and the Rhodians.4. A n t i o c h o s on K o i l e . Philip V . however. w h o argues that this activity was destined to raise money for an Antigonid fleet (139-42). D i o d .3. Rhodes: Pol.1 (Dikaiarchos sent to collect tribute in the islands).9 (peace between some Cretan cities and the Rhodians directed against Philip V).6). since he now had reestablished control over parts of Ionia.204 as motivated.' 8 T h e existence of this agreement is stated by P o l y b i o s (16. 13. Polybios states that 'when king Ptolemy [IV] died. Privateer: Pol. Cretan War: D i o d . 4). L i v y (31. also Staatsvertr. describes the pact as a r u m o u r Walbank 1940: 108-37. and the Romans (201-200 bc) T h e second occurrence of Seleukid activity in c i s . Generally. Karia. 18. But what were these σννθήκαι? Literary sources' 9 mention a pact struck between Philip V and A n t i o c h o s I I I .1. at least in part. with Z e u x i s ' reluctant agreement.

84 Schmitt 1964: 246—8. In addition. Pressure f r o m Philip V .g.S y r i a . But Schmitt 1964: 246.24). 8 2 In reaction. 8 4 C o n v e r s e l y . D . e. the K y k l a d e s and Ionia. 83 Magie 1939. 22.8): Philip w o u l d help A n t i o c h o s to campaign in E g y p t and C y p r u s . 80 T h e ' S y r o . 8 1 S o m e have accepted the Polybian version wholesale (for instance Holleaux and Schmitt). Philip V . 81 Schmitt 1964: 239-41. an agreement of non-interference between the two kings. Philip V did not attack Seleukid territory proper. and suggested that a local agreement between Philip V and Z e u x i s provided Polybios with the basis for a deduction concerning a broader pact. M a g i e denounced the pact as a Rhodian fabrication designed to provoke the Senate's alarm. the events of the years 202-200 fell into two unrelated sets: Philip's activity in the eastern A e g e a n . Errington convincingly argued against the importance Holleaux lent to the ' S y r o .(λόγος. but his arguments are unconvincing. the existence of a pact between Philip V and A n t i o c h o s III was thus unnecessary to explain the events. 328-30.8-9). brought to R o m e by a Rhodian embassy in autumn 201. T h e pattern supports the existence of. 83 H o w e v e r . since the first was a measure taken out of a need for supplies. and A n t i o c h o s ' campaign in K o i l e . 345-7. followed by Errington 1971: 348-9 (pact unnecessary). 16.2 1261 A ) are proof of Seleukid 'tolerance'. F o r M a g i e . and the Seleukid forces in Asia M i n o r did not act against Philip V by collaborating with Attalos I and the Rhodians. even w h e n Philip was at his weakest. T h e Seleukid advance into western Karia came to a halt (see above. G r u e n 1986: 387-8. at the least. on the different attribution of E g y p t in Polybios and Appian: Errington 1971: esp. while A n t i o c h o s w o u l d assist Philip in the conquest of K y r e n e (!). and even after Philip V had departed f r o m Asia M i n o r in winter 201 (see below) and left scanty forces behind (in fact. map 4. Errington 1971 for Polybios as inventor of the pact. until compelled by lack of supplies during the winter 201/0 (Pol.2. returning f r o m Pergamon.M a c e d o n i a n pact'. . as mentioned by Polybios. and the second was a local initiative.M a c e d o n i a n pact' has a historiography of its own. Furthermore. whatever the exact terms. § 2). crossed parts of Seleukid-held L y d i a .1 8 . 82 Holleaux 1935: 320-2. the argument that an agreement between A n t i o c h o s I I I and Philip is historically superfluous cannot hold. δόξα). might explain 80 Schmitt 1964: 250-6 tries to conciliate Polybios and Appian. and the terms of the pact are different f r o m those in Polybios (3.2. is mistaken to write that the plundering of Alabandian territory by Philip in winter 201/0 and the honours voted to Philip by Hierakome ( Τ Α Μ 5. Criticism of Schmitt 1964: Berthold 1975-6: ι ο ί η. not until his defeat by the R o m a n s at K y n o s k e p h a l a i in 197). Will 1982: 1 1 4 . Schmitt 1964: 235-61 and 301. starting with the 'Seleukid' city of Hierakome (Pol. 16.

ore τήν Άσίαν κατετρεχεν (Pol.9).8. near the island of L a d e . landing near the m o u t h of the K a i k o s . T h a s o s 'enslaved' on the w a y back to Macedonia). 16. 16. T h e possibility of any collaboration on a wider scale remains mysterious. forcibly taking over a n u m b e r of the islands and installing garrisons. where Philip drove off the Rhodian fleet (Pol.2-8). 16. off C h i o s . more likely. directed against the Ptolemaic empire. Ormerod 1924: 19-20 and 20 n. 15.9 8 . 8 6 Philip then spent 201 in operations across western Asia M i n o r . T h e year 202 was occupied by operations in the north A e g e a n and the Propontis (Lysimacheia and C h a l k e d o n were taken over. 8 7 T h e island route across the A e g e a n ends at Samos. Walbank argued that Philip V could not put an embargo on Antiochos' Syrian campaign (Walbank 1965: 264).11 and 18. Violence at Paros: L i v . for correct dating).23.24.w h y the Seleukid advance broke off. Thasos: Pol. . where Philip seized the Ptolemaic naval base and fleet. Holleaux 1952: 223-34.3.5. 15. 56 Lysimacheia and Chalkedon: Pol. 8 8 Philip then besieged C h i o s (Pol.23. concessions by Seleukids: Schmitt 1964: 248-50.4. A n o t h e r naval battle took place off Miletos. Kios: Pol.4. 8 9 85 Initiative by Philip.6. and embarking again near Ephesos. 15. repulsed by the defences of the city. 18.9). incorporating the ships and crews into his o w n force. 31. T h e fact remains that Philip V acted in the eastern A e g e a n . and even more so whether it was primarily. the takeover was an act of war. 16. 16. no.4. Holleaux believed that Philip reached Pergamon by an inland march f r o m Miletos. 16. 87 Island route through the Aegean: Hdt.1.15. 85 and w h y A n t i o c h o s ' attention shifted f r o m Asia M i n o r to K o i l e .31. Habicht 1957: 237-8. but this does not take into account the powerful fleet Philip was raising. and K y t h n o s (only): L i v . free f r o m Seleukid opposition. the expedition was at least in part seaborne. 31.1).24. or at all. Philip started by w o r k i n g through the K y k l a d e s .95. Paros. and 239-43 f ° r 'Egyptians' in the fleet of Philip. It was after this foray that he sent to Zeuxis.1.8. 6. K i o s sacked. Robert 1955: 266-71. 1. 31. Φίλιππος . Probably between the battle of C h i o s and the battle of L a d e . he was defeated by the joint fleet of the Rhodians and Attalos I (Pol.1-3). except that the situation of the expedition into Pergamon between the battles of C h i o s and Lade is taken from . 88 Seizure of Samos. Garrisons at Andros. ranging f r o m the plain of T h e b e north of Pergamon.S y r i a . in spite of Holleaux 1952: 3 1 0 .2. to K n i d o s in southern Karia: the year 'when Philip w a s o v e r r u n n i n g A s i a ' . asking for supplies 'according to the agreement' (Pol. esp. Staatsvertr. he marched and counter-marched his force across the whole length of the k i n g d o m in search of provisions. . Shipley 1987: 192. at 213-33.1 2 : L i v .2.15). Philip invaded the k i n g d o m of P e r g a m o n (Pol. 89 T h e order followed here is that proposed b y Holleaux in a number of studies assembled in Holleaux 1952: 2 1 1 . 549 (with Robert 1955: 268-70.

over w h i c h Philip appointed two epistatai f r o m K a l y m n o s . Euromos.4 mentions Macedonian troops at T h e r a and 'Alabanda' in 197. 2.5 and 33. no. S h e r w i n . but more likely the city remained Seleukid down to 190.18. a Euromian between 201 and 196. 16. an epiphany of the K o a n goddess Artemis Hyakinthotrophos is mentioned in I. 18. fut sûrement occupé par Philippe V ' . Kildara: J.2. T h e reading 'Alabanda' is defended by Briscoe 1973 w h o argues that Alabanda was Antigonid. 33.T h e latter phase of Philip's expedition. Knidos 220. Stratonikeia: cf. based on a reading of Pol. 9 " then the Rhodian dominions. and Idyma). Stratonikeia 3 (201) and 4 (198).3.3.44. following the T r a l l e i s .9. Lindos 151 makes it clear that Philip had taken over Pisye. probably acknowledging asylia for Knidos). 18. with T h o m p s o n 1971: 6 1 8 . 92 Rhodian Peraia: Pol. against Holleaux 1952: 253-5 (land-march from Miletos and back). 16. met with greater success. " Syll. and Kyllandos. 33. the eulogy for the Rhodian navarch Theophiliskos. just as he would hand the territory of M y o u s over to Magnesia on M a e a n d e r (below).18.19. 572 (cf. 18.6. and 502-3 for the suggestion that the expedition was partly seaborne. 90 Knidos: FD 3.2.3 (Pedasa should be added) and Pol. Bargylia: cf.1. Liv. also Magie 1950: 7 4 7 .18. 4. Liv. Robert 1983: 187: 'étant situé tout près de Bargylia.W h i t e 1978: 120-4. the city was framed b y Antigonid conquests of 201 (Bargylia. H e attacked the independent states of K n i d o s and K o s (which briefly lost the island of Kalymna). I. and L. so that the text should be emended to some other Karian place-name (Robert 1954: 378-9 n. 308.3. 33. ar>d 124-8: K a l y m n o s was detached from K o s by Philip V — p e r h a p s confirmed by the presence of Kalymnians governing Herakleia under Latmos for Philip: Wörrle 1988: 433-4. Liv. .4-7.91). IG 12. 499-500.11. Iasos 606 (Bargylietan decree. inland.9 and A p p . who died after the battle of Chios. Berthold 1975 argues that the battle of Lade took place before the battle of Chios.8. Pugliese-Carratelli 1987: 122—3.32. Pisye.e. Bargylia. with its o w n governor Walbank. as argued by Bean and Cook 1955: 115).12. 18. he may have taken T h e a n g e l a .9.P h y s k o s road into the M a r s y a s valley. undid the incorporation of Nisyros into the Rhodian state.18. 91 on the continent.w e s t Asia M i n o r was substantial (though ragged on the ground): a Karian 'province'. 93 Philip's achievement in S o u t h . Idyma. but the text does not countenance this. in south-western Asia M i n o r . Stratonikeia (a Rhodian city since the time of Seleukos II: see A p p e n d i x 4). E u r o m o s and Pedasa. and Pedasa are referred to in Pol. Iasos 613) dates to the invasion of Philip V . Bargylia. appears in a document attesting the incorporation of Theangela into the polis of Halikarnassos—assuming the stone is from T h e a n g e l a and not from Halikarnassos.9 η.19 (Bargylia). suggested Lobolda). T h e island of N i s y r o s was perhaps taken over. 4. 171 n. Wörrle 1988: 433-4. 33.1 9 : Philip V took over Nisyros. A t the end of the L a t m i c G u l f .e. HCP ii. 93 Iasos. he took Herakleia under L a t m o s . Theangela: Descat 1997 (a 'Philippeus'.8. i.21-2.18.2—6. Inscr. i. 92 Philip then took Iasos. and given it to Halikarnassos. 18. suggests that the apparition of Artemis K i n d y a s at Bargylia (I. Iasos.1. I. 34. many of Berthold's arguments are already answered b y Holleaux. Herakleia under Latmos. 39. 16. cf. Philip conquered all or most of the Rhodian Peraia. Euromos: Errington 1993: no. 18. Pol. with Homolle's commentary. near Stratonikeia (Debord 1994 argues that Panamara was not yet part of Stratonikeia). attesting Antigonid control at Panamara. Mac. and Kildara. 4. then. however. and allowed it 'to use its ancestral and present laws'. K o s : Holleaux 1952: 273-6.4 ( · η the S C of 196). Stratonikeia.

16. held that M y o u s was given to Magnesia when Philip was marching to Pergamon or back from Pergamon.and local officials. But Philip allowed the Rhodians and Attalos I to trap him in the G u l f of Bargylia. Philip undertook a campaign in T h r a c e ( L i v . 539. detached from Miletos 9 5 (Pol.16). followed by many places in T h r a c e and the Chersonesos (up to Sestos: HCP ii. Herrmann 19656: 90-103. 31. Herakleia under Latmos: previous note. A n o t h e r similarity is that most of the places taken over were Ptolemaic. 97 Schmitt 1964: 243-5: 'ererbte Rechte auf Karien'. W a s Philip motivated by 'ancestral claims'.24. 101-2. Philip even carried out acts of aggression against Seleukid territory. L i v . Holleaux 1952: 230-2.9). 1 6 . around Seleukid-held M y l a s a . 16.18. T h e situation of Magnesia is unclear. 94 stretching from the m o u t h of the M a e a n d e r to the K e r a m i c G u l f . A b y d o s fell after a horrendous siege (Pol. 16. 18.29. In early 200. unsuccessfully trying to capture M y l a s a by a botched coup de mam and plundering the territory of Alabanda (the latter no doubt operating f r o m Stratonikeia). after getting involved in hostilities against A t h e n s ( L i v . attempt on Mylasa. 255. 9 ) .4. perhaps Halikarnassos and M y n d o s 9 6 — b u t these were hardly the exclusive target of his campaign.7. besieging Maroneia. Alabanda. 16. 33. referred to in Pol. territory of Alabanda ravaged: Pol. 3 1 . Magnesia. is reminiscent of the advance of A n t i o c h o s I I I in 197 (see § 4). and Magnesia on M a e a n d e r for supplies. the holdings of A n t i g o n o s D o s o n . 33.29-35. 16. he could consider his activity as the reconquest of 'ancestral possessions'. 'Ptolemaic' cities may be Ϊ9Ί> 'he Rhodians protected the Ptolemaic cities ( L i v . w h i c h soon fell. T h e north Aegean expedition.1 8 . up to and including most of the Rhodian Peraia. Stratonikeia 4. received the town of M y o u s . ad Pol. esp. 96 Schmitt 1964: 259-60 (against Holleaux 1952: 306—13). he cajoled or bullied M y l a s a .2. with its swift progression through a string of coastal cities.4). reduced to 'the life of a w o l f (Pol. .24. in return for supplying figs. T h e failed attempt on M y l a s a might be interpreted as aimed at recovering a city w h i c h had once been ' A n t i g o n i d ' (see § 2). 93-6. but it is unlikely that the expedition took place entirely by land (above). and the same may have happened in 201-200. Epistates at Panamara: I. T h e thinness of the evidence hinders general interpretation. analogous to those of A n t i o c h o s III? In Karia. arching inland. Governor of Antigonid Karia: Liv. in the winter. 95 Supplies: Pol.97 but P o l y b i o s does not mention any claim by Philip V to ancestral rights during the negotiations at Nikaia with the R o m a n s and their allies 94 Wörrle 1988: 443 for appraisal of Philip's Asian holdings. 6 . 1 4 . 6 .1 0 ) .12-23).24. 16. W e r e the campaigns directed against the Ptolemaic empire? Philip assailed Ptolemaic p o s s e s s i o n s — S a m o s . In G r e e c e . O n M y o u s ' absorption into Miletos. 3 1 . and to the upper M a r s y a s valley at Stratonikeia. Philip V slipped past the blockade (Holleaux 1952: 287-92).6.24.6.3).

and not the Rhodian Peraia. . Pal. Errington 1993: no. 9. the rhetorical strategies of subject communities such as E u r o m o s . once it was clear that Philip had been victorious at L a d e . 99 Philippeis: document 29.1 0 ) . or in the Panamarian decree for an A n t i g o n i d official (I. 1 . w h o spoke of Philip's Zeus-like greatness. nor w o u l d they concern T h r a c e . as in the case of S a m o s (Habicht 1957: no. but also for Herakleides on account of the attack' (or 'through fear that he might attack'.15. the Karian activity of Philip came only after a naval phase in areas where Philip had no ancestral rights whatsoever. revolt after A n t i g o n i d conquest. and his children (I. not ironical). 98 I still agree with Walbank 1942: 134-7. HCP ). 98 T h e impact on the local communities is the most interesting feature: if there were more evidence. gives a stark example of the function of civic honours for a king (or his officials): to provide a m e d i u m for communicating and for influencing behaviour (see C h . 9 9 T h e same sort of euergetic dialogue can be seen in the Panamarian decree on public prayers for the safety of Philip. Just as illuminating is the decree passed after the battle of L a d e by the Milesians (Pol. A b y d o s . Stratonikeia 4). 568. is encomiastic. w h i c h honoured the A n t i g o n i d general w h o had conquered the city 'in accordance with our prayers' and took on the name 'Philippeis'. they voted a crown not only for Philip. 16. or the Propontis. besides. for instance as a reply to the Rhodian insistence that Philip evacuate E u r o m o s . lines 1-4: decree for Alexandros A d m e t o u . 5. preferred by W a l b a n k . Samos. especially epigraphical. or Chios. in accordance with our prayers'. the K n i d i a n peninsula. In any event. Alkaios of Messene. celebrating Philip's Zeus-like greatness. '[according to Z e n o n and Antisthenes]. T h e course of action taken by the Milesians. ου μόνον τον Φίλιππον. T h e most likely explanation is still an attempt at A e g e a n power. T h e material available illustrates the variety of local responses: the military resistance of K o s ( S y l l .518 (the epigram.( 1 8 . his queen. the single year taken up by Philip's war of conquest in Asia M i n o r w o u l d ofïer a subject-matter as rich as A n t i o c h o s ' activities in the region. terrified by what had taken place. 4 § 2b).6): καταττλαγεντας TO γεγονός. T o speak in terms of the individual ambition of Philip V (and a spirit of rivalry with Antiochos III?) at least reflects the viewpoint of one contemporary. 569. inherited claims w o u l d concern a small part of Karia. w h o 'restored the city to K i n g Philip. with Holleaux 1952: 274-5). o n Anth. T h e s e documents show us the rulers in the guise of benefactors: Philip making dedications at a local temple. άλλα καΐ τον Ήρακλείδην στεφανωσαι δια τον εφοδον. 4. 64). Stratonikeia 3). an A n t i g o n i d governor restoring the walls of a local town after the earthquake of 199.

near lonopolis. 1 0 3 T h e z e r o . 1 0 1 N e a r b y . Syll. 404 on the meaning: 'want.5). d o w n to the G u l f of Miletos. 198-214. south of Herakleia. or both. lines 82-3. observing that Achaimenid gifts of land were only possible through dispossession of subjects. the three communities concerned w o u l d fight territorial wars in the 180s. 101 T h e Myesia may have been the Upà χώρα which the Milesians lost in wars but the Romans restored to them in 188 (Pol. of a type well attested in Hellenistic history. the latter's agricultural territory. 104 Robert 1987: 2 1 0 . may reflect a redistribution of territory effected by Philip V . the tract in question w o u l d have been taken f r o m the only point of contact after Miletos lost the Myesia: the Bucak plain. . p.T h e alienation of civic territory and its conveyance to another city by royal fiat exemplifies the impact of Philip's presence. 633. In fact. A s a parallel. with an emphatic profusion of negatives. possibly given wholesale to Halikarnassos. μή είναι μήτε Μάγνησιν τήν Μιλησίων χώραν μ[ή I τ\ε τήν περαίαν μήτε άλλην μηδεμίαν μηδε φρουρών. T h i s may have happened in the case of T h e a n g e l a . its territory in the M a e a n d e r valley. Herakleia under L a t m o s . but deprived Miletos of the Μνησία. competing cities in western Karia. shows that the Milesians did lay claim to parts of the Bucak plain. in addition to suffering the flight of its agricultural serfs. 588). Hornblower 1982: 142-3. in the Bucak plain. no doubt caused by Philip V (with Gauthier. shows that the Milesians and Herakleians fought over ownership both of a tract near the Myesia. 1 0 0 the best attested case is that of the conveyance of M y o u s and its territory (annexed by Miletos some time in the late third century) to Magnesia on Maeander. and I. 104 A measure of the disruption is given by the peace treaty between Magnesia on M a e a n d e r and Miletos: a clause precludes either party f r o m ever again accepting a part of the other's territory.46.1 4 . or as compensation to the Milesians for the loss of M y o u s ? In the latter case. 21. 177-84. adjacent to the Ionopolitis (Robert 1987: 204-10). is another possibility). 'let it not be possible neither for the Magnesians to take the territory of the Milesians or their coastal territory or any other 100 Descat 1997 (arguing that Theangela belonged to Halikarnassos at some time between 201 and 196. 277. on the north side of the G u l f of Herakleia. 78-87. II 9-10. III 10. μήτε Μιλησίο[ις I τή]ν Μαγνητών χώραν μήτε τήν περαίαν μήτε άλλην μηδεμίαν μηδ[ε I φρ] ούριον παρά μηθενος λαβείν μήτε δι' αυτών μήτε δι' ετερων μητ εγ κτ[ήσει I μή]τε εν δόσει μήτε εν άναθεσει μήτε καθιερώσει μήτε κατ άλλον τρόπ[ον I μηθε\να μ7]δε κατά παρεύρεσιν μηδεμίαν. on the close links between these cities. 633. T h e royal gift increased Magnesia's territory south of the Maeander. poverty' and not 'land-shortage'). Loss of land: document 31 Β. Syll. but not that Philip V was responsible: a local takeover. 102 Serfs: document 31 Β. BE 89. Errington 1989α for date of Miletos' wars against Herakleia and later Magnesia (the peace between Miletos and Magnesia is preserved in Syll. 103 Robert 1987. lost parts of its territory 1 0 2 —as a supplementary gift to the Magnesians. Either. 1 2 .s u m game of territory-redistribution by royal fiat caused long-lasting disruption in the tight network of small.1 4 o n general στενοχώρια. Wörrle 1988: 469-70. and of land on the south of the G u l f .

then the comitia decided on a confrontation with Philip ( L i v . T h e Senate.territory of theirs whatsoever or a fort. ended up before A n t i o c h o s I I I and unsuccessfully tried to broker a settlement between him and 105 On chronology: Warrior 1996.3-4. 2 . Stratonikeia. T h e Rhodians started immediately their o w n war of reconquest in the Peraia. Berthold 1975-6. and the forts in these territories'. 1 ) — m o r e precisely. and to accept arbitration for compensation to Attalos and to the Rhodians (Pol. lines 40-6). in the years 2 0 1 . 105 and. and K y l l a n d o s . lines 4 — 5! second copy found on Karpathos. nor as a possession. . the Rhodians. nor as a gift. Quinctius Flamininus. I d y m a . not through their o w n agency or through other parties. 16. In general.). Lindos 1 5 1 . Mak. L i v .2 . a Rhodian general. It was the same R o m a n delegation of 200 w h i c h . 3 1 . mentions his 'reacquiring the territories of Pisye. Generally. 4). 16. the activities of Philip V in the A e g e a n had the effect of complicating the political mosaic in Asia M i n o r .1 9 8 . where he was handed a senatus consultum requesting him not to make war on an}7 of the G r e e k s . 31.24. nor as a consecration. in 200. Philip's response was to ignore the R o m a n requests. nor let it be possible for the Milesians to take the territory of the Magnesians or their coastal territory or any other territory of theirs whatsoever or a fort. f r o m 201 onwards: a dedication by Nikagoras.6-8. 'to recover f r o m Philip the region on the m a i n l a n d — they call it P e r a i a — w h i c h had been owned by their ancestors' ( L i v . led by T . T h e Rhodian eagerness to 'reacquire' ancestral possessions illustrates how Philip's Asian campaign further embroiled the palimpsestic history of western Asia M i n o r . 534-6. Attalos I. at K y n o s k e p h a l a i in 197. άνακτησάμενος τάν re Πισυήτιν χώραν και τάν Ίδνμίαν και τάν Κνλλανδίαν και τά èv αύταΐς φρούρια (Inscr. Will 1982: 131-49. T h e Second M a c e d o n i a n W a r ended w i t h a crushing victory for the R o m a n army. 3 3 . after delivering the ultimatum to Philip V . 586). G r u e n 1986: 382-98.34. T h e verb is exactly the same as that used by A n t i o c h o s I I I to describe his ancestral claims. and accept war with Rome. nor in any other way or according to any pretext whatsoever' (Syll. and now Philip V ) .3. 1 8 . 1 . where four major powers competed (Antiochos I I I .1 ). A p p . nor as a dedication. Syll. nor to attack the possessions of Ptolemy. Attalos I and the Rhodians appealed to R o m e (Pol. 588. the parallel is reinforced by the expression L i v y uses for the Rhodian campaign of 197: ad vindicandam a Philippo continentis regionem—Peraeam vocant—possessam maioribus suis. delivered an ultimatum to Philip V before A b y d o s .

Other Seleukid officers perhaps participated in the expedition. the commanders of the land army were one unnamed son. 35. A n t i o c h o s sailed f r o m Syria with 100 cataphract ships and 200 'undecked'. . conversely. was confused by the fact that one of Antiochos' sons. including Laodike.48. 1 0 ' T h e aim. and the royal children (ιταώίων). A n t i o c h o s the son. 8 . it was the conquest of Syria that enabled the Islamic world to break into 'la grande histoire méditerranéenne'. or were perhaps active in its wake.1556.27. within the horizons of the Romans.6 and 16. T h e dedication perhaps implies the presence on the expedition of all.9-10 seems to imply. and R o m a n willingness to intervene as interlocutors of the various powers in Asia M i n o r . the Phoenician seaboard. 3 3 .19. Wörrle suggests that Seleukos and Mithridates/Antiochos went with the land army.18. the concept of G r e e k freedom publicized in the ultimatum of 200 and in the SC of 196. 107 O n the commanders of land army. sent to assist Antiochos' two sons—unless Polybios. 1 0 8 T h e active participation of Ptolemaios and 106 C o m p a r e Braudel 1966: 147: in the 7th and again the 16th cent. 1 9 . and A n t i o c h o s I I I . L i v y ' s source. making a dedication to Z e u s K a s i o s for the safety of the Great K i n g A n t i o c h o s . as L i v y 33. the future Antiochos I V . and Karia ( L i v .10. One consequence of Philip's expedition was to bring Asia M i n o r . the royal family.P t o l e m y V . A r d y s and Mithridates. Sayar (forthcoming) suggests that Aigeai played an important role in the naval preparations and movements in the early stages of the expedition. in which case. L y k i a . according to L i v y . their youth explaining the supervision of two experienced officers. was also called Mithridates: document 31 A .1 1 ) .. after the Seleukid victory in the F i f t h Syrian W a r . 1 0 6 A land army set out for Sardeis under two of his sons and two senior officers. a n d see § 2). T h e m i s o n at Aigeai: document 20. lighter v e s s e l s — a fleet raised on the resources and the naval k n o w . so that these must have been the senior officers known from Polybios. Phoenician crews: Liv. was the subjection of the Ptolemaic cities in Kilikia. queen L a o d i k e . 16. but this does not preclude a mistake of Polybios in describing the campaign of 197. such as Ptolemaios. and T h e m i s o n .5. son of T h r a s e a s (below). Antiochos [IV] is 'Antiochos the youngest of the sons' and not 'Mithridates'.4 : Antiochos did not have two sons called ' A r d y s and Mithridates'. SEG 41. T h e trajectory of this delegation shows the beginning of R o m a n involvement in the Eastern Aegean. Constructing a Seleukid Space (içy—iç2 BC) In spring of 197 BC.6. I 3 (at Pol. 16. and the officer Ardys).h o w of his recent conquest. and perhaps ensure Seleukid neutrality in the war with Philip V (Pol. and is now attested at Aigeai. 4. a Seleukid officer w h o c o m m a n d e d cavalry at Raphia.19. 108 Ptolemaios at Soloi: document 21. or most of. Mithridates/Antiochos. Wörrle 1988: 4 5 1 . w o u l d play an increasingly important part during the next years.

there is no reason to attribute RC 30 to 197: A p p e n d i x 3. Selinous. and stressing his good relations with R o m e (Liv.10).4-5. since the Ptolemaic presence also took the form of inland places (see C h . Nonetheless. T h e Rhodian declaration may have been patterned on the Peace of Kallias. FGrHist 260 F 46). made a dedication 'to H e r m e s . a frequent venue for royal euergetism and ruler cult.1-3). 110 D u r i n g the siege. the Ptolemaic garrison put up resistance. 109 Ptolemaios came f r o m an Aspendian family w h i c h had produced two governors of R o u g h Kilikia for the Ptolemies (Jones and Habicht 1989: 335-45). son of Thraseas.20.4-5. i . 111 Mastrocinque. However. and L . Ptolemaios.T h e m i s o n is no more than a suggestion. and A n t i o c h o s lay siege to the city and its citadel (whose strong position is reflected in the /copa^-toponym). Soloi. with photographs of the site (modern Alanya). T h e news of Philip's defeat at K y n o s k e p h a l a i removed the Rhodian pretext ( L i v . 21. A t Korakesion. Kilikian. 110 L i v . for Mastrocinque).41 a . a 'Rhodian zone'.16) and the cession of Lykia to the Rhodians in 189 (Pol. A n t i o c h o s sent an embassy to Rhodes. whose surrender w o u l d have to be negotiated. asserts that the geographical limit in the Rhodian ultimatum was not the Chelidonian islands (a later invention.6—7. K o r y k o s .8). 37. L i v . Herakles. the presence of two important Seleukid officials in S m o o t h Kilikia. the Seleukid governor of K o i l e . stages of the campaign because of his local connections. nor does Rhodian interest in Karia preclude the wish to keep Antiochos further away.S y r i a . 1983: 54. J. 'and other forts on this coast. the Soloi: document 21. 37. cf. but out of the suspicion that A n t i o c h o s w o u l d help Philip and become an obstacle to the liberty of the G r e e k s ' (Pol. Aphrodisias. In Soloi. But operations in 190 (Liv.20.24. 1 § 3). does suggest activity on the rear of A n t i o c h o s ' advance. 33. 33.20. 33. Z e p h y r i o n .20. 33. the area where the expedition started off. A n e m o u r i o n . cf. offering to renew the ancestral alliance with the Rhodians. In R o u g h Kilikia. 18. w h i c h imposed a similar interdiction on the Persian K i n g 1 1 1 — i n reply to the title ' G r e a t K i n g ' assumed by A n t i o c h o s I I I . Antiochos 105 may have reached Korakesion in M a y 197. the coastal places readily surrendered to A n t i o c h o s on his westward p r o g r e s s i o n — M a l l o s .20. out of fear or voluntarily' ( L i v . . the Rhodians warned A n t i o c h o s against sailing beyond the Chelidonian i s l a n d s — 'not out of hostility. since none of the documents attesting their presence in S m o o t h Kilikia can be precisely dated to 197 or the immediate aftermath of the expedition of 197. and the great king A n t i o c h o s ' — i n the city gymnasion. but the frontiers of Karia.6-10). Robert 1983: 156-61. he may have left his province to take part at least in the early. 33.15. indicate Rhodian interest in that region.

mentions services (building work in the gymnasion) by a citizen èv τοις άναγκαίοτάτοις καιροίς. M e a n t i m e .' ( L i v . 1 1 3 A f t e r the news of K y n o s k e p h a l a i made the Rhodian ultimatum irrelevant.2. by then a Seleukid general (Gera 1987: 64-6): this example makes it possible that Agartharchides is referring to Antiochos' general. But Jerome In Dan. and Samians. held up at Korakesion. over to L y k i a : Andriake.1 3 ) .1-5. Antiochos. and were responsible for the liberty of the Ivaunians. M y n d i a n s . where he reorganized the city's status and territory (below). Gauthier 1996: 23-6. 295: 'the expression τα is Μιθριδάτον έλπίσιν does not appear to fit negotiations in which a Mithridates acts as a mere subordinate'. " 4 D o c u m e n t 22. perhaps the hardship of Seleukid takeover. 2 0 . 1 4 writes Ptolomaei partium for Judaean pro-Seleukid notables in 200. Meyer: Holleaux 1942: 184 n. T h e T e n T h o u s a n d took 42 stages: X e n . the land army reached Sardeis. even if the exact terms are irrecoverable. w h e n the news of K y n o s k e p h a l a i arrived (Schmitt 1964: 286). possibly ordered Mithridates to split off f r o m the rest of the land army. but a reflection of A n t i o c h o s ' authority. 1 1 .5-21. 279-300 for the Letoon inscription ( S E G 36. march d o w n to P a m p h y l i a and then L y k i a . the poliad gods. 1 1 2 H o w e v e r . 6) and not the Pontic king Mithradates V I (active in Lykia). Herrmann 1965a: 119-20. religious rules debarring soldiers in e q u i p m e n t f r o m the L e t o o n might reflect the same event. adhering to Ptolemaios son of Thraseas. T h i s assumes that the 'Mithridates' in Agatharchides is Antiochos' general (as has been agreed since first proposed by Ed. " s L e Roy 1986: 298 for the neoi decree (document 24). A n t i o c h o s I I I consecrated X a n t h o s to L e t o . 1. 3 3 . f r o m Korakesion. T h e Rhodians then intervened militarily: they 'did not omit their other concern of protecting the liberty of the cities allied to P t o l e m y and w h i c h were threatened with war by Antiochos.confrontation with the Rhodians lasted until mid-June 197. along the coast. A n t i o c h o s progressed past Seleukid P a m p h y l i a .4. since the coastal road along Kilikia is modern. is cautious about the suggestion. 1 1 4 A decree of the X a n t h i a n neoi. Anab. and Artemis. Patara. A p o l l o . Seleukid land troops under Mithridates may have taken A r y k a n d a in inland Lykia (Agatharchides of K n i d o s . the gesture is not a sign of powerlessness in the face of Xanthian resistance (as has been claimed). and X a n t h o s ( F G r H i s t 260 F 46). 1 1 . 1 1 5 A t the western end of L y k i a . T h e land army cannot have marched parallel to the fleet. some by warning them of the enterprises of the enemies. Schmitt 1964: 287. FGrHist 86 F 1 6 ) — o f f the direct route f r o m Syria to Sardeis. orders could have reached the land army by the road leading up the K a l y k a d n o s valley.1221). L i m y r a . for they helped some with military aid. Boffo 1985: 319-25 argues in favour of compromise. who was proposed by Bevan 1902: ii. 1. w h i c h lies approximately forty days away f r o m Syria. Halikarnassians. A n t i o c h o s took T e l m e s s o s . 112 113 .

In the same region as Iasos.w e s t f r o m M y l a s a .18.1 7 . 30. in addition. Herakleia under L a t m o s probably was 'recovered for the king' by Z e u x i s at this time (his o w n expression). and the Rhodians may have appealed to this precedent to convince A n t i o c h o s to hand over the city: an agreement couched in the terms of the Seleukid past w o u l d have been acceptable to both parties. Pedasa. the son of Antiochos III). for the pursuit of R h o d i a n interests in the region. Robert 1983: 178 n. probably because of the speed of A n t i o c h o s ' naval advance and (possibly) the presence of Seleukid land forces in L y k i a . Zeuxis at Iasos: suggested by J. T h e Rhodians' intervention aimed at denying a harbour to A n t i o c h o s ' fleet beyond T e l m e s s o s . in the language of civic liberty. and in 196. Halikarnassos. 117 L i v . Z e u x i s took over Kildara (an inscription preserves the end of his letter to the city). 1 1 9 It is probable that Iasos had already been taken by Z e u x i s . in a private capacity. 33. to serve the king. must also have fallen under Seleukid control. with J. Pol. N o r t h . T h e conveyance of Stratonikeia fostered cordiality between the two powers (Pol.51. through Z e u x i s . the Philippeis/ E u r o m i a n s contracted an alliance with A n t i o c h o s I I I . makes much of) is irrelevant to the question of official collaboration between the king and Rhodes. captured by Seleukid land forces from its M a c e d o n i a n garrison. and Samos from Ptolemaic influence. A n t i o c h o s w o u l d confidently propose to refer the grievances of the S m y r n i a n s and L a m p s a k e n e s to Rhodian arbitration (Pol. M y n d o s . and L . B e y o n d the E u r o m o s plain. I 1 6 . T h e entente between the two powers encouraged Rhodians. 119 D o c u m e n t 26 Β. the presence ot Rhodians in the entourage of Antiochos (which Rawlings 1976: 14-21.Operations did not extend to L y k i a . 2.6: the Rhodians received Stratonikeia 'from Antiochos and Seleukos' (Seleukos II rather than Seleukos. 1 1 6 But an agreement was r e a c h e d — A n t i o c h o s passed through. and L .31. 120 Iasos taken over b y Antiochos III: Holleaux 1952: 309 n. and . in the same area as E u r o m o s . 1 1 7 Stratonikeia had earlier been ceded by Seleukos II to the Rhodians ( A p p e n d i x 5). 127. Robert 1983: 187.1 3 ) that the Rhodians in 197 'freed' Kaunos. 1 2 0 116 It is an oversimplification to write (Rawlings 1976: 9 .21 (per Antiochum). perhaps operating out of Mylasa. in late s u m m e r 197: their dealing with Z e u x i s implies that A n t i o c h o s was still held up at T e l m e s s o s . 18.4). 'protecting the liberty' of the (subject) Ptolemaic cities was a convenient cover. 1 1 8 T h e next harbour reached by A n t i o c h o s was Iasos (Bargylia remained occupied by a M a c e d o n i a n garrison until 196). 30. Euromos: document 29—alternatively: Antiochos I I I swept by.31. " s However.6: èv μεγάλη χάριτι). and the Rhodians received Stratonikeia. as active in Karia in 197 as he was in 203-201. Kildara: document 25. A fragmentary Iasian decree alludes to fighting against the soldiers of the A n t i g o n i d garrison.

Magnesia: Seleukid in 190 (Liv. I believe the treaty between an Antiochos and the Lysimacheians is not to be attributed to Antiochos III: Gauthier and Ferrary 1981. 1 § 3). L i v y ' s eodem anno is the translation of a P o l y b i a n κατά τούτο το ετος designating the year e n d i n g w i t h the c a m p a i g n i n g season of 197. Herakleia: document 31 Β. A n t i o c h o s d e c i d e d to 'reduce all the cities of A s i a into the old f o r m u l a of s u b j e c t i o n ' . 121 Priene: documents 32. 1 2 3 T h e passage seems to i m p l y that A n t i o c h o s left m o p p i n g . 33. the K a r i a n cities had already fallen to Z e u x i s b y the time the k i n g arrived. these events are clearly located b y L i v y in early 196. 1 2 2 P t o l e m a i c since the L a o d i k e i a n W a r ( C h . w h e r e he took o v e r the cities ( M a d y t o s and S e s t o s are n a m e d b y L i v y ) and started r e b u i l d i n g L y s i m a c h e i a . passes on to E p h e s o s ( F G r H i s t 260 F 46): the list reflects the successes of A n t i o c h o s I I I h i m s e l f . 1 . 2. d e s t r o y e d earlier b y T h r a c i a n s after Philip V e v a c u a t e d it ( L i v . However. w h i l e h i m s e l f c a m p a i g n i n g in the C h e r s o n e s o s ( M a s t r o c i n q u e 1983: 7 4 . and cum hibernasset L i v y ' s o w n o b s e r v a t i o n . Destruction of Lysimacheia: Robert 1955: 269. 37. w i t h the fleet. I see no reason to suppose that Euromos acted out of fear of the Rhodians. T e o s (if the T e i a n decrees should be dated the Euromians/Philippeis entered an alliance with him only some time after his passage. 122 Rawlings 1976: 13-14.u p operations in Asia M i n o r to s u b o r d i n a t e s . T h e s u b s e q u e n t c h r o n o l o g y is unclear. B e y o n d w e s t e r n K a r i a .9. refers to the capture of Ephesos by Antiochos I I I (rather than Antiochos II) with Rhodian assistance.8-14). and even the takeover of cities near K a r i a . we can only be sure that conquest took place some time before summer 196. m a d e for the H e l l e s p o n t . and A p p e n d i x 3. with commentary. A n t i o c h o s c a p t u r e d Ephesos. 33.38.10. and f r o m A b y d o s to attack L a m p s a k o s . and Miletos. after K i l i k i a and L y k i a .Z e u x i s m a y have been responsible for the capture of Stratonikeia. his arguments are not convincing. 123 Franco 1993: 265—70. in late s u m m e r 197 at the earliest ( S c h m i t t 1964: 288). T h e k i n g h i m s e l f (ipse). S c h m i t t has a r g u e d that the operations in A s i a M i n o r n o r t h w a r d s of E p h e s o s s h o u l d be located at least partly in late 197 and in the w i n t e r 197/6 ( S c h m i t t 1964: 289-95).38. M a g n e s i a on M a e a n d e r .7 ) . and with encouragement from Philip V (Errington 1986). because A n t i o c h o s ' land t r o o p s w e r e already at A b y d o s in spring 196 ( L i v . in spring 196. after s p e n d i n g the w i n t e r 197/6 in E p h e s o s (cum hibernasset Ephesi). eodem anno ( 3 3 . 33. argues that Frontinus. O n this v i e w . 3 8 . Strat.12).7 ) . s u c h as Priene. s e n d i n g t r o o p s f r o m E p h e s o s to put pressure on S m y r n a . and o r d e r e d his land t r o o p s to cross f r o m A b y d o s into the C h e r s o n e s o s . N o evidence for Miletos. L i v y w r i t e s that. 1 2 1 Z e u x i s ' activity explains w h y Jerome. .8) and h e n c e m u s t have w i n t e r e d there. and the incident must refer to an earlier Antiochos. II 8-9.

takeover in late 197: Piejko 1991a: 22.8. sailing up to the T r o a d and back to Ephesos in late 197. it is likely that A b y d o s was captured not by A n t i o c h o s ' fleet. section 2 for Prousias' activity in Mysia and the T r o a d in 216 and 208. 127 p e r r a r y t g g 8 : 1 3 5 η . § 2). 12/ Nonetheless. it probably operated northwards. seems to have been deprived of autonomy and some property under A n t i o c h o s I I I . Finally. with Rostovtzeff 1941: 1472 n. F r o m L y d i a . land troops could pass into the (Seleukid) plain of A p i a . U n n a m e d cities: document 36. A s s u m i n g that the land army had already driven to the Straits in 197. 37.44. Furthermore. Syr. on the borders of the T r o a d — t h e route taken by Attalos I in 218 (above. 22. and w o u l d then have been taken in the course of Seleukid operations to roll back the dominions of Prousias in north-west Anatolia 1 2 6 (above.43. T h e initial remark ( L i v . and Phokaia w o u l d then have been taken over in late 197. dating between 209 and 193. came under siege by Seleukid forces only very late in 197 or early in 196. 36. A n o t h e r unnamed city. the chronological marker cum hibernasset Ephesi translates a Polybian notation locating the events described while A n t i o c h o s wintered at Ephesos. Erythrai: Liv. § 1). the L a m p s a k e n e decree for Hegesias suggests that L a m p s a k o s . and possibly Erythrai. Korrhagos inscription ( S E G 2. may reflect land operations in 197. K o l o p h o n . 44) 126 Holleaux 19386: 1 1 4 . as has been claimed by Piejko (Appendix 3). Liv.8.663.10 only mentions the presence of the Roman fleet there. the fact that Seleukid troops wintered at A b y d o s holds no chronological implications for the progression of A n t i o c h o s f r o m Ephesos. above. and referring to arrangements after the violent capture of an u n n a m e d city by Seleukid troops. Seleukid in 190: Liv. because of the clear break at 33. A p p . it is tempting to see L i v y ' s account as preserving some trace of Seleukid activity in the winter 197/6. it is unlikely that RC 15 should be dated to 197. A n inscription. . but by the land army. this might provide a suitable context.1 6 suggesting Apollonia. 33.43. 37. 1 2 5 T h i s city might be Apollonia on the R h y n d a k o s (proposed by Holleaux). Phokaia. though under threat in 197. without any information on the status of the city.38. the m o m e n t of A n t i o c h o s ' spring expedition to T h r a c e : what preceded took place in the winter. the list of cities in Jerome suggests that A n t i o c h o s did stop at Ephesos in 197.38. perhaps subsequent to capture by the land army at this time. in Hellespontic Phrygia. 36. A f t e r reaching Sardeis around M a y 197. 1 2 4 H o w e v e r . taking Attalid-held T h y a t e i r a . with Gauthier 1989: 171-8.to this time).8 (initio verts). since that city is the last named. If the Ilian inscription OGIS 2x9 were dated to A n t i o c h o s III ( A p p e n d i x 1).5. 1 2 .1) eodem anno must be a L i v i a n suture. 125 Thyateira: Attalid in 201 (Robert 1962: 38-9).7. W h a t took place was not a campaign of conquest in '2t T e o s documents: A p p e n d i x 2. and hence into the Karesene.

the death of Attalos I. Polybios (18. 2 1 6 . 33.38.2) mentions designs on Ionia and the Hellespont before the capture of Ephesos. 1. Cos E D 178. and the successes of Z e u x i s in Karia presumably encouraged Antiochos. 125 T e n cities: FGrHist 260 F 46. Herakleia: Krischen 1922. at a time w h e n the reconquest of the Peraia f r o m the A n t i g o n i d garrisons was still underway (§ 3). Iscr. 128 In L i v y ' s account (33.38. 1 2 9 Part of the explanation for the military success may lie in the earthquake of 199/8 (preceded by smaller tremors). A n important result was the permanent elimination of the remnants of the Ptolemaic empire in Asia M i n o r (as well as the small A n t i g o n i d 'province' in Karia). w h e n did his aims extend to the (re)conquest of 'all the cities of Asia M i n o r ' ( L i v . Generally. some formidably fortified. or co-ordinated with. Antiochos' naval campaign was restricted to harbours and a narrow coastal strip. Iasos: document 26 I. M c N i c o l l 1997. T h e chronology of the latter half of the campaign must reflect the intentions of Antiochos. If he started out to take over Ptolemaic possessions f r o m Kilikia to Karia.1)? Unlike L i v y . A n t i o c h o s I I I draws comfort from the (projected) ease of conquering 'all the cities of Asia'.2 with Habicht 1996: 88. W e can nonetheless perceive the general pattern: a coastal sweep. Ptolemy V married Antiochos' daughter. 3 1 . Stratonikeia 4.2). as L i v y tells us. like L i m y r a or Herakleia under Latmos.northern Ionia and Aiolis. acknowledging A n t i o c h o s ' gains. followed by. and the work of consolidation inland (for instance in Kilikia. or up the Xanthos valley in Lykia) must have been done by land troops. on the superficiality of travelling past Lykia by boat: by nature. f r o m A n t i o c h to T h r a c e .4. A 6-8. T h e defeat of Philip at K y n o s k e p h a l a i . Robert 1987: 102-3.1 8 . But the lack of chronology deprives us of any sequence of intentions and events. the damage left the city vulnerable and open to Seleukid offers of aid towards reconstruction. Habicht 1957: no. operations in northern Ionia presumably were conducted in the spring 196. w h i c h reduced a great n u m b e r of cities (ten places named for A n t i o c h o s alone). this portrayal should not obscure the achievements of the campaign of 197. Limyra: Wurster 1974: 272. but demonstrations of force against S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s . In winter 194/3. where A n t i o c h o s had lost to Ptolemy I V in l2s One might compare the observations of Fellows 1839: 204. 64 (earlier shocks). Kleopatra: the w e d d i n g took place at Raphia. 130 Earthquake: sources and discussion in Holleaux 1952: 209 n. By 196 A n t i o c h o s III and P t o l e m y V were negotiating. a series of campaigns by land. a l s o / . 16-18. . and a peace treaty must have followed (in 195?).413. while the king himself went on to T h r a c e . A t Iasos. on fortifications.3) and perhaps weakened Rhodian capacity for military operations against the Seleukids. 1 3 0 T h e earthquake also hit R h o d e s (Justin 30.

4. Phokaia. with some irrelevancies. 3. Syr. sailed south and later tried to conquer C y p r u s in autumn 196. 3 7 . Miletos (perhaps).41 and A p p . 1 3 2 T h e southern seaboard of Anatolia. the X a n t h i a n s honoured an Ilian rhetor by sending a stele. though there is no epigraphical evidence (as for Karia) to clarify the situation for the formerly Seleukid cities: K y m e . Holleaux 1957: 180-3). 132 Xanthian stele: document 23. n o r t h w a r d s — a f t e r the Rhodian Peraia and the Ptolemaic cities 'protected' against Antiochos. Skepsis.217. Dardanos. 133 Appian. then defected in winter 191/0. .'.40. Marriage of Ptolemy V and Kleopatra negotiated: Leuze 1923: 2 2 1 . Mithr. which might mean 'around the time of . and T e m n o s (controlled by A c h a i o s . under Attalid pressure or encouragement (Liv. § i).31. Schmitt 1964: 278-85 on extent of reconquests of 197. Little w o n d e r that Hannibal chose to take refuge with A n t i o c h o s in 195 ( L i v . T e m n o s may have been under Antiochos' control. T h e boat carrying the stone sailed past a political landscape reshaped by Seleukid conquest. w h i c h preserved the independence it had enjoyed since the 220s—parts of A i o l i s had become Seleukid again. 35.51. T h e r e is no reliable evidence on the terms of the treaty. Priene. Syr. In the T r o a d . 13< Phokaia is the only city where Seleukid presence is attested. M y r i n a .10. Will 1982: 192. as it seems to have rallied to the Seleukid side only in 190 (Liv. say that Antiochos. A p p . apart f r o m Ilion. 30.3. In 196. to his home city. when a storm devastated his fleet off Smooth Kilikia. 1 5 ) . 1 1 .49.6) 1 3 3 —came further Seleukid dominions such as Iasos. Holleaux 1942: 337-55 on the question whether Kleopatra received Koile-Syria as a dowry (unlikely). Liv.8. 5. but he was sailing away from C y p r u s . N o r t h of the p e n i n s u l a — o m i t t i n g S m y r n a . and perhaps Alexandreia T r o a s . inland T r o a d must have become royal 151 Negotiations in 196: Pol. 1 3 4 T h e Attalid k i n g d o m proper was untouched (though it lost its L y d i a n possessions).5): I hold this the likelier solution.77.4 and above. Liv. 33. 18. unless it was taken over b y Antiochos. L a m p s a k o s resisted Antiochos. Ephesos. and most or all of the coast up to the Erythrai peninsula. . but soon taken under Rhodian control ( K a u n o s was simply bought f r o m its Ptolemaic governors: Pol. f r o m Soloi to T e l m e s s o s . as were the (Attalid) plain of T h e b e around A d r a m y t t i o n and the continental holdings of Mytilene. Aigai. away f r o m the coastal cities.5-7.9 o n date. but then retaken by Attalos I: Pol. complete with honorific decree. T h e story (drawn from Polybios) perhaps reflects contemporary anxieties about Antiochos' activity and aggressiveness in the years 197-196. . at the news of Epiphanes' death. and Priapos were Seleukid. K y m e perhaps escaped conquest b y Antiochos in 197. 33. was now Seleukid. 23 indicates that the Kaunians became subjects of the Rhodians im τω Άντιόχου ττολίμω. 1 3 1 It is hard not to see the choice of venue as a celebration of Seleukid revanche on the part of the most successful among the Hellenistic kings at that moment. and hence indicate a relatively late date. Rhoiteion. Gergis. 37.

Maroneia: L i v .8): he may mean that A n t i o c h o s detached cities f r o m him (rather than f r o m the Attalid k i n g d o m in general).19. Lysimacheia as mint: Newell. 37. because the Roman commissioner L .20. writes that Bargylia was 'taken' from the Romans.9. not that he actually freed them: as in the case of Iasos. ( j u s t as P.38. T r o a d : Schmitt 1964: 283-4. Stertinius 'freed Ainos and Maroneia from control b y garrisons of K i n g Philip' in summer 196. and L y s i m a c h e i a functioned as the residence for the king's son. A document dated between 201 and 196 probably shows us T h e a n g e l a absorbed into Halikarnassos. was possibly taken over by the Seleukids afterwards. Seleukos. A n t i o c h o s 135 Adramyttion and the plain of T h e b e were not under Seleukid control in 190. 1468: coinage of Antiochos III at Bargylia. A i n o s and Maroneia. once the recalcitrant cities of S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s had been reduced. A n t i o c h o s ' belief that 'all the cities of Asia' w o u l d fall under his control. but the most important ones.200?) is not necessarily equivalent to the date of foundation (the Roberts prefer Antiochos I or II: BE 76. so there is no reason to date the Seleukid takeover of the city to the Syrian War. after his accession in 197. Lentulus was sent to free Bargylia). Bargylia. 35.1-7 does not say that Smyrna and Lampsakos were the only non-Seleukid cities in 197. but the Romans did not leave a garrison behind in Bargylia. Grainger 1996: 337. but the date of the inscription where this festival is first documented (c. 573). Mastrocinque. holds that these two cities could not have been taken in 196. 1 3 8 O t h e r cities must have followed: Polybios has E u m e n e s II refer to 'cities alienated f r o m us' by A n t i o c h o s I I I (21.48.2). M o r e spectacular were the king's campaigns. whereas a decree datable to the 190s attests an autonomous polis of the T h e a n g e l a n s again: the T h e a n g e l a n s may have rallied to the Seleukids to escape synoikism into Halikarnassos.2).land again. However. 137 WSM no. he might have been pre-empted by Antiochos III. Stertinius was sent to free these cities (Pol. 1983: 57-9. F u r t h e r along the T h r a c i a n coast. T h e speed of the campaign in 1 9 7 . and also as a Seleukid mint.48.2 1 . 196 is a likely date for the capture of Ainos. 341. 136 Chersonesos: L i v . perhaps taken in the T h r a c i a n campaign of 196. 'freed' of its Macedonian garrison in 196 by R o m a n intervention (Pol. 18. 1 3 7 N e a r b y T h e a n g e l a perhaps fell under Seleukid control at the same time. after preliminary ravaging of the T h r a c i a n land near Chersonesos. I3S Descat 1997 (on SEG 29. 37. Maroneia may have been taken later. 136 Consolidation and extension followed. indicates an expectancy of gradual extension.38.42. 18. In 196. 1 3 5 Across the Straits. in 192—190. WSM 1 6 1 5 . as under A n t i o c h o s I ( R C 10-13).60. 33.7-8.7-8). the Chersonesos was Seleukid. . but may have resisted Antiochos from the start: L i v . Ainos. when the Seleukid army ravaged the region ( L i v . 33. 37. Alexandreia T r o a s only appears alongside Smyrna and Lampsakos in 192 (Liv.1 9 6 entailed bypassing many places. But Polybios merely says that L .2).7. L e Rider 1990 would attribute this coinage to Mylasa under Antiochos II.9. the Seleukids held cities once controlled by Philip V .1089). T a ç h k h o g l u and Frisch 1975: 221 attribute a festival for an Antiochos at Skepsis to the aftermath of conquest by Antiochos I I I .

1 4 3 D i p l o m a c y f u r t h e r e x t e n d e d S e l e u k i d influence: K y z i k o s and B y z a n t i o n w e r e the target of b e n e f a c t i o n s or d i p l o m a t i c pressure.4. Syr. K . T h e extent of S e l e u k i d control as i m p o s e d b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in T h r a c e is yet unclear (up the H e b r o s valley into the ' R o u m e l i a n plain'. in Waelkens and Poblome 1995: 299-305).1 9 6 c a m p a i g n s can be traced.12. 12.1 (Apameia). 34.15.1108). generally de Planhol 1958).22. 37. 34. alongside L y k i a n s and P a m p h y l i a n s . such as. with Grandjean 1971 (believes in expedition of 194). 35. one B r i k k o n son of A t e u r i s t o s . accepts this expedition in the absence of contrary evidence).7. of G a l a t i a n origin.13. 142 L i v . 139 Grainger 1996: 336-7: in 196. 6.23. he set out f r o m E p h e s o s .33. same document I SE 115. they also p r o c l a i m e d that the (re)conquest of the old S e l e u k i d d o m i n i o n s w a s c o m p l e t e . 6. m a y have f o u g h t in this campaign. along the north shore of the P r o p o n t i s and along the w e s t e r n Black Sea coast ( G r a i n g e r 1996)?). it n o w seems f r o m an u n p u b l i s h e d inscription. Holleaux 1957: 180-3. the Rhodian speech given in Rome in 189 (Pol. P e n n t h o s . m a r c h i n g up to A p a m e i a .3 claims that the Selgians were never subject to any of the kings. Syr. Maroneia epigram: SEG 24. from Apameia Pisidia can be reached by the Keçiborlu pass (de Planhol 1958: 24).1). Sayar. 35.6 . 33.14) l ' s t s Pisidia among the spoils of the war against Antiochos I I I . an A p a m e i a n officer. w h e n c e he d e s c e n d e d on the Pisidian cities. G r a i n g e r 1996: 3 3 5 . discovered and to be published by M . 35. Strabo 12.10. p e r h a p s hinting at o v e r l o r d s h i p . Pisidia was a conquest of Antiochos III (and not recovered after a 'revolt'. I n c e r t i t u d e also applies for s o u t h e r n A n a t o l i a ( t h o u g h the presence of Pisidians in the S e l e u k i d a r m y at M a g n e s i a .39.40.m a r c h e d deep into central T h r a c e . 6: 'he freed the G r e e k s w h o w e r e s u b j e c t to the T h r a c i a n s ' ) . Recent research has emphasized the links between Pamphylia and Pisidia (Brandt 1992. killed near M a r o n e i a . recording an alliance between Perinthos and the kings. an i m p o r t a n t part of royal ideology ( A p p . that might be given to Eumenes II (Kearsley 1994 for new evidence of Attalid presence in Milyas and Pisidia in general: SEG 44. it is m o r e difficult to reconstruct their results. and also gained control of cities on the n o r t h e r n P r o p o n t i s shore. as written by Waelkens in Waelkens 1993: 42). Mitchell 1991 for urbanization in Pisidia. 1 4 2 T h e narrative outline of these p o s t . Antiochos I I I and Antiochos the son: document 35. 21.5. Grainger's analysis is confirmed by an inscription.7). 140 Second Thracian expedition: Liv. 1 4 0 A final T h r a c i a n e x p e d i t i o n took place in 192 1 4 1 ( L i v . A y m a r d 1940: 101 and n.35. . 2. 1 3 9 In 195 came a s e c o n d T h r a c i a n e x p e d i t i o n . Syr. suggests control of the s o u t h e r n regions: L i v . O n the other hand. the Roman commissioner Lentulus went in search of the king by sailing to Selymbria (Liv. 143 Pisidia: Sagalassos may have been taken over by Antiochos III in the 190s (for a Seleukid-inspired seal in the city. 3. Mitchell 1991: 121. rather than a third Thracian expedition in 194: Brodersen 1991: 95 (Grainger. T h i s is probably the same expedition referred to in A p p .637. 1996: 340-1.14). A n t i o c h o s f u r t h e r w e n t on c a m p a i g n in s o u t h e r n A n a t o l i a : in 193. W a r s on the peripher}' p u b l i c i z e d A n t i o c h o s ' status as p r o t e c t o r of his subjects. 35.43. and reflecting i n v o l v e m e n t on the north shore of the P r o p o n t i s ( A p p . Vandorpe. 141 Leuze 1923: 244 and n.

303-4. this has important consequence for lines 28—30. the Athenian decree honouring Pharnakes I and his promised bride. 146 Lefèvre 1996.195 OGIS 771 (cf.8. for earlier contacts between Antiochos III and Greece.40. a remark which had led Leuze (1923: 2 1 1 ) to place the offer in 192 or 191. and also.8 implies.20. Syr. Pol. 5. daughter of king Antiochos and queen Laodike'. or (in 144 Structure: cf. Ariarathes: A p p . In this case. informing them of his esteem for his physician Apollophanes. as had been supposed). T h e offer of (presumably) this princess to Eumenes (App. Syr. Athens: Habicht 1994: 166-71 (Seleukid benefactions. managed substantially to impose. Pharnakes: T r a c y 1992: 307-13. the unchallenged proximity of Seleukid rule made itself felt. followed by instructions (the latter are missing on the K o a n letter. believes the Galatians in Appian to be Galatians of Thrace). 21. 5. reconsidering OGIS 771 (cf. these kings married daughters of Antiochos I I I . 5. Similarly. and also contrast with the earlier Seleukids' meagre A e g e a n involvement. Delos: Basiez and Vial 1987: 291. T h e structure of the letter resembles instructions to royal officials or subordinate communities: though K o s was independent. the Galatians were brought into alliance. IG n . with D e l o s and Athens. 1 4 6 In the 190s.673).8) must have come before she was offered to Pharnakes. . 21. 'queen Nysa. A n t i o c h o s I I I by a combination of military efforts on a vast scale and of diplomacy. promised c. Syr. A n t i o c h o s I I I wrote to the K o a n s .1056). 145 Galatians: A p p . Earlier. redating to £. 21. in 195 or 194. and specifically after the campaigns of 197 and 196. which justify honours for Nysa 'because it is fitting that the Athenians conspicuously remember for good and honour the benefactors of the people and those born of benefactors': the reference is to benefactions by Antiochos III. probably the same daughter. on palaeographical and chronological grounds. as was Ariarathes I V of K a p p a d o k i a and Pharnakes I of Pontos.10 (though Grainger 1996: 335. but E u m e n e s declined this attempt to integrate him into the system of Seleukid control and influence. now shown to be the daughter of Antiochos III. Syr. and. A n t i o c h o s had offered a daughter to E u m e n e s II ( A p p . IG 11. but likely). Samothrake in the time of Ptolemy III was free. T h e s e form the background to A n t i o c h o s ' later involvement with G r e e c e itself. we should disregard Appian when he writes that Eumenes 'saw that [Antiochos] was already on the point of fighting a war against the Romans'. on the basis of IG 2' 785. 6. perhaps. document 4: foregrounded object of royal decision. See also T r a c y 1992: 307-13. RC 45.195 to Pharnakes). 1 0 5 6 ) . Liv. the Athenian decree for Pharnakes I of Pontos and his queen Nysa. Athenian delegations to Antioch). N y s a . 144 T o the east. Pol. 37. T r a c y establishes that this Nysa must be the daughter of Antiochos III (and not Antiochos the son or Antiochos I V . but had close relations with the Ptolemaic governors in T h r a c e : Gauthier 1979. 1 4 5 One s y m p t o m of the now firm Seleukid implantation on the western coast of Asia M i n o r can be seen in the A e g e a n contacts of A n t i o c h o s I I I . as Pol. requesting some privilege for him (SEG 33. w h i c h reflected their weaker hold on the Anatolian seaboard.20. T h e Seleukid dominance on the Anatolian coast must have had some effect on the eastern A e g e a n islands.338). by redating this decree to early 195.20.

1 4 7 B u t he also appears at E p h e s o s . T h i s S e l e u k i d space w a s articulated b y A n t i o c h o s ' and his sons' m o v e m e n t s along fixed points: n o r t h e r n S y r i a .40.7. 4. 1 3 .19.4 mentions his p o p u l a r i t y — though the context is unreliable (rumours about Antiochos' motives for allegedly poisoning his co-regent). Syr.51. Cavaignac on the grounds of a cuneiform document). 35· 1 5-7 (palace). A p p . w h e n c e his father sent h i m back east. 33. A n t i o c h o s I I I 'gave b a c k its liberty': 1 5 0 local a u t o n o m y c o u l d be tolerated because its existence w a s a f u n c t i o n of royal p o w e r .3).9). 3 5 . dates to Hyperberetaios of 1 1 9 S E ( S e p t e m b e r . E p h e s o s . line 22). Lysimacheia: Pol. 145 Documents 19 Β and C with commentary. Klaros: 42. 35-13-4. L a o d i k e ( I V ) . 1 4 9 E m p i r e w a s also c o n s t i t u t e d by royal discourse into a space w h e r e individual d i f f e r e n c e m a t t e r e d less than the k i n g ' s p o w e r to define statuses ( C h . 33. c o n f i r m i n g privileges g r a n t e d by his father. for an inscription from Antioch attesting a festival in 198/7 at Antioch. 18. 1 4 8 W h i l e in A s i a M i n o r . In the saying attributed to A n t i o c h o s I I I (Plut.8. A f t e r r e c o v e r i n g Iasos.r e g e n t A n t i o c h o s appears at A n t i o c h — w h e r e he m a r r i e d his sister. 4) and received H a n n i b a l in 195 ( L i v . before his accession. n e a r b y . Antiochos III himself. 33.49. in w i n t e r 196/5 ( A p p . T h e contract between Ptolemaios of Telmessos and the Kardakes (Segre 1938: 190. A n t i o c h o s ' b e h a v i o u r w a s not a n o m a l o u s (as M a g i e 1950: 107. . resided in L y s i m a c h e i a . he died in S y r i a . It w a s the arbitrary p o w e r s of a H e l l e n i s t i c king that m a d e H? Syria: L i v . in late s u m m e r 193.4. w h i l e presiding o v e r contests at D a p h n e . c o n c e r n for local a u t o n o m y is c o m b i n e d w i t h the a s s u m p t i o n that he w o u l d regularly write letters bearing o r d e r s (av τι γράφη παρά τους νόμους κελεύων γενέσθαι). one D i o s k o u r i d e s erected a statue of h i m b e f o r e the t e m p l e of K l a r i a n A p o l l o . her sons disgraced).his v i e w ) reimpose control over most of c i s . 33. Kraeling 1964. to be greeted by the governor and the population: SherwinW h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 140. A n t i o c h o s the son possibly sent letters to T e o s . Seleukos and Mithridates/Antiochos did not write RC 9: A p p e n d i x 3.51. perhaps the festival celebrated in 195 and repeated on a penteteric basis. Liv.T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r : the result w a s the creation of a great imperial space. the c o . S e l e u k o s . Ephesos: Liv. 35.9.41. 35. 35-13-4. O n the other hand. Syr.6. travelled from Apameia to Seleukeia on the Tigris.6). I 8-9 (Laodike).41. to the i m p o r t a n t g o v e r n o r s h i p of the U p p e r R e g i o n s . with BE 65. w h o s e narrative history and g e o g r a p h i c a l shape I have o u t l i n e d above. Liv. 3).15.8. A p p .O c t o b e r 193). W h i l e one of the k i n g ' s sons. 18. 5 . 436. A y m a r d 1949 reconstructs a dynastic crisis (Laodike divorced. 33. claimed). starts Βασιλεύοντος Άντιόχου without the co-regent: a documentary terminus ante quem confirming L i v y and supplementing the arguments of A y m a r d 1940 (against 192. Mor.49. 3. championed by E. at the start of his j o u r n e y ( L i v . the process illustrates Antiochos' own general statement at Lysimacheia (Pol. 14S Death of Antiochos the son: Schmitt 1964: 15-19. 150 D o c u m e n t 26 A .15. Syr. 183 F) that the cities s h o u l d ignore royal o r d e r s if c o n t r a r y to their laws. 33. L y s i m a c h e i a w h i c h acted as a 'provincial capital' for the T h r a c i a n d o m i n i o n s .

lines 7 . grounded in history. 484). . praeter agrum. 37. 30. L i v . even if the letter were Attalid. in addition. 33. whose daughter was appointed priestess of L a o d i k e in 193). but he does not notice that Eumenes II inherited the right to the debt owed by the Kardakes to Ptolemaios as payment for purchased land (Segre 1938: 190. but rather by the Romans. 2 1 .56. (Ptolemaios.4. which must result from a decision of Antiochos III. who gave Ptolemaios' estates to Eumenes II (Wörrle 1978: 222 η. 37. the seizure of the Samian Anaitis by the same king ( S E G 1. the existence of these genuinely independent cities signalled the failure to complete the work of reconquest and create a perfect Seleukid space.4-5. 152 Alexandreia: preceding section. cit.1 0 . 105: from Liv. a message reinforced by the removal of other superpowers f r o m the scene. Wörrle. agrum qui Ptolemaei Telmessii fuisset. argues against this view (Liv. L a m p s a k o s . 37. Scipio before Magnesia. 135. l o s . 151 Segre 1938.possible Antiochos' reorganization of the territory of T e l m e s s o s : while leaving in place the local dynast.38.4 is ambiguous: Eumenes II received Telmessum item et castra Telmessium. L i v .)—which implies that Eumenes had taken over Ptolemaios' property in general. but the reverse showed the R h o d i a n inspired head of Helios ( B M C Lycia. the Telmessian inscription published by Wörrle 1979 has been shown to concern a royal colony by the Roberts (BE 80. A n t i o c h o s I I I w o u l d name S m y r n a . cf. 3 . O t h e r cities w o u l d actively resist. 1). it is clear that the city of Telmessos and the estates of Ptolemaios are distinct. and Alexandreia Troas 1 5 2 as the άρχαί of his conflict with R o m e (Pol. Wörrle 1978: 222 and n. there were other w a y s to describe the situation. aware of other powers than A n t i o c h o s I I I . H o w e v e r . no. must not refer to expropriation by Antiochos III. 5. leaving A n t i o c h o s the sole interlocutor of the local communities. Briscoe 1981 ad loc. to present the fact of empire as a natural object. n. Daughter of Ptolemaios: document 37.366) or the redistribution of land imposed by Philip V on Miletos and Herakleia (previous section).1).56. T h e T e l m e s s i a n s struck coinage with the Seleukid motif of A p o l l o sitting on the omphalos. loc. but need not be a letter of Eumenes II (Robert) rather than Antiochos III. Military colony: Segre 1938. 1.56. 1 5 1 T h e s e phenomena are no different f r o m the redefinition of the territory of A i g a i by A n t i o c h o s II (Orth 1977: 169-70 on H e r r m a n n 1959). Specific to A n t i o c h o s III is his appeal to a Seleukid past as a deproblematizing strategy ( C h . 86. it might still concern a second Seleukid colony installed near Telmessos. Contesting the Seleukid Space (igy-iQ2 BC) Shortly before being defeated by L . 1 3 . A n t i o c h o s took over the city and installed a military colony (the Kardakes) on its territory. qui Ptolemaei Telmessii fuisset)·. T h e combination (whatever its exact motivation and meaning) illustrates the v i e w point of one 'Seleukid' c o m m u n i t y . confirming Magie 1950: 762-3). Antiochos did not deprive Ptolemaios of his estate (Segre 1938: 198): the pluperfect in Liv.

to R o m e (via Massalia) and.35. A b y d o s . T h i s attitude is more important than the question of whether the SC was a 'hidden warning' to A n t i o c h o s III. 18. T h e involvement of the R o m a n s originated in their victory over Philip V in 197. Pedasa. Pedasa. also mistranslated by Liv. on its o w n logic: the R o m a n s acted as if they were alone. 18.34.34. the general proclamation is an extension of the demands put to Philip in 200 (not to wage war on any Greek: Pol. in the years 196-193. Sayar. his reactions provide insights into the nature of Seleukid power.3 6 (minimalist). Bargylia.3) a n d w h i c h could now be represented as fact (Pol. A n t i o c h o s ' remark calls attention to a remarkable b o d y of discourse 1 5 4 about empire and geography. Mehl 1990 (narrative accounts). G r u e n 1986: 6 1 1 .3!). 18. Will 1982: 181-204.47. 16. M y r i n a . Appian. sent an embassy. Lampsakos 4) and the Roman letter to the Teians (document 38). the SC created. the issues and the way they were talked about are documented in two contemporary inscriptions. it specified that Philip w o u l d free E u r o m o s . discovered and to be published by M . T h a s o s . to Flamininus at C o r i n t h in 196. and even Perinthos had already been taken over by Antiochos). 1 5 3 T h e successive rounds of negotiations show how A n t i o c h o s ' activity in Asia M i n o r could be interpreted and challenged.27. Diodoros). argues that the SC was directed against Antiochos because he reacted to it. 18. Iasos.2). Iasos. 1 5 5 A s a performative speech-act. T h e senatus consultum (SC) of 196 (Pol. or aimed at creating a certain state of affairs.2. the Hegesias decree (I. Lampsakos. T h e SC was not explicitly directed against A n t i o c h o s III: its detailed provisions aimed at undoing the results of Philip's A e g e a n campaigns (§ 3). Interpreting the SC from the Roman aims in the Second Macedonian War: G r u e n 1986: 620-1. descended f r o m the T r o j a n s . and hence another viewpoint than the military narrative of conquests.17. 155 oihéva γαρ (τι των 'Ελλήνων οϋτΐ πολεμεϊσθαι νΰν ύ·π' ουδενός οντε δουλεύειν ούδενί: not an order (Ferrary 1988: 142—one would expect μηδενα. in late 197. 33. their appeal was based on mythical kinship (between the Romans.44) proclaimed the liberty of all the G r e e k s of Asia and Europe. and the ensuing right to dispose of what Philip had controlled (Pol. under Hegesias. concerning an alliance between Perinthos and Antiochos III. Bickermann 1932a (interpretative essay). but a statement of fact justifying the Roman order to Antiochos III (προοηγόρενον 156 μή διαβαίνειν εις τήν Εύρωπήν). and Perinthos. but Antiochos' reaction does not illuminate the Senate's intentions. in turn. 33. 154 Apart from Polybios (transmitted through L i v y (mainly). 1 5 6 S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s gained acceptance within the world of the R o m a n settlement. and the 153 Badian 1964.7). ignoring the fact that the settlement intersected with the Seleukid space created in 197 (Euromos. A b y d o s . within a geographical zone. Ferrary 1988: 141 n. Perinthos: the evidence is an inscription. on the way back. . T h e remark concerns the diplomatic preliminaries to the war.49.6).

the L a m p s a k e n e s managed to secure inclusion in the R o m a n peace treaty with Philip V (had L a m p s a k o s at some point been threatened by Philip. as pointed out by Errington 1987: 100-1. Lampsakos 4. a decree honouring a phrourarch (Robert. Hegesias (/. 158 Hegesias: I. 33. f r o m the outside. Alexandreia Troas 4. 65-74. also linked to the L a m p s a k e n e s by kinship (both cities had been founded by Phokaia). 141 A p p . for arguments against a connection between the Hegesias decree and a possible mention of Massalia in a Phokaia decree of this period. their refusal to be integrated within the Seleukid space ( L i v . 1972). Mellor 1975: 14-16. 7. these two cities managed ideological and military resistance to the Seleukids. Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol (Paris. and supported by the Massalians. Chevallier (ed. in defence of the city's interests.7. though the details are not known as they are for Lampsakos. . even though Pol. is unhelpful. and Alexandreia T r o a s were still holding out from Antiochos III in 192. Lampsakos. but a later e m b a s s y — b u t lines 74-5 of the Hegesias inscription might describe such an appeal. 1 6 0 T h e S m y r n i a n s and the L a m p s a k e n e s were also directly supported by the Romans: their appeals provided the occasion for diplomatic conflict between Rome and Antiochos. Priene 65). G r u e n 1986: 621 n. G r u e n 1992: 6 . and assisting. inaugurated in 195 ( T a c . with Ferrary 1988: 133-41 (against Bickermann 19326. I. 35. in R. 2. 157 A s a result. must represent the Smyrnian response to a specific 'benefaction'. 42: the Lampsakene appeal against Antiochos was not carried out by Hegesias. 29. O . and allies of Rome. 4.1-7). Ann. f ° r attribution to Alexandreia Troas). 159 T h e Smyrnian cult is not equivalent to deditio to R o m e (claimed b y J.49. Entretiens Hardt 17 (Geneva. Inschr.42. a c o m m u n i t y of the T r o a d ) . 1966). C u r t y 1995: 257-8. w h o claimed that the Lampsakenes misunderstood the Senate). though the geography of a Seleukid coup de main is not obvious). and the political role the ' T r o j a n legend' played in the relations between Rome and the Greek world.5). [πραίξικοπούντωΐ'. O n the identity of the Romans as descendants from the T r o j a n s . Larsen. Badian. 158 S m y r n a also appealed to R o m e . D i o d . Lampsakos 4).56. might refer to military resistance against Antiochos III. T h e embassy is documented in the L a m p s a k e n e decree for one of the ambassadors.1 5 .). during his activity in the Propontis or the Straits?).38. with commentary on the mythical kinship (and 80 n. f r o m 197 to 192 (Liv. 180 Smyrna. A l o n g s i d e Alexandreia T r o a s (which only appears as a recalcitrant city in 192. at the eve of the R o m a n . thus confirming the independence w h i c h they had enjoyed since the 220s.S e l e u k i d W a r (Liv.42). Syr. 35. in a local history w h i c h spans the duration of A n t i o c h o s ' recreated Seleukid Asia Minor. 178-9 suggested that this embassy appears in Ennius (I think this unlikely).5 1 . 159 Both cities were acknowledged by R o m e as players in the international scene. 1 6 1 T h e outline of 157 See also C u r t y 1995: 78-82. notably by fending off a surprise attack on a fort at C h r y s e (lines 2 .Lampsakenes. cultic honours for R o m e . G r u e n 1996: n . no. OMS i. but probably resisted A n t i o c h o s early on). 39. 18.1 may imply that one of the recalcitrant cities considered surrendering to the Romans ((γχΐίριοϋσa> οφάς).3 . the first time we hear of Alexandreia Troas). 1635-8). A .

from where the king was absent (Liv. 34. and 'all the other Greeks which live in Asia'. 1 . 3 5 . but no concession on the substantial matter.1 7 .5-7 (the Antigonid cities would have been declared free by the Romans. they also proclaimed the liberty of the G r e e k cities in Asia. and even after Magnesia the Seleukids were reluctant to give up Pamphylia (Pol.47.57.11) and unwilling to give up Soloi (Pol. Syr. 34. 163 A p p . A p p . except for the Aiolians and the Ionians. to varying degrees. Lysimacheia: Pol. Flamininus received a Seleukid embassy at C o r i n t h in the summer. Ephesos: L i v . 18. in 195. the status of the cities of Asia Minor.1—4. Apameia: L i v . either directly or by sponsoring the grievances of the recalcitrant cities 164 (Roman championship of Ptolemaic interests was soon voided by the settlement between A n t i o c h o s I I I and Ptolemy V : see § 4). Antiochos therefore spoke of recognising the autonomy of independent states on the fringes of the Seleukid space itself. 34. 18.2. Pol. 18. Syr. and with his courtier M i n n i o n in the autumn. Pol.2.47.50.57. . at Ephesos. in late summer. grounded in the Seleukid past: A n t i o c h o s I I I was reconquering 162 Corinth: Pol. 1 7 . 1 . 1 6 . 78): at the eve of Magnesia.2 . 1 6 2 W h a t is striking about this series of negotiations is their repetitiveness and their uniformly unsatisfactory outcome. T h e R o m a n s demanded that A n t i o c h o s evacuate 'Europe' and stay in Asia (Pol. and the king received a R o m a n embassy at L y s i m a c h e i a in the autumn. Antiochos' offer was far more restricted. w h i c h was followed by the dispatch of three envoys f r o m R o m e to Asia in 193.8-13 (extended to all the cities of Asia). with some obscure patches: in 196. Syr. T h e Seleukids responded by substituting for the distinction between E u r o p e and Asia their o w n geography. 28. the conference in A p p . 1 5 . 6.4 and 34. and were referred to Rome (where they probably did not go).44. 'All the other Greeks' must be a confusion by Appian. utterances were issued in a loop w h i c h could have carried on indefinitely. Seleukid envoys met Flamininus at C o r i n t h again.these diplomatic encounters is well k n o w n . 166-75. for order of negotiations. 18. Corinth (bis): L i v . Sponsoring grievances: Pol.12. 34.13). Holleaux 1957: 156-79.16.45.49-52. A n t i o c h o s reopened negotiations by sending an embassy to R o m e in winter 194/3. and must concern Apameia. 12 cannot be set at Ephesos. 18.8-9. A f t e r an interval of a year and a half.4-59.33. the Byzantines. 2 . 18. but for precipitating events in G r e e c e in 192. where they met with A n t i o c h o s at A p a m e i a . Rome: L i v . 34. Diod. 21. 21.15.1. 35. L i v . against negotiations in 195 (which might be inferred from L i v . Rather than look for substantial changes and concessions. L i v . 1 . 3 5 .8).50. It is unlikely that Antiochos would already have offered to withdraw from the cities of southern Asia (Badian 1964: 138 n. 1 6 3 we should realize that either party spoke f r o m a position w h i c h its interlocutor was unwilling to acknowledge. this amounts to a scaling back of his wider ambitions.1). 3 5 .2 .58.59. 34.24. L i v .58.2. cities over which he had extended the shadow of his diplomacy and influence.1—3. the Kyzikenes. 12 has Antiochos offering to leave autonomous the Rhodians.25. 18.2-3).47. 18.52. in accordance with the SC of 196). such as Rhodes or Byzantion (Bickermann 1932a: 50).

Syr. W e should rather try to explore the logic of two competing discourses. 'spheres of influence'. G r u e n 1986: 625 dismisses the references in L i v y to anxiety about Antiochos. 6. on the grounds that the Senate proceeded with the evacuation of Greece in 194. 169 S u c h fears are exemplified in the series of measures taken after the last conference with A n t i o c h o s . 'blocks'. Franco 1993: 265-70. w h i c h reveals R o m a n anxieties about security. and on the possibility of professed aims on Macedonia. But 'public consistency' ( G r u e n 1986: 621) cannot account for the demand that A n t i o c h o s evacuate 'Europe'. L i v .51. L i v . 4 on Liv.57. 34. and where the R o m a n s had no ground to give orders. 169 Bickermann 1932«: 66-75. 1 6 8 B y recasting the ancient terms in 'timeless' modern concepts of geopolitics. Franco 1993: 269-70. represented a c o m m i t m e n t that could not be renounced without losing face (Liv. T h e difficult feature is the rationale of the R o m a n d e m a n d s — w h y they initiated the confrontational process. 165 they also denied the R o m a n s ' right to 'interfere' (πολυπραγμονεΐν) in Asia M i n o r . 34. the workings of their conflict. 282. 147 e. Briscoe simplifies the workings of a complex statement and reduces the specifics of contemporary discourse to a brutal summary. Syr. w i t h a view towards laying out their assumptions.11).10. 168 Badian 1964: 120. Briscoe 1972: 35 n. L i v . 28.51.2). 1 .15. the debate about A n t i o c h o s crossing to Europe was not about the creation of a 'buffer zone' between the Seleukid and the R o m a n spheres. as opposed to the map of their anxieties: the Senate seemed to fear that the Seleukid advance across the Straits w o u l d automatically lead him westwards to threaten R o m e (Pol. 18. 18. 1 6 6 T h e s e utterances should not be simplified or rationalized 1 6 7 to speak of 'propaganda war'. but that action. w h i c h was A n t i o c h o s ' by right.2 and 9. 165 166 .T h r a c e . 5 1 .9). D i o d . 12.4-5.2.1 0 ) . Pol. to the Seleukids' astonishment (Pol. T h i s Pol. 34.10-11 . T h e proclamation of G r e e k liberty in 196. L i v .3: 'si se ille Asiae finibus non continet et in Europam transcendit. 34.58.4-6. these descriptions pass over what is historically specific and intriguing about the negotiations. 28. 18. and the conceptual geography w h i c h each tried to impose.58.g. imposed by consistency with the SC of 196. 1 . Errington 19896: 276.5-6. 1 8 . issued after K y n o s k e p h a l a i .57. or ignorance about the precise geography involved. once part of the realm of Lysimachos and hence theoretically belonging to the inheritance of Seleukos I. might explain the energy with which the evacuation of Europe was demanded from Antiochos in winter 194/3. A p p .15. Mastrocinque 1983: 131-3. whether in the Balkans or in Greece. 34. w h i c h had belonged to Seleukos I. Diod.16. 3 5 . on the imitation of Seleukos I b y Antiochos III. A p p . 2 3 . 'cold war'. ut et Romanis ius sit Asiae civitatium amicitias et tueri quas habeant et novas complecti is merely a rhetorical way of saying "if Antiochus does not keep out of Europe we will drive him out of both Europe and Asia M i n o r " ' — b y trying to extract the 'real' message.50. to ensure the security of Sicily and Italy ( L i v .57. 35.

against.58.1-4). or Attalid exaggeration ( L i v . Bickermann 19326: 296). R o m a n preoccupation with A n t i o c h o s seems to have been constant. Ferrary 1988. 34. eadem ab Antiocho. the R o m a n s exercised various forms of pressure.43.58. to force the evacuation of Europe: this is clear f r o m the debate itself.li. 510 (engagement for liberty is strumentalizzato). as is obvious f r o m the conference w h i c h took place in the winter 194/3. it was increased by external factors.3. the next day ( L i v . 34. Flamininus then appealed to the discourse of G r e e k freedom. T h e hierarchy of demands was made explicit by Flamininus himself. 34.59. 'the R o m a n people w o u l d defend the liberty [of the G r e e k s of Europe] against Antiochos.4) are confirmed by documentary evidence on the attitude of L .2).8-59. where Flamininus' threat to defend the liberty of the G r e e k cities of Asia was succeeded by a restatement f r o m Sulpicius Galba of the initial demand to evacuate Europe (Liv.1 9 6 onwards: the references in P o l y b i o s (18. qua virtute quaque fide libertatem eorum [i. T h e Seleukid envoys responded by denying the R o m a n s any rights in Asia (whereas T h r a c e was A n t i o c h o s ' by right).48. Flamininus claimed the right for the R o m a n s to maintain or strike up 'friendships' in A s i a — t o enjoy influence with communities in a region w h i c h the Seleukids constructed as an imperial dominion ( L i v . Flamininus' power to contract such agreements is highly problematical. vindicaturum. 35. f r o m 1 9 7 . 18.ppo vindicaverit.39. unless he left Europe. in the course of o p e r a t i o n s — p r e s u m a b l y directed against the advance of A n t i o c h o s I I I . since the war against Philip V had ended. T h e legate in c o m m a n d of the R o m a n fleet promised to the L a m p s a k e n e embassy that he w o u l d include L a m p s a k o s in any agreement he might strike up.10). If A n t i o c h o s did not evacuate Europe. again as a means of pressure. in late 197. In fact. 1 7 1 T h e Seleukids' response shows how seriously they took the challenge.geography of anxiety was an important motive for R o m a n actions. 144-6. V a r i o u s discursive strategies aimed at denying the legitimacy of R o m a n claims. in parallel to his earlier attempt. of the G r e e k s of Europe] a Phi. e r r a r .2. 171 Bickermann 1932a: 61: 'das Recht des Sieges parierte [Flamininus] mit dem auf die Freiheit'. Desideri 1970/1. with the same valour and trustworthiness with w h i c h it had defended this liberty against Philip'. nisi decedat Europa. Badian 1964: 127 and n. lines 32-6 (cf.4-5): populum Romanum. the analogy between Seleukid rule in Asia and R o m a n p o w e r in Italy justified the Seleukid empire in terms the R o m a n s could not 170 p y !Ç88: 140. Flamininus. on I. and keeping the R o m a n s at distance: for instance. 1 ' 0 T o constrain A n t i o c h o s within this conceptual geography. L . 506. would excise nisi decedat Europa·.23. Lampsakos 4.e. such as the presence of Hannibal at A n t i o c h o s ' court. 70. 18.

Antiochos' landing at Demetrias in 192 was also parti}' motivated by the same urge to 'turn the tables on R o m e ' (Badian 1964: 1 3 0 . 7 . 36. 175 D o c u m e n t 38. Pol. 20-21. 172 175 .52.9.6. 3 2 .2. II 8-9. Antiochos III did not regularly present himself as the 'liberator of the cities'. 197 chose to speak of him in those terms (document 16. but shifted the debate by challenging the Seleukid historical claims in Asia Minor).51.8. neglecting anomalies pointed out by Errington 1980 (though Errington's interpretation of the letter as a 'versteckte D r o h u n g ' .9.1 2 . 26 Β.1 1 .8.1. 31 Β. Italy: Pol. by appearing to free the G r e e k s f r o m Rome. and undid the Seleukid claim to a legitimate.1 1 . 619. Antiochos' projected support for an expedition of Hannibal to Italy. the same applies to Errington 19896: 279). Liv. 18.4 . the Seleukid envoy M e n i p p o s . I 8-9. 1 7 5 In winter 194/3. 18. but rather appealed to dynastic legitimacy and euergetic solicitude.4 ('liberation propaganda'). unproblematic p o w e r grounded in the past. T h e R o m a n s challenged the dynastic past of the Seleukid p o w e r in Asia M i n o r . 2 .3-4). Liv. 284. I 13 = 44 Blümel). T h e y further challenged the Seleukid effort at appearing the sole efficient interlocutor of the local communities. 1 ) . 3 5 . and by encouraging the proliferation of local claims in the face of Seleukid attempts at creating an unitary space ( L i v . P. 20. cf. is too crude. 1 7 . 1 1 .44. 34.4. Syr.1 9 6 . 6). T h e Seleukid viewpoint is clear from document 26 A. the Seleukids used the concepts of G r e e k liberty to contest the Roman control of the G r e e k cities in Italy ( L i v . Pol. local resistance (actual or ideological) was an anomaly. 5 8 . Mastrocinque 1983: 6 1 . 3 4 . 33. 174 'Rival sloganeering': G r u e n 1986: 636. 35.reject. 3 5 . C h . though Alabanda in 202 and Iasos c. in addition to his mission for Antiochos. 1 § 5).9. Sulpicius G a l b a did not address the point. 1 ' 2 M o r e aggressively. 3 5 . w h i c h w o u l d soon be reduced and lead to assimilation within the Seleukid space ( L i v . T h e confrontation was not about 'rival sloganeering' centred on G r e e k liberty: A n t i o c h o s did not present his conquests under the heading of the 'liberation of the cities'. 35. proposed to threaten Italy just as the Romans threatened his dominions in Asia (Liv.6. 1 7 4 local autonomy was a status w h i c h he could grant. Possible exceptions are the fragmentary letter to T e o s (19 B) and Antiochos' freeing the Greeks from the Thracians (App. 1 6 .1-2). 35. acted D e n y i n g Roman locus standi: Pol. Gruen 1986: 628-9 calls this document amicable.48. if authentic.42.38.52. A contemporary d o c u m e n t illustrates how R o m a n discourse could force open the Seleukid space. by engaging S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s in an international dialogue where these cities were acknowledged as independent powers.1 ) . 1 ' 3 It is easy to see w h y the Seleukids reacted to the R o m a n demands as to a threat to the imperial construct of 1 9 7 .58. 1 6 . 18. 1 0 . within an imperial space where he held the monopoly of performative utterances (§ 4). 3 5 . by referring to a history of Seleukid weakness and absence in Asia M i n o r ( L i v .

w h e r e the notion of 'contract clause' is e x p l o r e d through examples.1 3 . the R o m a n s spoke the language of authority to a city located within the Seleukid empire. σννενδοκονμεν: 2 M a c c . and the formula might be a misunderstanding in both cases.3 . agreeing to the concessions m a d e b y the S e l e u k i d minister L y s i a s in 164. after Judas M a c c a b a e u s ' i n i t i a l s u c c e s s e s (νττερ ών Λυσίας ο συγγενής τον βασιλέως συνεχώρησεν ύμίν. 1 1 : 35» w i t h H a b i c h t 1976: 12 and ηη. the tribunes.2 9 (Iasos). 177 T h i s interpretation is s u p p o r t e d by a R o m a n letter to the Jews. 32): it is patterned on the interaction between king (or royal officers) and subject c o m m u nities. 4 § 1.for the T e i a n s : he asked the Senate to acknowledge the city's asylia. the R o m a n s grant that T e o s should be άφορολόγητον άπο τον δήμου τον Ρωμαίων. 661. 176 A r e the R o m a n authorities e x e m p t i n g the T e i a n s f r o m tribute. instead. 1 2 . T h i s formula is problematic: the direct parallel is the letter of the A t h a m a n i a n kings.1 5 and I V 9 . 7 . 660. 644. Discursive interference f r o m the R o m a n s also appears at the end of the letter. I 1 4 . 7 . because of the lacunose state of the d o c u m e n t s and the absence of any clear c h r o n o logical context. 5 . 2 . also C h . 31 Β. A p p e n d i x 2. 1 7 8 W h a t M e n i p p o s had expected was a favourable response to a request circulated. T h e formula is unparalleled in royal letters on asylia (RC 26. T h e significance of the reference to άφορολογησία and sacred city and territory in a series of C r e t a n decrees in favour of M y l a s a (I.1 . 31. 'if y o u should preserve in the future too y o u r goodwill towards us'). and the Senate.7 — t h e last t w o p u b l i s h e d in EA 19 (1992).1 0 . Mylasa 643. 1004) is obscure. 22-4)· 178 D o c u m e n t s . under Seleukid patronage. . T h e letter to the T e i a n s preserves a 176 O n these d o c u m e n t s .1 1 (Herakleia). lines 8 . 26 A . 25. Valerius Messalla. where A n t i o c h o s ' utterances should have been the only authoritative ones. also for the asylia of T e o s (RC 35). 28.1003. the R o m a n utterance interferes within the Seleukid space. if the T e i a n s should observe goodwill towards the R o m a n s (διατηρούντων υμών και eis τα μετά ταύτα τήν προς ημάς εύνοιαν. I 2 5 . w h e r e relations of power are mediated through a contract of euergetism and local 'goodwill'. In lines 19-24.1 3 a n d r e p r o d u c e d as SEG 42.1 1 (Kildara). H e r r m a n n 1965a: 1 4 0 . 1 " In both cases. 27. among the international c o m m u n i t y . with its promise of further φιλάνθρωπα. literally 'tribute-exempt f r o m the R o m a n people'. 7 _ 9 ( A m y z o n ) . observes diplomatic courtesies by praising M e n i p p o s and proclaiming the authors' piety. it also shows anomalies (apart from boastful confidence in divine favour). T h e reply addressed to the T e i a n s by the praetor M . as if they had any right or claim to levy tribute f r o m a c o m m u n i t y within the Seleukid e m p i r e — h e n c e assuming a discursive position normally reserved for the ruling power? O r is the meaning that the T e i a n s can be asyloi and free f r o m tribute with the consent of the R o m a n p e o p l e ? — t h u s granting approval to an administrative status in the Seleukid e m p i r e .

but other cities. B i k e r m a n 1938: 1 4 0 . 'there w a s a d a n g e r that. nisi crederent Persas. si concessum iis foret quod intenderent. 34.p o w e r c o n flict.9 . the illusion.3) and w h i c h the S e l e u k i d s called ' m e d d l i n g ' (πολυπραγμονβΐν). 33.3). It challenged S e l e u k i d i d e o l o g y in its f u n c t i o n as discursive c o v e r for relations and realities. needed a clod of earth and a gulp of water. T h e Romans were making a similar attempt in the case of the two cities [Smyrna and Lampsakos]. had called 'striking up f r i e n d s h i p s ' in A s i a ( L i v . gleba terrae et haustu aquae eguisse. 6. essential in any p o w e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Per similem temptationem a Romanis de duabus civitatibus agi.d o c u m e n t a r y trace of the process w h i c h F l a m i n i n u s . that there is n o t h i n g exterior to the dialogue b e t w e e n ruler and ruled. S m y r n a in A i o l i s and Ionia. as A n t i o c h o s ' council w a s well aware. rather than w i t n e s s i n g the dissolution of e m p i r e t h r o u g h the loss of authority and the intrusion of external agents ( L i v . if they w e r e g r a n t e d w i t h w h a t they w a n t e d . Lampsacum in Hellesponto aliae urbes sequerentur. simul duas iugum exuisse vidissent. L a m p s a k o s on the H e l l e s p o n t w o u l d p r o v i d e an e x a m p l e for other cities to f o l l o w ' ( L i v . Zmyrnam in Aeolide Ioniaque. f r o m 226 d o w n to the d i p l o m a t i c c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s and the R o m a n s in the 190s. would defect to the people that should set them free. in the same w i n t e r 194/3. ad liberatorem populum defecturas. T h e narrative has f o l l o w e d the u n f o l d i n g of a m b i t i o n and violence across the landscape of A s i a M i n o r : Philip V t h r e a t e n i n g the coastline w i t h his . the faculty of the e m p i r e to be accepted as part of things. m o s t l y in the f o r m of S e l e u k i d c a m p a i g n s of (re)conquest in A s i a M i n o r . when they asked the Spartans for earth and water. w h e n it d e c i d e d on w a r . cum aquam terramque ab Lacedaemoniis petierint. sed alias civitates. 3 . creating authority b y s u p p r e s s i n g alternatives: periculum erat ne. T h e normal f u n c t i o n i n g of S e l e u k i d imperial ideology w a s threatened b y the R o m a n presence w i t h i n the S e l e u k i d space.58. R o m a n ' m e d d l i n g ' threatened S e l e u k i d p o w e r . unless one believed that the Persians. as soon as they saw two of them shed the yoke. unjust power always started from small things. b y contesting its bases and its logic ( B i c k e r m a n n 1932«: 65. the f o c u s has been on s u p e r . in late 193. 1 7 . It d i s r u p t e d S e l e u k i d authority. Beyond Narrative T h r o u g h o u t this chapter. Briscoe 1981: 30-3): initium semper a parvis iniusta imperandi fieri. 3 5 .38.1 ) .

lemboi, his b o l d m a r c h e s across the P e r g a m e n e territory; most m e m o r a b l y , the great c a m p a i g n s of 1 9 7 - 6 , s w e e p i n g f r o m A n t i o c h to T h r a c e , c o n d u c t e d on sea and on land b y A n t i o c h o s I I I , w i t h an armada of 300 w a r s h i p s large and small, and a host of subordinate c o m m a n d e r s (the k i n g ' s sons, his n e p h e w s , Z e u x i s in Sardeis) coo r d i n a t i n g an o n s l a u g h t b y land, cities falling under S e l e u k i d control b y the d o z e n — o m n e s Asiae civitates . . . H i s t o r y as w a r driven narrative: w h a t c o u l d be m o r e real, in its i m p a c t on p e o p l e ' s lives and h e n c e on its claim on the historian's attention, than this story of Hellenistic B i g W a r , of royal c a m p a i g n s and c o n q u e s t ? Y e t the r o u n d s of negotiations of 1 9 6 - 1 9 3 s h o w that c o n q u e s t and e m p i r e , the materials of military narrative, are not natural objects, b u t c o n s t r u c t i o n s , w i t h their o w n logic and their o w n m e c h a n i c s . C o n v e n t i o n a l military narrative, w i t h its r e a d y - m a d e f o r m u l a s and lifeless m e t a p h o r s , is o d d l y p o w e r l e s s to e v o k e the historical specifics of c o n d u c t and e x p e r i e n c e , e v e n for as a p p a r e n t l y e l e m e n tal a p h e n o m e n o n as s u p e r - p o w e r w a r f a r e . T h i s b e c a m e especially apparent to m e as I w a s w r i t i n g s u c h an account for this chapter, especially for the Hellenistic age, w h e r e the e v i d e n c e is p o o r and the situation h i g h l y c o m p l e x , thus o f t e n leaving no alternative b u t speculation and c o m m o n - s e n s e g u e s s e s to s u p p o r t conventional narrative, especially if the goal is a reasonably s m o o t h and coherent a c c o u n t . 1 ' 9 It is s o m e t i m e s hard to escape the feeling that military narrative history c o m e s d o w n to might-be maps of might-have-been campaigns showing in colour the obediences before and after (W. H. Auden, 'Makers of History') S o narrative is not an end, b u t a b e g i n n i n g ; sentences s u c h as ' A n t i o c h u s ' imperialist appetite w a s insatiable' ( G r u e n 1986: 613) or 'la C a r i a era z o n e d ' i n f l u e n z a rodia' ( M a s t r o c i n q u e 1983: 54) or 'pressure f r o m Philip V , w h a t e v e r the exact terms, m i g h t explain w h y the S e l e u k i d advance b r o k e off, and w h y A n t i o c h o s ' attention shifted f r o m A s i a M i n o r to K o i l e - S y r i a ' (§ 3), t h o u g h p r o b a b l y factual, m e a n little. N a r r a t i v e p r o v i d e s the necessary c o n t e x t for a series of historical operations, starting w i t h an analytical s t u d y of the realities of e m p i r e . T h e relentless r e c o u n t i n g of w a r and c o n quest, f o l l o w e d by the p r o b l e m a t i z a t i o n of control in the d i p l o m a t i c
179 Lefèvre 1996, in analysing a Delphian (almost certainly Amphiktionic) inscription mentioning Antiochos I I I , draws attention to the complexity of the period, and the uncertainty of our knowledge, especially for the complicated ultimate years of the third century (c.205—200).

sparring between the Seleukids and R o m e raise a series of questions: 'when a conqueror conquers, zuhat does he conquer? W h a t is the relationship between place and power?' ( N . Purcell, jfRS 80 (1990), 178). M o r e prosaically, what does he create by conquest? H o w is authority enforced, and control maintained? T o what purposes are authority and control put? T h e s e questions can only be answered in a study describing and analysing the structures of state power in the Seleukid empire, in its force and its limitations, the limitations w h i c h the R o m a n challenge highlighted ( C h . 3). T h e R o m a n demands and the Seleukid responses also set forth a direct illustration of how power and empire are about language as m u c h as about physical constraint: the discursive position of the masters, the flow and the f o r m of orders, the modes of address of the subjects. L a n g u a g e , in its capacity to name and to define, was as 'real' a constituent of power as the violence w h i c h C h a p t e r 2 narrates or the structures of constraint in C h a p t e r 3; language was as important a feature of empire as the statuses of liberty or subjection w h i c h have so taxed modern scholarship on the topic of 'city and ruler'; in fact, these statuses themselves are part of the language of power, so that language must be counted among the structures of domination. A n awareness of performative language as part of the exercise of power informs F. Millar's study of the R o m a n emperor in his world (Millar 1992: 637); for the Hellenistic period, J. M . Bertrand has examined similar issues (Bertrand 1990), drawing explicitly on the methods of discourse analysis. But it is difficult to 'own' a language, especially if it is used in a dialogue: b e y o n d the language of power, we can also study the language of interaction, and the effect it had on the relationship between city and ruler. Here again, the case of A n t i o c h o s I I I and his relations to the cities of Asia M i n o r is ideal, because of our knowledge of the événementiel context and of the quantity of epigraphical material, directly recording royal utterances and civic decrees (see Introduction); this b o d y of discourse allows us to study the Seleukid empire as interactions, the rhetorical strategies of ruler and ruled, and the workings of consent and collaboration (Ch. 4). N o n e of this means that the narrative is to be forgotten wholesale, or merely serves as scene-setting for the analytical exercices of the next chapters. T h e conclusions proposed in these chapters are, explicitly or implicitly, shaped by the general picture that emerges f r o m the military narrative. T h e flux and instability of political history in the arena of Asia M i n o r invites us to caution about the durability and extension of control exercised by any one power in the region. T h a t stability often is the impression e m e r g i n g f r o m the

e v i d e n c e m a y reflect the state p o w e r of the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e and the latter's c a p a c i t y to integrate local c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h i n its s t r u c t u r e s ; o r it m i g h t result f r o m the d u r a b i l i t y and a u t o n o m y of a state a p p a r a t u s , in e x i s t e n c e f r o m the A c h a i m e n i d s o n w a r d s and i n d e p e n d e n t of h i g h politics; o r it m i g h t again be an i d e o l o g i c a l e f f e c t of the s t r u c t u r e s of d o m i n a t i o n — m o r e s i m p l y p u t , a p o m p o u s illusion f o s t e r e d b y the r u l i n g p o w e r . T h e analysis o f f e r e d in C h a p t e r 3 e n t e r t a i n s all these p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and tries to a p p r o a c h the reality of e m p i r e f r o m a variety o f p e r s p e c t i v e s : the u n s t a b i l i t y e v i d e n t in the n a r r a t i v e d o e s not p r e c l u d e a s y n c h r o n i c s t u d y o f e m p i r e , b u t s h o u l d h e l p u s a v o i d too static a picture. 1 8 0 L i k e w i s e , the p e r v a s i v e v i o l e n c e of the m i l i t a r y n a r r a t i v e , the v i o l e n c e w h i c h f o r m s the basis f o r i m p e r i a l a c q u i s i t i o n , is a s i m p l e , b u t n e c e s s a r y c o r r e c t i v e to the p i c t u r e of e u e r g e t i c a l c o r d i a l i t y in the d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n r u l e r a n d ruled: it s h o u l d s h a r p e n o u r f e e l i n g f o r the b a l a n c e of p o w e r that u n d e r l a y the relation b e t w e e n city and ruler. T h e reality or threat o f v i o l e n c e o n l y m a k e s m o r e r e m a r k a b l e the c o m p l e x and s o p h i s t i c a t e d d i s c o u r s e w h i c h the cities u s e d to a d d r e s s their rulers and t r y to c o n s t r a i n t h e m . T h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r , d e v o t e d to m i l i t a r y n a r r a t i v e , started w i t h the e v o c a t i o n of the m o v e m e n t s o f A n t i o c h o s , w a r r i o r k i n g , across the l a n d s c a p e ; it e n d s w i t h m o r e abstract c o n s i d e r a t i o n s on instab i l i t y and v i o l e n c e , and the s h a d o w o f v i o l e n c e . T h e n e x t c h a p t e r , o n the s t r u c t u r e s of p o w e r , will take the i m p a c t of v i o l e n c e as its starting p o i n t , to e x p l o r e its c o n c r e t e w o r k i n g s and i m m e d i a t e e f f e c t s , and the m o r e lasting s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h v i o l e n c e e n a b l e d a n d s u p p o r t e d ( ' o r g a n i z e d v i o l e n c e ' ) as the basis o f e m p i r e : the s t r u c t u r e s o f S e l e u k i d state p o w e r .
180

For a methodological defence of the synchronic approach, Ober 1989: 36-8.

C H A P T E R

3

Empire as Structures

άπαντες γαρ οί την επιτάδε του Ταύρου κατοικοϋντες ουχ ούτως εχάρησαν Άντιόχου λειφθεντος επί τω δοκεΐν άπολελύσθαι, τίνες μεν φόρων, οί δε φρουράς, καθόλου δε πάντες βασιλικών προσταγμάτων, ώς επί τω τον άπο των βαρβάρων αύτοις φόβον άφαιρησθαι και δοκεΐν άπηλλάχθαι της τούτων ύβρεως και παρανομίας. all the inhabitants of the land on this side of the T a u r u s were not so m u c h pleased, w h e n Antiochos was defeated, at the prospect of being freed f r o m tribute for some, garrisoning for others and f r o m royal injunctions for all, as at the release f r o m the terror the barbarians inflicted on t h e m and at the thought of being delivered f r o m their violence and their lawlessness. Pol. 2i .41.2 P o l y b i o s i n v a l u a b l y r e c o r d s t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s ' p o i n t o f v i e w o n S e l e u k i d r u l e , n o t l o n g a f t e r its d e s t r u c t i o n at t h e b a t t l e o f M a g n e s i a ( w i n t e r 190/189). T h e r i c h n e s s and t h o u g h t f u l n e s s o f the P o l y b i a n p a s s a g e ( d e s c r i b i n g r e a c t i o n s in the G r e e k c i t i e s a f t e r M a n l i u s V u l s o ' s G a l a t i a n e x p e d i t i o n o f 189) are a p p a r e n t w h e n c o m p a r e d to L i v y ' s r e d u c t i v e p a r a p h r a s e ( 3 8 . 3 7 . 2 - 3 : regia servitus). I t s p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e is t h a t it c o m p l e m e n t s t h e P o l y b i a n d e s c r i p t i o n o f A n t i o c h o s ' i m p e r i a l i s t a m b i t i o n s , f o u n d in t r a n s l a t i o n at L i v . 3 3 . 3 8 (see I n t r o d u c t i o n ) . T h e l a t t e r g e n e r a t e d c o m m e n t a r y in v a r i o u s f o r m s : an e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e f o r m s t a k e n b y S e l e u k i d i m p e r i a l m e m o r y , w h e n p r o j e c t e d o n t h e l a n d s c a p e of A s i a M i n o r , a n d a n a r r a t i v e o f the military action w h i c h actualized S e l e u k i d claims and g e o g r a p h y . T h e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e , s h o r t t h o u g h it is, p r o m p t s f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n , b e y o n d m i l i t a r y n a r r a t i v e , o n t h e d o m i n i o n r e c r e a t e d b y the c a m p a i g n s of A n t i o c h o s I I I , and m o r e generally on the nature of e m p i r e a n d o n its c h a r a c t e r . T h e f e a t u r e t h a t first a t t r a c t s a t t e n t i o n is the m a s s i v e v i s i b i l i t y o f S e l e u k i d p o w e r . M i l i t a r y m e a n s of c o m p u l s i o n (rather than actual v i o l e n c e ) d i s t r i b u t e d a m o n g t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s a n d l i v i n g at t h e i r e x p e n s e ; i m m e d i a t e e x t r a c t i o n o f s u r p l u s in t h e f o r m o f tribute; and, the simplest expression of imperial d o m i n a t i o n , direct

o r d e r s (προστάγματα) telling s u b j e c t s w h a t the state w a n t e d t h e m to do: the exercise of p o w e r took place w i t h i n a visible f r a m e w o r k of c o m p u l s i o n , and the figures of S e l e u k i d p o w e r r e m e m b e r e d b y f o r m e r s u b j e c t s fit theoretical descriptions of the ' e m p i r e of d o m i n a t i o n ' , w h i c h controlled local c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h o u t dissolving t h e m w i t h i n the imperial state. 1 A t this level, sophisticated, recently d e v e l o p e d , a p p r o a c h e s to p o w e r ( p o w e r as 'battlefield', p o w e r - a s - k n o w l e d g e ) are less u s e f u l than the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a n a t o m y of p o w e r - b y - c o n q u e s t or p o w e r - a s - p o s s e s s i o n , precisely the f o r m s w h i c h m o r e sophisticated m o d e l s find uninteresting. 2 In this respect, one traditional m e t h o d of s t u d y i n g the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e has b e e n to catalogue and illustrate f o r m s , the same f o r m s w h i c h P o l y b i o s singled out in his description: garrisons, tribute, and finance, or the h i e r a r c h y of g o v e r n o r s that transmitted royal orders. T h e classic w o r k of this sort of scholarship is B i c k e r m a n ' s Ifis Mutions des Séleucides ( B i k e r m a n 1938), w h o s e results can be c o n f i r m e d , m o d i f i e d , or u p d a t e d t h r o u g h the recent epigraphical discoveries, especially those c o n c e r n i n g A n t i o c h o s I I I , b u t also the d o c u m e n t s f r o m other Hellenistic states, w h i c h p r o v i d e parallels to e x p a n d or m o d i f y B i c k e r m a n ' s detailed analyses and general views. T h i s is one w a y of s t u d y i n g the relationship b e t w e e n e m p i r e and local c o m m u n i t y : b y p o r t r a y i n g the structures of state p o w e r t h o u g h w h i c h e m p i r e m a d e itself felt, and w h i c h constituted the e x p e r i e n c e of the subjects. M u c h of the present chapter will be d e v o t e d to arranging and d e s c r i b i n g the available material along these lines. Y e t this a p p r o a c h , t h o u g h at first sight m u n d a n e , is not p u r e l y antiquarian, b u t o f f e r s a f r u i t f u l starting point. First, it leads to a series of d y n a m i c historical questions e x p l o r i n g the processes of e m p i r e : w h a t w a s i n v o l v e d e x a c t l y , w h a t did the S e l e u k i d state w a n t , w h a t w a s it capable of? W h a t w a s the e x p e r i e n c e of e m p i r e like? In the f o l l o w i n g sections, I will try to c o m b i n e both approaches: the p a n o r a m i c review of e v i d e n c e , and the s u b s e q u e n t historical questions. T h e e v i d e n c e allows a n u a n c e d , yet fairly coherent picture for the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e as state; 3 or at least for various e l e m e n t s of S e l e u k i d state-power: the material o f t e n does not directly attest, b u t s e e m s to i m p l y a sophisticated and extensive apparatus. S e c o n d , administrative history s h o u l d be c o m b i n e d w i t h
1 F i n l e y 1983: 45; W e b e r 1968: 946; D o y l e 1986: 19, 21, 30-47 and esp. 4 5 - 6 ; M a n n 1986:533-8. 2 F o u c a u l t 1975: 35; L u k e s 1974. 3 O n s t u d y i n g early empires, M a n n 1986; N i c o l e t 1990: 7 - 8 , for the c o n c e p t of state elaborated b y students of e a r l y - m o d e r n E u r o p e (when the m o d e r n bureaucratic state was created) and its applicability to the ancient w o r l d .

an awareness that the capabilities of a state reside not o n l y in its potential for direct violence, control, and exploitation, b u t also in its ideological force: for instance, its ability to be accepted as natural, or perceived as 'sophisticated and e x t e n s i v e ' (to reuse the expression above); or its resort to a s y s t e m of classification of the landscape into royal land, and into cities subject, s u b o r d i n a t e , and 'free', categories created and sustained t h r o u g h the definitions o f f e r e d b y the imperial state. T h i s awareness of the ideological force w i e l d e d b y the structures of p o w e r s h o u l d help d e e p e n our interpretation of these structures, but also m a y c o m p e l us to m o v e to other a p p r o a c h e s to the s t u d y of p o w e r .

ι. Conquest

and

Control

Hellenistic kingship w a s essentially c o n c e r n e d w i t h w a r ; w e k n o w that A n t i o c h o s I I I s o m e t i m e s liked d a n c i n g in a r m s — a n apt m e t a p h o r for the military narrative of C h a p t e r 2. 4 B u t for A n t i o c h o s I I I , the only e v e n t s recorded in any detail are the capture of the K i l i k i a n cities in 197 and A n t i o c h o s ' m o v e m e n t s in the C h e r s o n e s o s in 196 ( C h . 2 § 4). R o y a l d o c u m e n t s b l u n t l y , but u n i n f o r m a t i v e l y , speak of ' r e a c q u i r i n g ' or ' r e c o v e r i n g ' cities; j u s t as n o n d e s c r i p t , t h o u g h f o r different reasons, civic decrees (for instance, f r o m T e o s , A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a , or Iasos) are evasive about the m o m e n t of c o n q u e s t . 5 In the p r e c e d i n g narrative, I tried to avoid the usual m e t a p h o r s of b a t t l e - a n d - c o n q u e s t narrative, since their ( w o u l d - b e ) v i v i d n e s s cannot s u p p l y the specific k n o w l e d g e a b o u t historical processes; instead, I used the bland expression 'to take o v e r ' f o r A n t i o c h o s ' c a m p a i g n s , partly inspired by the H e l l e n i s t i c usage (παραλαμβάνω, παράληφις) and partly because of the lack of specific evidence. F o r a concrete idea of the process, w e m u s t turn to p a r a l l e l s — A n t i o c h o s ' c a m p a i g n s in K o i l e - S y r i a (219 and 218), A t t a l o s ' foray of 218, or P h i l i p ' s T h r a c i a n c o n q u e s t s of 200, or, b e y o n d the limits of the late third c e n t u r y , A l e x a n d e r ' s route f r o m G r a n i k o s to Issos; the m a r c h of L y s i m a c h o s and P r e p e l a o s in 302, f r o m the H e l l e s p o n t , before the battle of Ipsos; or M i t h r i d a t e s ' irruption into w e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r in 88. W h a t e m e r g e s is a semi-ritualized g e n r e ,
4 Pol. 1 1 . 3 4 . 1 5 - 1 6 ; Bikerman 1938: 12-14; Austin 1986; S h e r w i n - W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 129. D a n c i n g in arms: Athen. 4.155b. 5 Royal letters: documents 26 A , I 8; 31 Β, II 8-9; T e o s : 17, 1 0 - 1 1 ; Alabanda/ Antiocheia: 16, 19-22; Iasos: 26 Β, I 9 - 1 8 . Further C h . 4 § 3, on the functions of allusiveness in civic language.

the p r o g r e s s of the royal c o n q u e r o r city b y city, in the r h y t h m s of p r e - m e c h a n i z e d warfare: τάς δε πόλεις επητορενόμενος επεφάτο ras μζν βία, τάς 8ε πειθοΐ προς αύτον επάγεσθαι (Pol. 5-62.5: A n t i o c h o s I I I in K o i l e - S y r i a ) . W h e n w e say that a Hellenistic k i n g ' c o n q u e r e d ' a region, w e m e a n this process, in its different m a n i f e s t a t i o n s — capture b y siege, conditional surrenders, v o l u n t a r y rallying after 'persuasion' or for local reasons, betrayal b y local officers of the rival p o w e r — a n d in its overall d y n a m i c s as the royal p r o g r e s s gathers m o m e n t u m , and intimidation p r o v o k e s a d o m i n o effect. 6 T h i s m o d e l of military activity supplies the context for features b a l d l y r e c o r d e d in the narrative of A n t i o c h o s ' c a m p a i g n s : the sack of S a r d e i s and other cities; the s u r r e n d e r of M a d y t o s and the d o m i n o effect in the C h e r s o n e s o s in 196; the surrender of A m y z o n and other n e i g h b o u r i n g c o m m u n i t i e s ; the v o l u n t a r y rallying of T e o s in c.203 and A r y k a n d a in 197, the first in the hope of lighter tribute than u n d e r A t t a l o s I, the second in the e x p e c t a t i o n of debt relief f o r the city; the s w i f t fall of the K i l i k i a n and L y k i a n coastal places in 197, p e r h a p s abetted b y the betrayal of P t o l e m a i c officials. 7 W i t h i n this m o d e l , three aspects c o m e across as defining. T h e y can be e n u m e r a t e d and studied in a c h r o n o l o g i c a l order w h i c h m i r r o r s the initial stages b y w h i c h an e m p i r e installed itself: first, the violence w i t h w h i c h c o n q u e s t took place; s e c o n d , the negotiation of statuses that defined the s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s ' place in the e m p i r e ; third, the establishment of p e r m a n e n t structures of control: garrisons and forts. T h e first aspect, v i o l e n c e , is o b v i o u s e n o u g h : the f o r m a l i z e d , repetitive character of the k i n g ' s c o n q u e r i n g p r o g r e s s cannot o b s c u r e the violence w r o u g h t b y his δυνάμεις, only briefly m e n t i o n e d in the narrative sources. 8 T h e fate of cities sacked (Sardeis, or the u n n a m e d city in Sardis 7 . 1 , no. 2) is too o b v i o u s to deserve m u c h c o m m e n t other than P o l y b i o s ' d e s c r i p t i o n of Sardeis' f a l l — t h e scenes of carnage and P o l y b i o s ' final g r i m c o m m e n t should be b o r n e in m i n d , w h e n reading the c o u r t e o u s letters w r i t t e n s u b s e q u e n t l y b y
6 ' C i t y b y city': J. and L . Robert 1954: 84, cf. Bikerman 1938: 133: 'le transfert de la suprématie s'effectuait ainsi par une suite de conventions tacites ou expresses entre le vainqueur et les vaincus, conclues au fur et à mesure de la conquête'. Fourth Syrian War: Pol. 5.58.2-62.6; 5.68.7-71.12; Attalos I: Pol. 5.77.2-9; Philip V: L i v . 31.16. Alexander: Arr. Anab. 1.17-2.6; Lysimachos: Diod. 20.107, Franco 1993: 47-52; Mithridates: A p p . Mithr. 20-7. 7 Sack of Sardeis: C h . 2 § 1; other cities: document 36 and the unnamed city in the Korrhagos inscription ( S E G 2.663, with Rostovtzeff 1941: 635 and 1472 n. 44); Chersonesos: L i v . 33.38.9-10; surrender of A m y z o n and other communities: document 5, 2; Arykanda: C h . 2 § 4; T e o s : C h . 2 § 2; Kilikia and Lykia: C h . 2 § 4. 8 Pol. 5.77.3, Attalos' campaign of 218 ('for some cities, violence was needed'); A p p .

Syr.

I ( τ α άττϊιβονντο.

έβιάζετο),

2 (St€t τω τής

αλώσεως).

Antiochos stone.

and

Laodike

to t h e

Sardians,

and

crisply

copied

on

ή δε λοιπή δνναμις είσπεσοΰσα πανταχόθεν άμα κατειλήφει τήν πάλιν, και το λοιπόν ήδη, των μεν φονευόντων τους εντυγχάνοντας, των δε τάς οικήσεις εμπιπρώντοιν, άλλων δε προς τάς άρπαγας και τάς ωφελείας ωρμηκότων, εγίνετο παντελής ή της πόλεως καταφθορά και διαρπαγή. και Σάρδεων μεν τούτον τον τρόπον εγενετο κύριος Άντίοχος. the rest of the army, attacking f r o m all parts simultaneously, had captured the city. A n d f r o m then on, as some killed those they encountered, some set the houses on fire, others rushed out to steal and to collect booty, the destruction and sack of the city was complete. T h u s did Antiochos become master of Sardeis. (Pol. 7 . 1 8 . 9 - 1 0 ) A m y z o n also s u f f e r e d , a l t h o u g h it w a s n o t s a c k e d o r p u n i s h e d f o r r e b e l l i o n , b u t ' h a n d e d itself o v e r ' to Z e u x i s . H i s l e n i f y i n g p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o n l y highlight the e v i d e n c e for looting and violence: p r o p e r t y p l u n d e r e d f r o m t h e A m y z o n i a n s a n d s t o r e d in t h e f o r t r e s s o f A l i n d a ; t h e flight o f t h e c i t i z e n s , in s p i t e o f Z e u x i s ' i n j u n c t i o n s ; t h e k i d n a p p i n g o f t e m p l e - s l a v e s , r e c o v e r e d o n l y t h r o u g h an e m b a s s y to A n t i o c h o s h i m s e l f . 9 R o y a l o r d e r s c o n s t r a i n e d t h e a r m y f r o m h a r m i n g t h e s h r i n e s at A m y z o n a n d L a b r a u n d a , a s o u r c e o f p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t a b u s e s ; t h e y c a n also b e r e a d as t e s t i m o n y to the threatening potential of the a r m y , and the effects of military p r e s e n c e . 1 0 N o r w a s K a r i a u n i q u e : X a n t h o s s u f f e r e d in t h e S e l e u k i d t a k e o v e r of 1 9 7 , a n d t h e L e t o o n p u t u p i n s c r i b e d r e g u l a t i o n s e x c l u d i n g a r m e d m e n a r o u n d t h i s t i m e , p e r h a p s in r e a c t i o n to a b u s e s b y S e l e u k i d s o l d i e r y ( C h . 3 § 4); H e r a k l e i a w o u l d c o m p l a i n of material losses i n c u r r e d d u r i n g 'the w a r s ' , c o n q u e s t b y Philip V , t h e n A n t i o c h o s I I I . 1 1 A t e l l i n g detail is t h e s e r i e s o f m e a s u r e s in f a v o u r o f cities ( s u c h as S a r d e i s ) i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t a k e o v e r : g i f t s o f m a t e r i a l s f o r r e b u i l d i n g o r t e m p o r a r y t a x r e l i e f (a s i m i l a r c a s e is t h e s e r i e s of m e a s u r e s g r a n t e d to J e r u s a l e m in 200). 1 2 V i o l e n c e a n d s p o l i a t i o n w e r e n o t an a c c i d e n t a l b y - p r o d u c t o f w a r f a r e , b u t i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h its p u r p o s e . H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e s w e r e g e a r e d t o w a r d s v i o l e n t a c q u i s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y ( A u s t i n 1986);
5 J. and L . Robert 1983: 136-7 ('l'armée séleucide est là'); S h e r w i n - W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 201-2; already Schmitt 1964: 246, postulating from the very need for 'beruhigende Briefe' that A m y z o n had suffered in the Seleukid conquest. Loot in Alinda: document 10, 13; citizens fleeing to the autonomous cities: ibid. 1 5 - 1 7 ; sacred slaves carried off: document 14, 4 - 7 . 10 Letters to army: documents 6, 15. " Xanthos: L e Roy 1986. Herakleia: document 31 Β, II 12-14. 12 Sardeis: documents 1, 3; unnamed city: 36, 12—21; Jerusalem: Jos. AJ 12.138-44, esp. 139 (destruction of city), 141 (reconstruction), 143-4 ( t a x exemptions, freeing of Jews carried off as slaves).

77.35-6).38. 15 Fear: e.14 F u r t h e r m o r e . a n d s o m e of h i s F r i e n d s t o o k o v e r S a m i a n e s t a t e s . 3 8 .13.5.t h e A m y z o n i a n s ' g o o d s a n d s l a v e s w e r e s e i z e d a n d s t o r e d in a r o y a l f o r t r e s s o p e n l y .55. to b e r e c r e a t e d b y an u n i lateral p r o n o u n c e m e n t (a p e r f o r m a t i v e s p e e c h . i n s t r u m e n t a l in t h e c o n q u e r i n g r o y a l p r o g r e s s a n d e s s e n t i a l to t h e i m a g e o f r o y a l m i g h t . Ι Ι · 3 4 · Ι 2 . 8. 14 Anaia: SEG 1. violence. 1 3 T h e p r i n c i p l e n o t o n l y a f f e c t e d m o v a b l e g o o d s . 5. O n e need not believe that the H e l l e n i s t i c polis w a s p o w e r l e s s a n d a b j e c t b e f o r e t h e k i n g s to u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r e a l i t y a n d t h e t h r e a t of h a r m w e i g h e d h e a v i l y in t h e relation b e t w e e n king and city. f r o m the local c o m m u n i t i e s — a r e c u r r e n t t h e m e o f A n t i o c h o s ' e x p e d i t i o n to t h e U p p e r S a t r a p i e s . T h e t e r r o r i n s p i r e d b y r o y a l v i o l e n c e f o r m s t h e b a c k d r o p for the discursive interaction b e t w e e n ruler and subject (see C h . 4). 5. T h e c r u d e s t f o r m w a s the application of violence and the l e v y i n g of a fee or r a n s o m . c r e a t i n g t h e a t m o s p h e r e o f t e r r o r . 1 0 . c.14 (from Pol. 5. M a n l i u s V u l s o ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h the A n a t o l i a n p o p u l a t i o n s h e e n c o u n t e r e d in his G a l a t i a n c a m p a i g n .23. a n x i o u s to a v o i d a s i m i l a r o c c u r r e n c e .663. and depredation played their p a r t in t h e t e c h n i q u e s o f p o w e r u s e d b y the S e l e u k i d s . f o r r e t e n t i o n o f τα e'yyaia. 21.2.6.10 (Antiochos III intimidates Artabarzanes). 1 5 . 13.34). destruction. it e x p l a i n s t h e T e i a n s ' p r a i s i n g A n t i o c h o s f o r ' p r e s e r v i n g h i s t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s ' . Ι Ι · 3 4 · Ι ° .366.a c t par excellence) 13 Antiochos in the east: Pol. l e s s f o r t u n a t e . t h e H e r a k l e i a n s p e t i t i o n e d Z e u x i s . Attalos I). Pol.e m p t i n g a n y p o s s i b l e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y b y the S e l e u k i d state. Pol.1 1 (the last two from Pol. 33. 38. 38.77. 388).4.77. 38. a n d also o f C n .g.9 (Antiochos III in 196 bc). II 16. A n t i o c h o s I I c o n f i s c a t e d t h e S a m i a n A n a i a . t h u s p r e .5.9. w h e n he s t a y e d in the city w i t h court and troops. b u t e x t e n d e d to l a n d e d p r o p e r t y . Manlius Vulso: Liv. 21. lines 5-20. p r o b a b l y lost s a c r e d e s t a t e s w h e n c a p t u r e d b y Antiochos III. b e c a u s e ' h e w a n t e d to s e e m to h a v e t a k e n o v e r the c i t y t h r o u g h t h e f e a r h e i n s p i r e d ' (τω παρ' αυτού φόβω βουληθείς δοκεΐν παραλαβεΐν τήν πάλιν: J o s . T h e p r a c t i c e w a s defined b y B i c k e r m a n : c o n q u e s t entailed the m o m e n t a r y loss of the v a n q u i s h e d p a r t y ' s p o l i t i c a l e x i s t e n c e . w h e n S a m o s fell u n d e r S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l d u r i n g t h e S e c o n d S y r i a n W a r ( C h . 5. Herakleia: document 31 Β. A n t i o c h o s X I I n e g l e c t e d t h e g o v e r n o r o f D a m a s c u s w h o h a d s u r r e n d e r e d t h e c i t a d e l to h i m . 1 9 7 . it i n f o r m s a n d p r o b l e m a t i z e s t h e r o y a l c l a i m to b e n e v o l e n c e a n d p r o t e c t i o n (see b e l o w ) .13. Liv. T h e u n n a m e d c i t y in t h e K o r r h a g o s i n s c r i p t i o n . u n d e r the a u t h o r i t y of t h e r o y a l state. AJ 13. ι § 2).15.15 T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t transaction that f o l l o w e d the takeover by the S e l e u k i d s w a s t h e r e g u l a t i o n of l o c a l s t a t u s e s . lines 10—11. φόβος. Korrhagos inscription: SEG 2. O u t o f d e s i r e to b e t a k e n s e r i o u s l y as a k i n g .8 (Achaios. .

on t e r m s of his c h o o s i n g and subject to his g o o d w i l l .of the c o n q u e r o r . 3 3 . 3 8 . In T e o s . 18. less c o m p l e t e than the letter c o n c e r n ing J e r u s a l e m . 10) does not address Bickerman's 'surrender and grant' model of interaction between city and conqueror. A n t i p a t r o s allowed the A t h e n i a n s εχειν τήν τ€ πόλιν και τάς κτήσεις και τ άλλα). s u c h as a definition of the relations cum hello victis dicerentur leges ( L i v . Priene 1. 6 .2.g. 1 7 C o n q u e s t f u r t h e r entailed the legal forfeiting of p r o p e r t y r i g h t s — t h e v i c t o r ' s g r a c i o u s p r o n o u n c e m e n t recreated the rights of the c o n q u e r e d to e n j o y their b e l o n g i n g s as well as their political existence (e.3. and allowed the Jews to live in accordance to their ancestral laws (Jos. 34.51. w h o then restored its f r e e d o m and its laws to the city.57. 17 Earlier examples of victor's rights: Xen. Bosworth 1988: 250-8 on Priene (Inschr. 17-20. A n t i o c h o s entered the city. AJ 1 2 . 2. Iasos: 26 A . D i o d . T h e best e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n s A n t i o c h o s I I I . . 1 8 A similar s e q u e n c e of e v e n t s p e r h a p s took place at A l a b a n d a and X a n t h o s . 18. then m a d e a speech b e f o r e the assembled p e o p l e defining the city's p r i v i l e g e s (he 'set free the city and the territory holy and inviolate and e x e m p t f r o m tribute'). as a g r a c i o u s act. Cyr. 29-36 for confirmation of grant. also. Anab. 47-8.9). 13 T e o s : document 17. w i t h B i c k e r m a n 1980: 44-85). T h e criticism levelled against Bickerman by T a r n 1948: 199-227 (accepted by Badian 1966a: 62 n.17.7) or A n t i o c h o s ' desire to ensure that S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s e n j o y e d liberty as a royal grant ( L i v . Bikerman 1938: 133-41. same d o c u m e n t OGIS 1. A letter f r o m A n t i o c h o s to the g o v e r n o r of S y r i a and P h o e n i c i a defined the privileges of J e r u s a l e m . Alexander and the Greek cities of Asia Minor: Bikerman 1934. a principle he p r o c l a i m e d at L y s i m a c h e i a before the R o m a n e n v o y s (Pol. Iasos w a s 'rea c q u i r e d ' by the king. establishing statuses and royal o w n e r s h i p of land in the region of Priene. the a r r a n g e m e n t s w e r e c o n firmed in a later interview f o l l o w e d b y a royal letter.4: after the L a m i a n W a r . a series of d o c u m e n t s . and their c o n t i n u a n c e d e p e n d e d on his g o o d w i l l . Bickerman 1980: 67-72. 1 4 2 .18. Bikerman 1939: 344-5. w h e r e w e n o w only have a record of the p r o c l a m a t i o n or a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of these cities' 16 Bickermann 1932: 56-61. in his classic treatment of the letter by Antiochos III concerning Jerusalem. Priene 1) or Aspendos (Arr. GUI 185). B i c k e r m a n ' s unilateral grants are p r e s e r v e d in the d o c u m e n t a r y material: the earliest s u r v i v i n g evidence is the ' A l e x a n d e r edict' (Inschr.7 ) . but archetypal case of A l e x a n d e r ' s treatment of the G r e e k cities in A s i a M i n o r : statuses resulted f r o m the c o n q u e r i n g k i n g ' s p r o n o u n c e m e n t .26-27). I 8-9. illustrate the process. 1. In A s i a M i n o r . B i c k e r m a n ' s m o d e l also describes accurately the early. 1 6 B i c k e r m a n ' s 'surrender and g r a n t ' m o d e l f o r the legal structure constituted b y c o n q u e s t is s u p p o r t e d b y literary e v i d e n c e for the 'droit de la victoire' in the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I .

no. 2 2 A p a r t f r o m privileges ( e x e m p t i o n f r o m tribute or f r o m garrisoning) the ruler's p e r f o r m a t i v e s p e e c h . since Zeuxis' letter attests royal authority over Herakleia's harbour tax). later.t w o a m b a s s a d o r s to Z e u x i s . 2. possible letter from Antiochos I I I : Robert 1983: no. p r o m i s ing to maintain p r e v i o u s arrangements. 13.a c t w o u l d decide on the degree of s u b o r d i n a tion.2). an i m p o r t a n t ideological tool of d o m i n a t i o n (see § 3). T h e letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I c o n c e r n i n g Jerusalem appears a unitary p r o d u c t of the royal w i l l . T h e stakes explain w h y the H e r a k l e i a n s sent no less than t w e n t y . s u c h as e x e m p t i o n f r o m billeting. such as those d e s c r i b e d in the passage of P o l y b i o s c o m m e n t e d a b o v e (21. It also determ i n e d the f o r m s of S e l e u k i d presence. 22 T h e early Seleukid document published by Malay 1983. each d e f e n d i n g a particular dossier c o n c e r n i n g the c i t y ' s privileges.663) p r o b a b l y lost its a u t o n o m y as p u n i s h m e n t for resistance. Xanthos: 22. Kildara: 25. T h e fact that the city had obtained a grant of anepistathmeia before a second round of negotiations with Zeuxis is shown by the phrasing όπως ύπάρχτι και μΐτα ταΰτα η re άνεττιοταθμεία (Β II 1 5 — t h e rest of the sentence seems to imply that the city was initially also granted authority over its τέλη. t h o u g h sacked and b u r n e d b y A n t i o c h o s ' a r m y . 2: document 36. A m y z o n : document 5. A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a . Zeuxis' subsequent letter to A m y z o n : 8 A . 2) describes G r e e k cities receiving A n t i o c h o s ' Alabanda/Antiocheia: document 16. 20 W h e n Herakleia w a s taken b y Z e u x i s . Z e u x i s w r o t e to the city. the citizens negotiated f u r t h e r privileges. the citizens o b t a i n e d a few concessions on the spot. the u n n a m e d city w h i c h appears in Sardis. It is likely that the royal p r o n o u n c e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g m a n y other c o m m u n i t i e s w e r e the o b j e c t of negotiations to preserve or extend local privileges. Iasos. no.41. 19 20 . A m y z o n r e m a i n e d ' s u b j e c t ' .asylia. and e v e n the u n n a m e d city in Sardis. and p r o b a b l y a letter f r o m the king. In addition to the p r o n o u n c e m e n t on statuses. H i s short initial letter to the A m y z o n i a n s was f o l l o w e d b y a m o r e detailed letter. the city in the K o r r h a g o s inscription ( S E G 2. the a f t e r m a t h of c o n quest w a s defined b y the stationing of d e t a c h m e n t s and garrisons. regulating local privileges.21 T h e royal grant f o r m a l i z e d force into a relation of legal authority. later received various grants f r o m his commanders. seem to have b e e n declared free. w h i c h was 'given back as asylos' b y A n t i o c h o s I I I and his son. s u c h as the asylia of the A r t e m i s i o n . L i k e w i s e . 4: 11). f r o m 'free' to subject (§ 3). stipulating taxes to be exacted b y someone (a royal official?) and obligations (corvée labour) might represent the details of a royal settlement (for a city or in the royal land?). U n n a m e d city in Sardis. later lost in the detailed negotiations with Zeuxis.19 In A m y z o n and K i l d a r a . no. a chance reference reveals that the settlement w a s in fact negotiated b y a Jewish e n v o y (2 M a c c . 2. A p p i a n (Syr. 21 Herakleia: document 31. Asylia of the Artemision: 8.

Soldiers billeted at Sardeis: document 3. 2 § 3) should be e n f o r c e d b y 'the p h r o u r a r c h s and the local governors'. logistical depots. ι Macc. Anab. 2 and above). a r o u n d 196. and 196 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 36 (though the only forts he mentions are Perge. the city and its citadel were already each under their separate official under Alexander (Arr. b e y o n d general statem e n t s on 'chains of fortresses'. 1: 33-5. 12: 45. Macedonian practice: Billows 1990. A n t i o c h o s I I I instructed that the privileges of P t o l e m a i o s ' estates ( C h . 20. Pol. Samos: C h . near P h y g e l a . 35). is at least sufficient to give an outline of the military presence. . and arsenals. 21. Judaea: ι M a c c . 37.9 (Diod. 18.1: Lysimacheia arsenal and stores. 26 Pol. Korakesion—because the usurper T r y p h o n used it as a base?—and PalaiMagnesia). 2 4 a s s u m i n g the presence of g a r r i s o n e d forts in the c o u n t r y s i d e .garrisons. the M a c e d o n i a n control of G r e e c e (and the ' F e t t e r s ' ) or S e l e u k i d Judaea after 168. 1 § 3. 18. E p h e s o s . index s.45. 2: 3 1 .40a: Ephesos coveted in 197 b y Antiochos I I I as base for further operations. p e r h a p s f u r t h e r d e t a c h m e n t s w e r e stationed on the coast.b u i l t fort in Jerusalem.31. 27 Sardeis: Pol. Syr. 13: 33 (fortresses around Jerusalem).6 for the 'Fetters of Greece'.5. out of f e a r — t h e same garrisons w h i c h w o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d as a h a r d s h i p of S e l e u k i d rule in w i n t e r 189/8 (Pol. 9: 50-3. 37.v. A p p . the treaty of A p a m e i a m e n t i o n e d castella as a feature of S e l e u k i d Asia M i n o r ( L i v .11. B e y o n d the m a p p i n g out of the militarized landscape. 2 1 . 37. the e v i d e n c e . line 16 (the actual provision is lost. at issue are the w o r k i n g s of c o m p u l s i o n and the landscape of control. Ephesos: L i v .38. 38.16. 197.17. Briant 1982: 20-1. T h e Hellenistic w o r l d presents m a n y parallels: the P t o l e m a i c overseas e m p i r e .4). In K o i l e S y r i a . Robert 1983: 124 no. (now add J. soldiers w e r e also billeted in the t o w n (at least in 213). 18. they f u n c t i o n e d as military bases. and s o m e t i m e s to p i n p o i n t it w i t h some specificity. the garrison no d o u b t m a n n e d the f o r m i d a b l e fortifications of the city. 4 and 124-7 for phrourarchs near A m y z o n and in Xanthos). 25 B a r . t h o u g h i n c o m plete. 1. at Sardeis.7. 2 6 M i l i t a r y presence took the f o r m of garrisons in the citadel of S a r d e i s and E p h e s o s u n d e r specially a p p o i n t e d officers.13. w h e r e a fort w a s o c c u p i e d u n d e r the early S e l e u k i d s 23 Ptolemaic parallel: Bagnall 1976: 220-4. this does not m o d i f y the implications). L a u n e y 1987: 634 n. 2 for some examples.111. 'garrisons. F o r S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r .and L . Antigonos opposes use in Greece' for Kassandros.7-8). 24 SEG 29. on fortresses in the hinterland of Kappadokia under Eumenes of Kardia in 322.3 for garrison in the acropolis in 302). 4 1 . 2 3 these present an image of control t h r o u g h disseminated military resources.1613. 28-9.K o c h v a 1976: 26 (and n. c o m p a r a b l e to the P t o l e m a i c naval base at Samos. 2 5 T h r e e places are p r o m i n e n t in A n t i o c h o s ' c a m p a i g n s : Sardeis. Liv. 7-8. 2 ' A t E p h e s o s .7 . and L y s i m a c h e i a : ( r e ) c o n q u e r e d in 214. Liv.44.1. ringed w i t h fortresses and d o m i n a t e d b y the garrison of a p u r p o s e . 4: 41 (Akra).

29 n. 38-9.22. II. T r a j a n . Liv. 2' Ainos. 1 . 31 Perge: Pol. 81 (route of the Ottoman couriers from Antalya to Smyrna. m a y h a v e c o m m a n d e d a d e t a c h m e n t l e f t to c o n t r o l the P h r y g i o s v a l l e y . it c o n t r o l l e d the r o u t e o f f the M a r s y a s v a l l e y . or Acipayam plain. Robert 1983: 126. the A n a i t i s ) . taken by Louis V I I and Ibn Battuta) and also OMS 5. cf. ) . o n a 28 Phygela: I. f r o m A l a b a n d a to M y l a s a .5.2. A garrison in Perge (Pol.60. t e s t i m o n y to its i m p o r t a n c e a n d c o n v e n i e n c e . 30 Alinda governor: document 9.37. In addition to the cavalry detachment at Apollonia. 38.9-11) might have controlled the city permanently. T h i s s h o r t c u t f r o m the M a e a n d e r v a l l e y to the P e r g e r o a d ( b y p a s s i n g L a o d i k e i a ) w a s t a k e n b y M a n l i u s V u l s o . 2 § 4 on Liv. and L . it is p r o b a b l e that A n t i o c h o s I I I l e f t g a r r i s o n s in the K i l i k i a n coastal p l a c e s he t o o k . 2 8 A n t i o c h o s I I I also s e c u r e d i m p o r t a n t c o a s t l i n e s : in T h r a c e .7.16. 37. perhaps the garrison of a φυλακή like that attested at Kermanshah. and L. 16-17. since the region was not 'assigned by the Romans to Eumenes' (it went to the Rhodians). . Eriza: OGIS 238 is a dedication by φυλακΐται. 2. at P a t a r a a n d p e r h a p s at T e l m e s s o s o r K a l y n d a . o n the r o u t e w h i c h b r a n c h e d off the M a e a n d e r p l a i n into the M o r s y n o s v a l l e y a n d the G e y r e p l a i n (the f u t u r e site o f A p h r o d i s i a s ) . 3 8 . de Planhol 1958: 25. Soloi: FGrHist 160. 39: 'chemin commode'. A n t i o c h o s II h a d l e f t a g a r r i s o n in the coastal r e g i o n o p p o s i t e S a m o s . T h e governor and troops presumably resided in the 'second acropolis'. c a p t u r e d f r o m a P t o l e m a i c g a r r i s o n in 197. 2 9 In a d d i t i o n .23. J. Robert 1954: 27.4 on the 'plaine de Karayük'. Perge-Laodikeia road: Ramsay 1895: 255. OGIS 238 is probably not Attalid. J.P e r g e r o u t e in the A c i p a y a m p l a i n . 4 1 . as argued by Ramsay 1895: 256-9. since S e l e u k i d t r o o p s b e s i e g e d the n e a r b y R h o d i a n t o w n of D a i d a l a in 190. in L y k i a . f o r i n s t a n c e at S o l o i (a S e l e u k i d s t r o n g h o l d in 246) a n d K o r a k e s i o n . or represent a temporary measure during the R o m a n . Patara: L i v . A l i n d a had a g o v e r n o r and p r o b a b l y a g a r r i s o n . Robert 1954: 33. an enclosure distinct from the acropolis itself: Bean 1971: 196-7.9-11). Route: Liv. 1 1 . 37. and L. Korakesion: C h .S e l e u k i d War.3. the o f f i c e r A r k e s i l a o s . 274-5 (Caracalla).7. J. a similarly strategic location (Robert 1967). with Mastrocinque 1979: 53-4· Anaitis: SEG 1. earlier. c r o s s i n g the T a b a i p l a t e a u to j o i n the L a o d i k e i a . Ephesos 1408. on the 'Korkuteli road' from Pamphylia to Denizli. 3 0 A l i k e l y m i l i t a r y d i s t r i c t (φυλακή) at E r i z a s t r a d d l e d the road f r o m P a m p h y l i a to L a o d i k e i a (an i m p o r t a n t h i g h w a y d o w n the ages).20. L i k e w i s e . m i l i t a r y m e a n s w e r e distributed along important routes. lines 37. 3 1 I n the s a m e r e g i o n . Ptolemaic garrisoning of 'the forts in Xanthos': SEG 33. 33. 3 2 I n L y d i a .1 4 . a n d C a r a c a l l a . and L . 1 . 38. Robert 1954: 289-90. 4 1 . w h o s e d e d i c a t i o n w a s f o u n d in G ö r d e s ( C h . i n t r o d .5 ( L i v . 2 1 .1183 with J. a c a v a l r y d e t a c h m e n t o c c u p i e d A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e . g a r r i s o n s a p p e a r at A i n o s a n d M a r o n e i a .366. 2 1 .37. Col. A n t i o c h o s ma)' also h a v e c o n t i n u e d the P t o l e m a i c p r a c t i c e o f g a r r i s o n i n g 'the f o r t s ' o n the t e r r i t o r y o f X a n t h o s . 32 Apollonia: hipparch in document 44.5 . 1 (Manlius Vulso). Maroneia: Liv. Daidala besieged: L i v . 3. 7 3 3 .( s i m i l a r l y . road from Alabanda to Mylasa: Strabo 14. 1 3 . 150-1 and 223-4 (Trajan). suggest a Seleukid garrison at T a b a i .

and L . In the 19th and 20th cents. T u p l i n 1987: 209-17. T h e S e l e u k i d c o n c e r n for controlling the axes of c o m m u n i c a tion 3 4 can be traced earlier: O l y m p i c h o s . Robert 1989: 32-3. or O t t o m a n zeybek in the M a e a n d e r valley ( H a m i l t o n 1842: i. but applicable generally).4 ) . 1 § 3). 3 6 T h e control of the p r o d u c t i v e c o u n t r y s i d e w a s p e r h a p s partly ensured b y the 'strategic' garrisons: the cavalry at A p o l l o n i a controlled a route. it also recalls the p o l i c i n g of A n a t o l i a n routes in R o m a n imperial times ( M i t c h e l l 1993: 1 2 1 . 37. this route w o u l d have been important w h e n A t t a l o s I controlled T h y a t e i r a ( 2 1 6 . 280-1. Achaimenid Asia Minor: Briant 1982: 20-1. to p h r o u r a r c h s in K o i l e . 37 T a b a i plateau: J. q u o t e d a b o v e .1 9 7 p ) .8-15. the fort of D i d y m a T e i c h e . T h e Attalids also kept troops at this site: 5-1 690 (dedication to Zeus Porottenos by Attalid officer for the safety of Eumenes Debord 1985: 347-8 (north-east Lydia. p r e s u m a b l y starting w h e n still a S e l e u k i d g o v e r n o r . held the fort at Petra.56. along the H e r m o s v a l l e y . w h i c h w o u l d figure in the R o m a n w a r against A r i s t o n i k o s / E u m e n e s I I I . 527). then t u r n i n g south (just before S m y r n a ) t h r o u g h the K a r a b e l pass (Pritchett 1982: 272). 5. lost b y A c h a i o s to A t t a l o s I in 2 1 8 (Pol. T h e route f r o m the M a e a n d e r valley to the K i l i k i a n G a t e s m u s t h a v e been controlled b y garrisons and military posts—castella ad Maeandrum amnem ( L i v . It can be paralleled in the P t o l e m a i c fort at M e y d a n c i k K a l e . Latmos suggests Ptolemaic control of the countryside through military posts: J. Robert 1954: 22-40. Kappadokia under Eumenes of Kardia: Briant 1982: 20-1. 213 on X e n . m a y h a v e been garrisoned u n d e r the S e l e u k i d s already. o c c u p i e d a strategic position on the G r a n i k o s . Karia under Philip V: L i v .route f r o m Sardeis to M y s i a .8.77. 3 3 F u r t h e r n o r t h . on a road f r o m the K i l i k i a n coast to the K a l y k a d n o s valley ( C h . Anab. 207. 33. 3 5 T h e fortresses of M y s i a . and L . b u t also a p r o d u c t i v e niche. 38 ('quadrillage militaire très serré'). 36 Mysian forts: J. the same applies for the M a e a n d e r valley. a practice w h i c h can be paralleled in other periods. 3 7 S e l e u k i d garrisons c o u l d 33 ΤΑΜ II).18. near L a b r a u n d a . i m p o r t a n t as a route and f o r its agricultural wealth. these might be fortified villages. T h e Phrygian countryside under Antigonos: Billows 1990: 206. or an Attalid development. implies military presence distributed t h r o u g h the land. the T a b a i plateau w e a l t h y in grain and t i m b e r . and L . 261. Robert 1983: no. A n t i o c h o s ' o r d e r . 4). however. esp. 34 35 Dedication of Arkesilaos: document 39. controlling the pass on the road b e t w e e n M y l a s a and A l i n d a ( C r a m p a 1969: no.8).. 4.3). the T a b a i plateau has played an important economic role by processing the raw wool from the low- .6 (castella and garrisons). A garrison in M t .i n d e p e n d e n t local dynast) s h o w s that control of routes is hardly a specifically S e l e u k i d practice. 7. A n o t h e r likely area of control is the road f r o m S a r d e i s to E p h e s o s . T h a t O l y m p i c h o s held on to this fort after S e l e u k i d control w a s s u c c e e d e d b y the A n t i g o n i d (and after he had b e c o m e a de facto s e m i .S y r i a .

5 . 5 . 39). Ane. military settlers: A n t i o c h o s I I I settled 2000 J e w i s h families in P h r y g i a and L y d i a . in his letter of 181 concerning 'those who live in the village of the Kardakes'. 2. a possibility which B a r . giving another reason for the Seleukids empire to control. Phokaia and Iasos w e r e o c c u p i e d b y φνλακαί. 3 9 Political vicissitudes i n f l u e n c e d the landscape of control. Soc. B a r . S o m e of these forces w e r e p e r m a n e n t ' g a r r i s o n . specifically as a pacification measure after A c h a i o s ' revolt (if the letter in J o s e p h u s is authentic: A p p e n d i x 3). 2 . T h e K a r d a k e s settled on the territory of T e l m e s s o s m a y have p e r f o r m e d similar duties. 27. or at least tax. the m e m b e r s of a garrison o c c u p y i n g a fort near M a g n e s i a u n d e r S i p y l o s also held κλήροι in the n e a r b y c o u n t r y s i d e . 7 . 2 § 4. and L. even in Roman inscriptions. 5 .S e l e u k i d W a r ( L i v . mentions no military duties but only other obligations (such as poll-tax). 5. 3 8 F i n a l l y . of such settlements. in N o r t h e r n M y s i a . 7 0 . argues that these are not military settlers because Eumenes II.c o m m u n i t i e s ' . see rather J. 3 7 . Robert 1948: 20 n. 3 ) : c o u l d the garrison at Patara or A b y d o s (see above). 7 7 . as illustrated b y the implantation of J e w i s h military settlers in P h r y g i a and L y d i a (above). though it is difficult to tell if these establishments are Seleukid or Attalid (Debord 1985: 348). M . notes that the actual defence of the fort seems to be (totally?) in the hands of a Seleukid detachment on active duty. is dispelled by G . special d e t a c h m e n t s sent in response to the i m m e d i a t e crisis of the R o m a n . 6 1 . 89-108.K o c h v a does not manage to argue away. 5 . 1 2 . B a r . 22 (1991). Cohen. 1 7 . fall in this category? B i c k e r m a n and R o b e r t insist on the distinction b e t w e e n a p e r m a nent garrison controlling a city (φρουρά) and a t e m p o r a r y detachm e n t on active service in w a r t i m e (φυλακή).6. 41—50). earlier. 5 on the 'caractère essentiellement rural. I cannot see how military settlements 'acted as a barrier between the Greek cities and Galatian incursions' or 'served to curb [Pergamon's] influence' ( B a r . o n l y attested in the u n t y p i c a l year 190. and L.70. 7 1 . 4: 28 w i t h S c h ü r e r 1973: 154 η. b u t the e v i d e n c e is rarely detailed e n o u g h to describe the d i s t r i b u t i o n of military m e a n s lands into cloth (J. for m a n p o w e r rather than active d e f e n c e and control. though T u p l i n 1987: 227. u n d e r S e l e u k o s I I . T h e i m m e d i a t e a f t e r m a t h of c o n q u e s t p r o b a b l y b r o u g h t g a r r i s o n i n g and the stationing of troops (as h a p p e n e d in the F o u r t h S y r i a n W a r : Pol. a feature w h i c h made the S e l e u k i d presence visible in the c o u n t r y s i d e was the scatter of M a c e d o n i a n settlements. Maeander valley: Robert 1937: 415—17.reside in s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s : K a r s e a i . 3 7 . indicates a Seleukid settlement.K o c h v a 1976: 21-48 on the military colonies (though his thesis that every instance of κατοικία. 1 1 ) . received a garrison u n d e r A c h a i o s (Pol 5 . 39 List in Bikerman 1938: 80 n. under a different dynasty. .8 ) . j u s t as in J e r u s a l e m a garrison o c c u p i e d the citadel (2 M a c c . but the original settlement may have changed in character by 181. esp. 1 2 . 18 Magnesia: OGIS 229.K o c h v a 1976: 26). et non stratégique'. the working and movement of textiles. Robert 1954: 52): it might have done so in the Hellenistic period. 100-3. Kardakes: C h .K o c h v a 1976: 216 n.

4 3 g o v e r n o r s and garrison c o m m a n d e r s m a y have checked each others' p o w e r ( n e x t s e c t i o n ) . 4 4 T h o u g h t h e i n c o m p l e t e e v i d e n c e m a k e s it d i f f i c u l t to e v a l u a t e t h e d e n s i t y o f c o n t r o l . 5. 21.6 and 9 show Deinokrates. . T h e A i o l i a n c i t i e s s e e m to h a v e b e e n l e f t u n g a r r i s o n e d : A t t a l o s I in 2 1 8 d i d n o t e n c o u n t e r g a r r i s o n s o f A c h a i o s . s u c h as t h e επιστάτης o f t h e A r t e m i s i o n at A m y z o n . Pol. 4. 37.41. 43 OGIS 229. Robert 1954: 301 n. 235 for ad hoc occupation of strategic places under the Achaimenids. to t h e k i n g (as u n d e r t h e A c h a i m e n i d s a n d A l e x a n d e r ) . 37.3. T h e r e is no t r a c e o f g a r r i s o n s in t h e c i t i e s in t h e T r o a d a p a r t f r o m A b y d o s . in all the satrapies of Asia Minor.5. 41 OGIS 229. drawn from the central royal army. a c o r p s ' f r o m the p h a l a n x ' .1-2.18. and L . u n d e r o a t h .2-6).6. h o l d m i l i t a r y d e m o n s t r a t i o n s in the r e g i o n to k e e p the c i t i e s f r o m d e f e c t i n g . 212 on the difficulty of using narratives of military operations for studying routine control. L i v .in t i m e a n d s p a c e . postulates the presence of standing contingents. lines 38-9. 44 T r o o p s sent by Zeuxis: document 13.2 5 .8. a n d A n t i o c h o s I I I f o u n d it n e c e s s a r y in 190 to h a v e h i s s o n . no. 42 Since garrisons w e r e directly responsible. 40 T u p l i n 1987: 208. o r r e l i e d o n f o r c e s in f o r t s n e a r b y . t h o u g h u n d e r t h e i r o w n o f f i c e r ) . 3. 45 Attalos' foray: Pol. 4 0 T h e k i n g ' s c a m p a i g n s also i n f l u e n c e d t h e s i z e o f m i l i t a r y r e s o u r c e s in a r e g i o n b y h i s p r e s e n c e w i t h t h e r o y a l s t a n d i n g a r m y . such as Kalas (Berve 1926: ii. T h e western στρατηγοί descend from the fighting satraps appointed by Alexander in the west. 87): Bosworth 1988: 230. 4 5 S i m i l a r l y . governor at A m y z o n : 10. T h e garrison and its commander swore an oath to hand over intact (παραδιδόναι) what they had taken over (τταραλαμβάνειν) from the king. Seleukos in Aiolis: Liv. m e r c e n a r i e s ? — o f t h e t r o o p s at t h e d i s p o s a l o f t h e S e l e u k i d ' p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n o r s ' . 36. Bengtson 1944: 145.77. implies military duties. t h e c i t y itself r e c e i v e d b i l l e t e d s o l d i e r s a n d s o l d i e r s 'under the s k y ' — a S e l e u k i d camp. w a s d e t a c h e d to t h e f o r t o f P a l a i . Phokaia: A p p . w h o s e title. w h o governed the Karian possessions of Philip V . garrisoning his castella with local levies.11-12). 42 Bengtson 1944: 1 1 5 . it d o e s s u g g e s t t h a t p e r m a n e n t g a r r i s o n i n g d i d n o t o f t e n a f f e c t t h e c i t i e s o f t h e w e s t e r n c o a s t . t h e S e l e u k i d i n f a n t r y m a i n s t a y . 21. at least p a r t l y d i s t r i b u t e d in t h e c o u n t r y s i d e o n g a r r i s o n d u t y or w h i l e i n a c t i v e : u n d e r S e l e u k o s I I . T u p l i n 1987: 209-10. m a y h a v e h a d t r o o p s at t h e i r d i s p o s a l ( w e k n o w Z e u x i s d i s p a t c h e d s o l d i e r s to A m y z o n . Pol. lines 103-4 (soldiers from the phalanx). φυλακή: Bikerman 1938: 53 and n. στρατηγοί. 37.6. r o y a l d e t a c h m e n t s . Liv. U n d e r Achaimenids and Alexander: Berve 1926: i. T h e Seleukid official in I.41 F i n a l l y . T h e g o v e r n o r s o f local c o m m u n i t i e s . 35 (soldiers in the city and in a camp).M a g n e s i a . 21. S e l e u k o s . line 105 (the detachment sent to guard the fort at Palai-Magnesia is paid out of royal funds: royal troops?). 397) Balakros (no. Syr. J. 22.4. 14. 63.21. w e k n o w n o t h i n g c o n c e r n i n g the s i z e o r n a t u r e — l o c a l l e v i e s .18. p e r h a p s in 202 o r 2 0 1 .43. Ephesos 1408 commands a φυλακή in Phygela: military district (as in Iran) or temporary detachment? Smyrna may have received a detachment in the T h i r d Syrian War: OGIS 229. 200) or Antigonos Monophthalmos (no. 274 and 276. Φρουρά. 33.

the w i d e distribution 46 Erythrai: L i v . w e r e garrisoned.10. (on Roman side in 190).g. N e w e v i d e n c e m i g h t reveal garrisons in cities or on their territories. Ptolemy I V summoned mercenaries from αί ΐξω πόλεις in the military build-up before Raphia (Pol. 2. 'as p r e v i o u s l y ' . but not in e. 37.77. fire. Phaselis or A s p e n d o s freely assisted the R h o d i a n fleet in 190. to face a Rhodian attack in 197 (Liv. Aspendos: L i v . 5. 64—7). e x p e c t e d to be left u n g a r r i s o n e d . w i t h i n easy reach of all three places. L i v . and s u r r e n d e r e d to the S c i p i o s in 190. 4 9 G e n e r a l l y . Priene). T h r a c i a n s ) . II 15 (άνεπιαταθμεία) and 43 (letter of Scipios). and Iasos w e r e n o r m a l l y u n g a r r i s o n e d . i m p l y i n g the absence of a S e l e u k i d garrison.9-28. A l a b a n d a . Phaselis: Liv. w h e n A t t a l o s I and the R o m a n s f o u n d cities d e v o i d of S e l e u k i d military presence. Herakleia: documents 31 Β. including a long break at Labraunda) for the second of these routes.17. Miletos: L i v . S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r was a militarized frontier b o r d e r e d b y rival p o w e r s (the P t o l e m a i c e m p i r e . 4S Lysimachos: Burstein 1986 (garrisons in D o b r u d j a . the c i r c u m s t a n c e s in 218 and 190. and L . M y l a s a . 25.w e m a y surmise that m a n y Ionian cities w e r e u n g a r r i s o n e d f r o m the e v e n t s of 218 ( w h e n A t t a l o s I m a r c h e d u n o p p o s e d ) and of 190 ( w h e n m a n y d e f e c t e d to the R o m a n s or w e r e taken o v e r b y them: E r y t h r a i . the A t t a l i d s or e v e n L y s i m a c h o s s h o w e d a similar restraint in the region.8).18. H e r a k l e i a u n d e r L a t m o s w a s g r a n t e d e x e m p t i o n f r o m billeting. 49 F r o m Alinda. K o l o p h o n .77.26. after sack. Attalids: Allen 1983: 109.5. . T e o s . 1 1 . In April 1997.1. the absence of S e l e u k i d garrisons in Ionian and A i o l i a n cities is m a t c h e d b y the lack of e v i d e n c e u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I for g o v e r n o r s or S e l e u k i d m i n t i n g in these c o m m u n i t i e s . the Antigonid governor of Karia mustered the garrisons scattered in castella.5. no.8.63. 3 7 . 4 6 E v e n the u n n a m e d city in Sardis. 4 ' H o w e v e r .23. and Iasos is not far from Mylasa. 37. 37. from Milâs to Karpuzlu (ancient Alinda). any city c o u l d receive an e m e r g e n c y φυλακή (see above: Iasos. f u r t h e r m o r e .5 (Attalos I). Robert 1983: 17 n. w h i c h seem to have f o r m e d a p r i v i l e g e d g r o u p in S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r . the A t t a l i d k i n g d o m . like E p h e s o s . Kolophon Pol.12. 47 Likewise. T h i s 'restraint' should not be e x a g g e r a t e d : G r e e k cities on i m p o r t a n t coastlines.6-9).27. 5. R h o d e s ) and threatening p o p u l a t i o n s ( G a l a t i a n s . besides. T e o s : Pol. T h e violence of S e l e u k i d takeover (above) m a y have lingered as a deterrent r e m i n d e r .3.5-9 (besieged by Antiochos III in 190). 37. 37.3. w e r e unusual: A c h a i o s in 218 and A n t i o c h o s I I I in 190 w e r e m o u n t i n g i m p o r t a n t military operations and may have recalled garrisons f r o m cities to concentrate t h e m .3 (no Seleukid garrison in 190). 1 took a day's cycling (nine to ten hours. 37. Fellows 1841: 58. 1 4 (Erythraian ships assist Rhodians). b u t a S e l e u k i d c o n t i n g e n t p r o b a b l y held the fort at A l i n d a .23. Phokaia). 5. w h e r e v e r stationed. before M a g n e s i a . Pisidians. 4 8 F u r t h e r m o r e . no city was far f r o m the royal forces. and M i l e t o s ) . and massacre. a horseman could reach Alabanda in four hours. 37. 33. Liv. Mylasa in a day and a half (J.

1 4 ) — o r N o t i o n . m a y b e m i s l e a d i n g .9 ) . society. M a c c a b a e a n J u d a e a .S y r i a . If not b a c k e d u p b y a w i d e r s t r u c t u r e o f p o w e r . t h e ease w i t h w h i c h A t t a l o s I w e n t t h r o u g h A i o l i s . t r è s f o r t ' . Robert 1954: 4 1 . ι M a c c . t h e y also m a d e local r e b e l l i o n d i f f i c u l t a c r o s s t h e e m p i r e . i n c l u d i n g the A k r a at J e r u s a l e m . T h e g a r r i s o n s s l o w e d t h e p r o g r e s s o f an i n v a d e r (as h a p p e n e d to A n t i o c h o s I I I in K o i l e . T h e u l t i m a t e i n s t r u m e n t o f c o n t r o l w a s the k i n g . a n d M y s i a . 4: 3 0 . 5 . K i l i k i a n c i t i e s in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y (2 M a c c . as p r a c t i c a l t e c h n o l o g y o f d o m i n a t i o n . and state. in 2 1 9 : P o l . w a s p o w e r l e s s in itself. a f t e r he d i e d o f w o u n d s s u s t a i n e d in b a t t l e . . intra-Jewish a r m e d conflict for r e v o l t . and L . 2 § 1).2 . H o w effective were these m o d e s of control? A s a r g u e d a b o v e . to k e e p the area p a c i f i e d . 5 0 T h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e m o d e s o f c o n t r o l s h a d e s into a d e s c r i p t i o n o f f u n c t i o n s — e x t e r n a l l y . A n o t h e r i m p r e s s i o n m a y b e g a i n e d b y the S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l a n d military presence on the T a b a i plateau. internally. A c h a i o s ( C h . S e l e u k i d f o r t s .a n d the c o n s t a n t p r o x i m i t y o f i m p o r t a n t m e a n s f o r c o e r c i o n are b e y o n d d o u b t ( B e n g t s o n 1944: 9 1 ) . t h i s r e s u l t e d f r o m the k i n g ' s mistaking local.1 . t h u s e n a b l i n g t h e s t a n d i n g a r m y to be a p p l i e d in c o n c e n t r a t e d o p e r a t i o n s o f r e p r e s s i o n ( s u c h as t h e m a s s a c r e c a r r i e d o u t b y A n t i o c h o s I V in J e r u s a l e m o n h i s r e t u r n f r o m E g y p t : a c c o r d i n g to 2 M a c c 5: 1 1 . T h e r e m a r k m i g h t also a p p l y to t h e S e l e u k i d state.1 6 .K o l o p h o n . 1 1 . T h e d i s s e m i n a t e d f o r c e s fitted i n t o a b r o a d e r s t r u c t u r e . P t o l e m y V I i n s t a l l e d g a r r i s o n s in v a r i o u s c i t i e s of K o i l e . o r t h e s w i f t g a i n s o f t h e R o m a n s in 1 9 0 a l o n g t h e c o a s t . g o i n g f o r t h to m e e t i n v a d e r s in d e c i s i v e b a t t l e s a n d to s u b d u e r e b e l l i o n . at least as w e can i m a g i n e it in c e r t a i n s e t t i n g s . 6 2 . s u r r o u n d e d b y r u g g e d m o u n t a i n s a n d b a n d i t c o u n t r y : R o b e r t c o m m e n t e d t h a t it t o o k ' u n p o u v o i r c e n t r a l f o r t . though see Shaw 1984. I o n i a . b e s i e g e d b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in 190 f o r r a l l y i n g to t h e R o m a n s ( L i v . w h e n he i n t e r v e n e d in t h e r e g i o n d u r i n g i n t r a . could not p r e v e n t the g r o w t h of M a c c a b a e a n p o w e r . s u c h as t h e R o m a n e m p i r e or m o d e r n T u r k e y . 6 ) . repressing o r p r e v e n t i n g r e v o l t : e s t a b l i s h i n g the S e l e u k i d state as p r i m a r y 50 J. t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n of g a r r i s o n s c o u l d p r o v e w o r s e t h a n u s e l e s s . άποστατεΐν). and for an analysis of the structural relationship between banditry. b e c a u s e t h e y t o o k p l a c e in t h e s t r e s s o f w a r . T h e ' c h a i n of f o r t r e s s e s ' .S y r i a . 5 . w a r d i n g off aggression. h i s g a r r i s o n s w e r e p r o m p t l y slaughtered b y the inhabitants of the cities the g a r r i s o n s w e r e m e a n t to c o n t r o l (1 M a c c .S e l e u k i d d y n a s t i c u p h e a v a l s a n d h o p e d to e x t e n d h i s c o n t r o l . w h o in c a m p a i g n w i t h h i s s t a n d i n g a r m y . 2 6 . s u c h as t h e i m p o r t a n t r o a d c r o s s i n g t h e T a b a i p l a t e a u . 3 7 . as in the case o f M o l o n . 1 1 : 18). for evidence of endemic banditry throughout the Roman world.

1). participate in a b r o a d e r s y s t e m of administration and a p p r o p r i a t i o n . next section). w h i c h can be studied s i m u l t a n e ously in its nature.2). For a parallel. its realities. 484 (a continuation of Ptolemaic practice. 28.3.w i e l d e r of force w i t h i n the ' S e l e u k i d space' constituted by c o n quests and s u b s e q u e n t settlements. Fodder: Wörrle 1979: 87-9. M a n n 1986: 100 ('the gigantic protection racket of political history'). C o n v e r s e l y . " D o c u m e n t s 5. and its ideological w o r k i n g s . a Ptolemaic γαζόφυλαξ resided in Halikarnassos ( P C Z 59036). with BE 8o. lines 29-32. 4: 28). On roads and landscapes. cf. I have learnt much from van Berchem 1982. as h a p p e n e d to the A m y z o n i a n s (above). as Wörrle observes). II. Mitchell 1993: 124-7 o n probable corvée labour for the Roman road system. Robert 1983: 30-2 for Roman examples. Erythrai 24. these costs w e r e met out of the i n c o m e w h i c h the structures of control allowed the state to raise. especially the participation of the cities of Asia in the upkeep of the T r a c h ô n . 5 1 T h e landscape of control was also a landscape of e x t o r t i o n t h r o u g h 'organized violence' (a leitmotiv of Briant 1982. 6. Labour: document 36 mentions exemptions from λητουργίαι\ Malay 1983 gives an early Seleukid document from Aigai. 37. Franco 1993: 189-91 on the treasuries which Lysimachos must have kept in Anatolia. 52 Lodging: document 3. 210—11. already expressed in ancient times: Austin 1986: 465-6 with examples. one s u c h treasury contained 1500 T . T h e Hellenistic 'treasury' (γαζοφυλάκιον) is a welldocumented phenomenon: Pergamon started out as a Lysimachan treasury (Strabo 13. . 5 2 T h e language of protection 5 3 c o v e r e d the interests of the state as organised c r i m e . but usually ad hoc in wartime: I. After successful campaigning in Koile-Syria (218). O n e crucial p u r p o s e of the s y s t e m w a s the e x t o r t i o n of resources f r o m the local c o m m u n i t i e s in the f o r m of violent seizure. 5 4 the m o d e l of e m p i r e as exaction w e find in P o l y b i o s (21. J. T h e fortresses c o u l d a c c u m u l a t e the profit of e m p i r e : at Soloi. Briant 1982: 20—1. the structures of organised violence generated their o w n needs. describes Anatolia as 'le coeur d'une incomparable histoire routière' and 49. impressive in t h e m s e l v e s .c o m m a n d e r at J e r u s a l e m w a s responsible for raising tribute (2 A-lacc. lines 1 5 . T h e r e also is evidence for cities providing supplies for royal troops. in a self-sustaining relation.173 (Attalid Apameia).3. where corvée labourers receive supplies from the royal treasury. 51 FGrHist 160. or taxation: the g a r r i s o n .41. from Ephesos to the Maeander valley. T h e local c o m m u n i t i e s also s u p p o r t e d the S e l e u k i d forces in kind. L i v . in 246. Racket: T i l l y 1985: 170-1.4. by p r o v i d i n g l o d g i n g or f o d d e r .1 6 . 15.28). also MAMA 6. 5 . C o l . and L . on the forts as part of a system of exaction and as treasuries. Braudel 1966: i. Mithridates V I kept a series of treasuries in his kingdom (Strabo 12. V i o l e n c e and military control.27. 41-8. Antiochos I I I left soldiers to protect his new subjects: πάοι την άσφάλειαν προκαταβκευάζειν τοις ΰττ' αυτόν ταττομενοις (Pol. or racketeer. and p e r h a p s l a b o u r to m a i n tain the road s y s t e m w h i c h unified the structures of control across A s i a M i n o r . for roads as prerequisite of effective government. 47-8.7 1 · 1 1 ) · 54 Organized crime: T i l l y 1985.

and η. to see that N i k a n o r ' s n a m e w a s i n c l u d e d in contracts. Philotas sent a c o p y of the k i n g ' s letter to one B i t h y s . Cuinet 1894: 42.9 ) . w i t h a c o v e r i n g letter of his o w n . 3 (mentioning a pool with sacred fish). πρόσταγμα. T h e letters ΑΒΓ on the p e d i m e n t m i g h t represent a r e m i n d e r for the stone cutter of the s e q u e n c e in w h i c h to cut the letters. as organisation. Z e u x i s sent a c o p y to one Philotas. is also a S e l e u k i d t e r m for a royal 'edict'. 385-6.1 1 . as logistics' ( M a n n 1986: 518). 57 Malay 1987: 7 and n. for the collection of Ptolemaic royal ordnances (designated by the same term of prostagma). T o stud)' the processes p r e s e r v e d on the stele and their i m p l i c a tions. and to p u b l i c i z e the royal decision t h r o u g h inscription on stone stelai in the most c o n s p i c u o u s shrines. 5 5 Z e u x i s w a s to pass on three instructions to his subordinates: to collaborate w i t h N i k a n o r in matters c o n c e r n i n g his duties. Z e u x i s ' . Lenger. 5 ' the ultimate stage in this chain of c o m m u n i c a t e d orders. W h e n Antiochos III appointed Nikanor 'highpriest of all the shrines on the other side of the T a u r u s ' and 'official in charge of the shrines'.T h . 1 to the translation of these lines on the plural participles.2. . he notified Z e u x i s : σύνταξον οΰν σννεργείν καταχωρίζειν Se αυτόν αύτώι els τα προσήκοντα TOÎS προδεδηλωμενο^' και èv TOÎS χρηματισμοΪ5 ois είθισται' και τrjs «πιστολτ^ το άντίγραφον άναγράί/ίαντα? ei's OTTjXas Xi0ivas έχθειναι èv TOÎS έπιφανεστάτοis iepoîs (lines 4 1 . and to m e n t i o n h i m in the contracts for w h i c h it is usual. ' D o therefore give orders f o r y o u r s u b o r d i n a t e s to w o r k w i t h h i m in the matters that are appropriate to w h a t has b e e n p r e v i o u s l y e x p l a i n e d . Further document 4 and commentary. will lead us to e x p l o r e the imperial institutions that c o n stituted the S e l e u k i d space: ' p o w e r as means. W h e n A n t i o c h o s I I I 55 Prostagma as technical term: Holleaux 1942: 2 0 5 . Ord. and C. A l l three m i s s i v e s — A n t i o c h o s ' . w i t h Z e u x i s ' letter and another c o v e r i n g letter. no d o u b t close to the site of a shrine in the P a m u k ç u plain. a lieu de passage d o m i n a t e d b y various landmarks 5 6 (the stele n o w lies in the c o u r t y a r d of M a n i s a M u s e u m ) . T h e stone w a s f o u n d in M y s i a . Officials and Administration T h e P o l y b i a n w o r d for royal orders. as infrastructure. b e y o n d the direct recipient of the royal order. s u r m o u n t e d b y a massive s e m i c i r c u l a r p e d i m e n t . and to write up the c o p y of the letter on stone stelai and e x p o s e t h e m in the most c o n s p i c u o u s sanctuaries'. for hot springs. T h e P a m u k ç u stele s h o w s h o w a prostagma was implemented. 5. T h e plural participles in the infinitive c o n s t r u c t i o n i m p l y a m u l t i t u d e of s u b ordinates. Pamukçu stele: document 4. 56 Robert 1962: 381 n. though it is not clear exactly how these numerals would have functioned. Ptol. gathered and commented b y M . P h i l o t a s ' — w e r e inscribed on a large stele. .

w e r e called 'toparchs' and w h i c h since B e n g t s o n w r o t e . Bertrand. w h i c h e x e c u t e d his w i l l . T h e next official d o w n the chain of c o m m a n d . m u s t be the g o v e r n o r (strategos) of M y s i a . reaching h i m almost certainly in S a r d e i s (the administrative centre in A s i a M i n o r since the A c h a i m e n i d s and A l e x a n d e r ) . need not detain us here: Bengtson 1944: 38-48).4 and pp. except for militarized provinces like Asia Minor. 5 9 In contrast to w e l l . referred to an administrative process. A n t i o c h o s I I I . pace J . the overall g o v e r n o r of A s i a M i n o r (see below). b e f o r e an e m b a s s y f r o m a s u b o r d i n a t e c o m m u n i t y . he received the k i n g ' s order. T h e p r o c e s s took place away f r o m the city.k n o w n figure. Philotas. T h e actual ' f r e e i n g f r o m taxes' w a s an administrative process: 5 8 the k i n g ' s decision had to be passed on to the right subordinates. as the T e i a n s w e r e meant to do. line 14 (not Ptolemaios' private manager.l i k e efficacy. and c o m m u n i c a t i o n had to be f o l l o w e d by practical effects (in this case. as Sartre 1995: 101 writes).1613. 72-5 (not a village magistrate.passed t h r o u g h T e o s . 102-3 f ° r Zeuxis (Bengtson's broader theory that Seleukid governors were always called satraps without military powers. Bengtson 1944: 12-29 f ° r chain of command. 1 7 0 . in its m a g i c . as historians. 'the m a n in charge of the place'.d o c u m e n t e d cases s u c h as A l e x a n d e r ' s a d m i n istration or P t o l e m a i c E g y p t (where w e can s t u d y not j u s t policies D o c u m e n t 17. the T e i a n s sent an e m b a s s y to the king. 58 55 .d i v i s i o n of the satrapy. U n d e r B i t h y s there w e r e f u r t h e r s u b o r d i n a t e s (not illustrated on the P a m u k ç u stele). 29-36. SEG 29. m a k i n g sure officials k n e w not to claim taxes f r o m the city). (a) The World of Zeuxis Z e u x i s . B e n g t s o n speculated. at the first stage of c o m m u n i c a t i o n .1 — P t o l e m a i o s ' own staff are οίπαρ' έμον). B i t h y s . have indeed appeared u n d e r the title επιμελητής τοΰ τόπον or προεστηκως του τόπον. and p r o m i s e d to free the city f r o m taxes. to look for those d o c u m e n t s (such as the P a m u k ç u stele) about the w o r k i n g s of royal a d m i n i s t r a t i o n — r a t h e r than trust. is the h y p a r c h . L o w e r echelon: Wörrle 1975: lines 3 . he s t e p p e d before the assembled citizens. g o v e r n i n g a s u b . ZPE 46 (1982). as s o m e t h i n g m y s t e r i o u s and quite natural at the same time: the scene should m a k e us p o n d e r the ideological f u n c t i o n w i e l d e d b y the apparatus of administration and b y its e f f i c i e n c y as a display of p o w e r . a p o r t m a n t e a u f o r m u l a rather than an official title. w h o told t h e m that he had kept his w o r d . so the incident incites us. in the w o r l d of royal a d m i n istration. and that he had indeed freed (παραλελνκε) the city f r o m taxes. w h o . f r o m Iran ( C h . his s u b o r d i n a t e . later. 17-20. is a w e l l . 2 § 2). .M .

or the s w e e p of 197. et Lydiam Ioniamque.8. i. 4 on the Macedonian name Kynagos). the first g o v e r n e d M y s i a .b u t personnel). . On members of Seleukid personnel. the f u t u r e D i a d o c h ) . 1.1 8 8 .1 3 ) . Zeuxis son of K y n a g o s (document 7. 6 2 H o w e v e r .d e f i n e d frontiers and 'satrapal capitals' is o p e n to question. A list of nine satrapies (by the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I ) g i v e n b y B e n g t s o n is based on the description of A s i a M i n o r in the settlement of 1 8 9 . the w h o l e c o n c e p t of tidy satrapies. the second either K a r i a or P h r y g i a 6 1 . Robert 1967: 282. w i t h w e l l .1 6 and L i v . 1 5 . 1. but only the satrapy on the Hellespont is known by a documentary source (RC 11. Ionia and L y d i a w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d b y one satrap in the late A c h a i m e n i d p e r i o d and u n d e r A l e x a n d e r . 61 Anaximbrotos: document 37. Bosworth 1988: 229-58. T h e h y p a r c h i e s . D i d the M i l y a s . g e o g r a p h i c a l usage does not necessarily indicate administrative organization. w e have e v i d e n c e for exactly t w o provincial g o v e r n o r s .7. Antigonos' satrapy: Bosworth 1988: 233. In K a r i a . 6 4 E v e n if the L i v i a n list of territories c o r r e s p o n d e d to provincial divisions in Asia M i n o r at the time of M a g n e s i a . because Antiochos III practised the 'Aufspaltung der grossen Satrapien' (hardly compelling). w h o also j o i n e d P a m p h y l i a and L y k i a to P h r y g i a ( g o v e r n e d b y A n t i g o n o s . 6 0 w e still have little sense of the provincial o r g a n i z a tion these titles c o v e r e d — f o r the reign of A n t i o c h o s I I I . or after the reconquest of 216. Philotas.12. 1 3 .17. Liv. 64 Ionia and Lydia: Arr. constitute a satrapy b y itself.56. contrast the richness of a recent essay (Orrieux 1983) on the Ptolemaic agent Zenon. the situation m a y have been different u n d e r A c h a i o s . 5 6 .1 4 . with Robert 1964: 11 n. 62 Bengtson 1944: 13-16. prefers Phrygia. Hall 1986. w i t h its n o r t h . For the Milyas. 2 . at least u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I (RC 1 0 .7 . 3-4) and the existence of satrapies of L y d i a and Phrygia is probable. ι. 63 or w a s the region (a lieu de passage. 3 7 . W e similarly k n o w little a b o u t the satrapies t h e m s e l v e s . 60 Alexander: Berve 1926: vol. earlier satrapies.s o u t h valleys) a d m i n i s t e r e d as part of a n e i g h b o u r i n g satrapy s u c h as P a m p h y l i a or P h r y g i a ? S u c h a practice of r e g r o u p i n g several 'regions' into a single satrapy had been current earlier. the s u b d i v i s i o n s of the satrapy. 3 9 . but not yet documented. Doubts: M u s t i in CAH* vii. perhaps implies that Ionia and Lydia were governed as the same satrapy under the Seleukids. we can only reflect on their Macedonian names. especially L i v . settled by the Hellenistic kings in the east): Nikanor. implying a 'colonial' background (in the sense that they came from the Macedonian ruling group. Polybios may have given details for administrative reorganization after Achaios' usurpation as he does for the aftermath of M o l o n ' s revolt (5. 3 8 . 186-9. I n d e e d . 'sans y tenir'.54.2. are e q u a l l y o b s c u r e . T h e ' h y p a r c h y a r o u n d E r i z a ' (OGIS 238) no d o u b t c o v e r e d part or all of the A c i p a y a m plain. m e n t i o n e d in these L i v i a n passages. or the forays of c. N o r do w e k n o w about the shape of satrapies: the ' H e l l e s p o n t i n e satrapy' is usually e q u a t e d w i t h H e l l e s p o n t i n e P h r y g i a . Philotas (20g) and A n a x i m b r o t o s (193). S y m e 1995: 177-92. y e t stretched into the T r o a d .203. 63 Bengtson 1944: 14 thinks a satrapy of Milyas probable.12). 37.

3 (Magie 1950: ii. adapted to the g e o g r a p h i c a l location. 6 9 B u t the case of Z e u x i s is u n i q u e l y valuable: this v e r y h i g h . a p p o i n t e d after the s u p p r e s s i o n of A c h a i o s ( C h . sent b y A l e x a n d e r 'to collect the tribute f r o m the regions in A s i a on this side of the T a u r u s ' ( A r r . 2 § 1). T h u c .' K a r i a H y d r e l a ' m i g h t be one such s u b d i v i s i o n . but the letter was written in Iran. but not in the 'imperial heading' of a decree of Xanthos of 196. which appears in the 'imperial heading' (regnal year. and L . § 3). Robert 1950: 73-5. Robert 1983: 166. 2. was limited to Karia West of the Marsyas as a unit. and A c h a i o s . 67 D o c u m e n t 29. T h i s seems an official title. 68 Seleukid governors of cis-Tauric Asia Minor: Bengtson 1944: 9 4 . . 6 8 A n o t h e r parallel for Z e u x i s ' position is the h i g h . Robert 1983: 176-87. 3.50. Hellen.23.c o m m a n d of the U p p e r Satrapies.4. Seleukos: Pol. ΐ · ΐ · 2 . and p e r h a p s the g o v e r n o r s h i p of the C h e r s o n e s o s and T h r a c e held after 196 b y S e l e u k o s (the son of A n t i o c h o s III). 6 7 B e n g t s o n recognised the i m p o r t a n c e of the office early on. 4 ) . Diod. and its official imposition as an element in the heading of decrees.1. A n t i o c h o s H i e r a x as c o .M a r s y a n Karia: another argument is the priesthood of Zeus Kretagenetas and Diktynna. Errington 1986: 2 η. 'the m a n left b y the king in charge of the affairs on this side of the T a u r u s ' . T h e title appears in the alliance he struck w i t h the Philippeis/ E u r o m i a n s in 197: 6 άπολελειμμένος ύπο τον βασιλέως Άντιόχου επι των em τάδε τον Ταύρου πραγμάτων. then P t o l e m a i c d o m i n i o n . 1. 2 1 .4). 1.6.197 bc (document 30). 5 on the official character of Zeuxis' title in alliance with the Philippeis/Euromians. It seems that the priesthood.3. also below. 69 U p p e r Satrapies: Bengtson 1944: 78-89.8. or C y r u s the Y o u n g e r . etc. no d o u b t A n t i o c h o s said 'this side of the T a u r u s ' w h e n he w a s in Anatolia. m a y have constituted another (administered as a unit b y O l y m p i c h o s . 10). he placed Z e u x i s in a s e q u e n c e of A s i a M i n o r v i c e r o y s . though his attempt to find such an official under Antiochos I already is not convincing (Musti 1965: 157-60). C y r u s : X e n .1. Anab.3. and in a decree regulating various offices at Euromos £. J. the area w e s t of the M a r s y a s river. M e m n o n : Arr.4. s u c h as A l e x a n d r a s u n d e r A n t i o c h o s II (the b r o t h e r of L a o d i k e I). Philoxenos: Bosworth 1988: 242. 762). Anab. s u c h as M e m n o n .56.1 1 0 . o f t e n held b y the heir to the S e l e u k i d throne.5. Gauthier 1989: 39-42. and in several A c h a i m e n i d generals w h o held e m e r g e n c y authority in W e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r . 29-30 speaks of 'the other side of T a u r u s ' for Anatolia.) of decrees at A m y z o n in 202-201 bc (documents 9. 18. p r e c e d e n t s can be f o u n d in the financial official P h i l o x e n o s . w h o thus seems to have started as a S e l e u k i d hyparch). 4. (On this cult.7. T r a n s . 8. 1 6 . 3-6. 1. Zeuxis' title was predicted almost exactly by Bengtson 1944: 109-10. b u t far m o r e i m p o r t a n t : the v i c e r o y of A s i a M i n o r .6.r a n k i n g official is d o c u m e n t e d 65 Karia Hydrela: Liv. and L . c o m p r i s i n g the south-eastern portion of the u p p e r M a e a n d e r valley. Seleukid calendar. 6 5 T h e figure for w h o m w e have e v i d e n c e is Z e u x i s 6 6 — n o t the 'satrap of L y d i a ' (Pol.r e g e n t w i t h S e l e u k o s I I . the old H e k a t o m n i d .9. 17.20. 37. 66 J. Schmitt 1964: 15-18.

Embassy to Zeuxis: 47. w i t h i n a g e o g r a p h i c a l l y l i m i t e d area (a p o l i c y p r o b a b l y m o t i v a t e d b y A n t i o c h o s ' b a d e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h H e r m e i a s . 10. on his o w n a u t h o r i t y . Pol.e n o u g h to a l l o w analysis. 7 3 A n i n d e x o f Z e u x i s ' p o w e r s is the A m y z o n i a n s ' p e r c e p t i o n of h i m in their d e c r e e s . Bikerman 1938: 187-8.12 (with HCP). g i v e n in the E u r o m i a n i n s c r i p t i o n .7 and 35. 15. ' A l l the other matters': document 15. Z e u x i s ' f u n c t i o n s e x p l a i n the b r e a d t h of his c o m p e t e n c e and the e x t e n t of his p o w e r — κ α ι άπαντα τα άλλα. qui place son nom après celui d'Idrieus. Embassies: 9. and M e a d o w s 1995: 80 n. f u r t h e r m o r e . Mylasa 24 might be a grant of Zeuxis to Mylasa (Ma. Antiochos' sons and cousins are attested in high office (often military)—Antipatros the 'nephew'. previous note. . H e p r o b a b l y e s t a b l i s h e d C h i o n i s as g o v e r n o r at A l i n d a . 7-8. 'and all the o t h e r m a t t e r s ' . and M e n e s t r a t o s as epistates o f the A r t e m i s i o n at A m y z o n . he sent t r o o p s to A m y z o n u n d e r a c o m m a n d e r he a p p o i n t e d . D e r o w . 4. / 4 M o s t s t r i k i n g l y . 'for w r i t i n g 70 Antiochos' kinsmen nonetheless occupied important functions in the patrimonial system of the Seleukid empire: apart from Achaios. the A m y z o n i a n s h o n o u r e d M e n e s t r a t o s . 73 Kildara: document 25. and L . he c o n c l u d e d an alliance w i t h E u r o m o s . 10. Z e u x i s took o v e r K i l d a r a . as w e l l as o t h e r cities.45. c'est une mesure prise par le vice-roi. a citizen is h o n o u r e d for g o i n g on e m b a s s i e s to Z e u x i s and ' s e c u r i n g m a n y g r e a t p r i v i l e g e s ' f r o m h i m . the A m y z o n i a n s sent several e m b a s s i e s to n e g o t i a t e w i t h h i m . p e r h a p s o n his o w n initiative. 5. as in B e n g t s o n ' s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . 7 1 A m i l i t a r y c o m m a n d e r . T h e y s h o r t e n e d the title to ό èm των πραγμάτων. 9. Herakleia: 31. 9. 3). 4—5. 7 0 Z e u x i s ' full title. 4-6. w h i c h g i v e s an idea o f the t r a n s a c t i o n s he w a s a u t h o r i z e d to c o n d u c t . M e a d o w s suggests that I. Euromos: 29. 13. n e g o t i a t i n g their p r i v i l e g e s and a d d i n g an e x t r a fiscal p r i v i l e g e o n his o w n initiative. 47.16. b e c a u s e he w a s not a royal k i n s m a n (unlike A c h a i o s or m a n y of the m e n q u o t e d a b o v e ) . Robert 1983: 140 n. 71 On the 'chief minister'. p r o m i s i n g to m a i n t a i n its p r i v i l e g e s . c e r t a i n l y t h r o u g h his o w n a g e n c y . for Seleukos. Liv. 23)· 74 Title: documents 9. Hermeias: Schmitt 1964: 150-8 (and generally ch. 72 Documents 5. 15.79. and issued o r d e r s r e s t r a i n i n g the soldiers f r o m i n t r u d i n g on the s h r i n e at L a b r a u n d a . in his o w n w o r d s . the epistates of the A r t e m i s i o n . he also r e c e i v e d an e m b a s s y f r o m H e r a k l e i a . le bienfaiteur ancien'. i n f o r m s us a b o u t the n a t u r e of his p o w e r : not a ' g o v e r n o r ' (strategos). he restored land to that shrine: in t u r n . 6 . ' 2 In 197. 7 with J. 5. and L. 5 and J.4. b u t an official επί των πραγμάτων—a v i c e r o y or ' c h i e f m i n i s t e r ' w i t h full p o w e r s . the full ' c h i e f m i n i s t e r ' earlier in his reign). Robert 1983: 180: the donation 'n'émane pas du roi. Schmitt 1964: 29-31. he r e c e i v e d the s u r r e n d e r of A m y z o n . he m a y be m o r e t y p i c a l of the ' n o r m a l ' S e l e u k i d officials. 37. o m i t t i n g the g e o g r a p h i c a l l i m i t a t i o n on his p o w e r s . 13. 21.5.

the slowness of communications between Zeuxis and Antiochos when the latter was in Syria or in the U p p e r Regions is clear. b y nature. f o l l o w e d b y a period of consolidation in 1 9 9 . 7 6 It w a s p r o b a b l y d u r i n g one s u c h period that Z e u x i s w r o t e a direct. the direct subordinate of the king. required 17 days to reach the strategos of Mysia. Nonetheless. One problem is that on the more recent dating.\ενξιΒος. 7 5 T h e similarity in visual style m a y c o n v e y a local p e r c e p t i o n of Z e u x i s ' p o w e r s .T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r . τούτων . T h e royal prostagma concerning Nikanor took one month and ten days to reach Zeuxis from Iran. the document would then have reached Zeuxis only after a year (or two years). w a s a restless warrior. not '102' or ' 1 0 1 ' (document 4. than the highest official in c i s . c o n c e r n i n g the g o o d w i l l w h i c h the p e o p l e has c o n t i n u o u s l y t o w a r d s the kings and t o w a r d s Z e u x i s ' .W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 198. the official in charge of affairs. the order. a total of 10 y e a r s or m o r e d u r i n g w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h the king w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e or v e r y slow. Ch. But after autopsy. Robert 1983: 93—4. prec e d e d b y preparations in 210) or in K o i l e .to Z e u x i s .1 1 weeks to reach the strategos of Phrygia or Karia from Pisidia.S y r i a (202-200. 2 §§ 2 and 3. after a month and a day to cover the distance between Iran and Sardeis. 75 76 77 For Antiochos' absences from Asia Minor. S h e r w i n . Zeuxis and Sardeis: άπάκρισις γραφεΐσ[α I νπο 7. b u t no m o r e . Z e u x i s o f t e n acted as the k i n g ' s p r o x y . W h e n Z e u x i s dedicated land to the A m y z o n i a n A r t e m i s i o n . A n o t h e r piece of evidence m a y give an indirect. would date the prostagma a year or even two earlier. and L . commentary). imitating the dedicatory inscription. b y the p o w e r f u l H e k a t o m n i d 'satrap' Idrieus. impressive considering the distance but in absolute terms a slow process—document 4.1 9 8 ) — o u t of a total of 24 years that Z e u x i s w a s in office (winter 214/213 to w i n t e r 190/189). integrated w i t h i n the royal state. an inscription r e c o r d ing the dedication was carved on the architrave above the m o n u mental entrance to the shrine. T h e only similar document is the prostagma of 193 (document 37). of Z e u x i s ' p o w e r and of its p r o x i m i t y . on the same architrave. it m i g h t also be a gesture of Z e u x i s . d o c u m e n t 40. T h i s w a s done in an archaizing style. Y e t w e m u s t not exaggerate Z e u x i s ' p o w e r s to c o n c e i v e h i m as a 'feudal' lord or a 'dynast' (in spite of the dedication on the same architrave and in the same style as the H e k a t o m n i d Idrieus: above). A l l of the decisions D o c u m e n t 7. where the king was campaigning ( A y m a r d 1949: 339-42). a comparatively tiny distance. visual statement of Z e u x i s ' position at A m y z o n . which took 7 . b u t his s u b o r d i n a t e nonetheless. in fact a local dynast. γράφων προς Ζεύζιν τον επί των πραγμάτων νπερ της εύνοιας ήν έχων διατελεί εις τε τους βασιλείς και εις {ι} τον Ζεύξιν: a reflection. d u r i n g the latter's c a m p a i g n s in the U p p e r Satrapies (209-205. f r o m the point of view of a subject c o m m u n i t y . with J. 7 7 Z e u x i s represented stability and availability in a state f o r m a t i o n w h e r e the king. I believe that the stone reads 'year 103'. administrative reply to a S a r d i a n e m b a s s y . H e w a s no less. one month and ten days. s h o w i n g the sort of figure he m a d e locally. 8—9: ή περί.

80 Asylia dossier of A m y z o n : d o c u m e n t s 6. J. the S e l e u k i d v i c e r o y L y s i a s .1 0 (Herakleia). D o c u m e n t 5. 13. L i k e w i s e . w h a t e v e r lay w i t h i n m y c o m p e t e n c e (lit. 1 1 : 18). ο επί των πραγμάτων (the s a m e p o s i t i o n Z e u x i s h a d h e l d . Z e u x i s m e r e l y w r o t e c o n c e r n i n g this decision (possibly a c o v e r i n g letter a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e r o y a l a n n o u n c e m e n t ) . 78 75 . b u t w i t h o u t t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l l i m i t a t i o n ) w r o t e in r e s p o n s e to a p e t i t i o n f r o m t h e J e w s u n d e r Judas M a c c a b a e u s that Ί i n f o r m e d the king of w h a t e v e r m u s t be b r o u g h t b e f o r e h i m also. Z e u x i s ' l e t t e r to A m y z o n .). I 9. w h i c h can only be effected b y E u m e n e s II and n o t b y his g o v e r n o r ( S E G 2. possibly c o n f i r m e d by royal letter. a n d p e r h a p s a n n o u n c e d d i r e c t l y to t h e c i t y . A parallel is the restitution of laws and ancestral constitution to the u n n a m e d city of the K o r r h a g o s inscription. b u t h a d to r e f e r to the k i n g t h e m a t t e r o f e x e m p t i o n f r o m t h e syntaxis.1 0 : ήξίωο&> τον βασιλέα άττοόοθήι>ο.ί τους τ€ νόμους και τήν πάτριον ιτολιτείαν κτλ. 8. 5. Z e u x i s ' a c t i v i t y as s u b o r d i n a t e is e v i d e n t d u r i n g t h e k i n g ' s d i r e c t D o c u m e n t 31 A . Z e u x i s ' p o s i t i o n is i d e n t i c a l to t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e o f f i c e r s w h o g r a n t e d a n u m b e r o f p r i v i l e g e s a n d e x e m p t i o n s to the u n n a m e d c i t y o f Sardis. 2.663. 8 0 Z e u x i s h i m s e l f m a d e c l e a r that t h e s u r r e n d e r o f local c o m m u n i t i e s . also 31 Β. (I δε ήν ενδεχόμενα συνεχώρησα2 M a c c .9 (almost certainly Z e u x i s to A m y z o n ) . 81 Q u o t e f r o m letter to K i l d a r a .t a k e n b y Z e u x i s c o n c e r n i n g H e r a k l e i a h a d to b e c o n f i r m e d b y the k i n g h i m s e l f : ' 8 τά τε υπό Ζευζιδος συγχωρηθεντα ΰμίν κνροϋμεν. a P t o l e m a i c o f f i c e r g r a n t e d t h e c i t y t h e r i g h t to l e v y c e r t a i n local t a x e s . d o c u m e n t 25. c o n f i r m i n g its p r e v i o u s p r i v i l e g e s . p r o b a b l y c a p t u r e d a n d s a c k e d b y S e l e u k i d f o r c e s in 1 9 7 : t h e a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y o f t h e o f f i c e r s in t h e field w a s b a l a n c e d b y t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r s u b s e q u e n t r o y a l a p p r o v a l .l i k e ' c o n t r i b u t i o n ' e x a c t e d f r o m t h e c i t y o n t h e p r o c l a i m e d p r e t e x t o f d e f e n d i n g its t e r r i t o r y (/. Iasos 3). 7 . P t o l e m a i c o f f i c i a l s w e r e s i m i l a r l y c o n s t r a i n e d : at I a s o s . R o b e r t 1983: no. lines 9 . I V 9 . N o r is Z e u x i s ' case e x c e p t i o n a l : in 1 6 4 . I g r a n t e d to y o u : ' (οσα μεν οΰν εδει και τώι βασιλεΐ προσενεχθήναι διεσάφησα. T h e asylia of the A r t e m i s i o n w a s decreed b y A n t i o c h o s I I I (and A n t i o c h o s the s o n ) . w e r e to t h e b e n e f i t o f K i n g A n t i o c h o s : τήμ πάσαν πολνωρίαν ποησόμεθα υμών οσωιπερ αν εννωεστεροι και προθυμότερο[ι] φαίνησθε εις τα τώι βασιλεΐ Άντιόχωι συμφέροντα. 7 . ' w e w i l l t a k e all m e a s u r e s of s o l i c i t u d e f o r y o u i n a s m u c h as y o u s h o w y o u r s e l v e s t h e b e t t e r . w a s p r e s u m a b l y v a l i d a t e d b y a r o y a l letter. t h e t r i b u t e .1 1 .d i s p o s e d a n d t h e m o r e eager t o w a r d s the interests of king Antiochos'. a n d t h e i r f u t u r e l o y a l t y . a n y c h a n g e in s t a t u s l a y w i t h i n the c o m p e t e n c e o f t h e k i n g . n o .81 T h e E u r o m i a n s accurately described the intermediary position of Z e u x i s ' office w h e n t h e y s p o k e o f την συνθήκην τήμ περί της συμμαχίας της σνντεθειμενης προς βασιλέα μεγαν Άντίοχον δια Ζενζιδος (lines 7—8). and L . w h a t e v e r w a s p o s s i b l e ) . 7 9 L i k e w i s e .

A n t i o c h o s delegated the question of w o o d s u p p l y for the reconstruction of the city. In contrast.o r d e r s for the appropriate officials. καθ' âv avvKpivj] Ζεύξις. see C h . B u t instead of s e n d i n g it to Z e u x i s .3 0 ) and to T h o a s . 8 2 In these cases. w h e n o r d e r i n g the t r o o p s to respect the shrine at L a b r a u n d a . the strategos of P h r y g i a (or Karia?): his presence in the p r o v i n c e seems to 'deactivate' the p o w e r s of Z e u x i s as v i c e r o y . Z e u x i s does not appear. d i f f u s i n g the royal o r d e r . Z e u x i s can be c o n s i d e r e d dual nature of Z e u x i s ' office. A n t i o c h o s ' presence c o u l d e v e n elide Z e u x i s ' f u n c t i o n . and it is likely that A n t i o c h o s simply w r o t e to Z e u x i s as g o v e r n o r of L y d i a .5 . he i n f o r m e d Z e u x i s of his decisions in f a v o u r of the S a r d i a n s (a regular grant of oil.presence in A s i a M i n o r . g e n e r a t i n g instructions to i m p l e m e n t the general t e r m s of the royal o r d e r — t h e nature of Z e u x i s ' activity appears the same as any s u b o r d i n a t e ' s . · η w i n t e r 190/189?). F o r context.1 8 ) . the empowered when nate w h e n dealing a special c o m p e t e n c e . E q u a l l y problematic. containing a copy of the prostagma of 193. A n t i o c h o s w r o t e directly to the level of the satrapy. b u t there are other s o l u t i o n s — f o r instance. or the matter m a y have seemed so a u g u s t to A n t i o c h o s that he w i s h e d to c o m m u n i c a t e it himself to the satrapy g o v e r n o r s ( w h i c h still illustrates the point that the king c o u l d b y p a s s Zeuxis). yet a n s w e r a b l e and s u b o r d i ' u p w a r d s ' . T h i s is one interpretation of the fact that on the ' D o d u r g a stele' ( d o c u m e n t 37). for the g o v e r n o r . Z e u x i s ' role was p u r e l y instrumental. 8 3 In spite of his typical. authoritative and acting ' d o w n w a r d s ' . the a p p o i n t m e n t of A n t i o c h o s the son as v i c e r o y in the East falls around this time.5 ) . the king (then in Pisidia) issued a prostagma on cultic h o n o u r s in f a v o u r of L a o d i k e . Z e u x i s h i m s e l f . 83 . to i m p l e m e n t his prostagma in the region around Sardeis. b u t to the city of L a o d i k e i a on M e d i a ( R o b e r t 1949: 5 . I have also assumed that M e n e d e m o s w a s v i c e r o y of the U p p e r Satrapies ( R o b e r t 1950: 7 3 . First. 1 6 . alleviated c o n d i t i o n s of troop billeting. d i v i d i n g it into s u b . p r o b a b l y the g o v e r n o r . and S c h m i t t has s h o w n that in 193 he was a b o u t to set out east to take up office ( S c h m i t t 1964: 1 5 . w o u l d speak of the επιμέλεια των [ίερ]ών ( R o b e r t ' s restoration) w h i c h the king had e n t r u s t e d to h i m — a broad brief w h i c h justified Z e u x i s ' specific decision c o n c e r n i n g L a b r a u n d a . 4 . though the exact date of a p p o i n t m e n t is not k n o w n . 2 § 1.T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r to diffuse (as had h a p p e n e d w i t h the prostagma of 209). A t Sardeis in 2 1 3 . 4 . the c o m m a n d e r of a phylake ( R o b e r t 1967) raises the possibility that M e n e d e m o s was himself the satrap of M e d i a . w h i c h m i g h t explain w h y P o l y b i o s g i v e s h i m this title in 2 1 . for h i m to diffuse the instructions at a l o w e r level. for instance to A n a x i m b r o t o s . A t times. In 193. ateleia for the L a o d i k e i a ) . L a b r a u n d a : 15.g e n e r a l of the East. A n t i o c h o s w r o t e to M e n e d e m o s . w h e n addressing the edict to the U p p e r Satrapies. Z e u x i s m i g h t have been temporarily disgraced in 193 (was he perhaps d e m o t e d to the status of strategos of L y d i a . is characteristic of any official b e l o n g - D o c u m e n t s 1. and the fact that M e n e d e m o s addressed his instructions n o t to the satrap of M e d i a . 3.g e n e r a l of c i s .

Rostovtzeff 1941: 464-72. lines 8-9. SEG 39. 4. b u t to another set of officials.1 3 with S h e r w i n . unitary state apparatus. t h o u g h some e v i d e n c e suggests p a y m e n t in cash. Bertrand 1974 for a case study (Alexander's hyparchs). as is s u g g e s t e d b y the royal w e a l t h in grain. 28).-Arist. b u t also s e e m to be o w n e d b y the k i n g ( A n t i o c h o s II sold an estate w i t h its villagers). 38. also [χώρα] βασιλεία in the lex portorii provinciae Asiae. III 8 (the section gives Zeuxis' summary of the Herakleian petition.8-12. w h o can be d e s c r i b e d as ' s u b j e c t ' or ' t r i b u t a r y ' p o p u l a t i o n s . 21. Λαοι βασιλικοί: RC 11.8-10. 88 Cash tribute: Sardis. Priene 1. usually in relation to the royal e c o n o m y . Briant 1982. Nature of subordinates: Barnes 1988: 7 1 . or.ing to a chain of c o m m a n d . earlier. In the first c a t e g o r y . 88 T h i s is still an aspect of S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r a b o u t 84 U n n a m e d city: document 36. line 83. nor indeed his distinction between crown land and the king's private patrimony (Bikerman 1938: 184). document 31 Β. 8 4 S e c o n d . Generally.. F o r the present. 38. T h e evidence does not support Bickerman's suggestion that 'the royal land' was the expression used for the king's private property. so that it is not clear if the phrase is Zeuxis' or the Herakleians'). Pol. starkly.W h i t e 1985: 80-1. Oec. line 6 and line 8 (the document dates to Antigonos M o n o p h t h a l m o s — a s shown b y D e b o r d 1982: 244-7. officials deal w i t h their superior c o m p a r a t i v e l y rarely. their land and their inhabitants. (b) The Royal Economy and its Officials N i k a n o r . Billows 1995: 144 n. grain stores at Lysimacheia (App. and not a loose feudal structure.1180. 7 0 — b u t the situation presumably also applied under the Seleukids). w h o l o o m s m i g h t i l y in their local h o r i z o n . lines 19-20 (cf. 4 § 2c). 8 6 T h e royal d o m a i n paid tribute (or rent) to the k i n g 8 ' — m o s t l y in kind. 'the (land) of the k i n g ' — c o m p r i s i n g villages. λαοί βασιλικοί. a p p o i n t e d . no.40. 85 T h e term derives from ps. w h o s e activity (oscillating b e t w e e n local p o w e r s and mere i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ) can help us to imagine his s u b o r d i n a t e s (strategoi. line 22. 1. local g o v e r n o r s ) and characterizes the s y s t e m of g o v e r nors as a c o h e r e n t . b u t v e r y o f t e n w i t h the p o p u l a t i o n s u n d e r their authority ( B e r t r a n d 1974: 31). line 27).13.37. lines 9 . RC 3. ή τοϋ βασιλέως. the s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n deals less o f t e n w i t h the superior than w i t h the s u b ordinate. RC 18. h y p a r c h s . 2. Royal grain: L i v . not o v e r 'the affairs' w i t h i n a g e o g r a p h i c a l region. the m o s t i m p o r t a n t feature is the 'royal l a n d ' — β α σ ι λ ι κ ή χώρα. the beneficiary of the prostagma of 209. 86 βασιλική χώρα: RC I I . organised around the tension of h i e r a r c h y . Syr.8 1 for theory. and RC 12. w h a t e m e r g e s is the e x e m p l a r y aspect of Z e u x i s ' f u n c t i o n as most p o w e r f u l local official. T h e elliptical expression ή τον βασιλέως from Zeuxis' letter to the Herakleians. in turn. L i v . 87 Inschr. but to specific tasks or actions.7-9 (Seleukids supply grain for the Roman army in 189-188). T h i s aspect is important w h e n s t u d y i n g the interaction b e t w e e n imperial state and s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s ( C h . did not b e l o n g to Z e u x i s ' s u b o r d i n a t e s . 8 5 the profits of o w n e r s h i p or taxation. Bikerman 1938: ch. huge gift of grain of . line 17.

Equally possible is the confiscation of real estate pledged by the city as security for a royal loan: a joke preserved in Strabo 13. Mysiae regias silvas (text emended b y M c D o n a l d 1967: 2 n. but it is unclear whether he is thinking of the T e i a n s purchasing their grain from the tributary villages or from royal stores. σννταξις: t h o u g h f o r m a l l y distinct f r o m phoros. RC 3. Mysian forests: L i v . Herrmann 1959 (Aigai under Antiochos II). Priene 1. since (the S a r d i a n s claim) this is the practice in other cities: the king rented out the portico (and its ergasteria. T h e king w a i v e d the r e n t — b u t retained p r o p e r t y rights. A p a r t f r o m regular tribute. 46-7 for views of the Mysian mountains and the forests around Smdirgi. 5. Anab. such as the levy in horses paid by the Aspendians to the Achaimenids. and retained ownership rights.3. 1.6. cannot be used to prove either cash tribute or tribute in kind: Antigonos merely tells the Teians that the 'tributary land' is a readily accessible source of wheat. 8).1 0 with Gauthier 1989: 1 0 1 . in several other cities. . I I I 8 (Herakleia under Antiochos III). w h e r e the royal land and its w o r k i n g s are m u c h better d o c u m e n t e d ) . for late Ptolemaic and Roman practice. Robert 1955: pis. s u r r e n d e r i n g a cut of its i n c o m e to the imperial state. d i s t r i b u t i n g the fiscal b u r d e n a m o n g the citizenry: it is the city itself w h i c h is taxed. 8 9 T h e royal territory w a s not confined to the inland swathe. then Alexander: Arr.1.56. p a y i n g cash tribute (phoros) [ex] πασών τών γινομένων προσόδων πα [ρ' έ'καστον] ένιαντόν. line 4.w h i c h w e are v e r y p o o r l y i n f o r m e d (unlike the situation of E g y p t . the royal land also i n c l u d e d natural resources such as the forests of the T m o l o s or M y s i a . ' O u t of all the incomes': document 36. 9 2 C o n c e p t u a l l y . 91 D o c u m e n t 3. Millar 1992: 158-63. the cities c o u l d be asked for a special c o n t r i b u t i o n . 8 . there b e g a n the royal d o m a i n . with Gauthier 1989: 28. f r o m the H e l l e s p o n t to the K i l i k i a n G a t e s : it stretched into the w e s t e r n coastal region. Robert 1987: 138-48. lines 10-13 (Priene at the time of Alexander). this Seleukos II to Rhodes: Pol. T h e king o w n e d real estate. Besides the tributary villages.26. 'out of all the i n c o m e s that are p r o d u c e d for each year'. 37.9. flowing around the territory of the cities: w h e r e the city territory s t o p p e d .3. lines 80-5. 16—18. arguing that Seleukid kings erected buildings in 'subject' cities. 9 0 T h e king also o w n e d p r o p e r t y w i t h i n cities: a letter of A n t i o c h o s I I I to S a r d e i s s h o w s the king w a i v i n g rent on a royally o w n e d portico. takes as its starting point the loss of K y m e ' s porticoes to creditors. a familiar and visible reality. 89 Forests: document 1. shops) en bloc to the city ( w h i c h p r o b a b l y sub-leased the shops).7 . 92 Collective tax: Bikerman 1938: 106-10. the city is not a t a x . document 31 Β. 9 1 T h e other aspect of the 'royal e c o n o m y ' w a s the n e t w o r k of taxation w h i c h stretched across the imperial space.c o l l e c t o r for the central p o w e r . S u b j e c t cities w e r e taxed collectively. and p l a y e d a m a j o r part in constituting it. when the city defaults on reimbursement. w h o dealt w i t h h i m as their landlord as well as their political master. 90 Inschr. T h e r e is no evidence for Seleukid phoros in kind from the cities.89. w i t h d o r m a n t rights to rent. Another possibility is a royal claim to intestate property in the subject cities.

1 8 . agricultural duties. no.r a i s i n g n e t w o r k at the p r o economy (2. 5—6: παραλνομεν δΐ και της προσεπιβληθείσης εικοστής επί τήν πολιτικήν (the civic twentieth rather than the politike ge: Gauthier 1989: 33-6). 14. 2.t w e n t i e t h due. personal d u e s — t h e s y s t e m w h i c h the p s e u d o . early S e l e u k i d . T h e H e r a k l e i a n s asked to be s p a r e d — a n d . Sherwin-White 1985: 85). s u c h as the u p k e e p of the road s y s t e m (see § ι for e v i d e n c e and parallels). fruit-trees. by implication. document 17. . I I I 3-9. lines 4-5). unnamed city: document 36. and dues on the m o v e m e n t of g o o d s f r o m the royal land (ix τής τοΰ ßaaiAeots) into the city w h e t h e r for personal use or for resale. 95 at Sardeis. Z e u x i s ' s u m m a r y of the H e r a k l e i a n petition for e x e m p t i o n f r o m certain taxes. 96 D o c u m e n t I . 1 3 1 . Erythrai: RC 15. a tax on the i m p o r t and sale of grain w i t h i n the city. [εκ των γεν]ημάτων. l o n g the o n l y detailed source for S e l e u k i d indirect taxation ( B i k e r m a n 1938: 1 1 5 . r e m a r k a b l y .2 ) . and p r o b a b l y in the u n n a m e d city of Sardis. p r o b a b l y corvée l a b o u r for the n e e d s of the imperial state. T h e S e l e u k i d state also m a d e itself m a n i f e s t t h r o u g h a m u l t i t u d e of indirect taxes.i 3 4 0 a ) . the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e extracted services. Iasos 3. 48 (contra. the S e l e u k i d state m i g h t r a i s e — a tax on agricultural p r o d u c e . 94 D o c u m e n t 31 Β. and. 26-28 (phoros and contribution to the Galatian fund. A n t i o c h o s I I I seems to have collected a tax on transactions w i t h i n the city (a o n e . but a reduction in the syntaxis they paid as a contribution towards 'the defence of the territory' (I. b e e h i v e s . and d o u b l i n g the a m o u n t of. presumably money for war against the Galatians). A n agricultural tax is p o s s i b l y attested at S e l e u k e i a / T r a l l e i s . 23 (restoration of Piejko). no d o u b t some f o r m of sales tax. 9 6 T h e taxation on the i m p o r t and sale of grain w i t h i n the city 93 Distinction: Herrmann 1965«: 138-45. d o c u m e n t f r o m A i g a i ( M a l a y 1983): the S e l e u k i d state is seen taking in levies on grain ( p r o b a b l y ) . the i n c o m e . a civic tax). supported by the fact that an Iasian petition to an official of Ptolemy I does not mention phoros (the Iasians were exempt). and thus end up as m e r e l y an increase (earmarked for various p u r p o s e s ) of phoros: the T e i a n s use syntaxis and phoros interchangeably. λητουργtat. 3 3 . line 8: a tithe (δεκατήν) paid to the royal chest. T e o s and the blurring of syntaxis and phoros·. 9 3 F i n a l l y .4 . e v e n g a m e : a leg off each boar and each deer. 95 Tralleis: RC 41. is n o w s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a long and i n f o r m a t i v e d o c u m e n t for A s i a M i n o r . Allen 1983: 50-3. technically a royal tax added to. an ennomion ('pasture rights') on herds and on beehives.A r i s t o t e l i a n Oeconomica calls the 'satrapie' b . T h e evidence c o n c e r n i n g M a c c a b a e a n Judaea.i345 vincial level. a h a r b o u r tax. A g r i c u l t u r a l levies appear in a f r a g m e n t a r y .c o u l d be levied on a regular basis (like the p a y m e n t s els τα Γαλατικά m a d e b y the E r y t h r a i a n s u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I or II). flocks of sheep and goats. 18-19. 9 4 T h e s e items are paralleled in the f r a g m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e for the rest of S e l e u k i d Asia M i n o r (apart f r o m general m e n t i o n s of ateleia).

9 8 A p a r t f r o m the w i d e s p r e a d practice of l e v y i n g a share of agricultural p r o d u c e and collecting dues on the m o v e m e n t of g o o d s . T h e Plerakleians specifically petitioned f o r the status quo ('the privileges g r a n t e d b y the k i n g s ' ) to be m a i n t a i n e d . rather than A t t a l i d innovations (as S e g r e b e l i e v e d for the poll-tax). the P t o l e m a i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1 0 0 — l o c a l i z e d taxes. 91—2 (Ptolemaic precedent). reminiscent of the c o m p l e x s y s t e m of local taxes and p r i v i l e g e s in A n c i e n R é g i m e F r a n c e .141: A n t i o c h o s I I I orders w o o d to be b r o u g h t to Jerusalem. lines 1 0 . to be able to raise tolls or custom rights on g o o d s entering the Seleukid empire ( G a u t h i e r 1989: 26 η. T h e l e v y on g a m e attested at A i g a i (above) seems u n i q u e to that city. d r a w i n g a parallel with A c h a i m e n i d practice. It nonetheless o f f e r e d the advantage of precisely targetting local resources f o r exploitation. BE 80. in their dominion. or all harbours. 199-203 for the u n c o n v i n c i n g suggestion that the poll-tax was introduced around T e l m e s s o s b y the Attalids (Rostovtzeff 1941: 338: 'possibly this was a heritage f r o m Ptolemaic times'). or artisan tax (levied against the right to ply a craft) w a s m e n t i o n e d in a royal letter ( A t t a l i d or S e l e u k i d ) to a similar c o l o n y . 6. . Bikerman 1938: 1 1 6 ( c o m m e n t i n g AJ 12. and Robert. G a u t h i e r 1989: 25-6. 98 T h e case of Herakleia suggests that the Seleukids controlled most. and p e r h a p s at the frontiers b e t w e e n satrapies. as it had been on the part of Herakleia (above). 100 Poll-tax: Segre 1938: 190.42. these taxes m u s t be a legacy f r o m the S e l e u k i d administration of A n t i o c h o s I I I and. 99 D o c u m e n t 31 Β . on the basis of the land survey for the purpose of tax assessment carried out after the Ionian R e v o l t (Hdt. and m u s t reflect a local r e s o u r c e — h u n t i n g in the h i g h l a n d s of A i o l i s .1). m a n y features of n o n . μηδενός ττρασσομενου τέλος)·. w i t h tolls at the entrance into city territories or at city gates. S u c h a practice. the m o d e r n Y u n t D a g — a n d the imperial state's intention of taking its 97 Priene: d o c u m e n t 33. T h e s e two taxes are unparalleled in Asia M i n o r . 484. raised because of p r e c e d e n t and not b y application of a standardized imperial f o r m u l a .w a s the s u b j e c t of a petition to Z e u x i s f r o m a Prienian a m b a s s a d o r . T a x a t i o n on the m o v e m e n t of grain and of g o o d s is likely to have been general practice. W ö r r l e 1988: 465. m a y seem c u m b e r s o m e and u n s y s t e m a t i c to a m o d e r n eye. w h i c h hints at local solutions and precedents. observes that the agriculture tax and ennomion are assessed in proportion to land-surface ('yokes': I I I 6). u l t i m a t e l y . II 14—15: παρακαλεσοντας τά τε ΰπο των βασιλέων συγκεχωρημένα I [ουνδιατηρηθήν]αι. 9 ' T h e practice of taxation on trade explains w h y the h a r b o u r dues at H e r a k l e i a w e r e taken o v e r b y the S e l e u k i d state ( t r a n s f o r m i n g a H e r a k l e i a n civic tax into an imperial due). 37). Cheironaxion: W ö r r l e 1979: 83 at line 7. a cheironaxion. 9 9 A poll-tax appears in the letter f r o m E u m e n e s II c o n c e r n i n g the inhabitants of the Kardakon koine. in the same region.1 1 . near T e l m e s s o s .t r i b u t a r y taxation w e r e localized. b u t this m i g h t simply be the m o s t o b v i o u s w a y of assessing an agricultural tax. for context of the letter.

Gallant is unaware that it is not clear whether the sum the Milesians owe to Lysimachos is regular tribute. tribute) or indirect (sales taxes. line 3 (ateleia restored). the sultan taxed herds and beehives. o n e . perhaps as reimbursement of a loan (Rostovtzeff 1941: 1340).1 1 . 2. 103 Ptolemaic parallels: general survey in Rostovtzeff 1941: 273—316 (296 for Ptolemaic taxation on bee-keeping).e. the sanctuaries w e r e likewise i n c l u d e d . the city of G o r t y n ( C h a n i o t i s 1996: no.31. y o u r 101 Exemptions: Syll.t r i b u t a r y . Normal figures: in comparison. T h e principles of the 'fiscal e c o n o m y ' c o u l d be o p e n l y expressed: a P t o l e m a i c g o v e r n o r w r o t e to the A r s i n o e a n s ' y o u will do well to w o r k and sow all of it (i. his second example. and his imprecise use of the documents: in his first example.7). a one-off payment.7. from Amorgos. 16-19. Bagnall 1976: 85-7 on OGIS 41 (Samos). Jerusalem (or the whole Jewish ethnos?) apparently paid 300 talents (Bikerman 1938: 107-8). is the extraction of s u r p l u s . grants ateleia to the Artemision at Xanthos). devastated b y S e l e u k i d capture (one w o u l d e x p e c t tribute to be rated in talents. T h e discussion of the (allegedly crushing) impact of royal taxation on the cities offered by Gallant 1989 is marred by his ignoring indirect taxation. details: for instance.g. indirect taxes p e r c e i v e d w i t h i n s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s ) . does not concern tribute at all. the n e t w o r k of indirect taxation played as i m p o r t a n t a role. and one of their m a i n activities. the o n l y figure w e have f o r tribute in S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r is that of t w e n t y mnai annually. no. t h r o u g h m e a n s direct (rent. concrete. 353 (Prepelaos. T h e picture can be e x p a n d e d w i t h P t o l e m a i c parallels (for agricultural taxes.t h i r d of a talent. u n t y p i c a l because it c o m e s f r o m the u n n a m e d city of Sardis. tolls). granted by Attalids). b o t h practical and ideological. RC 9. though the figure might include indirect taxes as well as tribute.b e r r i e s . 30. 102 T r i b u t e : document 36. or n o n . OGIS 55 for agricultural taxes at Telmessos under the dynast Ptolemaios. RC 47 (άτελεια προβάτων for the κάτοικοι of Apollo Tarsenos. Ptolemaic taxation within the cities: Wörrle 1979: 1 0 6 . Syll. taxation affected the c o m m u n i t i e s in the c o u n t r y s i d e and the royal d o m a i n . the T e l m e s s i a n d o c u m e n t s s h o w that the n e t w o r k of indirect. F i n a l l y . unless specifically exempted. 1 0 3 T h e s e illustrate a general point about e m p i r e s of domination: the c o n d i t i o n f o r their existence. Delphinion 138. dues. Lysimachos' general.cut. tolls: e.102 N o n e t h e l e s s . and in t w o or three figures). the d o c u m e n t a t i o n illustrates the operations i n v o l v e d and their density. PCZ 59093. and the Rhodians raised 120 talents a year from K a u n o s and Stratonikeia (Pol. Ottomans: Babinger 1978: 451. 1 0 1 T h e e v i d e n c e is not sufficient to reconstruct local. or as preferred by many commentators. 67 Β). but all visible. 69). as well as the cities. as the raising of tribute w h i c h Briant (1982) has e m p h a s i z e d in his essays on the A c h a i m e n i d and Plellenistic e m p i r e s . A l l these examples imply that Hellenistic kings routinely taxed shrines (though were ready to exempt them from taxation). 955 (also IG 12. . or e v e n O t t o m a n parallels: like the S e l e u k i d s . taxation on g o o d s . paid b y the K a u d i a n s to their master. A parallel is the tithe on j u n i p e r . the Milesian inscription Inschr.

from ίκλογίζΐοθαι). Robert 1954: 292 and η. 97. b e t w e e n these finances. 107 Apollonian embassy: document 44. b o t h for the S e l e u k i d state. 23 n. w h o s e p o w e r s w e r e exercised at the level of the c i s .7 . Robert 1954: 292—3—either an auditor ('contrôleur financier'. 2 M a c c . Samaritans: Jos.107 officials.T a u r i c p r o v i n c e : on a mission to Sardeis. Eklogistes·. AJ 12. cautiously p r o p o s e d b y the R o b e r t s . an e m b a s s y f r o m the east K a r i a n city of A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e dealt w i t h K t e s i k l e s . 105 T h e royal e c o n o m y m a t t e r e d . A l s o Briant 1982: 175-225 and esp. A n t i o c h o s notified the S a r d i a n s that γεγράφαμεν περί πάντων προς Ζεύξιν και Κτησικλήν: the parallel e x p r e s s i o n suggests that K t e s i k l e s . D o c u m e n t 5. 1 . so that y o u y o u r s e l v e s m i g h t live in p r o s p e r i t y and so that the revenues w h i c h y o u p r o v i d e to the k i n g m a y be greater than those w h i c h w e r e p r o d u c e d o r i g i n a l l y ' (οττως αυτοί re iv εύβοσίαι γίνησθε και τώι βασιλεΐ τάς προσόδους πλείους των iv άρχήι γινομένων σνντελήτε). 1 . a m o n g the financial officials. Title: J.261. at w h o s e expense it operated. 95-107. 1 0 6 A p a r t f r o m K t e s i k l e s . the S a m a r i t a n s d r e w the attention of A n t i o c h o s I V to the fact that. T h e most i m p o r t a n t official w a s K t e s i k l e s . 1 (cautious). c o n centrated at S a r d e i s . Robert 1983: 189-91 for Seleukids rebuilding cities and gathering scattered populations. Anab. J. w h o w a s acting on the report of D e m e t r i o s the 'official in charge of the s h r i n e s ' — p r o b a b l y the successor to N i k a n o r in this f u n c t i o n . but ό επί των προσόδων. and their hierarchical position in relation to K t e s i k l e s are not clear. D e m e t r i o s the eklogistes (tax-collector or 'financial controller'?). and L . M e n a n d r o s the dioiketes. held the same p r e . there w e r e other 'central' officials. and L . Gauthier 1989: 4 and n. or a tax-collector (like the Ptolemaic εγλογίοτης'.e m i n e n t position as Z e u x i s did in the h i e r a r c h y of governors.land). 11: 22-33. based in Sardeis. J. 4-24. For an official in charge of shrine finances in the Attalid period.b e i n g . p o p u l o u s n e s s . the r e v e n u e s w h i c h w e p r o v i d e to y o u will be greater' (the phrases used are similar). 104 105 . financial officials—dioiketai and Arsinoe: Jones and Habicht 1989: 319. w h i c h also entailed the control of shrine T h e relationships. A t the ' p r o v i n c i a l ' level. 6. and c o n v e r s e l y . centralized at S a r d e i s or distributed in the satrapies. and L . and f o r the s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s . it required its o w n set of officials. w h i c h d e p e n d e d on its w o r k i n g s . is attractive. cf. 1 " 4 T h i s is the rationale w h i c h u n d e r l i e s the p r o f e s s e d solicitude of the k i n g s for the local c o m m u n i t i e s ' w e l l . Arr. from (κλέγΐΐν). T h e o c r i t u s 17. A tax-receipt from second-century Baktria proves the existence of an official named ô επί των προαόδων and subordinates named λογευταί—inspired by Seleukid practice (Bernard and Rapin 1994: 284-9). and e n j o y m e n t of their p r o p e r t y (τά ίδια). his exact title is u n k n o w n . 179-88. if left outside the scope of the anti-Jewish p e r s e c u tion. 1 . ' a p p l y i n g o u r s e l v e s in security to o u r w o r k . 106 Ktesikles at Sardeis: Gauthier 1989: 42-5 (residence in Sardeis is likely because the Apollonian embassy of document 44 dealt with a whole set of central financial officials in that city). lines 6-9. 1 7 . formal or actual. Malay and Nalbantoglu 1996.

T h e s e officials w e r e clearly distributed b e l o w the satrapy: u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I . Robert 1983: 188.) και διαμ[φι]σβη[τησαντο5] TTpos avTovs νττερ των ιερών κωμών κτλ. o p e r a t i n g alongside a m e r i d a r c h . might be another example of a governor and a financial official working in parallel (Robert i960: 8 5 . to petition K t e s i k l e s and M e n a n d r o s the dioiketes. line 17. the document implies some relation with landed property. m u s t have b e e n a local financial official of j u s t this sort (a dioiketes?). b u t the evidence is suggestive.d i v i s i o n of the satrapy of K a r i a — p e r h a p s a h y p a r c h y . 1 0 8 A royal letter of A n t i o c h o s I V . a dioiketes is n a m e d alongside the p h r o u r a r c h in the A n a i t i s . .9 1 . T h e processes i n v o l v e d . and b o t h seem to have a local c o m p e t e n c e . m e n t i o n s 6 τα βασιλικά ττράττων. the S k y t h o p o l i s dossier s h o w s that P t o l e m a i o s ' estate fell w i t h i n the p u r v i e w of t w o different dwiketai\ finally. it is impossible to d o c u m e n t exactly w h a t all these officials ( w h o s e n a m e s are attested) actually did. T h e obvious parallel is Ptolemaic practice at the level of the nome. and the transaction d o c u m e n t s a financial los Dioiketes near Anaitis: S EG 1. let alone their signficance.366. recording an administrative note to two officials. 2. T h i s situation p r o b a b l y c o n t i n u e d u n d e r the Attalids: an oikonomos appears at Pleura (not far f r o m Sardeis). . and L . Nikomedes: document 11 and J. at the level of a s u b d i v i s i o n of K o i l e . or a specifically financial s u b . since the document records a conveyance of royal land within this oikonomia. w o r k i n g in a s u b . though Robert suggests Apollodoros was an official in charge of sacred matters). Attalid oikonomos: document 49 shows an Attalid oikonomos receiving instructions to designate a spot for a shrine to erect a stele (was the shrine on royal land?). . A n early Seleukid inscription from Central Asia. w h e r e he also seems to be dealing w i t h m a t t e r s of land and property. Andragoras and Apollodoros. q u o t e d by J o s e p h u s (Ajf 12. u n d o u b t e d l y a local financial official. the m e n t i o n of ή περί Σάρδεis οικονομία s h o w s that L y d i a w a s d i v i d e d into several oikonomiai no d o u b t each a d m i n i s t e r e d b y its o w n oikonomos. w h o s u m m o n e d the e m b a s s y b e f o r e h i m (Δημητρίου] τον εγλογιστοΰ εισκαλεσαμενον τovs [πρεσ]βεντα5 (.261). h o n o u r e d b y the A m y z o n i a n s as well as the epistates of the A r t e m i s i o n and the g o v e r n o r of A l i n d a .).S y r i a and Phoenicia. are still o b s c u r e . the S e l e u k i d official N i k o m e d e s . Oikonomia around Sardeis: document 41 D and Gauthier 1989: 131-4.oikonomoi—operated in parallel to the g o v e r n o r s and their s u b o r d i nates. It seems that the eklogistes contested the A p o l l o n i a n s ' rights over a g r o u p of 'sacred villages': the issue was p e r h a p s w h e t h e r the revenues f r o m these villages b e l o n g e d to the S e l e u k i d state or the A p o l l o n i a n s .d i v i s i o n (such as the oikonomia)}09 F o r the time b e i n g . and faced a c o m p l a i n t f r o m D e m e t r i o s the eklogistes. T h e A p o l l o n i a n s sent an e m b a s s y to S a r d e i s (above). "" Local financial official alongside meridarch: Bengtson 1944: 173 and n. see further § 2 c.

these e x a m p l e s illustrate the i m p o r t a n c e of the officials.176 litres. 1000 Attic medimnoi weigh 40 tonnes. 6 . C . m a y have routinely handled m a n y affairs relevant to the royal e c o n o m y . r e c o r d . H e l i o d o r o s and K l e o n . Record-keeping: land sale (to Laodike I) and survey registered ΐΐς τάς βααλικας γραφάς τάς iv Σάρδεσιν.k e e p i n g — u n d e r the oikonomos. Apollonia: 44. seized f r o m S a m i a n citizens.1 4 . S t r o u t h i o n .1 8 ) . an Attic medimnos is 52. I 1 5 . 1.1613. D o c u m e n t 44.772 kg.1 0 .s u r v e y s .official's attentiveness to local statuses and their fiscal r e p e r c u s sions. w h o (at least in K o i l e .S y r i a . w h o s e title s i m p l y m e a n s ' a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' . AJ 12. entails 40.H .D ./litre.366. In K o i l e . e v e n t h o u g h they w e r e not directly affected: one ruling c o n c e r n s the j u d i c i a l authority of P t o l e m a i o s (qua landlord). or that M e n a n d r o s . was instructed b y L a o d i k e to c o n v e y to the Iasians her gift of f o r t y tons of w h e a t a y e a r . 279 kg.1613. 1 1 0 T h e r e is e v i d e n c e for the administration of the royal d o m a i n — l a n d . 1. back to their original o w n e r s ( S E G 1.2 113 13-14· . G e n e r a l l y . at 0.261).1 8 .S y r i a ) also i n t e r v e n e d in j u d i c i a l cases i n v o l v i n g the villages (in collaboration w i t h the local g o v e r n o r ) . 1 1 2 A dioiketes. which. and passed on the instructions to a dioiketes: TO re [εσόμενον ά]νήλωμα eis τήν hησκευήν τοϋ ύδραγωγίου οιόμε[θα δεΐν δίδο]σθαι €κ βασιλικού 4φ' €τη τρία. RC 18-20. u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I . 1 1 1 F i n a l l y .4 SEG 29. T h e dioiketes h a n d l e d disb u r s e m e n t f r o m the royal treasury (το βασιλικόν): it w a s p e r h a p s in this quality that a dioiketes received instructions (the content is n o w lost) f r o m A n t i o c h o s I I I c o n c e r n i n g N y s a . the oikonomos and the local g o v e r n o r s . RC ig.S/g τ]ώι διοικητήι. A n t i o c h o s I I I p r o m i s e d m o n e y to the H e r a k l e i a n s . πράττζιν τα βασιλικά (Jos.279 kg. και τrepi τούτων γεγράφαμεν [ c. and s h o w that local c o m m u n i t i e s saw t h e m regularly. D o c u m e n t 26 A. lines 110 111 Herakleia: document 31 Β. G . Land surveys: Herrmann 1959. f o r ten is f o u n d s u p e r v i s i n g years. per medimnos·. Laodike gave 1000 medimnoi a year. E . II 11—14. 15~ι6 (does the phrase imply royal archives outside of Sardeis?). Nysa: 43. for the c o n struction of an a q u e d u c t . P t o l e m a i o s son of T h r a s e a s asked for the royal rulings c o n c e r n i n g his estates to be c o m m u n i c a t e d to the local dioiketai. lines 1 5 . the dioiketes. T h i s w i d e range of activities is d e s c r i b e d b y the e x p r e s s i o n 'to handle the k i n g ' s b u s i n e s s ' . 4 . 1 1 3 u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I .F . a dioiketes the transfer of estates. i n t e r v i e w e d the e m b a s s y f r o m A p o l l o n i a . another the e x e m p t i o n of P t o l e m a i o s ' estates f r o m billeting and the repression of abuses on the part of local soldiery. the central dioiketes in S a r d e i s . 1 1 4 the dioiketes m a y have b e e n e x p e c t e d to supervise any decision affecting the royal e c o n o m y . in the practical e x e c u t i o n of the royal e c o n o m y ' s d e m a n d s . Figures: Foxhall and Forbes 1982: 84. Jurisdiction: SEG 29.

A l e x a n d e r n a m e d a c o m m a n d e r of the citadel. not m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e : p e r h a p s a c o n t i n u ously felt or passively inherited inclination for efficiency. w a s to a p p o i n t . 1 1 5 Rather. no. j u r i s 1. Sardeis) answered directly to h i m . 1 1 6 A t S k y t h o p o l i s .44. and took decisions on l a n d o w n e r s h i p at A m y z o n (dedicating αγροί. the various administrative s y s t e m s w e r e separated: the h i e r a r c h y of g o v e r n o r s . a general characteristic is the discrete authority of the financial administration to make its o w n decisions: K t e s i k l e s and M e n a n d r o s are sole recipients of petitions. a satrap of L y d i a . T h e r e are other possible explanations. a t t r i b u t i n g the practice at Sardeis to C y r u s the G r e a t . a g o v e r n o r of L y d i a and a separate c o m m a n d e r of S a r d e i s ( L i v . T h e A c h a i m e n i d k i n g took care to see that garrisons in various strategic places (for instance. A f t e r c a p t u r i n g Sardeis. 7 . an ordinance of P h i l i p V s h o w s h o w garrisonc o m m a n d e r s and financial officials t h r o u g h o u t his k i n g d o m w e r e m e a n t to control and report on each other. 13). a separation in d i f f e r e n t styles and aims of g o v e r n m e n t . Z e u x i s is n o w h e r e to be seen. u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I .7). the distinction should not be o v e r e m p h a s i z e d . T h e cloisonnement of the different b r a n c h e s of administration is usually e x p l a i n e d as the 'separation of p o w e r s ' into d e p a r t m e n t s that c o u l d check each other. has the p o w e r to change ( K L V € Î V ) the status quo. Philip V : IG 12 suppl. to the g o d s of the A r t e m i s i o n ) . the practice is inseparable f r o m the exercise of imperial p o w e r : A n t i o c h o s ' last g e s ture in A s i a M i n o r . in s c r u p u l o u s b u t futile respect of the rule. T h e practice is not specifically S e l e u k i d . 1. In the decree f r o m A p o l l o n i a ( m e n t i o n e d above).(c) Empire at Work S o m e b r o a d e r remarks can be m a d e a b o u t the administrative structures of S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r . D e m e t r i o s . 37. the financial officials. after the defeat of M a g n e s i a . to w h i c h add H d t . See also O r r i e u x 1983: 2 5 . 21. g a t h e r i n g e x a m p l e s b u t w a r n i n g against excessive f o r m a l i s m . 1 . In practice. the eklogistes.3. H o r n b l o w e r 1982: 147—52. Z e u x i s : d o c u m e n t s 1.6 : 'separation of p o w e r s ' in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t . 1 7 .d o n a t i o n to its beneficiary.1 3 . and a financial official. 1. T h e g o v e r n o r s intervened in the royal e c o n o m y : a strategos transferred a royal l a n d .6 L a n d .d o n a t i o n (under A n t i o c h o s I): RC 1 0 . . Anab. 644 (same d o c u m e n t H a t z o p o u l o s 1996: ii. Z e u x i s m a n a g e d the gift to the S a r d i a n s of t i m b e r f r o m the royal forests of T a r a n z a .5 A c h a i m e n i d s : L e w i s 1977: 53 n. First. and the cavalry c o m m a n d e r stationed at A p o l l o n i a intervenes i n f o r m a l l y . A l e x a n d e r : A r r . 7.154. to p r e v e n t the e m e r g e n c e of local p o w e r bases. the military sphere of p h r o u r a r c h s directly answerable to the king. i n t e r c e d ing w i t h D e m e t r i o s — a n action w h i c h s h o w s w h e r e the p o w e r of decision lay. after hearing an e m b a s s y s u m m o n e d on his initiative.

p r i e s t and ό €77t των ιερών. the chief minister. N i k o m a c h o s . was a high official in the 'financial' administration 119 D o c u m e n t 4. ό em τών πραγμάτων. a h v p a r c h . lines 13-16. M e t r o p h a n e s passed the order on to an oikonomos.8 (εποίκια και [σταθμού. 118 L i k e w i s e . ovs βασιλεύς "Ατταλος Εύμενονς νιος τελωνίας χάριν εστήαατο).1180). 1 1 9 T h e v e r b used is συνεργεΐν.] βασιλικούς. It is possible. but the stele ended with the report of the hyparch.diction o v e r the villages w a s exercised b y the oikonomos. It is still not clear whether Seleukid indirect taxation was farmed out. C o l l a b o r a t i o n b e t w e e n officials w a s r e c o g n i z e d as a necessity. For infrastructure assisting in the collection of indirect taxes (by tax-farmers?) under the Attalids: lex portorii provinciae Asiae (SEG 39. Metrophanes to the oikonomos (RC 19). the king. just as the chiliarchies.S y r i a and P h o e n i c i a . letter of the oikonomos to the hyparch [now lost]: these documents were inscribed in reverse chronological order. the strategos of K o i l e . OGIS 55. the instruction to w o r k w i t h h i m in the matters relevant to w h a t has j u s t been said [ N i k a n o r ' s duties. rather than the 'financial administration' ( B i c k e r m a n 1980: 1 5 9 . 1 1 7 T h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of a royal decision c o n c e r n i n g the sale of royal land c o u l d w e a v e b e t w e e n the h i e r a r c h y of g o v e r n o r s and the 'financial' administration: A n t i o c h o s II o r d e r e d M e t r o p h a n e s . lines 16—17. w h o in turn gave instructions to their final recipient. had been under Antigonos M o n o p h t h a l m o s (but there is no evidence for the hyparchies). A n t i o c h o s I I I gave a clear o r d e r to Z e u x i s : σννταξον 'pass on ovv συνεργείν αύτώι els τα προσήκοντα TOLS προδεδηλωμενο^'. T h i s interpretation differs from M u s t i 1965. the k i n g ' s rationale and e x p e c t a tion]'. and H e l i o d o r o s .3 . I prefer Welles's sequence: Antiochos II to Metrophanes (RC 18). T h e tribute w a s m a n a g e d by the financial officials (under the eklogistes?). that Metrophanes. to see to the c o n v e y a n c e of a piece of royal land sold to L a o d i k e I. 117 113 . theoretically a subordinate of M e t r o p h a n e s the g o v e r n o r (RC 18—20). the local g o v e r n o r s . lines 6 7 . the investigation of the finances of the T e m p l e at J e r u s a l e m u n d e r S e l e u k o s I V i n v o l v e d the strategos of K o i l e .1613. but a practical role m u s t h a v e b e e n p l a y e d by the military f o r c e s disseminated in the satrapies.S y r i a and P h o e n i c i a .8 1 ) . instead of a strategos. and to record in the S a r d e i s archives the sale and c o n c o m i t a n t land s u r v e y . 4 1 . proves the practice of tax-farming in Telmessos under the dynast Ptolemaios. p r o b a b l y the strategos of the H e l l e s p o n t i n e satrapy. at Jerusalem. and b y the local g o v e r n o r s . the garrison c o m m a n d e r w a s responsible for the collection of tribute. 120 Billows 1995: 279-84 speculates that the hyparchies were the main unit for tribute collection. however. 1 2 0 T h e g o v e r n o r s and the garrisons p r o b a b l y collaborated in SEG 29. W h e n a p p o i n t i n g N i k a n o r to his responsibilities as h i g h . the last in the administrative sequence (RC 20). territorial divisions in Asia Minor. and the collaboration it implies in the routine of administration w a s h a r d l y a special p o l i c y of A n t i o c h o s I I I or a specific feature of N i k a n o r ' s office. and the p h r o u r a r c h s .

T h e Seleukid official honoured in document 12 could be the missing provincial governor. concentrated at Sardeis. O n the satrapy of Sardeis. garrisons. 1 2 2 It is h a r d l y surprising that the S a r d i a n s or the Prienians sent e m b a s s i e s to Z e u x i s : he p r o b a b l y resided in the first city. 4 1 . 3-4. p r e s u m a b l y h e l p e d to raise taxes on the m o v e m e n t of g o o d s and control the m o v e m e n t of persons. 124 Laodikeia: document 32. 1 6 T h e Seleukid cis-Tauric province had a different shape. royal o r d e r s ( 2 1 . because of the loss of 2 eastern Phrygia to the Galatians. qua v i c e r o y of the p r o v i n c e . 1 2 5 T h i s fact will not be c h a n g e d b y n e w evidence: even if it turns out that A m y z o n .T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r under A n t i o c h o s I I I (this m a y have b e e n the case u n d e r earlier S e l e u k i d rulers as well). military forces. 1 2 1 T h e aspects w h i c h P o l y b i o s dist i n g u i s h e d in his subtle d e s c r i p t i o n of the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e — t r i b u t e . 4-6. not to the strategos of Karia. 1 2 6 Jerusalem: 2 Macc. and other personal taxes. L a o d i k e i a on L y k o s also addressed itself directly to Z e u x i s . 121 122 . A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e dealt w i t h the financial officials at Sardeis. the rights on herds and b e e hives. which shows Bargylia lavishly praising Alexandros (brother of Laodike I and probably viceroy for cis-Tauric Asia Minor) are suggestive. as the garrison c o m m a n d e r did at Jerusalem. likewise. or A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e routinely dealt w i t h the local strategos. Priene: 33. the A m y z o n i a n s w o u l d r e m e m b e r s e n d i n g e m b a s s i e s to Z e u x i s . Apollonia: 44. in c o m p a r i s o n .collecting the agricultural taxation. h y p a r c h s ) . T h e pattern reflects the centralization of c i s . traditionally g o v e r n e d together w i t h L y d i a (above). in the e x e c u t i o n of imperial administration. or Syll. rather than to the strategos of P h r y g i a . see above. I n t r o d u c t i o n ) — m e r g e d on the g r o u n d . 426. the poll-tax. L e w i s 1977: 52-3. with its central registration at Sardeis of a land-sale near K y z i k o s . 1 2 3 H o w e v e r . as well as collecting tribute f r o m local c o m m u n i t i e s . s u c h as the cavalry stationed at A p o l l o n i a or the phylakitai in the h y p a r c h y of Eriza (both on i m p o r t a n t roads). w h i c h had i n c l u d e d m o s t of A n a t o l i a in a single unit. T h e second general feature that e m e r g e s is the pattern of the surv i v i n g material: scanty i n f o r m a t i o n on the local officials (strategoi. 4: 28. and. it will remain true that w i d e l y separated cities addressed t h e m s e l v e s to the viceroy Z e u x i s or the central financial officials. not w i t h any local officials or governors. T h e S e l e u k i d practice of a p p o i n t i n g a v i c e r o y and financial high-officials o v e r the w h o l e cisT a u r i c region s u b o r d i n a t e d the satrapies and their g o v e r n o r s to a v e r s i o n of the A c h a i m e n i d satrapy of Sardeis. and the inclusion of the T r o a d and the Hellespontine regions (the old satrapy of Daskyleion). 1 2 4 A f t e r the disappearance of S e l e u k i d control in 189. and Priene is part of Ionia. 125 D o c u m e n t 47. RC 18-20. 2 . 123 Sardeis: document 40. L a o d i k e i a on L y k o s . the f r e q u e n c y of material pertaining to central officials.

the order to give orders.v. RC 19. RC 12. line 5. line 5. f r o m the king at the top.1613. S e e n u n d e r this light. on account of the parallel n e t w o r k s of administration: a royal edict c o n c e r n i n g e x e m p t i o n f r o m billeting for P t o l e m a i o s ' estates w a s sent to the military officers in the region. Attalid: Segre 1938: 190 line 7. line 14.127 T h e participants share a language of orders: the P a m u k ç u stele. T h e result of this s u r v e y of the m e a g r e e v i d e n c e is an inert p a n o r a m a of 'instit u t i o n s ' — n o t substantially different f r o m B i c k e r m a n ' s classic Institutions des Séleucides or B e n g t s o n ' s k i n g d o m .ΐν ' w h e n it is done. m o s t o f t e n . lines 19 and 24. and w h o m a y have left a discreet trace in the three n u m e r a l s carved on the stele p e d i m e n t ( M a l a y 1987). Other Seleukid examples. line 4. Ptolemaios' dedication: document 21 and commentary. line 6. RC 11. I n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e also notified ' h o r i z o n t a l l y ' . lines 33-41. Preisigke. 127 N o patronymics: Bikerman 1938: 193. 128 U n d e r Antiochos III: document 1.o r d e r b e i n g generated and passed on at each stage. RC 18. line 2. J. lines 19 and 24. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ptolemaic: RC 14. 5. Robert 1945: 12. is in D o r i c . e v e r y o n e says ' w e ' . Ord. no. the language is koine. not dialect: w h i l e a dedication by P t o l e m a i o s . R C 18-20) is structured b y the v e r b συντάσσω. w h i c h designates instructions.A third remark c o n c e r n s m e t h o d and presentation. especially the a r c h i v i n g of the sale at Sardeis (RC 19. to the subordinate officials w h o actually gave the instruction to inscribe the letters onto the stele.b y . T h e S e l e u k i d state appears as an apparatus for transmitting and issuing orders. . Robert 1983: 114 and n. line 13: ώς αν συντελεσθψ γράφον και ήμ. 3. RC 10. because they illustrate e x p e r i e n c e w i t h specific e v i d e n c e . 1 2 8 it describes the p r o c e s s b y w h i c h the apparatus of e m p i r e transmits the royal o r d e r d o w n the h i e r a r c h y . Robert i960: 87 n. the series of his m e m o r a n d a to A n t i o c h o s I I I is w r i t t e n in functional koine. T h e importance of the central financial officials shows that the phenomenon is one of administrative centralization rather than Zeuxis' personal power. 15. or. 140 for examples. son of T h r a s e a s . Herrmann 1959: Συντάξαντος βασιλέως Άντιόχου όροι της ΑΙγαίδος. Ptol. W e m a y start once m o r e f r o m the P a m u k ç u stele. for an occurrence in a fragmentary letter of a king Antiochos (Appendix 3): [καλώ. A s i a M i n o r u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I is rich in d o c u m e n t s w h i c h are u n i q u e l y interesting.. p a t r o n y m i c s and ethnics are d r o p p e d . 5. SEG 29.. and L. C. In this w o r l d . Wörterbuch s. though the rest of the restoration is unacceptable). like other similar d o c u m e n t s (RC 1 0 .1 3 . 24. a new s u b . part of the h y p a r c h ' s report survives (RC 20). 7 and 3. B u t w e can also e x p l o r e the i m p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h the d o c u m e n t s hold out and the q u e s t i o n s they raise.1122. at Soloi. write to us also'). T h e flow of o r d e r s d o w n w a r d s also g e n e r a t e d responses f r o m b e l o w : the oikonomos N i k o m a c h o s asked the h y p a r c h to report on the c o m p l e t i o n of the land-sale to L a o d i k e I b y A n t i o c h o s I I . Petit 1990: 180. ovv ποιήσ]αις σύνταξα ς restored by Piejko ( S E G 39. RC 44.k i n g d o m s t u d y .

that their city had 5 b e e n the subject of a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f r o m < επί τών ιερών. 4-24.b u t also to the local financial officers ( S EG 29. T h e hipparch probably did not go to Sardeis especially to assist the Apollonians: the second time. T h e w h o l e p r o c e s s w a s c u m b e r s o m e . s u m m o n i n g t h e m f o r several hearings. lines 38-9).t o . he reported to D e m e t r i o s the eklogistes. b u t fall w i t h i n the χώρα. receipts. w h e n Z e u x i s was on c a m p a i g n (for w h i c h there is g o o d e v i d e n c e ) or on his circuit ( u n d o c u m e n t e d . qua sacred c o m m u n i t i e s . N o d o u b t M e n e s t r a t o s did m e n t i o n the A m y z o n i a n s ' έννοια t o w a r d s the S e l e u k i d kings and Z e u x i s in his letters. c o m m u n i c a t i o n w a s f a c e . 131 D o c u m e n t 44.1 2 . and ' o f t e n ' to N i k o m e d e s and C h i o n i s . T h e eklogistes c a u g h t an A p o l l o n i a n e m b a s s y w h i c h w a s at S a r d e i s on another business. as the A m y z o n i a n s c l a i m — a m o n g other matters. Jerusalem: 2 M a c c . he k n e w that A p o l l o n i a n representatives w e r e at Sardeis. beside c o n v e y i n g o r d e r s and p r o d u c i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n . w r o t e to Z e u x i s . 1 3 1 T h e S e l e u k i d administration appears active and i n f o r m e d . and w h a t action to take. where a letter from the Attalid 'high-priest' to an oikonomos is also transmitted to another official. w h o acted on the i n f o r m a t i o n . probably the dioiketes.f a c e . 1 3 0 T h e administrative s y s t e m . 1 6 1 3 . u n d e r S e l e u k o s I V . 1 3 2 It is true that an excessively m o d e r n i s t i c interpretation should be avoided. T h e s e operations are well documented in the Zenon dossier (examples analysed in Orrieux 1983). d e m a n d s to his superiors or 'colleagues'. he arrived there only after the Apollonians. 132 W e b e r 1968: iii. W e learn f r o m an A m y z o n i a n honorific decree that the epistates of the A r t e m i s i o n .S y r i a and Phoenicia w e n t to see the k i n g and i n f o r m e d h i m of s u r p l u s a c c u m u l a t i n g in the T e m p l e at Jerusalem. at any rate. b u t p r o b a b l e ) . Another example of horizontal communication: document 49. reports on o r d e r s carried out. 130 Apollonia: document 44. D e m e t r i o s . the strategos of K o i l e . p r o b a b l y on official business. 7 . T h e h i p p a r c h stationed at A p o l l o n i a w e n t twice. to S a r d e i s (where he h e l p e d the A p o l l o n i a n s in their dealings w i t h a financial administrator). 3: 7. p e r h a p s e v e n b u r e a u c r a t i c in the W e b e r i a n sense (rationally and a u t o n o m o u s l y organized). 956-1005. . T h e case of A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e is instructive. generated its o w n actions. 1 2 9 A t times. reached a decision c o n c e r n i n g the 'sacred villages' near the c i t y — p e r h a p s that. ο ivi των Ιερών. W e do not k n o w h o w he reached his decision (personal inspection? the d e n u n c i a t i o n of a n e i g h b o u r i n g city? the petition of the villagers? the report of a subordinate official?). w h e r e they w o u l d be liable to tribute. w i t h two j o u r n e y s f r o m A p o l l o n i a to S a r d e i s and 125 D o c u m e n t 10. s u c h as a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of o r d e r s addressed to h i m or to n e i g h b o u r i n g officials. they should not b e l o n g to the city. M e n e s t r a t o s .

g o v e r n i n g b o d y (next section). T h e territory of A i g a i w a s s u r v e y e d on the orders of A n t i o c h o s I I .5). 135 Documents 5-14. b u t t h r o u g h embassies. since e v e n a s u b j e c t city existed as a s e l f . L a t m o s . the city benefited f r o m A t t a l i d architectural e u e r g e t i s m . the fact implies royal e u e r g e t ism.4) and p r o b a b l y fell back into S e l e u k i d control in 197. or the successor of one of these.8. 1. lay h i g h in the foothills of M t . In the Hellenistic period. located in the m o u n t a i n s of Aiolis. the g o v e r n o r of A l i n d a .back (180 k m . and f o u r or five d a y s each w a y via H i e r a p o l i s and A p o l l o n i a on M a e a n d e r . then over the formidable Baba D a g (ancient M t . an officer ( w i t h troops) sent b y Z e u x i s . . s u c h as the subsidies w e k n o w the city received f r o m the 133 It would take a day or two to journey from Apollonia through the T a b a i plateau. and L. K a d m o s ) to Laodikeia (J. w e learn f r o m a chance reference in a decree of the T e m n i a n s that they celebrated a contest for D i o n y s o s and the 'the k i n g s ' — w h e t h e r S e l e u k i d or A t t a l i d . p o s s i b l y another (now o b s c u r e ) official. they lay w i t h i n reach of the Hellenistic empires: these ' S e l e u k i d ' cities w e r e taken o v e r b y A t t a l o s I. F r o m Laodikeia to Sardeis. the m a i n resource of the A p o l l o n i a n s w a s not appeal to b u r e a u c r a t i c rules. Robert 1983: 2 7 1 . and finally the k i n g himself: six or seven levels of S e l e u k i d authority. Chionis. whence it emerges that the crossing could take five or six hours). six h o u r s a w a y f r o m the M a e a n d e r . A m y z o n w a s not located on a m a j o r route. the 'archaic' features do not change the implication of a p o w e r f u l and active administration (J. 4.3 1 . 1 3 3 the city and the administration c o m m u n i c a t e d not b y m e m o r a n d a . T h e unnamed official is honoured in 12. it is unclear whether this is yet another official in addition to Menestratos. and L . the f u t u r e T r i p o l i s ) . 1 3 5 A m y z o n was not e x c e p t i o n a l . Robert 1954: 2 5 . and L. Remoteness: ibid. A m y z o n . on N i k o m e d e s ) . these cities could p l a u s i b l y be said to be outside the G r e a t K i n g ' s authority (Hellen. as s h o w n b y the case of A i g a i and T e m n o s . and f o u r h o u r s f r o m A l i n d a — u n l i k e A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e . N o n e t h e l e s s . recaptured b y A c h a i o s . h o w e v e r . a financial official (see a b o v e . Anab. taken again b y A t t a l o s I. the traveller might take four days (the T e n T h o u s a n d took four stages to travel from Sardeis to Kolossai: X e n . T h e A m y z o n i a n inscriptions f u r t h e r illustrate the extension of S e l e u k i d state p o w e r . finally. In the 390s ( a d m i t t e d l y a t r o u b l e d time for Persian authority in A s i a M i n o r ) . 1 3 4 Y e t the A m y z o n i a n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y dealt w i t h a S e l e u k i d official appointed over the shrine. the v i c e r o y Z e u x i s .3 . 50-2 and 59-61. and Nikomedes.6).2. in 218 (Pol. Just as tellingly.77. w i t h its m o n u m e n t a l shrine and its scattered villages. but since the beginning of the decree is lost. 47. 5. a c c o r d i n g to a speaker in X e n o p h o n ( D e r k y l l i d a s ) . R o b e r t 1954: 299). 17. 134 Settlement pattern at A m y z o n : J. b u t the patronage of a local S e l e u k i d officer.

'for the rest of our citizens. T h i s sort of movement is an inevitable by-product of an imperial space with differentiated statuses and privileged communities. fragmentary letter of Eumenes II to the city. b u t 'villages' and ' d w e l l e r s ' ( p r o b a b l y agricultural serfs): the H e r a k l e i a n s asked Z e u x i s that these be ' r o u n d e d u p ' : οπως και οί δήμοι και οί οίκηται συναχθώσιν καθότι και πρότερον νπήρχον. 4). such as M y l a s a or A l a b a n d a .203) r e s i d e d — t h e ' a u t o n o m o u s ' cities. 14-16. those w h o live in the a u t o n o m o u s (cities). N o n e t h e l e s s . 139 RC 18. describes the Ottoman prohibition of movement by the subject populations keen to avoid taxation or corvée. 1 1 . J. RC 48.1 3 . Babinger 1978: 235. or taken r e f u g e in the L a t m o s . t h o u g h one m i g h t w o n d e r if the epist.23-26). b y inviting t h e m to the r e p o p u l a t i o n of the A r t e m i s i o n ' . including those which had moved to other villages. III 10. the H e r a k l e i a n s h o p e d that Z e u x i s w o u l d do so. 1 3 6 If the d o c u m e n t a t i o n w e r e fuller. 138 D o c u m e n t 31 Β. T e r r i t o r y of Herakleia: Robert 1987: 198-214. In b o t h cases. O n e of the services the A m y z o n i a n s praised M e n e s t r a t o s f o r w a s his care ύπερ τών άλλων ημών πολιτών τών κατοικούντων τάς αύτονόμους προσκαλούμενος εις τον συνοικισμον τού Αρτεμισίου. h o w Z e u x i s w a s e x p e c t e d to b r i n g t h e m back is unclear.Attalids. A t Herakleia. 3. the situation did not involve citizens. and other h i g h l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s s u c h as K i l d a r a w o u l d resemble the dealings of A m y z o n w i t h the S e l e u k i d a d m i n i s tration. yet firmly under Seleukid control. T e m n o s . .at. only loosely subjected to the Achaimenids (Anab. lines 9-10: άγων for Dionysos and the kings (decree found in Teos). H o w w a s the k i n g ' s p e r f o r m a t i v e utterance realized? S o m e t i m e s . which implies some control of the human resource. 1 3 7 T h e A m y z o n i a n s speak of ' i n v i t i n g ' ( t h r o u g h p r o c l a m a t i o n s in the cities?). T h e same remarks hold true for Mysia. w h i c h p r o v i d e s a subject c o m m u n i t y ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the S e l e u k i d state's capabilities. Robert 1937: 82-7 for buildings.es of the A r t e m i s i o n resorted to m o r e pressing means. and speculates that this was not the case for subject cities or the villages. indicates that Antiochos II sold an estate with its laoi. the e x p e r i e n c e of A i g a i .138 P r e s u m a b l y they had fled to the territory of other cities. A t any rate. next section for 'the autonomous ones'. T e m n o s : Herrmann 1979: 242-3. the S e l e u k i d state played along: its c o n c e r n w a s the control of the h u m a n resource (to avoid d i m i n u t i o n in i n c o m e t h r o u g h the flight of p r o d u c e r s ) 1 3 9 — a n o p e r ation i m p l y i n g strong capabilities and constant attention. 3. and L . M e n e s t r a t o s w a s e x p e c t e d to k n o w w h e r e the other citizens ( p r o b a b l y r e f u g e e s in the a f t e r m a t h of the c a m p a i g n of c. But citizens of such subject cities as Sardeis or Lysimacheia were given Milesian citizenship in 202/3 a n d 197/6 (Günther 1988: nos. remark on the implication that people can come and go from 'autonomous' cities. this w a s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d : in the e x e c u t i o n of 156 Aigai: Herrmann 1959. Robert 1983: 191.2. 137 D o c u m e n t 10. T h e prostagma c o n c e r n i n g N i k a n o r raises questions a b o u t its i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .

J e r u s a l e m m i g h t p r o v i d e a parallel: the T e m p l e w a s in receipt of annual s u b sidies f r o m S e l e u k o s I V . Kadoos. and h o w c o u l d they sanction diso b e d i e n c e ? In A m y z o n . w h i c h s h o w s that a b o d y of k n o w l e d g e w a s kept alive a m o n g the administration. . 3: 2 . L'nless the eponymy of these three officials had been abrogated. in spite of being a 'military colony' probably founded by Antiochos I I I . T h e r e is no trace of an official in charge of shrines/sacred affairs in the relations between Seleukos II and Labraunda (Crampa 1969). 141 A s h i g h . offer a parallel ( A J 12. . Amyzon: 9. for the p u r p o s e of sacrifices. in addition. the epistates of the A r t e m i s i o n c o u l d have e n f o r c e d the o r d e r . the royal subsidies to the T e m p l e at Jerusalem. On the other hand. A s 'official in charge of the sanctuaries'.243. which would explain w h y Antiochos III referred to precedent under Antiochos II (document 4. or r e m i n d e d the A m y z o n i a n s of it. a Jew a p p o i n t e d to act as a local S e l e u k i d official. did not bother to observe the regulations of three royal edicts. N i k a n o r could rely on the collaboration (auvepyefv. M o r e p r o b l e m a t i c : A n t i o c h o s I I I had d e c i d e d that N i k a n o r w o u l d be m e n t i o n e d in legal acts. as a representative of the k i n g ' s p i o u s zeal.p r i e s t . the Kardakes. lines 1-2) would qualify for the eponymy of Nikanor. reported to the g o v e r n o r of the satrapy that surplus f r o m the subsidies w a s a c c u m u l a t i n g in the T e m p l e treasury. B u t A m y z o n ( w h e r e the e p o n y m y of N i k a n o r appears in 202 and 201) and X a n t h o s ( w h e r e the e p o n y m y appears in 196) w e r e taken o v e r by the S e l e u k i d s l o n g after the original p r o m u l g a t i o n of the prostagma.3 ) . 1 4 0 A n o t h e r series of processes w h i c h can be e x p l o r e d in s o m e detail relates to the office of ' h i g h . and. perhaps because the office lapsed under Seleukos II.p r i e s t of the sanctuaries' in c i s . . W e can assume this a m o u n t e d to w i d e p u b l i c i t y . publicized on stelai in the most prominent shrines. In the Καρδάκων κώμη near Telmessos. duly asked 'that I be allowed to set up a stele. priest of Apollo Pleurenos. T h e actual implementation may have been loose. h o w was this item then i m p l e m e n t e d ? H o w c o u l d Z e u x i s and his s u b o r d i n a t e s c h e c k on c o m p l i a n c e . 2 M a c c . 24. N i k a n o r ' s brief w a s to a d m i n i s t e r 'the finances and the other matters'.140. A g a i n .his duties. B. the 'προστάτης a p p o i n t e d over the s a n c t u a r y ' . when applying to Nikanor for permission to inscribe a list of the god's initiates.T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r c o m b i n e d w i t h the authority of 6 i-rri τών ίερών. having inscribed his (Nikanor's) name . 13. to finance local sacrifices. of the high-priest of Antiochos and his ancestors and of the priestess of Laodike. p r e s u m a b l y b y d i s p e n s i n g royal subsidies and actually p e r f o r m i n g sacrifice. 29-40. see above) of the local g o v e r n o r s . w h o w o u l d e n f o r c e N i k a n o r ' s royally decreed authority. 10. none of these appears on the contract. a contract concluded in 193 (Segre 1938: 190. N i k a n o r was meant to take care (alongside 'the other t h i n g s ' ) of 'the sacrifices'. this decision was c o n v e y e d to the s u b j e c t s b y ' p u b l i c a t i o n ' on stelai in the most p r o m i n e n t shrines. Xanthos: 23. the 140 Prostagma: document 4. 40-1).' (document 49). 141 D o c u m e n t 4. the regular s c h e d u l e of o f f e r i n g s in the local shrines.

d o c u m e n t .7 ) .c e r e m o n i a l gesture. 0 €7τ! των ιερών. in this case a pair of villages d e p e n d e n t on a city (J. seems p u r e l y local: the desire of the priest to put u p a list of the mystai. . p r o b a b l y a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on the status of 'sacred villages' near A p o l l o n i a .g i v e o r d e r s ' .t o . the priest. T h e affair thus m o b i l i z e d the w h o l e apparatus of administrative c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( c o m p l e t e w i t h υπόμνημα and the ' o r d e r . if it seems appropriate to give that order. expressed b y συντάσσω) b e t w e e n s u b j e c t . restricted to initiates?). 1 4 2 Memorandum to Euthydemos the high-priest from Kadoos. initiated b y a m e m o r a n d u m f r o m the priest of A p o l l o P l e u r e n o s . acting in the same capacity as the prostates of the T e m p l e at Jerusalem. N i k a n o r (and later c o n f i r m e d by N i k a n o r ' s successor u n d e r the A t t a l i d s . and mine and that of the initiates (mystai). D e m e t r i o s seems to h a v e e n j o y e d some authority in all t h i n g s sacred. D a t i n g to E u m e n e s I I . i n c l u d i n g .1 3 . 3: 2 . first because it p r o v i d e s m o r e specific e v i d e n c e for the office επί τών Ιερών and second because it c o n f i r m s o u r i m p r e s s i o n s of S e l e u k i d administration in general. and L . take care to 142 D o c u m e n t 49. O n e d o c u m e n t e d action is the report filed b y D e m e t r i o s . is i m p o r t a n t . for permission to put up in the shrine a stele on which 1 should record his name. B u t the w h o l e i n v o l v e m e n t of the imperial state is all the m o r e striking because the matter. M e n e s t r a t o s . for w h a t e v e r reason (perhaps as a r e l i g i o u s . A final. the longstanding priest of Apollo in Pleura: I earlier asked Nikanor. and now I ask you. to the eklogistes (above). as the R o b e r t s o b s e r v e . R o b e r t 1954: 2 9 6 . or to help control access to certain religious activities. w h o w e n t to inspect (επίσκεψις) the T e m p l e finances (but.matter w a s investigated by the 'chief m i n i s t e r ' . H e l i o d o r o s . then u n d e r the A t t a l i d s — b e f o r e selected parts of the dossier w e r e p u b l i s h e d as authorization for the inscribed list. w a s p r e v e n t e d b y supernatural visions: 2 M a c c . the story goes. it m e n t i o n s that the erection of the stele w a s authorized b y the S e l e u k i d official in charge of sacred matters. b u t t w i c e . may have technically been a s u b o r d i n a t e of N i k a n o r . T h i s is the recently p u b l i s h e d list of the mystai of A p o l l o P l e u r e n o s . involve the S e l e u k i d and A t t a l i d authorities? H e did not m e r e l y f o l l o w the prostagma of 209. w i t h B i c k e r m a n 1985: 1 5 9 .7 2 ) . i n t r i g u i n g . But w h y did K a d o o s . to write to Asklepiades the oikonomos to give me a place in which I may set up the stele on which I may record your name and mine and that of the initiates. the epistates of the A r t e m i s i o n . one E u t h y d e m o s ) . and. in L y d i a . under Antiochos the king. first u n d e r the S e l e u k i d s . h i g h official. as he was r e q u i r e d to do. and subordinate o f f i c i a l s — n o t once.

the c o m p u l s o r y e p o n y m y of N i k a n o r b e l o n g e d to a set of institutions w h i c h i m p o s e d the S e l e u k i d presence on the passage of time. N i k a n o r ' s residence.p r i e s t be i n c l u d e d in the h e a d i n g of all legal acts. in years and decades. listing the initiates of a local deity. ίττ' άρχιερεως Νικάνορος). n o w m e a s u r e d in the subject c o m m u n i t i e s b y M a c e d o n i a n m o n t h s and S e l e u k i d years. and w h y did he ask N i k a n o r ' s successor to designate a place. ι § 1). of kings ruling or officials' o c c u p y i n g their f u n c t i o n (βασιλενόντοίν Άντιόχον και Άντιόχον τον νιου . asked a h i e r a r c h y of s u b o r d i n a t e s to p u b l i c i z e the decision e p i g r a p h i c a l l y . and the even broader scale of the S e l e u k i d era. W h y did K a d o o s feel the need. still w i t h i n the shrine.p r i e s t h o o d in the h e a d i n g of his d o c u m e n t . or obligation. b y attesting direct and close control. he w a s issuing a c o m p l e x message about imperial p o w e r . in reference to p r e c e d e n t ' u n d e r o u r g r a n d f a t h e r ' . detailed i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h the affairs of a local shrine. m a y have s u b j e c t e d the shrine at P l e u r a to m o r e intense f o r m s of S e l e u k i d control. in that deity's o w n shrine.T a u r i c A s i a M i n o r . the issue of p r o p e r t y m a y i m p l y that this particular shrine w a s built on land s o m e h o w considered the k i n g ' s o w n . N o n e t h e l e s s . an active. or close scrutiny b y S e l e u k i d officials and hence to K a d o o s ' p r u d e n t request for permission. (d) Institutions as Rhetoric W T hen A n t i o c h o s 111 designated a h i g h .m e n t i o n N i k a n o r ' s h i g h . for p e r m i s s i o n to erect a stele. and i m p o s e d on the i m m e n s e landscape of A s i a M i n o r . the u n i f o r m i t y of imperial administration ( C h . T h e p r o c l a i m e d intention that N i k a n o r take care of sacrifices as h i g h . A n a l o g o u s l y . p r o x i m i t y to Sardeis.p r i e s t and official o v e r all the shrines of c i s . for the stele? T h e exact c i r c u m s t a n c e s are still unclear. b u t also by the slower beat. all these aspects taking shape in b u r e a u c r a t i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n b o t h vertical and horizontal. at least for certain parts of the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e . It w o u l d be u n c a u t i o u s to b u i l d a general picture f r o m this single piece of e v i d e n c e . and r e q u i r e d that the h i g h . f r a g m e n t e d g e o g r a p h i c ally and historically. attentive administration e n d o w e d w i t h strong capacities f o r control and i n v o l v e m e n t . to petition (άξιόω) N i k a n o r in the first place. . e x t r a p o l a t i n g to claim that the S e l e u k i d state exercised tight control over the internal adminstration of every local shrine in the royal land. It thus b e l o n g s to the b o d y of e v i d e n c e that implies. . w h i c h c o v e r e d o v e r a c e n t u r y of S e l e u k i d p o w e r b y the time of .p r i e s t and of shrine finances as 6 i-rri τών ιερών p r o c l a i m e d authority and l e g i t i m a c y . and a s u b j e c t ' s need to obtain p e r m i s s i o n for a local gesture. the stele f r o m Pleura illustrates one possible case.

the f o r m is c u m b e r s o m e and less effective than a simple p r o c l a m a t i o n . 143 D o c u m e n t s 9. Rather. o r g a n i z e d and d e s c r i b e d as a family business (πράγματα). the i n d i v i d u a l s and c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h will preface their d o c u m e n t s administrés w i t h N i k a n o r ' s n a m e — l o c a l c o m p l i a n c e on the part of les is p u b l i c l y taken for granted. T h e t e c h n o l o g y of g o v e r n m e n t w a s also a rhetoric of p o w e r . the shrines w h o s e h i g h priest N i k a n o r b e c o m e s and w h o s e finances he will oversee. or the latent u n d e r p i n n i n g of control: p r e v i o u s section). and hierarchical c o m m u n i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n e d as p e r f o r m a n c e or as narrative.' 1 4 4 T h e effect is c o m p o u n d e d by the fact sets in m o t i o n the apparatus of administration to that this prostagma carry out the k i n g ' s will to celebrate h i m s e l f and his q u e e n t h r o u g h cultic h o n o u r s . celebrating the efficacy of orders and the o v e r c o m i n g of distance and time b y the e m p i r e at w o r k . 10. 1 4 3 T h e i m p o s i t i o n of a S e l e u k i d c o n c e p t u a l g e o g r a p h y and a S e l e u k i d time are acts of s y m b o l i c a l violence. T h e P a m u k ç u stele does m o r e than j u s t p u b l i c i z e the S e l e u k i d claims. T h e similarity of these d o c u m e n t s w a s a f u r t h e r significant feature. 144 R o b e r t 1949: 8 (the second Iranian c o p y of the prostagma was p u b l i s h e d b y R o b e r t 1967). w i t h o u t ever c o n sulting or addressing the party finally c o n c e r n e d . the k i n g ' s letter m o b i l i z e s the imperial administration. πρόγραμμα (AJ 1 2 . It b e l o n g s to a w h o l e genre of d o c u m e n t s .W h i t e in S h e r w i n W h i t e and K u h r t 1987: 27. official speaks of official. as real as the military violence w h i c h characterized the e m p i r e ( w h e t h e r actual violence d u r i n g c o n q u e s t . .6 ) . m u c h of the ideological effect of the d o c u m e n t resides in the fact that it is not directly addressed to the subjects: its effect is to display the m e c h a n i s m of o r d e r transmission and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T o p r o c l a i m these feelings. R o b e r t d e s c r i b e d the effect of c o m p a r i n g identical copies of the prostagma of 193 c o n c e r n i n g cultic h o n o u r s for L a o d i k e . one f o u n d in P h r y g i a . O n the notion of Seleukid time. b u t s i m p l y d i s p l a y e d in m o n u m e n t a l f o r m : k i n g speaks to official. T h e administrative dossier is not c o n v e r t e d into a direct act of c o m m u n i cation w i t h the ruled. S h e r w i n . L . 1 4 5 .A n t i o c h o s III. T h e k i n g ' s decision is m o t i v a t e d b y the tender feelings (φιλοστοργία) w h i c h he receives f r o m the q u e e n and w h i c h he has for her. w h e r e a royal o r d e r is not s i m p l y p u t up to i n f o r m the local c o m m u n i t i e s of its content ( ' f r o m n o w one e v e r y o n e is to m e n t i o n the n a m e of N i k a n o r in c o n t r a c t s ' ) — f o r that p u r p o s e . t w o in Iran: ' R i e n ne p e u t m i e u x faire sentir ce qu'était l ' e m p i r e des Séleucides. thus d e m o n s t r a t i n g the patrimonial nature of the e m p i r e : the official display of f a m i l y feelings and of a familial style m a k e s clear the nature of the state.

145 A w a r e n e s s of e m p i r e a m o n g s u b j e c t s took a m o r e articulate f o r m than mere taking notice. 6 οίκονομών τα Λαοδίκης (RC 18. lines 4 and 6). h o w e v e r . εκλογιστής τον Άχαιού). in 269 (I. the f o r m of the epigraphical p u b l i c a t i o n of adminstrative dossiers a d d s to their ideological force: the m o n u m e n t a l f o r m . the s t r u c tures of p o w e r . 146 D o c u m e n t 25. . T h e rhetoric of e m p i r e played its part in c o n s t r u c t i n g a S e l e u k i d space. w i t h i n w h i c h individuals and c o m m u n i t i e s w e r e aware of the state. c o m m o n to rulers and ruled. and the private m a n a g e r of L a o d i k e I. but the generalising force of the sentence is clear. the e p o n y m y of the local S e l e u k i d g o v e r n o r ) and their l a n d l o r d ' s m a n a g e r s (ο τα Αχαιού οίκονομών. the ruler's personal affair (πράγματα): 145 Achaios the elder is not a 'dynast'. It c o m e s as no surprise that A n t i o c h o s II and his s u b o r d i n a t e s s h o u l d have d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n a S e l e u k i d financial officer. privileges. in the expression επιμελητής τον τόπου earlier in the same document. line 24. Laodikeia am Lykos 1): e v e n if they spoke of A c h a i o s as 'lord of the place' ( e n j o y i n g full private o w n e r s h i p of his estate). and thus g i v e s substance to the efficiency it claims for itself. w i t h φιλάνθρωπα. its rhetorical f u n c t i o n is to m a k e visible. the e n f o r c e m e n t of orders. 1 4 6 Z e u x i s ' phrase is based on a s s u m p t i o n s about the nature of e m p i r e . is s u m m a r i z e d b y Z e u x i s ' letter to K i l d a r a : 'the same things are g r a n t e d to y o u as to all the others b y the [great] king A n t i o c h o s ' . statuses. grants. ensures the iteration of the royal speech-acts. designates an administrative subdivision of the Seleukid empire. as patrimonial state. or help to i m a g i n e . e x h i b i t i n g the same initial royal instruction c o n c e r n i n g N i k a n o r and tracing the path of its i m p l e m e n t a t i o n d o w n local b r a n c h e s of S e l e u k i d administration. RC 20. the diversity of local agents gave an implicit y e t v i v i d representation of the e x t e n s i o n of the e m p i r e .5 . T h e exact phrasing and translation are now obscure.Both this prostagma and the earlier one c o n c e r n i n g N i k a n o r c o n f r o n t e d the traveller w i t h a repeated epigraphical narrative of S e l e u k i d administration. like Ptolemaios in Koile-Syria: I assume that τόπος here designates this estate. T h e genre of the hierarchical dossier expresses the p o w e r to c o m m a n d : the classification of the landscape into administrative units. the peasants c o u l d differentiate b e t w e e n institutions of the central state (the official dating b y reign of the S e l e u k i d kings. b y the peasants on the estate of A c h a i o s the elder. F i n a l l y . 2 . T h e obsession. u n i t y of p u r p o s e spoke of a central p o w e r . T h e same distinction is m a d e . o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h the m e c h a n i s m of 'petition and response' ( M i l l a r 1992). in its p e r m a n e n c e and its visibility. whereas the same word. but the private owner of a large estate. though he is called κύριος του τόπου by his peasants. the regulation of details. 0 οικονόμος.

imperial presence was a tool of d o m i n a t i o n in itself. b y nature. 33-4. T h e T e i a n s considered that they paid their and his bon plaisir. Schuller. and o w e d such taxes to A n t i o c h o s I I I . 1 0 . 2 § 5). 'the place in which he executed some favours and promised others'. as in the cases of H e r a k l e i a or S a r d e i s (discussed above. Nikanor: document 4. 150 A n illuminating parallel—because the situation is a direct descendant of the Hellenistic—is provided b y the Roman empire: Millar 1992: 420-2 on the 'vocabulary of gifts' modulating the relations between ruler and ruled. Manville 1990: 35-54.2 ! ! . syntaxis) directly to A t t a l o s I. his dynastic awareness. It f o u n d its expression in a s y s t e m of legal statuses and in the a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g it. both cities m a n a g e d to obtain ateleia for the period of a festival). with e. 1 4 8 T h e implication w a s the S e l e u k i d state's pervasiveness. I V 5 (Herakleia). Pol. the polis w a s a state. 149 D o c u m e n t s 31 Β. as a result of petition b y the ruled and the b e n e v o l e n c e of the ruler: this is o b v i o u s in the relation of the local c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h the royal e c o n o m y .d o c u m e n t e d local c o m m u n i t i e s . the poleis of A s i a M i n o r . w h e r e it agreed to hold back. accepted. 1006-69. or periods. 48. for c o n s t r u c t i n g e m p i r e as the closing limit of the s u b j e c t s ' h o r i z o n — t h e ideology w h i c h R o m a n ' m e d d l i n g ' in 1 9 6 . For royal conviction (πέπειομαι) as the proclaimed motive for action. T e o s and taxation: 17. φίλάνθρα)πα. o r g a n i z e d in a d e c i s i o n m a k i n g c o m m u n i t y .g. W . and that it w a s A n t i o c h o s I I I (and L a o d i k e ) w h o had personally freed the city f r o m t r i b u t e — a s indeed he had. Sakellariou 1989: 66-77. t h r o u g h a speech in the assembly.A n t i o c h o s I I I justified the a p p o i n t m e n t of N i k a n o r in an e g o c e n t r i c language c o m b i n i n g references to N i k a n o r ' s disposition t o w a r d s the king. these can be studied in the case of the b e s t . 151 Arist. 3. 3. 1 4 9 It does not matter if e x e m p t i o n s w e r e f r e q u e n t : ' b e n e factions'. in Hansen 1993: 106—28: institutional analysis of the . s t r u c t u r e d b y n o r m s and essentially d e m o c r a t i c institutions w h o s e authority regulated the c o m m o n life. e x c e p t in those specific locations.1 9 3 BC challenged f r o m outside ( C h . personal monarchy: Bikerman 1938: 7 . City Statuses: The Typology of Subordination T h e polis w a s a corporate b o d y of citizens. Herrmann 1965a: 54. based on the a s s u m p t i o n that the c o n d i t i o n s of the local c o m m u n i t i e s ' existence are the result of their relations w i t h the ruling power. (Antiochos' speech was held in the boideuterion. 143 Patrimonial state: W e b e r 1968: iii. areas. t S Ç . and hallowed by a nexus of ritual: 18.14' taxes {phoros. represented a s y s t e m of g o v e r n m e n t . 1 5 0 T h i s i d e o l o g y of pervasive. 19-20.1 7 . 1 5 1 It w a s m a n y other things: a m o n u m e n t a l 147 D o c u m e n t 4.1 2 (Sardeis). 1252 s : polis as κοινωνία. 29-38). for naturalizing e m p i r e . the k i n g ' s feelings and c o n v i c t i o n s .

the kosmoi have responsibility for military activities. 1 5 4 T h e Hellenistic poleis kept their distinct political existence. Liv. a s y s t e m of participatory rituals. left to run t h e m s e l v e s ' . 20 and 23 for citizen army. Hansen 1995. a sense of place and of past. Ober. and h e n c e a society. O n civic norms and identity. Nicolet 1990: 5-6. Military: Euromos: document 30. 38. their m a n a g e m e n t b y a c c o u n t a b l e officials. n .4. b u t a legacy f r o m the polis and a reflection of the latter's values. 152 Beyond the state: J. which gives trouble to Manlius V u l s o and was probably not raised overnight after Magnesia ( L i v . u n d e r direct S e l e u k i d control (see b e l o w ) .a c t o r civilization'. on the list of theorodokoi from Delphi. Heuss 1937: 247-8. it is a mistake to d o w n s c a l e t h e m to ' t o w n s . m i d d l e A m e r i c a or the S o v i e t U n i o n ' ( G r e e n 1990: 198). . 154 Polis not necessarily independent: Welles 1956: 87. w i t h élites s e g m e n t e d f r o m c o m m o n people in a w o r l d w i t h o u t a civil society (in contrast to the p o w e r f u l c o m m o n identity of the polis). Recognition by other poleis·. the polis w a s selfg o v e r n i n g and politically autarkic. the raising of p u b l i c m o n i e s . T y r i a i o n .1 2 . for a village. in Hansen 1993: 129-60 (polis as society). 40). and h e n c e an identity. 3-8. for army at T e r m e s s o s in 189). on the polis as the world of politics. likewise. and L . 1 5 2 B u t all these aspects w e r e d e e p l y politicized. as u n r e m a r k a b l e a p h e n o m e n o n in the H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d as in 'mediaeval E n g l a n d . O n e m a y contrast O t t o m a n T u r k e y : the landscape w h i c h had h a r b o u r e d the life of the H e l l e n i s t i c poleis w a s s u b j e c t e d to state-fostered s e g m e n t a t i o n (Barkey 1994: 2 6 .15. linked in a ' m u l t i . and t o w n s e g m e n t e d f r o m t o w n (unlike the vibrant international life of the poleis). receiving a charter as Ά polis from Eumenes II: it will enjoy its own constitution and laws (ί'διοι νόμοι). Robert 1983: nos. par excellence. 'allied' cities s u c h as E u r o m o s . M u r r a y 1990: 21 on polis as expression of the common will.m a k i n g bodies. possessed d e c i s i o n . OMS 1. 1 3 .u r b a n centre and a territory. 153 Politicization: M u r r a y 1990. 331. a locus of h u m a n interaction. T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n Hellenistic A s i a M i n o r and the O t t o m a n p r o v i n c e of A y d i n points out h o w the a s s u m p t i o n that local c o m m u n i t i e s should 'run t h e m s e l v e s ' is not natural. 'Multi-power-actor civilization': M a n n 1986: 76. b u t e v e n subject cities s u c h as T a b a i or A m y z o n . 1 5 3 T h o u g h not necessarily e n j o y i n g i n d e p e n d e n c e (an aspiration rather than a c o t e r m i n o u s characteristic). decree from Xanthos (on the 'trilingual stele'). 3 8 . military means. exhibiting all the traits of the decision-making polis. . T a b a i has an army in 189. the polis as state is w h a t matters. See now Jonnes and Ricl 1997. Polis as autarkic. finances. and the m u t u a l a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t as polis b y other poleis. . a descent g r o u p w i t h its m y t h s . the register of official hosts for Delphian theoroi in every polis. polis as state. Hahn 1978: 20—2 for analysis of the 4th-cent. and for the present p u r p o s e s .7 . Robert. if not necessarily sovereign: V e y n e 1976: 106-10. A m y z o n : J. especially in s u c h institutional f o r m s as the military control of territory.p o w e r .

F o r H e u s s . and L . taxation. because they w e r e mere a d j u n c t s to the cities' w o r k i n g s . B i c k e r m a n ' s ' s u r r e n d e r and grant' m o d e l f o r the legal basis of s u b o r d i n a t i o n is substantiated b y the literary and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . because it was. 6. such as his interpretation of royally sponsored 'foreign judges' as interference in civic autonomy). F o r m a l l y . A s n o t e d earlier (§ 1). though some examples are debatable.o f f b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s I I I and the recalcitrant cities. i n c l u d i n g the poleis. w h i c h in p u r e l y legal terms. w e can investigate it t h r o u g h the literary and d o c u m e n t a r y evidence.' But Versnel misunderstands the force of Bikerman's objections and arguments. 1 5 5 H e u s s held that the autarkic s e l f . f ° r Kollisionen between royal power and formal sovereignty of the cities. T e c h n i c a l flaws: Bikerman 1939. H e u s s ( f o l l o w e d by T a r n and Magie). Magie 1950: 56-7. as H e u s s is aware. C o n q u e s t of a local c o m m u n i t y w a s f o l l o w e d b y the recreation of its status b y royal grant. 1. 1 5 7 w h o d e m o n s t r a t e d the existence of f o r m a l . Robert 1954: 300 nn. Versnel 1990: 74 and n. on t e r m s of the c o n q u e r o r ' s choosing: A n t i o c h o s I I I ' r e a c q u i r e d ' (άνακτησά- 155 Heuss 1937. and n o t h i n g m o r e . h e l p f u l activities sanctioned b y the c o m m u n i t y (as illustrated by the grateful civic decrees h o n o u r i n g these activities). and a i m e d at their p r o v i n c i a l ization. u n t o u c h a b l e .g o v e r n a n c e of the polis ( w h i c h he correctly saw as essential to its nature) a m o u n t e d to full s o v e r e i g n t y . the relation w a s n e v e r one of legal s u b o r d i n a t i o n . Bikerman adduces facts which point to legal (and not just political. b u t of h e g e m o n i c a l l i a n c e — e v e n if. w a s not i n f r i n g e d b y the Hellenistic kings. . M y position is at variance w i t h the first i m p o r t a n t attempt at a systematic t h e o r y of the relation b e t w e e n city and ruler. de facto) relations. p r o p o s e d b y A . 157 Bikerman 1939 (also Orth 1977: 184-5. most tellingly b y B i c k e r m a n (one need not b e l a b o u r the technical flaws in H e u s s ' s arguments). 1. the cities w e r e allies of a k i n g . 123 attempts to resurrect Heuss's theory: 'Heuss's first thesis [no explicit legal structures] has not been disproved. Robert in Holleaux 1942: 325 n. did not affect the cities' s o v e r e i g n t y . S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s (see I n t r o d u c t i o n ) . J. 199-227.H o w did the poleis fit into the H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e s ? T h e issue w a s raised in w i n t e r 197/6 b y the s t a n d . b y definition. to study the hierarchy of legal structures w h i c h integrated the poleis into an e m p i r e . 822-34 (where the view is restricted to 'real' Greek cities). T a r n 1948: ii. g o v e r n o r s . m u c h of it S e l e u k i d and especially f r o m the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I . legal structures. w h i c h shaped the relation b e t w e e n ruler and ruled. 156 Heuss insisted in a 1963 Nachwort that his theory bore exclusively on the legal relation between ruler and city (misunderstood by Green 1989: 183). the k i n g s controlled the cities de facto}56 H e u s s ' s theory has b e e n d i s p r o v e d . all manifestations of the royal state w e r e informal: royal garrisons.

21.N a q u e t 1972.g o v e r n i n g (the necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r their political existence) 1 6 1 and s u b o r d i n a t e to the k i n g — p r e c i s e l y the situation w h i c h H e u s s denied. p r o p o s i n g the term ' m i c r o . ML 89. o p e n l v f o r m a l i z e d in treaties.109. 161 J. in the case of the L y d i a n s . a restoration proposed b y J. T h e .27. 13.34. 1 5 9 T h e possible c o i n c i d e n c e of pol is-existence (local political autarky. also 7. R o b e r t 1951: 1 . and w h o s e ancestral constitution (πάτριον πολίτευμα) and territory were restored in the aftermath ( L i v . this is n o t a grant of a u t o n o m y (as to e. 159 A u t h o r i t y over civic territory: Seleukid m a r k i n g out of the territory of Aigai ( H e r r m a n n 1959. R o b e r t 1989: 80-4 on Paus. b u t merely the consent to the continued existence of the city as political c o m m u n i t y . or g i v e n to other cities. it explains royal authority o v e r the territory and e v e n the existence of cities. as w e can tell 158 D o c u m e n t 26 A . only that the c o m m u n i t y had enjoyed liberty earlier. 218 and n. 4 .5. Pol. and the city of Nysa.2. A b o l i t i o n of cities' existence: A n t i g o n o s M o n o p h t h a l m o s founded Antigoneia (later Alexandreia T r o a s ) out of several poleis of the T r o a d (Billows 1990: 294-5).14. b u t gave back its laws and liberty. T h e y w e r e selfg o v e r n i n g . 1 1 8 . S i n o p e in 400/399 ' o w n e d ' the n e i g h b o u r i n g city of K o t y o r a and levied tribute off it.5. above. albeit (probably) under Attalid subjection ( M a s t r o c i n q u e 1994: 452). Pol. and L .e m p i r e s ' for such situations. 8. L y s i m a c h o s suppressed K o l o p h o n and L e b e d o s to increase his foundation. 2 § 2 on e. Robert) to A m y z o n (1983: no.2. 2: a city is not necessarily independent because it issues d e c r e e s — s o do subordinate cities. 7 . and L . 11. with O r t h 1977: 169-70). Herakleia). shows that the Seleukids recreated K e b r e n and Skepsis b y detaching them f r o m the n e w city. if they are to be cities/poleis.g.7 a ° d 7 · 3 · 4 . 1 5 8 T h e nature of the transaction b e t w e e n city and ruler was the same as that b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s I I I and the vassal k i n g s of the East. Anab. w h e r e cities s u b o r d i n a t e d other cities: f i f t h .39. 1.c e n t u r y T h a s o s controlled cities on the coast o p p o s i t e the island. § 1. 1 . as Heuss or M a g i e held.7 with Austin and V i d a l . yet subjected all of them to the authority of a satrap. a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t as a polis) and of s u b o r d i n a t i o n is f u r t h e r p r o v e d b y cases. line 2). 7. Anab.fievos) Iasos. 4.9. 1 7 . Arsinoeia/Ephesos: J. 162 Bengtson 1944: 141 and n.7 . o v e r other c o m m u n i ties.g. ' G i v i n g back' does not imply that city liberty was inalienable. and. the Euergetai. some of w h i c h w e r e abolished b y a ruler's fiat. Hellenistic Crete: C h a n i o t i s 1996: 160-8. A n t i o c h o s I I I may have granted its ancestral constitution (π[άτριος πολιτεία]. because the k i n g b y ' g i v i n g back' their constitution 1 6 2 or their laws had g r a n t e d their c o n t i n u i n g existence as political c o m munities. 37. R o b e r t 1954: 301 n.45. 160 T h a s o s : H d t . 3. 16î A l e x a n d e r granted the freedom of the L y d i a n s .7).23.32.20.26). to tribute (Arr.5 · Cities given to other cities: L y s i m a c h o s g a v e several cities to Ilion (Strabo 13.1. and several cities in Hellenistic C r e t e exercised rights of d o m i n a t i o n . 5. 4. dissolved in royal f o u n d a t i o n s .1: plan to conquer the A r a b s and to allow them to 'live a c c o r d i n g to their c u s t o m s ' ) — t h e s e grants probably correspond to the restoration of local self-governance.2.10). Ilion received Rhoiteion and G e r g i s f r o m R o m e ( L i v . to w h o m he g r a n t e d the right to rule ( C h . I 8-9. Classical and H e l l e n i s t i c .3 6 . 5.9). A clear case is Phokaia. 1 6 3 they w e r e f o r m a l l y s u b o r d i n a t e to a k i n g . and L . w h i c h surrendered to the R o m a n s in 190. Sinope: X e n . 1 6 0 M a n y poleis w e r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e l f . 38.

m e a n t n o t h i n g less. . their villages. the T e l m e s s i a n s uttered curses against w h o e v e r m i g h t ask for their city. to focus on the diversity of direct taxation (and on the formally voluntary contributions) does not diminish the fact that φόρος was imposed. because it was levied from the city en bloc and hence did not infringe the city's autonomous internal workings. T h e legal rights o v e r a s u b o r d i n a t e c o m m u n i t y . w h o sold it to A t t a l o s I (Pol. AJ 13. as for the second. T h e most o b v i o u s f o r m of d o m i n a t i o n w a s royal taxation. H e u s s ' s claim that tribute did not infringe the c i t y ' s a u t o n o m y is u n c o n v i n c i n g .1224): the curses. w a s g i v e n to the A i t o l i a n s . w h e n she d e s c r i b e d A n t i o c h o s I I I as ' r e a c q u i r i n g ' Iasos. 1 7 . w e r e c o m p a r a b l e to those of earlier N e a r . son of L y s i m a c h o s ( O G I S 55). 22. Anab.10). Robert 1954: 300 n. b u t s u b o r d i n a t i o n (Pol. S u b o r d i n a t e cities paid tribute. c o n c e i v e d in t e r m s of o w n e r s h i p . or their land iv Swpeâ 1. 1 .E a s t e r n kings (and in fact descend f r o m them).5). 1 6 4 T h e royal e c o n o m y also penetrated the civic sphere of the s u b o r d i n a t e poleis t h r o u g h the f o r m s of indirect taxation (listed in the p r e v i o u s section). S u b o r d i n a t e cities c o u l d be b o u g h t . and that the local community had no control.f r o m o p e n signs of the k i n g ' s legal authority and rights. and received reassurance that this w o u l d not h a p p e n ( S E G 28. U n d e r P t o l e m y I I . transaction between Antiochos V I I and Hyrkanos was similar: the king gave back the Jews' πάτριος πολιτεία. too. 22. φόρος. to s u p p o r t the 'royal e c o n o m y ' (§ 2b). argued that the imposition of tribute did not matter. sold. IW Heuss 1937: 106-13. but also imposed heavy terms amounting to subjection (Jos. or g i v e n ( B i k e r m a n 1939: 3 4 1 . directed against w h o e v e r should ask for the city as a δωρζά. 2). w h o had b e e n g i v e n to the f o r m e r b y R o m e in 188: not h e g e m o n i c alliance (as the L y k i a n s had h o p e d ) . regular. L a o d i k e . 4: 30). g i v i n g T e l m e s s o s to P t o l e m a i o s . and w h i c h c o u l d only be lifted by a m a s t e r ' s g r a c i o u s decision. A n t i o c h o s I V gave T a r s o s and M a l l o s to his mistress (2 M a c c . H e r e .244-8).2 ) : A i g i n a . c a p t u r e d b y the R o m a n s . 1 0 ) . i m p l y the royal right to give a city. some formally voluntary. b u t the city w a s still b u r d e n e d b y a c o m p u l s o r y financial obligation w h i c h the ruler d e c i d e d on ( A r r . w e should rather see the φόροι as a f o r m a l m a r k e r of s u b j e c t i o n . and because there were many forms of direct taxation. P t o l e m y I I I exercised just this right. A l e x a n d e r transferred the E p h e s i a n s ' tribute to the benefit of the A r t e m i s i o n : the local shrine benefited. in the case of the subordinate cities as m u c h as the d e p e n d e n t villages of the royal domain. legitimate. But the first argument is irrelevant: internal autonomy is not equivalent to external independence (J. as he c o u l d dispose of villages or of portions of the civic territory.8. φόροι—an o b l i g a t i o n i m p o s e d on the cities. T h e implications of 'gift' status are spelled out b y the c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n the R h o d i a n s and the L y k i a n s . and L.

w h o took the city over on terms. T h e same c o n c l u s i o n e m e r g e s f r o m an earlier d o c u m e n t . as at Herakleia u n d e r A n t i o c h o s III). les P t 0 ] e m a j c parallels: PCZ 59341 with O r r i e u x 1983: 5 3 .H e u s s ' s a t t e m p t to m i n i m i z e the intrusion is unacceptable. 1 6 9 the m o n u m e n t a l 165 Heuss 1937: 1 1 5 .2 0 (epistates of Seleukeia in Pieria). as for the g o v e r n o r of A l i n d a . areAetav πάντων ων ή πόλις κυρία—implying there w e r e taxes the city did not control. A s u b ordinate city m i g h t find itself u n d e r a royal g o v e r n o r (§ 2). 2 § 1). and the taxes themselves lay outside the city's authority. the king c o u l d impose a n e w tax in a subject city. w i t h J. or cancel it (as A n t i o c h o s did soon afterwards).t w e n t i e t h . 3 0 . to the point that the settlement of A s i a b y the R o m a n s in 188 w o u l d define free cities as those e x e m p t f r o m p a y i n g tribute to anyone (below and A p p e n d i x 7).1 . Herakleia: 31 Β. 16' Sardeis tax: d o c u m e n t 1.5 for b e e hive tax). C o r s a r o 1985 for the notion of parallel royal and civic taxation systems. 169 H e u s s 1937: 1 7 . claimed that the royal g o v e r n o r s w e r e only military c o m m a n d e r s with a tactical brief w h i c h h a p p e n e d to coincide with the physical location of a polis. i n c l u d i n g the right to raise indirect taxes w i t h i n the city (the inscription records a l e v y on beehives. m e n t i o n s that a benefactor to the Plataseis is to enjoy i m m u n i t y f r o m local taxes. B u t the latter are c o m p a t i b l e with the g o v e r n o r ' s formal authority over the city.1 7 ) . and L . f o r m a l l y a p p o i n t e d by the king w i t h authority over the city. w h i c h A n t i o c h o s I I I a d d e d on to the civic tax at Sardeis. 1 6 5 T h e indirect taxes raised b y the imperial state created a parallel fiscality w i t h i n the polis. III 5. 5 . 166 Apollonia: d o c u m e n t 44. 52 (lines 4 . the c o n v e n t i o n b e t w e e n T h e a n g e l a and the dynast E u p o l e m o s . because cities also raised their o w n indirect taxes. 1 6 7 R o y a l taxation w a s s y n o n y m o u s w i t h royal d o m i n a t i o n . A f t e r r e c a p t u r i n g the city f r o m A c h a i o s ( C h . C r a m p a 1972: no. is quite explicit: this d o c u m e n t f r o m L a b r a u n d a . as p r o v e d b y d o c u m e n t a r y evidence: H o l l e a u x 1942: 2 1 7 . in w i n t e r 214/213.6 . 42. military forces answerable to the central p o w e r o n l y — s u c h as the cavalry d e t a c h m e n t stationed at A p o l l o n i a u n d e r Salbake. R o b e r t 1954: 298 and n. over w h i c h it had no authority and w h i c h benefited a foreign b o d y : h e n c e a f o r m u l a f o u n d in decrees of s u b o r d i n a t e cities. b u t will pay τα βαοιλικ[ά] τέλη (lines 1 6 . T h e r e are other m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of direct royal p o w e r w i t h i n the city. 1 6 6 T h e link b e t w e e n royal finances and royal authority in the subordinate city is illustrated b y the tax of o n e . dating to the dynast E u p o l e m o s b u t c o n f i r m i n g an act of the satrap Pixodaros. E u p o l e m o s : R o b e r t 1936: no. . or that (in formal terms) they w e r e only auxiliary to the a u t o n o m o u s w o r k i n g s of the city. g r a n t i n g ' e x e m p t i o n f r o m the taxes of w h i c h the city is mistress'. 1 6 8 S o m e cities received p e r m a n e n t royal garrisons (§ 1). OGIS 329 (Attalid g o v e r n o r of Aigina).4 (authority of P t o l e m a i c officials at K a l y n d a ) .3 6 . so that royal taxes w e r e but a ' g e r i n g e M o d i f i z i e r u n g ' — b u t s u c h taxes w e r e raised by an external p o w e r u n a n s w e r a b l e to the city. 9. argued that indirect taxes raised by the kings did not infringe city a u t o n o m y .2 4 . n a m e d by A n t i o c h o s III.

shrine of A m y z o n . reproduced as SEG 44. In the Classical polis. Gauthier's new reading shows that the king's pronouncements had permanent legal force (43 n. S e c o n d . 172 de la Genière. D i r e c t intrusions b y the central p o w e r resulted in restrictions on various aspects of the s u b o r d i n a t e poleis. city g o v e r n o r s m a y have overseen m e e t i n g s of the a s s e m b l y . the A r t e m i s i o n . the king issued b o t h laws and ad hoc orders (προστάγματα) w i t h the force of legal p r e c e d e n t . a p p o i n t e d b y A n t i o c h o s I I I . 1 ' 4 F u r t h e r m o r e . their political master. b u t this should not o b s c u r e the fact that they b e l o n g e d to a p o w e r structure o p e n l y i m p o s e d on the local c o m m u n i t i e s and not answerable to them. 1 7 3 T h o u g h the details are n o w lost. w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d b y an official. a S a r d i a n d o c u m e n t m e n t i o n s an answer (17 περί τούτων άπόκρισις) of Z e u x i s . with new reading from Gauthier 1993α: cases judged επί και δικαίως ι'ενομοθετημένα ήμίν ύττο τώ[ν βα]σιλέων κατά τε τα εις [το δημ]όσιον τ α καλώς κεχρηματιομένα ττ[ροσ]τάγματα και τους νόμους.ν1 K o l o p h o n . applied i m m e d i a t e l y at least in some poleis. 173 Governors: Holleaux 1942: 199-254 on Seleukeia in Pieria under Seleukos I V (the phenomenon is not yet attested in Anatolia).942. taken centrally and u n a c c o u n t a b l y . Jonnes and Ricl 1997 (laws of the new polis of T y r i a i o n subject to approval by Eumenes II). 4 § 2c). In some cases. REG 103 (1990). [τό δημ]όσιον. and N i k a n o r d u l y appears in decrees f r o m A m y z o n and X a n t h o s . dictating actions or n o r m s . i . OGIS 329. Approval: Kearsley 1994 (Olbasa under Attalos II. city decrees w e r e subject to approval b y the royal state. the f a r m i n g of the civic taxes w a s regulated κατά το τον βασιλέως διάγραμμα}12 T h e prostagma issued b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in 209 s h o w s the i m m e d i a t e effect of the royal will: the king d e c i d e d that the h i g h . the d i p l o m a t i c life of some cities 170 171 Alinda: document 9.p r i e s t N i k a n o r w o u l d h e n c e f o r t h be n a m e d on all legal transactions. royal p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o f t e n w e r e directly p e r f o r m a t i v e inside the political space of the city. or vetted the content of proposals. in A t t a l i d A i g i n a . S e l e u k i d officials appear as the recipients of honorific decrees ( C h .1 5 . in contrast. line 35). s o m e cities in the H e l l e n i s t i c period lost the m o n o p o l y of authority o v e r p r o p e r t y rights w i t h i n their u r b a n c e n t r e — t o the advantage of the king.1108). in S e l e u k i d and recorded in the city archive. 174 D o c u m e n t 40. the k i n g ' s decision. 1 7 0 T w o instances are particularly significant. in others. A n t i o c h o s I I I o w n e d p r o p e r t y in S a r d e i s (a portico) as well as in other cities (§ 2b). A n earlier example appears on the Xanthos trilingual stele. 14. F o r instance. p r o p e r t y had b e e n o w n e d e x c l u s i v e l y b y the citizens.4 of yet unpublished inscription. an i n f r i n g e m e n t of local autarky. for the implications against Heuss who believed royal pronouncements were only advisory and temporary). Artemision: 10. H o w e v e r e n f o r c e d . understands Zeuxis' ίττόκρισις as a . 105: lines 2 3 . and e x c e p t i o n s w e r e granted only b y their collective decision. where the satrap is named as ultimate authority (Πιξόδαρος κύριος έστω: SEG 27. c o n c e r n i n g some civic matter (possibly his approval of an honorific decree). lines 1 3 . Robert 1964: 14 and η.

175 D o c u m e n t 32. partly a variation of internal status inside the S e l e u k i d state. A p p e n d i x 2. as did A m y z o n (22. partly a matter of international d i p l o m a c y . with Crowther 1993: esp.7 . 4 7 1 . u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I . prefaced its decrees with an imperial preamble. Antiocheia on Maeander: ibid. Ancient Macedonia 2 (1977). or interfered w i t h full participation in the intra-poliad life. A striking instance of this is the declaration of A n t i o c h o s I I I . 155-6. 17. 64-7 and his appendix 3. Rigsby 1996. 16. j u s t as it did w i t h the villagers of the royal land (§ 2). Asylia: 8. comments on the difficulty to determine what practical advantages the status entailed. 6 1 . A n o t h e r variation in f o r m a l status m u s t have resulted f r o m the grant of asylia ('inviolateness'): a shrine. however. It is unclear h o w far w e can generalize f r o m individual m a n i festations of s u b o r d i n a t i o n . was under a Seleukid official (10). as e x a m i n e d above (§ 2b). Administrative implications: Rostovtzeff. only then did the L a o d i k e i a n s send an e m b a s s y to Priene. b u t sent an e m b a s s y to ask Z e u x i s to w r i t e to the Prienians. c o n c e r n i n g acceptance of the L e u k o p h r y e n e i a of M a g n e s i a on M a e a n d e r : γεγράφαμεν δε και τοις επι τών πραγμάτων τεταγμένοι. 22. in w a r or as f o r c i b l e redress. or if it entailed practical p r i v i l e g e s in matters of taxation or jurisdiction).w a s restricted. the S e l e u k i d state m a y have controlled the m o v e m e n t s of the citizens in the s u b o r d i n a t e cities (J. Xanthos. L o c a l c o n d i t i o n s w e r e influenced b y g r a n t e d privileges. But asylia brought fiscal advantages in the Roman period: P. or a city w h i c h had been ' c o n s e c r a t e d ' to a g o d . consecrated by Antiochos III and declared asylos. b u t of subordinate cities r e c e i v i n g instructions t h r o u g h the administrative h i e r a r c h y of empire. T e o s . . the administrative implications of asylia. lines 25-8): the picture is not of cities r e c o g n i z i n g a request f r o m another city. though asylos. Cro\vther suggests the same pattern m i g h t be d e d u c e d f r o m decrees of A n t i o c h e i a on M a e a n d e r . 10). 18. 1 7 6 F i n a l l y . Schlesinger 1933. οπως καΐ αί πόλεις ακολούθως άποδέξωνται (RC 3 1 . 19. and L . 9.b a s e d h o n o u r and distinction. Chiron 19 (1989). A m y z o n . Rigsby 1996: 13-25. are still o b s c u r e (it is not at all clear w h e t h e r the status w a s m o s t l y a matter of r e l i g i o n . 1 7 5 F o r certain cities. and the shrine at A m y z o n . R o b e r t 1983: 1 9 1 ) . 176 Giovannini. s u c h as e x e m p t i o n s f r o m taxes or corvée ( l i t u r gies'). suggested that asylia entailed 'privileges in respect of royal taxation' and possibly exemption from royal jurisdiction. w e r e declared i m m u n e f r o m violent spoliation. H o w e v e r . 1 7 7 decision obtained by the honorand of the decree. 1941: 844-5. L a o d i k e i a u n d e r L y k o s did not ask the Prienians directly. the royal state t h u s c o n t r o l l e d .4 7 2 on the fact that the king spoke in the name of the subject cities when acknowledging an international request for asylia. Herrmann. A n t i o c h e i a / A l a b a n d a . W h e n n e e d i n g ' f o r e i g n j u d g e s ' f r o m another city. X a n t h o s w e r e recognised as 'sacred and inviolate' a m o n g the cities of his k i n g d o m . He also tentatively interprets the κρίσις mentioned later as 'la décision prise par ce décret'. 177 Exemptions at Herakleia: document 31.

N o n e t h e l e s s , in spite of local variation, s o m e b r o a d e r patterns can be discerned. T h e r e seems to exist a f o r m a l m a r k e r defining categories w i t h i n the subordinate cities: the 'regnal f o r m u l a ' , i m p o s e d on the legal acts of some cities, n o w dated b y the ruling king, various centrally defined e p o n y m i e s , the M a c e d o n i a n calendar. U n d e r the S e l e u k i d s , the regnal f o r m u l a turns up at T a b a i , A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e , A m y z o n , X a n t h o s , indirectly at S a r d e i s — b u t not in H e r a k l e i a u n d e r L a t m o s , w h i c h w a s s u b o r d i n a t e , as s h o w n b y the f o r m s of royal taxation attested there (Herakleia dates decrees by local stephanephoria and b y local calendar). L i k e w i s e , u n d e r the P t o l e m i e s , M e t h y m n a , A m y z o n , T e l m e s s o s , Lissa, and X a n t h o s p r e f a c e d decrees and local acts w i t h a regnal f o r m u l a 1 7 8 — b u t not S a m o s , e v e n if the latter did, in its o w n w o r d s , b e l o n g to the k i n g ' s πράγματα, a fact c o n f i r m e d b y P t o l e m a i c authority over civic finances and an administrative decision c o n c e r n i n g the right of r e f u g e in the H e r a i o n . 1 7 9 T h e regnal f o r m u l a implies that certain cities w e r e part of the royal d o m i n i o n , like the villages or the ' m i l i tary colonies' in S e l e u k i d and A t t a l i d L y d i a , w h i l e others w e r e s u b o r d i n a t e , yet not part of the royal land. H e r a k l e i a asked for e x e m p t i o n f r o m duties on private i m p o r t s ' f r o m the (land) of the k i n g into the city', i m p l y i n g that the city did not b e l o n g to the royal d o m i n i o n proper. 1 8 0 It t h u s s e e m s there w e r e (at least) t w o g r o u p s of subordinate poleis. O n e c o m p r i s e d the c o m m u n i t i e s integrated in the royal d o m i n i o n ; these w e r e the cities directly affected b y A n t i o c h o s ' p r o n o u n c e m e n t s on the e p o n y m y of the h i g h - p r i e s t N i k a n o r (above) or on the state cult f o r Laodike. 1 8 1 W e m i g h t call these c o m m u n i t i e s 'cities in the χώρα', ' s u b j e c t cities' (cités sujettes) or 'provincial cities' apart f r o m those w h e r e the regnal f o r m u l a is (villes provinciales)',182
178 Seleukids: T a b a i , J. and L . Robert 1954: no. 3; Apollonia, ibid. no. 165; A m y z o n , documents 9, 10; Xanthos, 23, 24; Sardeis, 2, 7, 12. Herakleia, 31 Β, II 3: the epigraphical publication of Zeuxis' letter is prefaced only with the local stephanephoria. Ptolemies: Methymna, OGIS 78; A m y z o n , J. and L . Robert 1983: nos. 5, 6; Telmessos, SEG 28.1224, OGIS 55; Lissa, OGIS 57, 58; Xanthos, SEG 33.1183, 36.1218, 38.1476A, 36.1220. A n example from Phanagoreia, a Bosporan subject city of Mithridates V I : SEG 41.625. 179 Bagnall 1976: 82, on Habicht 1957: no. 64, lines 26-8 for 'restoration to the pragmata of king Ptolemy', c.200 bc; OGIS 41 for control of finances; Habicht 1957: no. 59 for Heraion. But there is no trace of regnal formula in Samian decrees under Ptolemaic domination: Schede 1919: nos. 9. 11, 12, 13; Habicht 1957: nos. 49, 52, 58, 61, 64. 180 Regnal formulas in villages and colonies: ΤΑΜ 5.2.881; I. Laodikeia am Lykos ι; SEG 40.1062, ΤΑΜ 5.2.1307, ΤΑΜ 5.1.221, ΤΑΜ 5.2.1188, SEG 28.902, ΤΑΜ 5·2.II90 (Attalid); Robert 1962: 76-8, for Attalid regnal year under Attalos II in a military colony at Smdirgi, in Mysia. Herakleia: document 31, Β III 8. 181 J. and L . Robert 1954: 302 n. 6. 182 T h e expression seems implied by RC 11, lines 21—22 (cities iv τήι χώραι re και

attested (above), this category p r o b a b l y i n c l u d e d m a n y cities of K a r i a , L y k i a , and the ' s u b j e c t h i n t e r l a n d ' , and most of the royal f o u n d a t i o n s such as L a o d i k e i a on L y k o s . 1 8 3 T h e other g r o u p w a s m a d e up of cities f o r m a l l y s u b o r d i n a t e to the king, b u t not integrated w i t h i n the royal land: for instance, Herakleia u n d e r L a t m o s u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I (and, indeed, u n d e r the P t o l e m i e s ) , S a m o s u n d e r the P t o l e m i e s , A i g i n a u n d e r the A t t a l i d s , E r y t h r a i u n d e r L y s i m a c h o s or D e m e t r i o s Poliorketes ( R C 15). T h e 'cities in the χώρα' w e r e p r e s u m a b l y e x p o s e d to m o r e intrusive f o r m s of control and direct contact w i t h royal administration. H o w e v e r , it is difficult to tell w h e t h e r this difference in f o r m s actually reflects a systematic, explicit d i f f e r e n c e (I do not k n o w w h a t the G r e e k expression m i g h t have been for the second c a t e g o r y of s u b o r d i n a t e cities l y i n g outside the chora). T h e significance of the o b s e r v a b l e differences is difficult to d e t e r m i n e . T h e exact c o n s e q u e n c e s , legal and practical, of the distinction b e t w e e n 'subject cities' and ' s u b o r d i n a t e cities' are yet unclear, and the e x p e r i e n c e of both m a y have been similar: cities ' s u b o r d i n a t e ' and ' s u b j e c t ' could be ruled b y a royal g o v e r n o r ( S E G 2.556, Herakleia u n d e r Philip V ; OGIS 329, A t t a l i d A i g i n a ) . M a g i e 1950, 5 6 - 1 1 8 (esp. 5 6 - 6 5 ) and 8 2 2 - 3 3 , revising H e u s s ' s theory, a r g u e d that the f r e e d o m of all G r e e k cities w a s f o r m a l l y unalienable and respected as such by the kings; s u b o r d i n a t i o n , on this v i e w , was restricted to 'the s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s of the interior', no true G r e e k cities. T h i s view is mistaken. First, here are clear cases of s u b o r d i nate c o m m u n i t i e s a m o n g the old G r e e k cities (e.g. Priene u n d e r L y s i m a c h o s ) . 1 8 4 S e c o n d , m a n y c o m m u n i t i e s of the interior w e r e f u l l y H e l l e n i z e d and r e c o g n i z e d as G r e e k (for instance, X a n t h o s w a s a ' D o r i a n ' city and had a m y t h i c a l kinship w i t h Ilion), and c o n versely, A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a w h i c h the D e l p h i a n s c o n s i d e r e d only 'related to the G r e e k s ' , 1 8 5 w a s r e c o g n i z e d as free b y A n t i o c h o s I I I . N o n e t h e l e s s , a difference b e t w e e n old G r e e k cities and H e l l e n i z e d c o m m u n i t i e s m i g h t be reflected in the distinction b e t w e e n s u b o r d i nate cities on the one hand, and s u b j e c t 'cities in the χώρα' along w i t h n e w royal f o u n d a t i o n s on the other hand. B e y o n d variations, local or typological, the different m a n i f e s t a tions illustrate w a y s in w h i c h the Hellenistic e m p i r e could intrude on the political life of the poleis or restrict it, and hence give some
συμμαχίαι), though RC 12 only mentions 'cities in our alliance'. 'Subject cities': J. and L . Robert 1954: 302. 'Provincial cities': Bikerman 1934: 369.
18î D o c u m e n t 32, a decree from Laodikeia, does not show the regnal formula, but this may be explained by the document being inscribed in another city, autonomous Priene, where the preamble to the Laodikeian decree may have been left out. 184 Orth 1977: 102-5, Franco 1993: 85; contra, L u n d 1992: 207-8. 185 Xanthos: document 23, C u r t y 1995: 183-93. Alabanda: document 16, 12-13.

idea of the situation of subordinate poleis, along a s p e c t r u m of possibilities. T h e c o n s e q u e n c e is the opposite of H e u s s ' s c o n c l u sion: the existence of f o r m a l l y subordinate cities, w h o s e c o n d i t i o n w a s d e t e r m i n e d b y their legal status. T h e e v i d e n c e , c o m p e l l i n g at the time of B i c k e r m a n ' s critique of H e u s s ( B i k e r m a n 1939) is n o w o v e r w h e l m i n g : it establishes that the Hellenistic k i n g d o m s had legal structures (inherited, along w i t h the 'regnal f o r m u l a ' , f r o m the to A c h a i m e n i d s and A l e x a n d e r ) to s u b o r d i n a t e the autarkic polis, intervene b y o r d n a n c e s and taxation w i t h i n the sphere of the polis, or integrate it into the imperial state; all these, o p e n l y and (on the k i n g d o m s ' o w n terms) legitimately. 1 8 6 T h e other c a t e g o r y of the cities is, in the expression of an A m y z o n i a n decree, at αυτόνομοι, 'the a u t o n o m o u s ones'; the a b b r e v i ation i m p l i e s an institutionalized status. 1 8 ' T h e s e w e r e the cities to w h i c h the king had g r a n t e d or r e c o g n i z e d not only their autarkic existence as political c o m m u n i t i e s (as for the subordinate cities), b u t their full liberty: w h e n Iasos w a s g i v e n back its liberty and its laws, its relation to A n t i o c h o s I I I w a s s i m p l y one of 'alliance and f r i e n d ship'. 1 8 8 I n formal terms, these cities w e r e ' g e n u i n e l y ' i n d e p e n d e n t . T h e settlement of A s i a M i n o r by the R o m a n s in 188 c o n f i r m e d the f r e e d o m of the cities w h i c h had been free before the Roman— S e l e u k i d W a r ( L i v . 3 7 . 5 6 . 3 - 6 and A p p e n d i x 7): this c o n c e r n e d not only C h i o s or S m y r n a ( w h i c h w e r e i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m any H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e ) , but also M y l a s a , A n t i o c h e i a / A l a b a n d a , and even A n t i o c h e i a in Pisidia. 1 8 9 N o n e of these l a n d l o c k e d cities had been freed b y the R o m a n s d u r i n g the R o m a n - S e l e u k i d W a r , as H e r a k l e i a had b e e n b y the Scipios: they o w e d their f r e e d o m to a royal grant, as w e k n o w for certain in the case of M y l a s a , and as is almost certain for A n t i o c h e i a / A l a b a n d a (its f r e e d o m had been r e c o g nized b y A n t i o c h o s I I I ) . A n t i o c h e i a in Pisidia was declared free in 188 no d o u b t because the city had received a grant of f r e e d o m f r o m A n t i o c h o s I I I (perhaps for services d u r i n g the w a r against A c h a i o s in 216?). 1 9 0 F o r m a l l y , the f r e e d o m of M y l a s a (by royal grant) w a s identical to that of any g e n u i n e l y free city. T h i s principle can be used
186 B e n g t s o n 1944: 1 3 2 - 1 4 2 , argued that all cities lay outside the 'provincial administration' of the Hellenistic empires; the case of A p o l l o n i a u n d e r Salbake ( d o c u m e n t 44) and the administrative e n f o r c e m e n t of the prostagma of 209 indicate otherwise. 187 D o c u m e n t 10, 15 (assuming that the stonecutter has n o t omitted πόλεις). 188 D o c u m e n t 26 A , I 5, 8 - 9 . RC 7 1 - 2 for a late S e l e u k i d grant of f r e e d o m to Seleukeia in Pieria. 189 M y l a s a : Pol. 21.45.4; A l a b a n d a : Pol. 30.5.15, L i v . 43.6. A n t i o c h e i a in Pisidia: S t r a b o 12.8.14. G e n e r a l l y , B i k e r m a n 1937. 190 A l a b a n d a : d o c u m e n t 16. M y l a s a had received f r e e d o m f r o m S e l e u k o s II, a grant recognized b y Philip V ( C r a m p a 1969: no. 5, lines 33-6); it is p r o b a b l e that w h e n A n t i o c h o s III took the city over, he c o n f i r m e d the grant m a d e by his father.

to postulate statuses w h e r e direct e v i d e n c e is lacking. Iasos, free u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I , was p r o b a b l y free after 188 as well; the same applies to E u r o m o s , w h i c h w a s not taken o v e r b y A n t i o c h o s I I I , but c o n t r a c t e d a f u l l - b l o w n alliance w i t h h i m t h r o u g h Z e u x i s (below): it is likely that this city r e m a i n e d free after 188, rather than b e i n g g i v e n to the R h o d i a n s . 1 9 1 C o n v e r s e l y , because Pedasa w a s free in the i 8 o s ( w h e n it w a s s y n o i k i z e d into M i l e t o s : Inschr. Delphinion 14g), it p r o b a b l y w a s left 'free' b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in 197. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is c o n f i r m e d by the t e r m i n o l o g y used to describe the f r e e d o m granted to a city b y a king: it is the same as for a g e n u i n e l y free city (for instance, one w h i c h had n e v e r k n o w n or escaped royal domination). S e l e u k o s II 'granted to the S m y r n i a n s that their city and their territory be free and e x e m p t f r o m tribute (ελενθεραν και άφορολόγητον)', as a D e l p h i a n decree put it ( O G I S 228, lines 6-8); in a slightly later decree, OGIS 229, the S m y r n i a n s t h e m s e l v e s described the king as ' p r e s e r v i n g the a u t o n o m y and d e m o c r a c y (τήν αύτονομίαν και δημοκρατίαν) for the d e m o s ' (lines 1 0 - 1 1 ) , b u t also of 'the a u t o n o m y and d e m o c r a c y and the other t h i n g s g r a n t e d to the S m y r n i a n s b y king S e l e u k o s ' (lines 65-6). U n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I , L a o d i k e d e s c r i b e d her h u s b a n d as restoring liberty to the Iasians; a slightly later Iasian decree refers to h i m as ' p r e s e r v i n g the d e m o c r a c y and a u t o n o m y ([τήν δημοκρ]α[τ]ίαν και αν[τ]ονομίαν)'; the d e m o c r a c y of A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a w a s also preserved b y A n t i o c h o s I I I , a c c o r d i n g to an A m p h i k t i o n i c decree. 1 9 2 T h e three w o r d s , αυτονομία, δημοκρατία, or ελευθερία, used interc h a n g e a b l y or in c o m b i n a t i o n , designate fully free g o v e r n m e n t : 1 9 3 they are used by truly i n d e p e n d e n t states. F o r instance, the L y k i a n s , after b e i n g freed f r o m R h o d i a n d o m i n a t i o n , spoke of πάτριος δημοκρατία (CIL ι 2 . 7 2 5 ) ; L a m p s a k o s used αυτονομία and δημοκρατία to describe the i n d e p e n d e n c e it w a s t r y i n g to protect f r o m A n t i o c h o s I I I (I. Lampsakos 4, lines 3 3 - 4 , 7 3 - 5 ) · T h e c o n c e p t of αυτονομία w a s not d o w n g r a d e d , in the H e l l e n i s t i c period, to 'selfg o v e r n m e n t c o m b i n e d w i t h s u b o r d i n a t i o n to a superior p o w e r ' (e.g. H a n s e n 1995: 4 1 - 2 ) . T h e list of instances p r o v i d e d b y H a n s e n to s u p p o r t this definition m i n g l e s e x a m p l e s of a u t o n o m y g r a n t e d b y a
151 Iasos: document 26 A for freedom grant by Antiochos III; free after 188: Crowther 19950: 232-3. Euromos: the Rhodian intervention in 167 (Pol. 3 0 . 5 . 1 1 - 1 5 ) does not necessarily mean that the city was Rhodian (it may simply have been an ally). 152 Iasos: documents 26 A , I 8 - 9 and Β, I 15-16; 28, 2. Alabanda: 16, 2 1 - 2 . 193 Ferrary 1988: 186 with earlier bibliography; Ferrary 1991: 564-5; Rhodes with L e w i s 1997: 5 3 1 - 6 . M u s t i 1966: 138-45, proposed that δημοκρατία retained its meaning of 'democracy' in the internal sense; but this is debatable: the Smyrnian decree OGIS 229, at lines 6 7 - 9 distinguishes between δημοκρατία (independence?) and Ισονομία ('democracy'?). T h i s is not the place to review the scholarship on αυτονομία in the Classical age (survey in Hansen 1995).

ruler (for instance to E r y t h r a i b y A n t i o c h o s I or I I , to S m y r n a b y S e l e u k o s I I ) and cases of g e n u i n e f r e e d o m , like that of L a m p s a k o s in Syll. 5 9 1 ; a fact w h i c h d e m o n s t r a t e s h o w the t e r m i n o l o g y , and the c o n c e p t , w e r e the same for b o t h g r o u p s . T h e ' a u t o n o m o u s o n e s ' , s u c h as Iasos or M y l a s a , w e r e free f r o m the m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of direct royal control, s u c h as tribute (and, p r o b a b l y , f r o m royal indirect taxation) or garrisoning. S u c h phrases as 'free and e x e m p t f r o m tribute' 'free and e x e m p t f r o m garrisons' spell privileges out, rather than i m p l y that a city could be free, yet pay tribute. 1 9 4 It is p r o b a b l e that the a u t o n o m o u s cities e n j o y e d their o w n j u r i s d i c t i o n , j u s t as free cities in R o m a n A s i a lived outside the g o v e r n o r ' s authority. 1 9 5 T h e y c o n d u c t e d their o w n d i p l o m a c y freely. Iasos resorted to f o r e i g n j u d g e s f r o m Priene, M y n d o s , and other cities in this period, w i t h o u t h a v i n g to a p p l y to Z e u x i s first, as the s u b j e c t city of L a o d i k e i a on L y k o s did (above); e v e n if A n t i o c h o s I I I s p o n s o r e d the Iasian appeal to f o r e i g n j u d g e s , he only s u p p l i e d advice to the city ( s u p p l e m e n t e d b y an oracle), and did not control its d i p l o m a c y . 1 9 6 Priene, in the 190s, asked for R h o d i a n arbitration on its ancient dispute w i t h S a m o s (Inschr. Priene 37), w i t h o u t referring to the S e l e u k i d state; a l t h o u g h m a n y d o c u m e n t s p r o b a b l y date to this period, there is no clear e v i d e n c e for intrusion f r o m the S e l e u k i d s . 1 9 ' ' F r e e ' cities c o u l d also m i n t their o w n silver coinage, in the f o r m of t e t r a d r a c h m s on the A t t i c standard, either 'alexanders' (patterned on A l e x a n d e r ' s coinage, b u t d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y local marks) or civic designs: again, there is no formal difference b e t w e e n cities w h i c h had received a grant of f r e e d o m f r o m a k i n g and g e n u i n e l y i n d e p e n d e n t cities. 1 9 8 A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a and M y l a s a , b o t h free cities (above), struck coins ( a u t o n o m o u s civic issues in the first case, alexanders in the second) u n d e r A n t i o c h o s
194 Iasos 2, line 30; RC 15, lines 22-3; OGIS 228, lines 7-8. T h a t freedom and exemption from tribute are (or should be) synonymous emerges from a comparison of the Livian and the Polybian accounts of the Roman settlement of Asia M i n o r in 188: L i v . 37.56.4-6 and Pol. 21.24.6-9, 21.45.2-3. 195 Ferrary 1991 on the Klaros decrees (J. and L . Robert 1989): the judicial independence of K o l o p h o n was protected by the action of two citizens (Polemaios decree, lines II 5 1 - 6 1 ; M e n i p p o s decree, lines I 40-8, II 4 - 7 and esp. 1 39-40: τής έπαρχείας à-πο rrjs αυτονομίας χωρισθείσης. O n I. Mylasa 126, where Mylasa honours a royal judge, see A p p e n d i x 3 (probably not under Antiochos III as often said, but Ptolemaic). 196 Crowther 19956, dating documents mentioning foreign j u d g e s at Iasos to the 190s bc and relating them to OGIS 237 (document 28). 1 7 p , - j e n j a n documents: Hiller von Gaertringen dates many to 'um 200?'; more 9 impressive is the fact that there is no clear indication of Seleukid presence, apart from documents 32 and 33 (Zeuxis and grain). 198 ι M a c c . 15: 6: Antiochos V I I grants the Jews their full freedom and the right to mint coinage. Seyrig 1986: 104-6, for Arados, which struck alexanders starting 259/8, probably when the city was granted freedom by Antiochos II (otherwise unattested).

ΙΠ. 1 9 9 Since, in this period, Skepsis and Side minted coinage on their autonomous designs, and K o l o p h o n , T e o s , Phaselis, Perge, and Side issued alexanders, these cities must have been 'free' as well (in the case of T e o s , two fragmentary royal letters mention 'democracy' and 'liberty', perhaps documents granting liberty to the city). 200 M o s t of H e u s s ' s proposals about the informal nature of the Hellenistic king's power over the city, mistaken in the case of the subordinate cities, m i g h t apply to the 'free' cities, whose constitutional integrity was formally respected by the royal state. 201 But even the 'autonomous ones' were de facto exposed to the demands of the ruling power. Iasos was a 'free' city under A n t i o c h o s I I I ; nonetheless, during the R o m a n - S e l e u k i d W a r , the king installed a garrison in the city (Liv. 3 7 . 1 7 . 3 ) — a temporary φυλακή rather than a permanent φρουρά, but a garrison nonetheless, imposed at the king's desire; if Perge was a free city, as suggested by its coinage, the garrison w h i c h appears there in 188 (Pol. 2 1 . 4 1 . 1 - 5 ) was probably of the same temporary nature (though Polybios calls its commander a φρούραρχος), and further illustrates Seleukid power over the 'autonomous ones'. Parallels substantiate this picture. A n earlier document f r o m Iasos (I. Iasos 3) seems to imply that an officiai of Ptolemy I had considered taking over the local πρόσοδοι, the civic taxes, including the harbour dues; that the Iasians made h i m swear an oath not to do so betrays their anxiety, and illustrates the threat of erosion to a free city's 'liberty'. T h e same document also shows how a 'free' city could be made to pay contributions, in the f o r m of a 'contribution', σύνταξις, exacted f r o m Iasos, at a level fixed by the king, and, it seems, as payment towards Ptolemaic protection of Iasian territory. 202 T h e είσφοραί paid by the 'free' Islanders under Ptolemy II fall in the same category (Syll. 390, line 16). Royal instructions to free cities, though formulated as requests, did not admit disobedience: Larisa, like all other Thessalian cities (Pol. 4.76.3), was free; yet Philip V decided (κρίνω) that the city
199 Alabanda: L e Rider 1973/4: 256-7; Robert 1973: 448-53; Waggoner 1989. Mylasa: Akarca 1959: 13. 200 Skepsis: K a g a n 1984 for Skepsian autonomous coinage dated to Antiochos III on stylistic grounds; the conclusion is that Skepsis was free under Antiochos III. Strabo 13.1.54 mentions that Skepsis was 'under the Attalic kings' in the second century: if this means that the city was formally subordinate to the Attalids, the city was given to Eumenes II in 188 because it had earlier been subject to the Attalids (Appendix 7). Side: Seyrig 1986: 6 1 - 6 . Kolophon: Le Rider 1972/3: 254-5, Price 1991: 248; T e o s : L e Rider 1972/3, 255-6, Price 1991: 298; document 19 B, C . Phaselis and Perge: Seyrig 1986: 42—52, Price 1991: 349, 358. T h e details of civic coinage and status are not fully established (Robert 1973: 463), and the whole issue needs re-examination. 201 Bikerman 1938: 133, 141-5 on the life of the 'villes franches' (indebted to Heuss

1937)·
202

I. Iasos 3, lines 4 - 5 , 7 - 9 , 14-15.

should admit all its metics to citizenship: he c o m m u n i c a t e d his decision to Larisa in a short letter, and w h e n the Larisans dissented, he enforced his will through a second letter (Syll. 543 with Bertrand 1990: 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) . Finally, free cities may have introduced changes to their institutions under Seleukid influence or suggestion. It is likely that the constitutional changes introduced in E u r o m o s after 197 (and somehow Cretan-inspired) took place under Seleukid influence; at least, this is suggested by the introduction of a civic priesthood of D i k t y n n a and Z e u s Kretagenetas, mirroring a centrally administered, Seleukid, priesthood (named in the 'regnal formula' in subject A m y z o n ) : this new priesthood was attached to the stephanephoria, presumably a traditional magistracy in the city. Both the creation of new offices, and the addition of a new priestly office to an older form, suggest extensive reorganization of public affairs in the city of E u r o m o s . Mylasa also had a priesthood of Z e u s Kretagenes associated with the K o u r e t e s (attested f r o m the second century onwards): this civic priesthood could have been introduced at the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I under Seleukid influence or in imitation of Seleukid provincial institutions. Both E u r o m o s and M y l a s a provide suggestive (though not yet conclusive) evidence for the effect royal power, or simply the proximity of royal institutions, could have within a formally 'free' city. 203 M o r e significant still than the presence of de facto encroachments by the Seleukid state on the independence of the 'autonomous cities' is the fact that the f r e e d o m enjoyed by the latter was openly and essentially precarious. T h e i r freedom, though nominally equivalent to the full freedom of genuinely independent cities like S m y r n a or L a m p s a k o s £.200, was in fact considered by the king as still dependent on his goodwill: in the 'surrender and grant' model, even full freedom is a status, a privilege allowed by the ruling p o w e r and revocable by it. Cities w h i c h had received their f r e e d o m b y royal grant could lose it by royal fiat (Bikerman 1938: 138). T h e r e is a clear parallel in the grant of full freedom to the Jews by A n t i o c h o s V I I , revoked once the king no longer needed their help (1 M a c c . 15: 3 - 9 and 27, Jos. Ajf 13.245-6). T h o u g h there are yet no documented instances in Hellenistic Asia M i n o r of 'autonomous' cities being deprived of their liberty, the possibility seems strongly implied by A n t i o c h o s ' claim that the cities of Asia should receive and enjoy
203 Euromos: document 30, and introduction: the document is too fragmentary to reveal the role played by the Seleukid state in the constitutional changes. Mylasa: J. and L . Robert 1983: 166; I. Mylasa 102, 107, 806 (all 2nd-cent. bc). W h y the Seleukids imposed or inspired institutions imitating Cretan practices is still obscure (short note by Gauthier in BE 95, 525).

their liberty as a gift f r o m him, litterally 'through his grace', δια της αυτού χάριτος (Pol. 18.51.9)· T h e Seleukid empire, like all Hellenistic kingdoms, posited itself as a space within w h i c h even full f r e e d o m was a function of dependency on the king's power to decide and define. T h e typology of statuses has obvious implications for the nature of the relations between ruler and city, and in general for the Hellenistic polis. H o w e v e r , before setting these out, we should examine problems with Bickerman's 'surrender and grant' model. First, it is clear that some cities did contract alliances with a king (a possibility Bickerman considered purely theoretical: Bikerman 1938: 140). L y s i m a c h e i a concluded an alliance with A n t i o c h o s I or II, 204 and later with Philip V , and Philippeis/Euromos with A n t i o c h o s I IL 2 0 5 W h a t survives of these alliances shows that the f o r m was the same as any alliance between two free states. Nonetheless, Polybios has Philip admitting to taking over (προσλαμβάνειν) L y s i m a c h e i a (Pol. 18.4.5), a n ( J installing troops in the city (Pol. 18.3.11), whilst claiming that his soldiers were not a permanent garrison, but a temporary protection against the T h r a c i a n s (Pol. 18.4.6). T h e experience of E u r o m o s and A n t i o c h o s I I I was no doubt similar to that of L y s i m a c h e i a with Philip V . T h e s e cases point to an alternative legal model: a full alliance between city and ruler, followed by de facto encroachments on civic autonomy, because of the ruler's political p o w e r over the city (did these encroachments lead to a change in formal status?). T h i s process is in fact described by Polybios as the shift in kings' conduct, f r o m σνμμαχικώς to δεσποτικώς (Pol. 15.24.4). In the end, there may have been little practical difference for cities w h i c h had entered royal control through 'surrender and grant', and those w h i c h had contracted an alliance with a king w h o enjoyed de facto control. Second, the state and the nature of the evidence might make us uneasy with a smooth, systematic picture, such as the one I have developed in this section, based on Bickerman's 'surrender and grant' model. T h e better documented cases (Mylasa, Iasos, A l a b a n d a ) corroborate Bickerman, through what is explicitly k n o w n , and through what the evidence implies. In other cases, we are reduced to speculation inspired by Bickerman's model (as for T e o s : above). T h e r e are anomalies in the evidence: for instance, the
204 Ilion 45 with A p p e n d i x 3. T h e argument for attribution to Antiochos I or II rather than Antiochos III is that the provisions in the treaty are incompatible with the way Antiochos III treated the Lysimacheians (Gauthier and Ferrary 1981)—unless one assumes that such provisions were blatantly violated. 205 Lysimacheia and Philip V: Staatsvertr. 549. Euromos and Antiochos III: document 29.

8-59. with Orth 1977: 130. that royal sojourns at Ephesos do not make the city subject. Erythrai 29 honours the strategoi for preserving the demokratia and passing the city as free to their successors: if this inscription were dated before RC 15 (when Antiochos I or II declared the city free). that OGIS 222 actually proves Ephesian subjection. w h i c h was perhaps a temporary φυλακή (above). One wonders if the 'servitude' f r o m w h i c h the Iasians claimed to have been freed by A n t i o c h o s I I I was not the de facto control compatible with a formal status of 'freedom' under Philip V .184. Flamininus did so at Rome in the negotiations of 193 ( L i v .1). 207 T h e inhabitants of K a u d o s were integrated into G o r t y n . I have tried to distinguish two groups. O n e might argue that the status of the city changed under A n t i o c h o s II. because of their anxiety. 34. T h i r d . In any case. endowed with powerful fortifications. I. at least at that moment. that the official attested in 246 was in charge of a temporary garrison.Seleukid garrison at Perge (which struck its o w n coinage).17. the Ephesians participated in a decree of the Ionians honouring A n t i o c h o s I and asking him to preserve the liberty and the democracy of the Ionian cities ( O G I S 222). in 246. 4. Ephesos under the early Seleukids poses similar difficulties: the city struck silver coinage. 2 " 6 For now. line 10. 'own laws' and possibly even liberty could apply to both cases. and 'autonomous' cities (de facto under the control of an autocratic power): yet the language of self-government. In 197. it would show the terminology of liberty used internally in a subordinate city. an official hτι τής 'Εφέσου is attested by Phylarchos ( F G r H i s t 81 F 24). the anomalies can still be explained away. it is difficult to believe that Ephesos. the 'propagandist^' use of the concept of freedom and liberation as a slogan is well documented.58. or in Attalid Ephesos (Le Rider 1972/3: 247). the 'free' city. and. T h e language of liberation was indefinitely repeatable to describe the end of de facto power over a c o m m u n i t y . Antiochos II at Ephesos: SEG 1. yet preserved some form of selfgovernment. of different status: subordinate or subject cities (enjoying local autonomy). or at any rate do not seriously impair the usefulness of Bickerman's model. the Iasian exiles described the Seleukid control of Iasos. 20 ' C o n v e r s e l y . yet was a royal residence under A n t i o c h o s II.366. described as permission to remain 'free and autonomous': Iscr. Cret. was not used by Seleukid forces under Antiochos I: how was this compatible with full autonomy? Another problem is the coexistence of a royal mint (striking royal coin) and local silver coinage at K y m e ( L e Rider 1975/6: 355-6). 37. especially during the time of the D i a d o c h o i ( G r u e n 1986: 133-42).6). the language of enslavement could be used to describe both. an important naval base. a clear indication that Ephesos was formally an 'autonomous' city. It is perverse to argue. . the language is ambiguous. the Rhodians claimed to be protecting the 206 Coinage: L e Rider 1972/3: 245-6. irrespective of legal status. as enslavement ( L i v . to which they paid tribute and were liable to various obligations. Nonetheless.

r o y a l l y d e f i n e d p r i v i l e g e s w i t h i n B i c k e r m a n ' s m o d e l w h i c h is still the m o s t satisfactory account of the formal basis for e m p i r e . t h e h i s t o r i a n n e e d n o t b o t h e r to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n s t a t u s e s o r e x p l o r e t h e i r c o n t e n t . a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t the e x c e s s i v e l e g a l i s m o f H e u s s . M . a n d w i e l d e d o v e r w h e l m i n g p o w e r . t h e f a c t r e m a i n s t h a t . F o r V e r s n e l (1990). T h e ' h a r s h realist' m o d e l is b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f c o n s t a n t .liberty of P t o l e m a i c cities ( L i v . 3 3 . A l t h o u g h the t e r m s used for these c o n c e p t s c o u l d b e u s e d v a g u e l y o r in r e f e r e n c e to a n u m b e r o f o t h e r t h i n g s . 94-9. with consequences as r e a l — b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e c o n c e p t s o f t h e s a m e n a t u r e . 2 0 9 O r t h ' s p o s i t i o n . b u t f o c u s o n t h e g r i m facts. E s p e c i a l l y in w e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r . u n d e r p i n n i n g the relations b e t w e e n r u l e r s a n d r u l e d . I f w e a c c e p t as h i s t o r i c a l l y d o c u m e n t e d B i c k e r m a n ' s m o d e l f o r a t y p o l o g y of legally defined statuses. T h i s v i e w m u s t b e r e j e c t e d . ad hoc s m o k e s c r e e n s f o r the realities of p o w e r . e v e n in t h e a b s e n c e o f a c o d e o f international law. 2 0 8 T h e q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h e c o n c e p t . b e c a u s e it is b a s e d o n u n c r i t i c a l a c c e p t ance of H e u s s ' s thesis. Η . u n d e r S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l f o r fifty-odd y e a r s . neglecting the d o c u m e n t e d cases that e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f legal c o n c e p t s a b o u t s u b o r d i n a t i o n a n d ' f r e e d o m ' w i t h i n an i m p e r i a l s p a c e . Green 1990: 198. because the king c o u l d o v e r t u r n t h e m at a n y t i m e . t h i s v i e w d e n i e s a n y s u b s t a n c e to legal s t a t u s e s — m e a n i n g l e s s . the u n d o u b t e d a m b i g u i t i e s in l a n g u a g e a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y in p r a c t i c e m e a n that the w h o l e situation w a s c o n f u s e d and f r a u g h t w i t h the inconsistent ' d o u b l e realities' of full a u t o n o m y and full s u b j e c t i o n . the o p p r e s s i v e n e s s of the kings. ι § 4). the despairi n g s e r v i l i t y a n d p o w e r l e s s n e s s o f t h e cities. t h e e v i d e n c e . Piejko 1988Ô. is p r o b l e m a t i c f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n is q u e s t i o n a b l e b e c a u s e o f t h e i n s t a b i l i t y o f p o l i t i c s in the m u l t i p o l a r H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d . 2 0 . t h e r e still r e m a i n s t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e s i g n f i c a n c e w e s h o u l d l e n d to t h i s p h e n o m e n o n . . o v e r w h e l m i n g p o w e r o n t h e p a r t o f the k i n g s . 208 205 Bagnall 1976: 81-8. O n e v i e w o n t h e legal statuses h o l d s that they w e r e u n i m p o r t a n t . in c e r t a i n c o n t e x t s . A t its m o s t e x t r e m e . o n l y t h i n l y v e i l e d b y p r o p a g a n d a s u c h as t h e l a n g u a g e o f l i b e r t y ( A . u n d e r d i r e c t c o n t r o l b y t h e P t o l e m a i c state. 1 1 — 1 2 ) — i n fact subordinate c o m m u n i t i e s . w h i c h c a n n o t a c c o m m o d a t e t h e c a s e s o f S m y r n a o r L a m p s a k o s : t h e s e cities. Orth 1977: passim and 178-87. and t h e a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e s e r i o u s l y c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r i dical m o d e l p r o p o s e d b y B i c k e r m a n . J o n e s 1940: 102). αυτονομία o r ελευθερία w e r e as c l e a r l y d e f i n e d as άφορολογησία o r άνεπισταθμεία. t h e s i t u a t i o n w a s m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d t h a n O r t h ' s m e l o d r a m a o f royal o p p r e s s i o n a n d l o c a l p o w e r l e s s n e s s ( C h .

the Ptolemaic foundation absorbed by N a g i d o s under Antiochos II. 2 1 1 M o r e o v e r . w a s in itself a tool f o r d o m i n a t i o n . M y l a s a h a d b e e n a f r e e c i t y s i n c e t h e late 240s. as a s y s t e m o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d a t o t a l i z i n g i d e o l o g y . m o r a l i z i n g p r a i s e f o r the k i n g ( a l t e r n a t i n g b e t w e e n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e k i n g as p a t r i m o n i a l r u l e r a n d as p r o t e c t o r o f t h e cities: f u r t h e r C h . 210 211 . s e c o n d . p .s e i z e d t h e i r c h a n c e in the 230s o r the 220s BC. a n d later r e t a i n e d their liberty. 4). T h e p r o b l e m a t i c n a t u r e o f O r t h ' s r e a d i n g s c a s t s d o u b t s o n the v a l i d i t y o f t h e ' h a r s h realist' m o d e l in its e x t r e m e v e r s i o n . 2 1 0 OGIS 2 1 9 is n o t a b o u t p o w e r l e s s n e s s . w h i c h m u l t i p l i e d t h e a c t u a l f o r c e o f the H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e . l i n e s 1 0 . 4. or b r u t a l l y r e d u c t i v e . Orth 1977: 50-61 (approved by Versnel 1990: 78-9). B y n e g l e c t i n g t h e s e t w o r e l a t e d e f f e c t s . d a t e d c. b u t c o m b i n e s v a r i o u s i d i o m s in a c o m p l e x d i s c o u r s e : d i p l o m a t i c c o n g r a t u l a t i o n (a w i d e s p r e a d p h e n o m e n o n a n a l y s e d in RC. and h e n c e w e r e taken seriously b y b o t h sides. It is i m p o s s i b l e to f o l l o w O r t h w h e n he r e a d s OGIS 2 1 9 as p e r m e a t e d w i t h t h e c i t y ' s Unfreiheit a n d f e a r . a n n o u n c e s t h a t h e is r e s t o r i n g to t h e c i t y t h e f o r t of P e t r a n e a r L a b r a u n d a ' w h i c h w e h a d b e e n f o r c e d to h o l d o n to f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n t h a n t h a t this w a s u s e f u l to t h e c i t y ' ( C r a m p a 1969: n o . F u r t h e r m o r e . T h e t r a n s a c t i o n in RC 1 0 .1 3 ) . the governor had to take diplomatic precautions to save face for Nagidos and Arsinoe. 4 3 ) . L e g a l s t a t u s e s w e r e e x p e c t e d to h a v e legal f o r c e . e v e n if t h e y w e r e p r e c a r i o u s g r a n t s f r o m an a u t o c r a t i c m a s t e r . as in t h e case o f h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the e a r l y S e l e u k i d d o c u m e n t s f r o m I l i o n . and h e n c e of his claim that Ilion's f o r m a l s t a t u s o f a u t o n o m y w a s m e a n i n g l e s s .1 3 i n v o l v e d I l i o n ' s i n t e r e s t — t h e a t t a c h m e n t o f a p r i v a t e l y o w n e d estate ( t a k e n o u t o f t h e r o y a l l a n d ) to t h e c i t y ' s t e r r i t o r y . a n d O l y m p i c h o s (or t h e A n t i g o n i d s t a t e ) h a d n o r i g h t to g a r r i s o n a f o r t o n M y l a s a n t e r r i t o r y . See also Chaniotis 1993: after the Ptolemaic reconquest of Kilikia c.220. m a n y of the readings O r t h offers for c e n t r a l d o c u m e n t s are e i t h e r m i s h a n d l e d . the ' r e a l i s t ' a p p r o a c h c h a m p i o n e d b y O r t h a n d o t h e r s is far t o o c r u d e w h e n it c o m e s to r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e x p e r i e n c e a n d p r a c t i c e o f d o m i n a t i o n b y the H e l l e n i s t i c i m p e r i a l states. o r RC 10—13 a s p r o o f o f t h e c i t y ' s servility and powerlessness. t h e y g a v e t h e i m p e r i a l state t h e c o n c r e t e a n d diverse local f o r m s w h i c h the cities w o u l d e x p e r i e n c e . b u t c o m p l e x . A l e t t e r f r o m O l y m p i c h o s to M y l a s a . H o w e v e r . e u e r g e t i c h o n o u r s . O l y m p i c h o s o c c u p i e d Petra for possibly t w o decades (we do not Larichos: Gauthier 1980. p a r t in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n H e l l e n i s t i c r u l e r a n d H e l l e n i s t i c c i t y : first. as in t h e case o f h i s i n t e r pretations of the (routine) i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of Prienian h o n o u r s for t h e S e l e u k i d o f f i c e r L a r i c h o s . the t y p o l o g y of statuses.246 bc. it is c l e a r t h a t legal s t a t u s e s p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t .

1 1 ) . v a c a t i n g Petra. I V 6 . O l y m p i c h o s ' action m i g h t be taken to p r o v e the a r b i t r a r y p o w e r of a H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e . M i l l a r 1967: 8 1 . r i g h t s o v e r the fort w e r e m o o t .k n o w w h e n o c c u p a t i o n started). B u t as l o n g as the priest at L a b r a u n d a tried to o b t a i n his i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m M y l a s a . and a d m i t t i n g that he had no o t h e r right to b e there. In their p e t i t i o n s to Z e u x i s . the H e r a k l e i a n s j u s t i f i e d several d e m a n d s b y appeal to p r e c e d e n t . 2 1 3 T h e s e e x a m p l e s u n d e r l i n e the c o n c r e t e n e s s of legal status 2.28 w i t h B r i a n t 1982: 4 9 9 .4 . 420. are m o r e i m p o r t a n t than p h y s i c a l c o m p u l s i o n in c r e a t i n g the c o n d i t i o n s for the c o o p e r a t i o n of the r u l e d . i n f l e c t i n g the 'royal e c o n o m y ' to fit local t r a d i tion. A sign of their i m p o r t a n c e is the e n e r g y p u t b y the cities into the p r o c e s s o f n e g o t i a t i n g t h e m . and p r e c e d e n t s w h i c h f o r m a l i s e d the relations b e t w e e n ruler and r u l e d . A s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e . . t h e y also r e q u e s t e d that a festival be e x e m p t f r o m t a x a t i o n . w h e n the S e l e u k i d state t o o k o v e r the local h a r b o u r d u e . 2lä D o c u m e n t 31 B. the H e r a k l e i a n s asked that the k i n g s h o u l d still p a y to the city a share of the r e v e n u e . the p e a s a n t r y p r o b a b l y h a d A n t i o c h o s I I I a c k n o w l e d g e p r i v i l e g e s d a t i n g b a c k to the A c h a i m e n i d s (Pol.7 . public services paid for b y tax-farmers. O l y m p i c h o s had to g i v e in to M y l a s a ' s d e m a n d s . w h e r e the t a x .5 0 0 ) . T h e Herakleian practice. 1000. I I I 2 .f a r m e r s w h o contracted out a variety of indirect taxes w e r e expected to furnish a p u b l i c sacrifice and tents for the s u b s e q u e n t feast: Syll. a s t a n d a r d f e a t u r e of p a t r i m o n i a l e m p i r e s . the S a r d i a n s s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p e a l e d to general practice in o t h e r cities to ask the k i n g to w a i v e his rent o n a p o r t i c o . 10.2 for the i m p o r t a n c e of local status for 'the nature of a m a n ' s contacts with the State'. blatant illegality w a s i m p o s s i b l e . where o u t s i d e the w o r l d of the G r e e k polis. M i l l a r ' s r e m a r k s o n the practical i m p o r t a n c e o f m i s s i o n s f r o m the cities to the R o m a n e m p e r o r are a p p l i c a b l e to H e l l e n i s t i c d i p l o m a c y . s u c h a r r a n g e m e n t s . 2 1 2 T h e statuses and p r i v i l e g e s e m b o d i e d the local b a r g a i n s . n o t a b l y the crucial c o n s e n t to s u r p l u s e x t r a c t i o n ( W e b e r 1968: 1 0 1 0 . t h o u g h comes from Hyrkania. A t H e r a k l e i a . c l a i m i n g that he had o c c u p i e d the fort o n l y to d e f e n d the city. he e v e n felt the n e e d to p r e s e n t an a p o l o g y o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r his a c t i o n s . as it had b e e n p r e v i o u s l y . is a m p l y paralleled in K o s . T e l l i n g l y . S t a t u s e s m a t t e r e d b e c a u s e t h e y s h a p e d the f o r m s e m p i r e took o n the g r o u n d . this c o n s t i t u t e s a r e m a r k a b l e a d m i s s i o n to the f o r c e o f legal a r g u m e n t and h e n c e the reality of legal f o r m s in s h a p i n g b e h a v i o u r and realities. o n c e it w a s e s t a b l i s h e d that L a b r a u n d a and the r e g i o n b e l o n g e d to M y l a s a . and the legal situation b e c a m e clear. U n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I I . as had b e e n the c u s t o m of those w h o f a r m e d o u t the h a r b o u r tax. c o m p r o m i s e s . Z e u x i s and A n t i o c h o s a g r e e d . f o r oil in the g y m n a s i o n . M i l l a r 1983.2 M i l l a r 1992: 418.

v i o l e n c e is n o t e n o u g h to i n a u g u r a t e l a s t i n g p o w e r . c o n v e r s e l y . 2 1 4 T h i s e x p e c t a t i o n — a d m i t t e d l y alongside the fear that the c o m m i t m e n t s m i g h t b e f o r g o t t e n o r o v e r t u r n e d — a p p e a r s in f r e q u e n t d o c u m e n t s w h e r e t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s a t t e m p t to b i n d t h e i r p o l i t i c a l masters b y the e x c h a n g e of oaths or the publication of a g r e e m e n t s ( f o r i n s t a n c e R o b e r t 1 9 3 6 : n o . Y e t this d i s r e g a r d f o r a g r e e m e n t s w a s a n o m a l o u s . P h i l i p ' s r e p u t a t i o n f o r u n t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s e x p l a i n s t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s he m e t in his A e g e a n ventures. the T h a s i a n s s u r r e n d e r e d to P h i l i p V o n terms: e x e m p t i o n f r o m garrisoning. 5. a n d e x p e c t a n c i e s o n the p a r t o f the ruled. 3). 2 4 . . w i d e l y p u b l i c i z e d c o m m i t m e n t s on the part of the Hellenistic k i n g should not o b s c u r e the ideological f u n c t i o n these statuses played 2. Iasos 2.4 D o c u m e n t s 3. tribute. is an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f A r e n d t ' s b a s i c i n s i g h t t h a t p u r e v i o l e n c e d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e p o w e r ( A r e n d t 1970): e v e n if v i o l e n c e is a visible and immediately effective w a y of m a k i n g others do y o u r will. in t h e l o n g r u n . 1 . 7). I n 2 0 1 . t h e possibility a l w a y s existed that a H e l l e n i s t i c king w o u l d not keep his c o m m i t m e n t s . in A r e n d t ' s m o r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f h e r t h e o r y . N o n e t h e l e s s . and the use of t h e i r o w n l a w s ( f u l l a u t o n o m y o r local s e l f . t h e c o n ditions w e r e s e e m i n g l y accepted by P h i l i p ' s general. 8-10. s i n c e in itself it w i l l n o t c r e a t e c o n s e n t o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n ( w h i c h . billeting. O l y m p i c h o s s w o r e an o a t h to e n f o r c e t h e M y l a s a n r i g h t s o v e r L a b r a u n d a .9 : E u p o l e m o s s w e a r s to let the T h e a n g e l i a n s p u t u p a stele p u b l i c i z i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t ) . T h e case o f P h i l i p V o n l y s h o w s h o w the s y s t e m of statuses and privileges e m b o d i e d c o m m i t m e n t s on the p a r t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c r u l e r . the fact that the legal statuses represented concrete. B e y o n d t h e p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n in t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . a n d the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e r u l i n g p o w e r w o u l d r e s p e c t its c o m m i t m e n t s . I a s o s exacted oaths f r o m P t o l e m y I and his officials. A d m i t t e d l y . the liberty of the c i t y w a s i n c l u d e d in t h e s e o a t h s as an e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e c o operation b e t w e e n city and ruler. and the fragility of his A e g e a n d o m i n i o n s ( C h . w h e n the M y l a s a n s m a d e Philip V r e m i n d O l y m p i c h o s of his e n g a g e m e n t s ( C r a m p a 1 9 6 9 : n o s . but the city w a s t h e n ' e n s l a v e d ' b y P h i l i p ( P o l . w h a t m a t t e r s is t h e f a c t t h a t the r u l i n g p o w e r w a s b o u n d b y its c o m m i t m e n t s a n d b y local p r i v i l e g e s . 1 5 . 5 2 . 3.3 ) . 2 § 3). l i n e s 2 7 . L i k e w i s e .g o v e r n m e n t ? ) . w h i c h he e v e n t u a l l y f u l f i l l e d . 5.a n d p r e c e d e n t . the P t o l e m a i c official a s k e d an I a s i a n e m b a s s y f o r g u a r a n t e e s (πιστιν δούναι) t h a t t h e i r c l a i m c o n c e r n i n g an e a r l i e r g r a n t o f a u t o n o m y w a s g e n u i n e (I. t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s . and p e r c e i v e d as s c a n d a l o u s . are t h e sole c o n s t i t u e n t s o f p o w e r ) .

T h e c i t y ' s political existence not o n l y is d e t e r m i n e d b y the ruler. N e g o t i a t e d statuses and the gradation of p r i v i l e g e s acted as a s y s t e m e x e r c i s i n g repressive tolerance: concessions s t r e n g t h e n e d the f r a m e w o r k . statuses are defined b y his p r o n o u n c e m e n t s . 4 § 5). other examples: 1 9 ( A n t i o c h o s I I I and T e o s ) . lines 2 5 . since b y nature they are based on the a s s u m p tion that the king h o l d s the m o n o p o l y of p e r f o r m a t i v e utterances w i t h i n the state. cash. the A t h e n i a n s ' o p e n w i l l i n g n e s s to negotiate on the tribute d r a w i n g attention a w a y f r o m the a s s u m p t i o n that the tribute w a s p e r m a n e n t .446 BC: Ί will pay to the A t h e n i a n s the tribute (to the a m o u n t ) w h i c h I will c o n v i n c e the A t h e n i a n s ' (ML 52. pres u m a b l y m a d e the H e r a k l e i a n s accept the exaction of s u c h taxes as fair and legitimate. f r e e d o m .w i t h i n the structures of imperial p o w e r . land. and can be represented as his b e n e f a c t i o n s . b u i l d i n g s . the e m p i r e of d o m i n a t i o n c h a n n e l l e d the energies of the ruled into petition rather than resistance or defection. the extensive roster of p r i v i l e g e s and e x e m p t i o n s so readily g r a n t e d b y Z e u x i s and A n t i o c h o s I I I to H e r a k l e i a .7 ) . into i m p r o v i n g the i m m e d i a t e situation rather than c h a l l e n g i n g the f r a m e w o r k of imperial authority.d u e . lessening d e m a n d s ) . B y a l l o w i n g itself to be constrained or petitioned into g i v i n g privileges (that is. T h i s is the i d e o l o g y w h i c h underlies the s y s t e m of statuses and p r i v i l e g e s w h i c h the S e l e u k i d s (and other H e l l e n i s t i c empires) used to classify and o r g a n i z e their s u b j e c t c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e existence of a scale of statuses s t r e n g t h e n e d the h o l d of an e m p i r e over the local c o m m u nities. and especially their w i l l ingness to f o l l o w local c u s t o m w h e n l e v y i n g a h a r b o u r . M o s t of the privileges g r a n t e d b y the H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g s e x e m p l i f y this p h e n o m e n o n : for instance. d e m o c r a c y . 15 ( A n t i o c h o s I . w h i c h a s s u m e d that the king had the right to define such privileges and statuses (see f u r t h e r C h . T h e ancient imperial i d e o l o g y is u n w i t t i n g l y reflected in a m o d e r n list of royal benefactions: military d e f e n c e . b y creating a dialogue based on the a s s u m p t i o n of the ruling p o w e r ' s l e g i t i m a c y and b y m a k i n g it s e e m b e n e v o l e n t . A n early e x a m p l e appears in the oath the A t h e n i a n s i m p o s e d on the C h a l k i d i a n s c. 2 1 5 L o c a l statuses inscribed the cities in the ideology of the patrimonial empire (§ 2d).5 D o c u m e n t 3 1 . RC or II and Erythrai). b u t can be represented as the s u m of the privileges w h i c h it e n j o y s b y the r u l e r ' s g r a c e — a s reflected in the language d e s c r i b i n g this 2. T h e g r a n t i n g of p r i v i l e g e s and the respect of legal statuses b y the ruling p o w e r m a d e the s u b j e c t s accept the b r o a d e r f r a m e w o r k of l e g i t i m a c y . p r i v i l e g e s s u c h as asylia or ateleia ( B r i n g m a n n 1993: 9 ) — t h e k i n g ' s refraining f r o m exactions is d e s c r i b e d w i t h the same v o c a b u l a r y as an actual gift.

closer to the m o d e r n 'asylum'). τα δίκαια. A strict parallel is the usage in Ptolemaic E g y p t . 4 . (Bologna. a p r i v i l e g e g i v e n b y the k i n g j u s t like t a x . w h i c h justifies treating both categories together.e x e m p t i o n or f r e e d o m f r o m billeting ( e v e n t h o u g h t h i s status t h e n h a d to b e p u b l i c i z e d o u t s i d e t h e k i n g d o m b y the old m e t h o d of international canvassing): this w a s p r o b a b l y t h e case at T e o s . RC 42. RC 38.1 6 . des garanties contre les actions arbitraires. . des i m m u n i t é s . 1 4 . A s y m p t o m of t h i s i d e o l o g y at w o r k m i g h t b e f o u n d in t h e t r e a t m e n t o f asylia for cities inside a H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g d o m T h e w o r d asylia d e s i g n a t e s a state o f f r e e d o m f r o m spoliation or reprisals. T h i s t o t a l i z i n g i d e o l o g y .R C 4 8 . B i n g e n .6 ([τάλλα] φιλάνθρωποι proposed by H e r r m a n n ) . J. A s seen a b o v e . its a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e k i n g h e l d the r i g h t to d e f i n e t h e s e s t a t u s e s . Erythrai 30. lines 4 . Β 22-3. as pointed out by L e n g e r 1953: 4 9 5 .). d o c u m e n t 19 C . des amnisties.1 7 .7 . w h e r e φιλάνθρωποι· (act of generosity) describes grants f r o m the king. w h e r e t h e l i m i t w a s a status of 'full f r e e d o m ' b y grant and on the condition of the ruler's c o n t i n u e d g o o d w i l l . 22. o r in a w o r l d w h i c h t h i s i d e o l o g y c r e a t e d . τα σνγκ€χωρημ€να\η6 t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e w a s the s a m e f o r a s u b j e c t c i t y (a H e l l e n i z e d c i t y o r a r o y a l f o u n d a t i o n ) o r f o r a ' f r e e ' o l d G r e e k city. and L . C r i s c u o l o . t r a d i t i o n a l l y . 44. line 5. line 5. t h i s state. lines 3 . R o b e r t 1983: no. RC 22. 2 1 8 W i t h i n t h e i m p e r i a l s p a c e o f g r a d u a t e d s t a t u s e s a n d g r a n t e d p r i v i l e g e s . w i t h J.6 : 'des allégements de charges fiscales.. T e o s : d o c u m e n t 17 and A p p e n d i x 2. A p p e n d i x 2 and R i g s b y 1996. T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n s t a t e d e x p l i c i t l y in a r o y a l l e t t e r to T e o s . 217 D o c u m e n t 19 C . des privilèges juridictionnels. des droits d'asile. τά φιλάνθρωπα.9 . τα υπάρχοντα ( t h a t w h i c h a c i t y ' h a s ' f r o m its r u l e r ) . it s e e m s t h a t asylia w a s c o n s i d e r e d . 1989). 2 1 ' T h e t y p o l o g y o f s t a t u s e s g a v e m e a n i n g to t h e de facto relation o f f o r c e b e t w e e n k i n g a n d c i t y .s i t u a t i o n . lines A 5 . Y e t it s e e m s t h a t asylia ( a n d n o t j u s t t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n to a g o d w h i c h e n a b l e d asylia) c o u l d also b e the r e s u l t o f a r o y a l g r a n t . a n d p o s s i b l y a s s i m i l a t e d to t h e l a t t e r c a t e g o r y . 25. . 5 . Egitto e storia antica dall'ellenismo all'età araba . b y a fiction or a d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f asylia. its r e s o r t to r e p r e s s i v e t o l e r a n c e to a c h i e v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y .7 . G e r a c i (edd.6 . . 218 O n the institutional issues of asylia. the material is gathered in C. lines 1 6 . 2 . G . a s s i g n e d t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s a p l a c e in the w o r l d .6 . c o n c o m i t a n t with the designation of a p l a c e as s a c r e d to a d e i t y . Ptol. w h e r e iXevOepia is m e n t i o n e d a l o n g side φιλάνθρωπa. in L . the Hellenistic kings c o n s i d e r e d e v e n full f r e e d o m as the r e s u l t o f r o y a l b e n e f a c t i o n . it c l o s e d t h e local c o m m u n i t y ' s h o r i z o n s to a n y t h i n g o u t s i d e the i m p e r i a l s p a c e . as j u s t a n o t h e r 216 I. H a h n 1978: 23-4. . A parallel m i g h t be the royal grants of asylia in Ptolemaic E g y p t (though the m e a n i n g seems to be different. w i t h its c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s y s t e m o f s t a t u s e s . 24-30. τα προϋπάρχοντα (that w h i c h a c i t y h a s e n j o y e d f r o m e a r l i e r t i m e s . u n d e r the p r e s e n t r u l e r ' s p r e d e c e s s o r s ) . O n f r e e d o m as benefaction. c o u l d o n l y r e s u l t f r o m a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t b y t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m m u n i t y . Ord. des titres de protection de la p e r s o n n e et des biens'.

SEG 32. T i b e r i u s ) . p o w e r .a s . and it is difficult to see h o w a 'faction' could easily control a polis with its d e m o c r a t i c institutions (though M a c h i a v e l l i . 3 7 . w h e n subjected to 2 R o m a n publicans w h i c h the city perceived as 'the b e g i n n i n g of slavery'. L i v . 1 5 . the g e n u i n e l y free city w o u l d l o n g r e m a i n a reality. b a s e d o n de facto d o m i n a t i o n . 9 .1 0 . the recalcitrant cities' 215 Factions: Bikerman 1938: 1 4 5 . 22. w a s an i n s t r u m e n t of T h i s i d e o l o g y . the t y p o l o g y is itself a p o w e r f u l tool for b r i n g i n g this t r e n d to pass. in 203.469.g. Pol.4 . 1 § 4) and a f t e r w a r d s . 1 . 3 8 .6. 3 7 . the c o n v e r s i o n f r o m free state to c o m m u n i t y d e p e n d e n t o n g r a n t s and p r i v i l e g e s . w h e n a city m u s t resort to p e t i t i o n as a m a t t e r of c o u r s e . 1 1 . b e c a u s e all statuses m u s t o r i g i n a t e w i t h a p e r f o r m a t i v e s p e e c h act b y the k i n g . b o t h b e f o r e A n t i o c h o s I I I ( C h . The Prince. should have petitioned to the Senate.r o y a l l y g r a n t e d p r i v i l e g e .g i f t and a n n u l l e d liberty by fiat. 1 . R e y n o l d s 1982: no.7 . and its f u n c t i o n s : classification of the r u l e d w i t h i n the cage of i m p e r i a l space.7. the f o s t e r i n g of c o n s e n t . 7. w h e n u n d e r l y i n g issues w e r e exacerbated and factions could betray the city to the p o w e r they favoured. line 5. w h i c h p r o b a b l y d i d s u r r e n d e r to A n t i o c h o s I I I on c o n d i t i o n o f s u c h a grant). 4 . the 'factions' m a y have been restricted to a f e w individuals with ancestral ties to a king (RC 17. T h i s state o f affairs w o u l d b e c o m e g e n e r a l i z e d u n d e r R o m a n d o m i n a t i o n . the e m p e r o r spoke the royal l a n g u a g e of l i b e r t y . T h e s e cities r e f u s e d to g i v e in to the o f f e r of a g r a n t o f l i b e r t y (unlike M y l a s a or A l a b a n d a . and their resistance w a s ideological as w e l l as m i l i t a r y ( L i v . T h e i r resistance s e r v e s as a r e m i n d e r that the p r o v i n c i a l i z a t i o n of the polis in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d w a s not a f o r e g o n e c o n c l u s i o n . lines 2. in spite of the p o o r e v i d e n c e ) .24. . lines 8 . e v e n as it contests. 27. T h e S m y r n i a n and L a m p s a k e n e rec a l c i t r a n c e also p o i n t s o u t . g r o u n d e d in a S e l e u k i d past. 5. L i b e r t y as gift: e. E m p e r o r s taking a w a y freedom: D i o C a s s . p r i v i l e g e s ) p l a y e d a m o r e i m p o r t a n t role in m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t r o l than the p r e s e n c e of ' f a c t i o n s ' ( o f t e n p r o p o s e d as the m a i n m e a n s of c o n t r o l o v e r cities. the l o g i c u n d e r l y i n g the S e l e u k i d m o d e l . 2 1 . T h e evidence is m o s t l y w a r t i m e (e. w h e r e the u l t i m a t e p r i v i l e g e w a s ' a u t o n o m y ' b y royal g r a n t . the m o n o p o l y of l e g i t i m a c y . 3 7 . 2 0 p e t i t i o n : M e m n o n of Herakleia observes that Herakleia Pontike. 6 . rather than m u r d e r the p u b l i c a n s (FGrHist 434. 1 7 . o f f e r i n g f o r m s for the i n t e g r a t i o n of the polis w i t h i n an i m p e r i a l space and m e d i a t i n g i m p e r i a l p r e s e n c e o v e r and w i t h i n the polis: the i d e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s for the c o n s t i t u t i o n of a s u p r a -polis state w i t h o u t h a v i n g to dissolve the local c o m m u n i t i e s in a f u l l y c o n s t i t u t e d territorial state. b u t w a s m a t c h e d b y rapid d e p r o v i n c i a l i z a t i o n . 5 ) . 2 1 9 T h e typology of statuses reflects the t r e n d t o w a r d s the p r o v i n c i a l i z a t i o n of the polis.g.6).6 . in peacetime. 54. ch. T h e f o r m s (statuses. L i v .6 ( K y z i k o s u n d e r A u g u s t u s .7 ) . 57.220 S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s r e j e c t e d this m o d e l in 196. 3 3 . 13. takes this process as a definite possibility for the cities of Renaissance Italy). e s p e c i a l l y in J u d a e a and P h o e n i c i a . line 9).

t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s a n d t h e landscape. o n e s t r a n d o f t h e a r g u m e n t p r e s e n t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r is t h a t i d e o l o g y p l a y e d a v e r y real role in c o n s t i t u t i n g e m p i r e . the s u c c e s s f u l w o r k i n g s o f the s y s t e m . f o r lack o f p r e c i s e a n d d e t a i l e d e v i d e n c e . T h e s e h e l p to i m a g i n e e m p i r e . A i g a i . by garrisoning cities or b y h o l d i n g strategic points or routes. generated c o m m u n i c a t i o n v e r t i c a l l y . strategic m o v e m e n t s b y l a n d a n d b y sea o n a v a s t s c a l e . T h e i m m e d i a t e i m p r e s s i o n is t h a t o f its m a t e r i a l f o r c e . the m e t i c u l o u s n e s s of c o n t r o l . as A m y z o n . indirect taxes. 33. p r o d u c e d its o w n d e c i s i o n s a n d a c t i o n s . d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y . Beyond Structures A t first s i g h t . It c o n q u e r e d local c o m m u n i t i e s b y the t h r e a t o r the a p p l i c a tion of violence: large contingents of professional troops. a n d e v e n in s o m e r e m o t e p a r t s . k e p t r e c o r d s . n o t s i t e d o n the m a i n a x e s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n .liberty 5-6)·" being considered insolent insubordination (Liv. services. w h a t r e m a i n s . a n d w h a t I h a v e d e v e l o p e d in t h e e a r l i e r s e c t i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r . T h i s d o e s n o t c o n d e m n t h e p i c t u r e as u n r e a l : o n t h e c o n t r a r y . b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f o f f i c i a l s . b u t w h i c h still h a d to deal w i t h t h e S e l e u k i d state o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s . K i l d a r a . levied tribute.38. t h e ' i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s ' . controlled the m o v e m e n t of people. W i t h o u t f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e to t r a c e m a t t e r s o n the g r o u n d . a n d h e n c e a b o u t i d e o l o g y : t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the d o c u m e n t s concern the existence of a space structured b y administration. it is d i f f i c u l t n o t to b e i m p r e s s e d b y t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e S e l e u k i d state. Y e t t h i s p i c t u r e is i m p o s s i b l e to s u b s t a n t i a t e m o r e g e n e r a l l y o r to n u a n c e . f r o m h i g h o f f i c i a l s to s u b o r d i n a t e s . a r c h i v e s . a l i v e b o d y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e k n o w l e d g e . t h e s e are all a b o u t i d e o l o g y . It is e s s e n t i a l to b e a r the i d e o l o g i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e final p i c t u r e o f ' i m a g i n e d e m p i r e ' . Its far-reaching. a n d h o r i z o n t a l l y . 4.3. a n d t h a t a H e l l e n i s t i c e m p i r e like t h e S e l e u k i d r e a l m d e p e n d e d o n i d e o l o g i c a l f o r c e as m u c h as o n p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . as w e s p i n o u t the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e d o c u m e n t s . t h i s p i c t u r e is less a b o u t r e a l i t i e s t h a n a b o u t a r h e t o r i c o f p o w e r . I t s m i l i t a r y m e a n s c o n t r o l l e d . is an impression of S e l e u k i d p o w e r . I s t h i s p i c t u r e an a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n ? It c e r t a i n l y d e s c r i b e s t h e s i t u a t i o n at least in p a r t s o f A s i a M i n o r . the efficiency and u b i q u i t y of royal authority. a n d T e m n o s s u g g e s t : t h e s e w e r e h i g h l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . d r a w n f r o m the implications of the d o c u m e n t s . hierarchically organized administrative structures i m p l e m e n t e d royal orders. T h e i m p r e s s i o n s o f .

p e r s o n a l r u l e r s o f s m a l l p r i n c i p a l i t i e s . Chrysaorians. It w a s c e n t r e d o n a s h r i n e n e a r S t r a t o n i k e i a . 2 § 2). T h i s s h o u l d m a k e u s r e c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e f o r S e l e u k i d Asia M i n o r . a b o u t w h i c h w e k n o w v e r y little. It h a d its o w n i n s t i t u t i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g an a s s e m b l y a n d financial i n s t i t u t i o n s ) a n d f e d e r a l c i t i z e n s h i p (all C h r y s a o r i a n s h a d c e r t a i n r i g h t s in all C h r y s a o r i a n cities). Robert 1983: no. N o n e t h e l e s s . a n d T h e r a . One i n s t a n c e c a n b e f o u n d in w e s t e r n K a r i a . w h i c h a s s i g n e d t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s a p l a c e in t h e s p a c e o f e m p i r e . A l i n d a . i m p o r t a n t ' S e l e u k i d ' cities like A l a b a n d a ( ' A n t i o c h e i a o f t h e C h r y s a o r i a n s ' ) . e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h a p r a c t i c a l s y s t e m of d e f i n i t i o n s a n d s t a t u s e s . A m y z o n w a s c e r t a i n l y in c o n t a c t w i t h s e v e r a l l a y e r s o f S e l e u k i d a u t h o r i t y .n e s s ' g i v e n o u t b y the r h e t o r i c o f o u r S e l e u k i d d o c u m e n t s are an i m p l i c i t c o n s t i t u e n t o f t h i s i d e o l o g y o f e m p i r e . m a t e r i a l m e a n s o f control. along with Stratonikeia. c o u l d h e l p m a k e t h e S e l e u k i d state s t r o n g . it r e s t e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e r u l e r ' s p o w e r to n a m e . T h e t y p o l o g y o f l e g a l s t a t u s e s a n d p r i v i l e g e s are a n o t h e r . J. T h i s i d e o l o g y of e m p i r e . a n d m i g h t b e l a r g e l y i d e o l o g i c a l — o r s i m p l y an i l l u s i o n . a c i t y u n d e r R h o d i a n control. J u s t as p r o b l e m a t i c is t h e e x i s t e n c e o f ' d y n a s t s ' . H o w t h e C h r y s a o r i a n L e a g u e coexisted w i t h the concrete territorial and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s S e l e u k i d state. a n d is as i m p r e s s i v e an i n s t r u m e n t o f S e l e u k i d state p o w e r as t h e m o r e o b v i o u s . 2 2 1 It is s u r p r i s i n g to d i s c o v e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n w h o s e m e m b e r s h i p w a s d r a w n f r o m b o t h the S e l e u k i d and the R h o d i a n d o m i n i o n s . and L . b y a selff u l f i l l i n g m o v e m e n t . 28 (finances). S e l e u k i d s i n c e 203 ( C h . as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . a n d Mylasa were Chrysaorian communities. A p a r t f r o m A m y z o n . f r o m R h o d e s ' S u b j e c t Peraia. e s p e c i a l l y if o n e c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e S e l e u k i d state r e s t r i c t e d t h e e x t e r n a l d i p l o m a c y o f at least s o m e o f its s u b j e c t cities. K e r a m o s . w a s a p o w e r f u l t o o l f o r d o m i n a t i o n . Robert 1983: 223-5. e x p l i c i t f e a t u r e . a n d h o w t h i s c o e x i s t e n c e s h o u l d m o d i f y o u r p i c t u r e o f t h e n a t u r e o f S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l is y e t unclear. w h o s e e m to h a v e e x i s t e d in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e 221 A m y z o n : document 11 (whence it appears that all Chrysaorians share privileges in every Chrysaorian city).' s t r o n g s t a t e .des. the i m p r e s s i o n o f a p o w e r f u l state a p p a r a t u s is d i f f i c u l t to s u b s t a n t i a t e . a n d o f t h e p e r t i n e n c e o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s h e w i e l d e d w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e cities. It p r e s e n t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e c i t i e s as t h e s u m o f t h e g r a n t s w h i c h t h e r u l e r h a d a g r e e d to. T h e impression and ideology of strong state-ness. It also b e l o n g e d to an o r g a n i s a t i o n c a l l e d t h e C h r y s a o r i a n L e a g u e . p r e s u m a b l y an e t h n i c a l l y b a s e d f e d e r a t i o n . and L . and J. . and notice the u n t i d y e l e m e n t s w h i c h do not fit an u n i f i e d p i c t u r e of s t r u c t u r e s a n d institutions séleuci.

34. p e r h a p s a h y p a r c h . Shrines: D e b o r d 1982. u n d e r t h e P t o l e m i e s is t y p i c a l . and b y the l a c k o f a n y n e w e v i d e n c e . Boffo 1985. ) Y e t a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y is t h a t a d y n a s t like M o a g e t e s w a s l a r g e l y f r e e f r o m S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l . Virgilio 1987 for programmatic essay. and L .1 1 0 . 21. 2 2 3 F i n a l l y . F u r t h e r m o r e . t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n the state a n d f o r m s o f o r g a n i s a t i o n in t h e r o y a l l a n d . it is probable that the Kibyratis was Seleukid around 260: Strobel 1991: 125-6. p e r h a p s the l a r g e s t . However. like t h o s e in t h e e a s t e r n p a r t s o f the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e ? O r were they hereditary Seleukid governors? ( T h e 'dynast' O l y m p i c h o s s t a r t e d o f f as a S e l e u k i d g o v e r n o r .S e l e u k i d state.35. I have argued that the office and activity of Nikanor imply administrative control of the shrines (§ 2c). . precisely leaves out the regions w h e r e imperial p o w e r 222 T h e evidence is gathered in Billows 1995: 8 1 . Bean. and K o b e s 1996. Robert in BE 50. 183. e n j o y i n g l a r g e e s t a t e s as a p o w e r b a s e ? ( P t o l e m a i o s c e r t a i n l y e n j o y e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o n h i s e s t a t e at S k y t h o p o l i s . T h e q u e s t i o n is c l o u d e d b o t h b y p r o b l e m s of definition and t e r m i n o l o g y . J. o r M o a g e t e s in t h e K i b y r a t i s . Brandt 1992: 69.2 o f this chapter. y e t t h e s e r e l a t i o n s are still v e r y p o o r l y d o c u m e n t e d . if so. b e c a u s e o f t h e e x t e n s i o n a n d e c o n o m i c i m p o r t a n c e o f the chora.570). W e d o n o t k n o w h o w t h e s e w e r e c o n t r o l l e d o r i n t e g r a t e d (if i n d e e d t h e y w e r e i n t e g r a t e d ) . ) I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e . like Selge. Moagetes: Pol. d y n a s t s h a d f u l l e n j o y m e n t o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l ity.7. coming down from the Kibyratan march. T h e details of control and exaction. Was the Kibyratis free from Seleukid dominion. o n t h e S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l s ' a c t i v i t y . w h e r e they c o u l d levy indirect taxes and agricultural d u e s (OGIS 55). m u s t h a v e m a d e a l a r g e c l a i m . in s p i t e o f e v o c a t i v e p i e c e s o f e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e v i l l a g e s o r c o n c e r n i n g t h e shrines. s u c h as the P h i l o m e l i d s in P h r y g i a . t o l e r a t e d b e c a u s e he w a s too d i f f i c u l t to r e d u c e . W e r e t h e y c o n s i d e r e d ' v a s s a l ' r u l e r s . w h y w o u l d c e r t a i n f a m i l i e s h a v e b e e n a l l o w e d to r e t a i n g o v e r n o r s h i p s as their p r e r o g a t i v e — a s a reward. if t h e case o f P t o l e m a i o s o f T e l m e s s o s . on the decree for Orthagoras of Araxa. 223 Villages: Wörrle 1975. s u c h as I h a v e g i v e n in s e c t i o n s 1 . all t h e s e m a t t e r s still e s c a p e u s . s u c h as t h e v i l l a g e s a n d t h e s h r i n e s . edited by G . 21. Philomelids: Philomelos appears as an independent power player in the confused local conflicts of 189: Pol.2.3) claims was never subject to the kings (despite the activity of Antiochos III in Pisidia?). the nature and f r e q u e n c y of contacts. a n d c o n t i n u e d as an A n t i g o n i d g o v e r n o r . argues persuasively that T l o s was under Seleukid attack at that time. or because they w e r e too e n t r e n c h e d l o c a l l y to b e r e m o v e d ? O r w e r e t h e y s o m e s o r t o f ' b a r o n ' . which was presumably Seleukid-held (on the geography. Seleukid troops assailed the Xanthos valley from the north. reproduced as SEG 18. a s u r v e y o f i m p e r i a l s t r u c t u r e s . 2 2 2 It is n o n e t h e l e s s c l e a r t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f d y n a s t s m a d e t h e S e l e u k i d state f a r less h o m o g e n e o u s t h a n a general s u r v e y of administrative structures or a m a p presenting ' S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r ' as a s o l i d t e r r i t o r i a l b l o c k m i g h t h i n t . E. which Strabo (12.

224 T u r k s : Braudel 1966: i. h a r d l y s t r i k e u s as w e a k states: t h e y s h o w a d e v e l o p e d centre of p o w e r .F r a n c e . 2 2 4 It w o u l d b e f a s c i n a t i n g to m a p o u t S e l e u k i d p o w e r in A s i a M i n o r . concerning France. T h i s w o u l d a l l o w u s to e v a l u a t e to w h a t e x t e n t t h e i m p e r i a l i d e o l o g y w a s an i l l u s i o n t h a t s u s t a i n e d S e l e u k i d p o w e r . I f t h e e v i d e n c e w e r e as p l e n t i f u l as f o r m o r e m o d e r n p e r i o d s . like the O t t o m a n e m p i r e . 34-6. and mainly centred on the X a n t h o s v a l l e y ( Z i m m e r m a n n 1 9 9 3 ) . R.E a s t e r n L y d i a . T h e firmest c o n c l u s i o n to e m e r g e f r o m t h i s c h a p t e r is t h e real contribution which ideology makes towards constituting empire. l e a v i n g o u t m u c h o f t h e r o u g h e r c o u n t r y in N o r t h . I f w e h a d the e v i d e n c e to c o n f r o n t t h e i d e o l o g y o f e m p i r e . w e m i g h t b e a b l e to j u d g e w h e t h e r the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e was. o r N a p o l e o n i c F r a n c e . o r the p r o d u c t o f a t r u l y p o w e r f u l a n d i n v a s i v e e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n . a p a r a d o x i c a l c o m b i n a t i o n of state p o w e r a n d o f s t r u c t u r a l w e a k n e s s . w h i c h started i m m e d i ately b e y o n d the great cities and the m a i n a v e n u e s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . to o b s e r v e w h e r e the S e l e u k i d state w a s t h i c k a n d w h e r e t h i n . l i k e w i s e . e v e n in t h e I l e . . o r w h e t h e r it w o u l d b e j u s t i f i e d at all. Y e t t h e f o r m e r d r e w an e l o q u e n t d e c l a r a t i o n b y B r a u d e l : 'pauvre despotisme des T u r c s ! ' . much of C o b b ' s work is devoted to showing the powerlessness or the irrelevance of even strong. w e c o u l d e v e n c o n c e i v a b l y start to relate l o n g .t e r m patterns of settlement and social o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h the i m p a c t and t h e f o r m s w h i c h an e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n t o o k in t h e l a n d s c a p e . 38. s i n c e s u c h a s u r v e y g o e s w h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e l e a d s it. militant governments like the pre-Thermidorian Revolutionary state. a n d w h y . a n d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f state p o w e r w h i c h o u r d o c u m e n t s d e l i b e r a t e l y g i v e o u t . t h e p i c t u r e m i g h t b e s u r p r i s i n g . p r e c i s e l y the d a n g e r t h i s s e c t i o n h a s tried to highlight. S e l e u k i d c o n t r o l s e e m s r e s t r i c t e d to t h e p l a i n s a n d v a l l e y s . to t r y to e x p l a i n w h y .d i d n o t o b t a i n . or the Napoleonic state. b u t to d o so w o u l d a m o u n t to t a k i n g too s e r i o u s l y t h e i n c l u s i v e i d e o l o g y o f t h e S e l e u k i d s p a c e . b e c a u s e it p r o d u c e s a m o r e s a t i s f y i n g p i c t u r e . a careful b u r e a u c r a c y . both urban and rural.d e . F o r the time b e i n g .8 ) h a s o b s e r v e d t h a t in L y d i a at least. Indifference: C o b b 1975: 30-4. It is d a n g e r o u s to e x t r a p o l a t e f r o m S e l e u k i d a c t i v i t y in t h e lieux de passage: D e b o r d ( 1 9 8 5 : 3 4 7 . T h e e a r l y a n d classical O t t o m a n state. the R h o d i a n 'control' of L y k i a m a y have been far m o r e limited than m o d e r n historians assume. o r R e v o l u t i o n a r y F r a n c e . the p r o f u s i o n of military m e a n s for c o m p u l s i o n . w e do not k n o w h o w loud w e s h o u l d s i g h ' p a u v r e d e s p o t i s m e d e s S é l e u c i d e s ! ' . T o g e n e r a l i z e f r o m the p a t c h y e v i d e n c e is t e m p t i n g . and extensive administrative s t r u c t u r e s . C o b b described the 'hinterland of indifference'. w i t h local realities.

. this a s p e c t c a n n o t be s t u d i e d b y inert. B o t h aspects point o u t h o w the e x p e r i e n c e of e m p i r e e s c a p e s m e r e c a t a l o g u i n g of s t r u c t u r e s . In s t u d y i n g h o w the t y p o l o g y of statuses s t r e n g t h e n e d S e l e u k i d p o w e r . 2 2 5 T h i s p o i n t s to a n o t h e r w a y in w h i c h p o w e r can b e a p p r o a c h e d . . and c o u l d be u s e d f o r f u r t h e r n e g o t i a tions. if w e e x a m i n e the i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n r u l e r s and r u l e d . a one-sided series of pronouncements from the centre of power. statuses and p r i v i l e g e s r e p r e s e n t e d b a r g a i n s struck b e t w e e n r u l i n g p o w e r and local c o m m u n i t y . a constant dialogue of petition and response'. I n o t h e r w o r d s . t h r o u g h p r o c e s s e s o f e x c h a n g e .B u t u n l i k e the s t r u c t u r e s of p o w e r . I h a v e m e n t i o n e d the n e e d f o r c o n s e n t or a c c e p t ability. L u c k i l y . . I n o t e d the fact that the royal p r o n o u n c e m e n t s and the p r i v i l e g e s t h e y g r a n t e d w h e r e the o b j e c t of n e g o t i a t i o n s and b a r g a i n i n g b e t w e e n rulers and ruled. so these c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m s s h o u l d not be r e d u c e d to h y p o c r i t i c a l f a ç a d e and servile t o a d y i n g : the political l a n g u a g e o f the actors w a s not an e p i p h e n o m e n o n to the realities of p o w e r . the m o d e l s w h i c h s t u d y ' p o w e r . but . the v e r y m e d i u m of this i n t e r a c t i o n is p r e s e r v e d : w e h a v e the actual d o c u m e n t s . royal letters. . civic decrees. since it c o n s t i t u t e d the relations b e t w e e n ruler and r u l e d .p o s s e s s i o n . It o f f e r s us w a y s to p u r s u e and refine the analyses o f p o w e r o f f e r e d in C h a p t e r 3: these w i l l be taken u p in the n e x t c h a p t e r .a s . 225 T h e same process for the Roman empire: Millar 1983: 80.b a t t l e f i e l d ' can b e r e i n t r o d u c e d into the s t u d y of S e l e u k i d A s i a M i n o r . c o u c h e d in c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m s . e v e n w i t h i n an e m p i r e of d o m i n a t i o n like the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e : p o w e r as interaction. Just as the s y s t e m o f statuses and p r i v i l e g e s s h o u l d not be m i n i m i z e d to a m e a n i n g l e s s c o v e r f o r b r u t a l realities of p o w e r .a s . a n a t o m i z i n g m e t h o d s like lists of officials or of taxes. earlier on. 'not . . b u t w a s v e r y real.

You meaning it: Pocock 1984: 34.f l o w i n g o r d e r s . Other: RC 14. Jos. 10: 27.5 T h e y admit that the reality of interaction 1 Document 5. 11: 19. T h e analysis offered here is inspired by Marin 1978: 104.48 (signalled by Piejko 1991a: 64). on royal discourse: the point is 'faire passer sa totalité. but unmistakable): 5. 1 T h e p a r t i c u l a r case o f A m y z o n is f r a m e d in t h e w i d e r c o n t e x t o f 'all t h o s e w h o h a v e t r u s t e d a n d h a n d e d t h e m s e l v e s o v e r to u s ' . lines 36-8. 8-10 (Laodike to Teos). w i t h its o w n s t y l e a n d v a l u e s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e p a t r i m o n i a l n a t u r e o f t h e state. 31 A . s u c h as Z e u x i s ' l e t t e r to A m y z o n . sa plénitude dans la 'petitesse' de l'occasion 2 Document 25. 7 . if t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t y b e h a v e s w e l l — ' w e w i l l take all c a r e f o r y o u . Z e u x i s ' professed solicitude s p e a k s o f t h e a s y m m e t r y b e t w e e n t h e r o y a l state a n d the local c o m m u n i t y . AJ 13. . T h e s t r u c t u r e s o f c o n t r o l are a l r e a d y in p l a c e . Jonnes and Ricl 1997: 3-4. i n a s m u c h as y o u s h o w y o u r s e l v e s t h e b e t t e r d i s p o s e d a n d t h e m o r e z e a l o u s t o w a r d s the i n t e r e s t s o f k i n g A n t i o c h o s ' .47-8.I 5 · Style: Wörrle 1978: 204-6. l o c a l status quo d e p e n d s o n the p e r f o r m a t i v e u t t e r a n c e o f t h e i m p e r i a l state. 4 S u c h e x p r e s s i o n s are c o m m o n . A l l t h e s e f e a t u r e s — p a r a l l e l e d in Z e u x i s ' letter to K i l d a r a 2 — c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e d i s c o u r s e o f e m p i r e : the w o r l d o f d o w n w a r d . 5 Antiochos III: also documents 26 A . I 25—30 (Laodike to Iasos). 1 Macc. Patrimonial ideology: Ch. in t h e r h e t o r i c o f e x t e n s i o n a n d t o t a l i t y e s s e n t i a l to representations of imperial power. Zeuxis to Herakleia). the letter e n d s b y n o t i f y i n g the A m y z o n i a n s that Z e u x i s has o r d e r e d h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s to t a k e c a r e o f t h e m a n d r e f r a i n f r o m a b u s e s .994. A m y z o n (fragmentary. 7-9. lines D 14-17. w e m a y u s e f u l l y call t h e m 'contract clauses'.1 0 (Antiochos. lines 12-14.1 1 . I I 4 .C H A P T E R 4 Empire as Interaction A s e n s e o f e m p i r e as a p r o c e s s o f e x c h a n g e c a n b e g a i n e d e v e n f r o m d o c u m e n t s w h i c h at first s i g h t e x p r e s s t h e f u l l w e i g h t o f r o y a l p o w e r . 3 E v e n so. 3 Royal orders: Bertrand 1990: 108-9. in t h e e p i g r a p h i c a l m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n i n g to A n t i o c h o s I I I a n d in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d g e n e r a l l y . Z e u x i s ' l e t t e r s i n c l u d e a f e a t u r e w h i c h is t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g b e c a u s e it f o l l o w s e x p r e s s i o n s o f i m p e r i a l p o w e r : t h e p r o m i s e o f f u t u r e b e n e f a c t i o n . can be guessed in 19 D. w r i t t e n i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t a k i n g t h e c i t y o v e r . I 14—15. 42. SEG 42. t h e w o r l d ' w h e r e y o u m e a n s it'. 2 Macc. 4 Document 25. B IV 9 . présente'. 3 § 2.

t e r m g i f t s a n d o f i m m e d i a t e h e l p w i t h b u i l d i n g . as he d i d w i t h H e r a k l e i a and Sardeis. o r t h e case o f t h e T e m p l e o f J e r u s a l e m . d o c u m e n t e d in s o m e d e t a i l . o r p e r h a p s n i n e . one might expect the inscription to record the fact). Hicks on GIBM 443. L a o d i k e p r o m i s e d the city forty tons of w h e a t a year. a compendium of the available evidence. T h i s h o l d s t r u e f o r the m o s t v i s i b l e r o y a l a c t i v i t y : m a t e r i a l b e n e f a c t i o n s to t h e cities.663 (also SEG 2. lines 16-18. 1 3 8 . m i g h t b e a t t r i b u t e d to h i m . b u t a m o u n t i n g to at least five. the A n t i o c h e i o n . as w i t h a w a t e r . for ten y e a r s . 8 T h e case o f I a s o s . the r e c i p i e n t o f b e n e f a c t i o n b o t h in t h e f o r m of l o n g . as a s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e o f e m p i r e : g i f t s as m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f r o y a l p o w e r . w h i c h allow us to e x a m i n e t h e i m p a c t o f r o y a l e u e r g e t i s m w i t h i n the r e c i p i e n t c o m m u n i t y . Water-conduit: 31 A . A n t i o c h o s g a v e g r a i n to P r i e n e a n d H e r a k l e i a . w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s to u s e t h e i n c o m e r a i s e d b y s e l l i n g t h e g r a i n f o r the d o w r i e s o f the p o o r c i t i z e n s ' d a u g h t e r s (els προίκας ταΐς τών άσθηνούντων πολιτών θνγατράσιν). 33. r a t h e r t h a n as t h e u n t r a m m e l l e d a u t h o r o f a c t i o n s d i r e c t e d at p a s s i v e cities. 31. a n d t h e bouleuterion a n d archeion w e r e p r o b a b l y r e b u i l t a f t e r S e l e u k i d t a k e o v e r ) .s t r i c k e n I a s o s ( w h e r e a g y m n a s i o n . t h a t it is w o r t h r e c a p i t u l a t i n g the e v i d e n c e a n d p a u s i n g to r e f l e c t o n it. a n d in s u c h a v a r i e t y o f r e c i p i e n t s o f b e n e f a c t i o n . s t a n d s o u t b e c a u s e of the c o m p l e x i t y and breadth of the arrangements. he c o u l d subsidize the expense of maintaining amenities. at a m a x i m u m o f '300 A n t i o c h e i a n 6 V e y n e 1976: 340 n. 6 O f c o u r s e . 8 SEG 2. 3.580.c o n d u i t at H e r a k l e i a . archeion—but if these buildings had been financed by Antiochos I I I (Hicks). s u c h as t h e I v o r r h a g o s d e c r e e w h i c h d o c u m e n t s A t t a l i d g r a n t s to c i t i e s . T h a t r e c i p r o c i t y w a s a figure u s e d b y the S e l e u k i d state a l e r t s u s to t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o n s i d e r i n g a H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g in a c o n t e x t o f i n t e r a c t i o n . r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y a vertical relationship of control and exploitation. f o r i n s t a n c e oil f o r t h e g y m a s i o n . t a l e n t s ) . summarizing the results of a survey of royal euergetism: the results are published in Bringmann and von Steuben 1995. Bringmann 1993. 7 D o c u m e n t s I. 131. RC 48. Gauthier 1985: 39-53. the terms in w h i c h t h e e x c h a n g e is d e f i n e d are n o t s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . I 11—13. Iasos: Crowther 19956. as at S a r d e i s a n d p e r h a p s e a r t h q u a k e . line D 4). he c o u l d h e l p w i t h t h e e x p e n s i v e b u s i n e s s o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . same document I. an a s p e c t so w e l l d o c u m e n t e d f o r A n t i o c h o s I I I . 7 A l l t h e s e i t e m s find p a r a l l e l s in the g e n e r a l h i s t o r y o f H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g s h i p .b e t w e e n r u l e r a n d r u l e d is a p r o c e s s o f r e c i p r o c i t y . AJ 1 2 . Jos. he m a d e g r a n t s o f c a s h to H e r a k l e i a ( w h o s e c i t i z e n s b a l d l y a s k e d f o r a y e a r l y s u b s i d y 'as l a r g e as p o s s i b l e ' . .4 ! . Iasos 252 (1bouleuterion. he c o u l d m a k e m o r e s p e c i f i c g i f t s f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s . it is l e g i t i m a t e to c o n s i d e r t h e m f r o m a b o v e . Robert 1937: 450-2 (gymnasion). a l b e i t b r i e f l y . b u t c o u c h e d in a c o n v e n t i o n a l l a n g u a g e w h o s e f u n c t i o n s a n d e f f e c t s w i l l h a v e to b e e x p l o r e d .

the fact that the archeion had to be rebuilt at this time perhaps implies destruction in social unrest (qua repository for debt records). L a Rocca. 847-998. Budgets: Will 1988: 334 n. T h e g i f t is n o t o n l y a l i m e n t a r y . 120. the king 9 Strabo 14. Ragone. R. w a s f o r m a l l y a ' f r e e ' c i t y ( C h . G . r e s t i n g o n t h e a c c e p t a b l e a u t h o r i t y o f an o r a c u l a r g o d . qualified by Crowther 1995b: 112 n. 1 . r a t h e r t h a n m o r e c o n v e n t i o n a l g i f t s . u n d e r the d i v i n e s a n c t i o n o f an o r a c l e o f A p o l l o : b o t h t h e k i n g a n d t h e g o d u r g e d t h e c i t y to l i v e its c o m m o n l i f e in h a r m o n y ( π ο λ ι τ ε ύ ε σ α ι μεθ' ομονοία?).7 . 11 D o c u m e n t 28. BCH 114 (1990). 3 § 3). 1 2 I a s o s . t h e r e c i p i e n t of e u e r g e t i c a l a t t e n t i o n f r o m A n t i o c h o s a n d L a o d i k e . Broughton. within the survey published in ASNP 3rd ser. as q u e e n . it presumably chose not to do so. Gauthier. 6 1 . as C r o w t h e r (19956: 120). observes.21. R.11 E v e n if t h e p r o c e s s w a s u n o b t r u s i v e . 10 D o c u m e n t 26 A . Crowther 19956 points out that the call for homonoia suggests the resort to foreign judges. Attic-Alexandrine standard: E. 23 (1993). see further the studies by E. l e s s e n i n g social i n e q u a l i t y a n d c o n f l i c t in t h e a f t e r m a t h o f e a r t h q u a k e a n d w a r f a r e . J. Pierobon Benoit. 9 it i n t e r v e n e s in t h e fabric of the city. Gnomon 68 (1996). B y i n t e r v e n i n g in areas o f n e e d . L a o d i k e d e s c r i b e s h e r g i f t as 'a b e n e f a c t i o n to t h e p o o r c i t i z e n s a n d a c o m m o n s e r v i c e (κοινήν εύχρηστίαν) to t h e w h o l e p e o p l e ' . Will.d r a c h m a i ' p e r d o w r y . t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' A n t i o c h e i a n d r a c h m a i ' in w h i c h L a o d i k e m e a s u r e s t h e d o w r i e s ( r a t h e r t h a n ' A t t i c d r a c h m a i ' o r ' A l e x a n d r i a n d r a c h m a i ' . r e g a r d l e s s o f j u r i d i c a l s t a t u s . ls Food: a later parallel in Robert 1949: 74-81. Traina. Benoit. 438 and nn. 12 D o c u m e n t 28. b y s p o n s o r i n g t h e r e s o r t to ' f o r e i g n j u d g e s ' to a r b i t r a t e c o n f l i c t . 607—9. for a sense of the territory of Iasos and its sub-units. 9—10. t h r o u g h t h e p a t r o n a g e o f l o c a l r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n d c i v i c h a r m o n y .2 . facilitating marriage and citizen r e p r o d u c t i o n . 11 (though see Migeotte 1984 and 1992 for a qualification of the traditional view). G . Ph. m a y b e w h a t t h e I a s i a n s d e s i g n a t e d as τα μέγιστα αγαθά r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e k i n g . Y e t b e n e f a c t i o n s a l l o w e d t h e S e l e u k i d state to e x t e n d its p r e s e n c e into t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s . s u c h as t h e c i t i e s ' p r e c a r i o u s f o o d s u p p l y o r u n s y s t e m a t i c budgets. in ESAR 4. 696-7. it s e e m s that A n t i o c h o s I I I f o s t e r e d s o c i a l p e a c e in the c i t y .10 Furthermore. for the Roman period. a l l o w s t h e r o y a l b e n e f a c t i o n s to e x t e n d into t h e p r i v a t e s p h e r e o f m a r r i a g e . Iasos was a free city.2. . Ragone. Garnsey 1988: 14—16 on the frequency of grain shortage (with Hellenistic references). b y u s i n g an i d e o l o g i c a l l y l o a d e d s t a n d a r d r a t h e r t h a n t h e u s u a l p h r a s e s f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l w e i g h t s t a n d a r d s . and dates (on palaeographical and prosopographical grounds) a cluster of 'foreign judges' decrees concerning Iasos to the 190s. and (on current orthodoxy) could have minted its own coinage. t h i s a c t i v i t y i n t r o d u c e d royal b e n e f i c e n c e i n t o t h e c e n t r e o f polis e x i s t e n c e . s e r v e s as a r e m i n d e r s o f r o y a l b e n e f i c e n c e in t h e t r a n s a c t i o n c o n c e r n i n g c i t i z e n families and their daughters.13 and b y p a y i n g for e x p e n s i v e b u i l d i n g projects. δραχμαι Άλεξανδpetat). s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e m e a g r e a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s o f Iasos. t h i s state o f a f f a i r s . L a o d i k e .

so t h a t t h e i r e x a m p l e s c a n b e e x p a n d e d w i t h p a r a l l e l s . T h e s e t e x t s also h a v e the a d v a n t a g e o f b e i n g t y p i c a l o f H e l l e n i s t i c d i p l o m a t i c s in g e n e r a l . a n d w h i c h a l l o w e d b o t h p a r t i e s to express requests for gifts and the legitimizing force of benefaction. 4 0 ) . a n d the findings t h e y e n c o u r a g e a p p l y to t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d in g e n e r a l . 5 ) . f o r c e a n d euergesia are the k i n g ' s t w o r e s o u r c e s f o r p e r s u a s i o n ( 9 . a n d t h e ' s y s t e m of g o v e r n m e n t ' m u s t also b e e x a m i n e d as a s y s t e m o f i n t e r a c t i o n . T h e roster of benefactions obtained by P r i e n e o r H e r a k l e i a w e r e g r a n t e d to r e q u e s t s f r o m t h e s e cities: g i f t g i v i n g b e l o n g s to a w i d e r c o n t e x t o f p e t i t i o n a n d r e s p o n s e . 16 V e y n e 1976: 76-81. A n t i o c h o s III before S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s ( L i v . legitimize his r u l e t h r o u g h an i d e o l o g y o f b e n e f i c e n c e .1 5 for a nuanced appreciation of royal euergesia and local initiative. a c y c l e o f g i v i n g a n d r e m e m b r a n c e .2. a n d also o f t h e l a n g u a g e s h a r e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s . the r o y a l l e t t e r a n d t h e c i v i c d e c r e e . u t t e r e d t h r e a t s b u t also s p o k e c o n c i l i a t o r y w o r d s (leniter adloquendo). T h r o u g h t h e s e f u n c t i o n s .c o u l d foster d e p e n d e n c y o n gifts. H. which extracts surplus but derives legitimation by returning some of it as gifts: likewise. c r e a t e l o c a l ties o f o b l i g a t i o n . 1 6 T h e w a y in w h i c h g i f t . ι. a n d m u l t i p l y t h e f o r c e o f h i s o f t e n i n d i r e c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b y d e v e l o p i n g a v e n u e s o f i n f l u e n c e in a d d i t i o n to c h a n n e l s o f c o m m a n d . C h . instil c o n s e n t (cf. integrate the cities. Bringmann 1993. 3 3 . 1 5 L a o d i k e ' s l e t t e r to I a s o s i n v i t e s u s to d o so b y p r o l o n g i n g her c o m p l e x gift with a 'contract clause' promising future benefact i o n s if the I a s i a n s b e h a v e 'as is a p p r o p r i a t e ' a n d r e m e m b e r the ευεργεσία ι. 2 . 3 § 3). . 14 Gauthier 1985: 41. 1 4 N o n e t h e l e s s . W e m u s t s t u d y b e n e f a c t i o n as p a r t o f a t r a n s a c t i o n o f g i f t . Ciaessen in Ciaessen and Skelnik 1978: 563-7 on the early state.40) t h a t t h e k i n g d i d n o t n e e d w o r d s to persuade must be qualified. t h e formalized. the wherewithal for Seleukid benefactions derived from the profit of empire. The Language of Euergetism T h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n k i n g and c i t y t o o k p l a c e t h r o u g h c a n o n i c a l f o r m s . stereotypical language t h r o u g h w h i c h the transaction w a s d e s c r i b e d a n d c o n d u c t e d . g i f t . it is m i s l e a d i n g l y o n e .g i v i n g is h a n d l e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s t a k e s u s b a c k to l a n g u a g e .g i v i n g c o u l d act as a s y s t e m o f g o v e r n m e n t . 15 Gauthier 1993b: 2 1 3 . 3 8 .s i d e d to v i e w r o y a l e u e r g e t ism solely f r o m above. S t r a b o ' s s t a t e m e n t (9. T h e d o s s i e r o f t e x t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s I I I a n d the c i t i e s is l a r g e a n d c o n s i s t e n t e n o u g h f o r a s u r v e y of t h e s e f o r m s .g i v i n g . in S t r a b o ' s w o r d s .

T h e k i n g s (or t h e i r o f f i c i a l s ) c o m m u n i c a t e d to the c i t i e s t h r o u g h l e t t e r s w r i t t e n o n a s t e r e o t y p i c a l f o r m a t a n d , in t h e i r d i p l o m a t i c a l nature, different f r o m the curt messages of administration: a prea m b l e , u s u a l l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g an e m b a s s y f r o m a c i t y , a c c e p t i n g and a p p r o v i n g h o n o u r s decreed b y the city; a main decision or a c t i o n b y the k i n g , d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s o f h i s o w n m o t i v a t i o n a n d f e e l i n g s ; a c o n c l u d i n g s e c t i o n , w i t h f e a t u r e s s u c h as a c o n t r a c t c l a u s e a n d r e f e r e n c e to a f u t u r e , o r a l , r e p o r t b y t h e c i t y ' s a m b a s s a d o r s . 1 7 T h e r e are s e v e r a l l e t t e r s o f t h i s t y p e w r i t t e n b y A n t i o c h o s I I I . H i s l e t t e r s to T e o s , t h o u g h m u t i l a t e d , e x h i b i t the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e , w h i c h c a n also be g u e s s e d at in t h e l a r g e l y lost l e t t e r o f A n t i o c h o s to H e r a k l e i a , a n d w h i c h u n d e r l i e s t h e l o n g l e t t e r o f Z e u x i s to t h e s a m e c i t y . 1 8 P a r a l l e l s are e a s y to f i n d , s u c h as t h e l e t t e r s o f P t o l e m y I I to M i l e t o s (RC 14), S e l e u k o s II to M i l e t o s (RC 22), o r P t o l e m y I I I to X a n t h o s (SEG 3 6 . 1 2 1 8 ) , all t h e s e e x a m p l e s , s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e s e r v e d , s h o w i n g the s a m e u n i f o r m i t y o f c o m p o s i t i o n ( w h i c h also i n f l u e n c e d the l e t t e r s o f R o m a n o f f i c i a l s a n d e m p e r o r s ) . 1 9 T h o u g h t h e r e w e r e v a r i a n t s in c o m p o s i t i o n ( f o r i n s t a n c e in t h e c a s e o f r o y a l i n i t i a t i v e , as w i t h L a o d i k e ' s b e n e f a c t i o n to I a s o s ) , t h e t o n e , t h e style, and the basic g r a m m a r of royal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e remained the s a m e ( m o t i v a t e d p e r s o n a l d e c i s i o n , n o t i f i e d to t h e c i t y c o n c e r n e d ) . T h e u n i f o r m i t y o f r o y a l l e t t e r s m a k e s it i m p o s s i b l e to b e a b s o l u t e l y s u r e a b o u t d o c u m e n t s w h o s e h e a d i n g is lost a n d w h e r e no t e l l i n g d e t a i l s are p r e s e r v e d , f o r i n s t a n c e t h e e a r l y s e c o n d - c e n t u r y l e t t e r to I l i o n , w h i c h c o u l d b e b y an A t t a l i d (or e v e n a R o m a n official?) as w e l l as A n t i o c h o s I I I . 2 0 T h e c a n o n i c a l f o r m d e v e l o p e d b y the c i t y w a s t h e h o n o r i f i c decree: after a preamble (dating formulas, proposers, 'sanction f o r m u l a ' authenticating the decree), a series of 'considerations' or m o t i v a t i n g c l a u s e s i n t r o d u c e d b y επειδή a n d g i v i n g r e a s o n s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n s , a ' h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e ' i n t r o d u c e d b y όπως/'ίνα a n d d e s c r i b i n g t h e a i m o f t h e d e c r e e ( u s u a l l y in q u i t e g e n e r a l t e r m s : t h e c i t y w a n t s it k n o w n t h a t it r e w a r d s its b e n e f a c t o r s ) , a n d finally t h e r e s o l u t i o n s , in t h e f o r m o f a s e r i e s o f i n f i n i t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s e x p l a i n i n g w h a t t h e c i t y h a d d e c i d e d (έδοξε/δεδόχθαι τήι βονλήι και τώι δήμωι)—all in a single sentence: s u b o r d i n a t e clauses (the m o t i v a t i o n s and the
17 Welles in RC, pp. xliii-xlv (perhaps minimizes the difference between memoranda and letters to cities); M o u r g u e s 1995: 120-1. 13 Antiochos to T e o s : document 19. Herakleia: 31. Other letters of Antiochos, Laodike, or Zeuxis : I, 2, 3, 5, 26 A , 34 (probably), 43 (the latter probably an administrative note) 15 T h e letters of the Scipios to Kolophon and Herakleia are a good example; M o u r g u e s 1995: 120-1 for the letters of the emperors. 20 D o c u m e n t 34.

' h o r t a t i v e ' c l a u s e ) a n d t h e m a i n ê'5o|e-clause. 2 1 T h e s t r u c t u r e is o b v i o u s in d e c r e e s f o r n o n - r o y a l h o n o r a n d s , s u c h as t h e A m y z o n i a n d e c r e e f o r H e r m e i a s o r the X a n t h i a n d e c r e e f o r the r h e t o r T h e m i s t o k l e s ; it also g o v e r n s , in a m o r e c o m p l e x f o r m , t h e l o n g T e i a n decrees h o n o u r i n g A n t i o c h o s and Laodike.22 Because of the h o n o r i f i c n a t u r e o f t h e s e d e c r e e s , t h e y w e r e i n s c r i b e d o n s t o n e , an act w h i c h p u b l i c i z e d a n d p e r p e t u a t e d the d e c i s i o n s , a n d t h u s p l a y e d a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s role in t h e h o n o u r s o f f e r e d b y t h e cities. T h e c o n c e p t w a s f a m i l i a r e n o u g h to b e u s e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y : A n t i o c h o s d e c l a r e d T e o s asylos a n d t a x - f r e e , ίνα γενόμενης επαύζεως των κατά τήν ττόλιν μή μόνον ευεργεσίας λάβη τήν επιγραφήν της του δήμου, άλλα καί σωτηρίας, 'so t h a t , a f t e r t h e i n c r e a s e o f t h e m a t t e r s o f t h e c i t y , he s h o u l d r e c e i v e t h e title (lit. ' i n s c r i p t i o n ' , titulus) n o t o n l y o f b e n e f a c t o r o f t h e p e o p l e , b u t also o f its s a v i o u r ' . 2 3 I n s c r i p t i o n s n o t o n l y d o c u m e n t e d , b u t b e l o n g e d to t h e h o n o u r s r e q u i t i n g b e n e f a c t i o n s . T h e two parties, city and ruler, w e r e radically different, and hence the language and m e d i u m of e x c h a n g e w e r e not totally h o m o g e n e o u s . T h e v a l u e s a n d m o t i v e s b e l o n g to d i f f e r e n t w o r l d s : p a t r i m o n i a l l o y a l t y in r o y a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , c o m m u n a l v a l u e s o f s e r v i c e a n d g o o d c i t i z e n s h i p in t h e d e c r e e s . T h e r o y a l l e t t e r a n d t h e c i v i c d e c r e e are t w o d i f f e r e n t f o r m s : the first a c t i v e , p e r f o r m a t i v e , a d d r e s s e d to a r e c i p i e n t ; t h e s e c o n d a r e c o r d o f p a s t d e c i s i o n narrated and displayed autarkically.24 N o n e t h e l e s s , the t w o f o r m s t a k e e a c h o t h e r i n t o a c c o u n t , a n d c a n l e g i t i m a t e l y b e c o n s i d e r e d as t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s in a d i a l o g u e ; t h e y also s h a r e a v o c a b u l a r y f o r benefaction and gratitude, a v o c a b u l a r y of great u n i f o r m i t y and d u r a b i l i t y . I f t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l I l i a n d e c r e e OGIS 2 1 9 is i n d e e d to b e a t t r i b u t e d to the p e r i o d o f A n t i o c h o s I r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f A n t i o c h o s I I I ( A p p e n d i x 1), t h e e a r l y d a t e c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e s i m i l a r i t y in p h r a s e o l o g y to d o c u m e n t s o f the latter p e r i o d (like t h e T e o s d e c r e e s ) i l l u s t r a t e t h e c u r r e n c y a n d t h e d u r a b i l i t y o f the language of euergetism. B o t h f o r m s c a n be d e s c r i b e d as c o n d u c t i n g a d i a l o g u e , b e c a u s e t h e y are b u i l t a r o u n d r e c i p r o c i t y a n d e x c h a n g e . B y t h e i r v e r y s y n t a x , t h e y are s t r u c t u r e d as r e a c t i o n s , o r m o t i v a t e d d e c i s i o n s : o n t h e p a r t o f t h e k i n g , a r e a c t i o n to an e m b a s s y o r to r e a l i z i n g a l o c a l c o m m u n i t y ' s g o o d b e h a v i o u r ; o n t h e p a r t o f t h e c i t y , a r e a c t i o n to a
21 BE 76. 173, for a more complete exposition of the elements in a typical civic decree; Gauthier 1985: 9—10, Bertrand 1990: ι ο ί ; M o u r g u e s 1995: 107 n. 6. 22 Documents 14, 23, 17, 18. 23 Epigraphical publication: e.g. documents r i , 9—12; 27, 5 - 9 . T e o s : 17, 20-2, possibly the king's own expression (with Herrmann 19650 ad loc. for επιγραφή). 24 On the contrast, Bertrand 1990, with illuminating analyses of examples.

b e n e f a c t i o n , real o r p e r c e i v e d , r e q u i t e d t h r o u g h τιμαί.25 C i v i c d e c r e e a n d r o y a l l e t t e r n e v e r talk a b o u t o r r e p r e s e n t an i s o l a t e d m o m e n t , but s u p p o s e a past s t i m u l u s or a f u t u r e r e a c t i o n — o r both. R e c i p r o c i t y c o u l d b e i m p l i e d b y as s i m p l e a n d d e l i c a t e a f e a t u r e as a και in t h e h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e f r o m a T e i a n d e c r e e , 'ίνα οΰν και ήμΐς εμ I [παν]τι κα[ιρώ]ι φαινώμεθα χάριτας αποδίδοντες τώι τε βασι I [Ae]t και τη βασιλίσση, 'so t h a t w e t o o , m a y be c o n s p i c u o u s in r e t u r n i n g t o k e n s o f g r a t i t u d e to t h e k i n g a n d t h e q u e e n ' . M o r e e x p l i c i t l y , t h e h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e s o f c i v i c d e c r e e s p r o f e s s e d the i n t e n t i o n to s h o w ευχαριστία o r to ' r e t u r n w o r t h y s i g n s o f g r a t i t u d e ' (χάριτες),26—for i n s t a n c e , in a d e c r e e f r o m A m y z o n f o r the o f f i c i a l N i k o m e d e s : οπως ήι πάσι φανερόν I ort ό δήμος ευεργετηθείς άποδιδώι χάριτας άζία[s] I τοΐς ευεργετουσιν αυτόν, 'so t h a t it m a y b e o b v i o u s to all t h a t t h e p e o p l e , w h e n d o n e g o o d b y , r e t u r n s w o r t h y s i g n s o f g r a t i t u d e to t h o s e w h o are its b e n e f a c t o r s ' . T h e h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e s d e c l a r e t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e s : to c r e a t e r e c i p r o c i t y a n d to m a i n t a i n the e u e r g e t i c a l e x c h a n g e . In the royal letters, the contract clause ( w h i c h I have defined above) expresses reciprocity, linking royal benefaction a n d c i v i c r e a c t i o n in a s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g s p i r a l , as in an e l a b o r a t e e x a m p l e f r o m Z e u x i s ' l e t t e r to t h e H e r a k l e i a n s : και καθόλου και εν τοις άλλοις φρον[τιοΰμεν ίνα ε'Ιμ μηθενι τών δυνατών και καλώς εχόντων ύστερήτε, άλλα τν[χητε τής προ]σηκούσης επιμελείας. Διό και ευ ποήσετε και αύτοι διαφυλάσ[aovres τήν eis] τα πράγματα εΰνοιαν οϋτο) γαρ πολλώι μάλλον και ήμεις
[ουδέν ελλείφομε]ν πρ<ο>θυμίας εις το συγκατασκενάζειν τ[ά προς δ]ό[£αν ]

[και τιμήν ανήκοντα] and we will take complete care that you be not deprived in any matter of the possible measures that w o u l d benefit you, b u t that y o u should receive the suitable attention. T h e r e f o r e , for your part, y o u will do well to preserve your goodwill towards the (king's) affairs, for thus we will all the less leave out anything pertaining to eagerness to carry out measures w h i c h [have to do with the honour and the repute (of the city)] A p r o m i s e o f care (επιμελεια) is f o l l o w e d b y an i n j u n c t i o n to k e e p εύνοια t o w a r d s t h e k i n g ' s a f f a i r s — w h i c h in t u r n w i l l m a k e Z e u x i s
25 Royal reaction: e.g. document 19 A , RC 22. C i v i c reaction to benefaction: Habicht 1970: 206-7; ' 6 3 - 5 , commenting Arist. Rhet. 1 1361a (τιμαί defined as return for εύεργεσίαί). 26 Και: document 17, 40-2, cf. 10, 17, 13, 12-13. Ευχαριστία: ι6, 40; in contract clause at end of Laodike's letter to Iasos, 26 A , I 28, possibly in 26 Β, II 15; 19 A , 5 (Antiochos' summary of a T e i a n decree); also RC 15, lines 7—8. Χάριτες: II, i o - i 2 , whence the quote in the text; also 10, 17-18; probably 13, 12-13; r7> 4 ° - 2 ; 18, 33, 40-1; J. and L. Robert 1983: no. 4bis and p. 126 ( S E G 33.1183 with Bousquet 1986: 29—30η. 15) for Ptolemaic examples from A m y z o n and Xanthos; document 23 for example with non-royal honorand; further Habicht 1970: 163.

care all the m o r e f o r t h e H e r a k l e i a n s . 2 / I g i v e , in o r d e r t h a t y o u g i v e , in o r d e r t h a t I g i v e — t h i s c o n t i n u o u s d i a l o g u e e x p l a i n s t h e d e n s i t y o f d i p l o m a t i c e x c h a n g e s b e t w e e n k i n g a n d c i t y , as w e c a n p e r c e i v e it b e t w e e n T e o s a n d A n t i o c h o s I I I , o r in o t h e r c a s e s . A n E r y t h r a i a n d e c r e e f o r A n t i o c h o s I or II (I. Erythrai 30) r e c e i v e d a f a v o u r a b l e r e p l y f r o m t h e k i n g , w h i c h in t u r n p r o v i d e d t h e o c c a s i o n f o r a n o t h e r E r y t h r a i a n d e c r e e (RC 15: letter a n d f o l l o w - u p d e c r e e ) . T h e d y n a m i c , o p e n structure characteristic of the euergetical d i a l o g u e is r e i n f o r c e d b y t h e v e r y l a n g u a g e in w h i c h the i n t e r a c t i o n was couched. T h e formalized vocabulary and syntax guarantee r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y ; m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n is f r a m e d , o r expressed, through generalizing idioms of consistency, which c h a r a c t e r i z e a n y t r a n s a c t i o n as n o r m a l r a t h e r t h a n e x c e p t i o n a l . A l l t h e s e f u n c t i o n s can b e i l l u s t r a t e d f r o m t h e m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n i n g to A n t i o c h o s I I I a n d h i s r e l a t i o n to t h e c i t i e s ( w i t h o c c a s i o n a l r e s o r t to p a r a l l e l s , to e s t a b l i s h the t y p i c a l i t y o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e s t - c a s e ) . T h e s e f u n c t i o n s are i n t e r w o v e n w i t h i n t h e s a m e d o c u m e n t s ( o f t e n w i t h i n t h e s a m e c l a u s e ) , in l o n g , c o m p l i c a t e d s e n t e n c e s . N o n e t h e l e s s , it is w o r t h i l l u s t r a t i n g e a c h s t r a n d s e p a r a t e l y , a n d f o r b o t h p a r t i e s in t u r n : t h i s t h e m a t i c d i s m a n t l i n g o f d e n s e l y p a c k e d c l a u s e s w i l l a l l o w u s to e x a m i n e t h e v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s w i t h i n a r h e t o r i c o f generalization, and the w a y they c o m p l e m e n t each other. A n o b v i o u s f e a t u r e is t h a t i n d i v i d u a l acts o f e u e r g e t i s m or eucharistia are n e v e r p r e s e n t e d as i s o l a t e d in t i m e , b u t l o c a t e d in a c h r o n o l o g y o f b e n e f a c t i o n a n d g r a t i t u d e . F i r s t l y , t h e y are p r e s e n t e d a g a i n s t a b a c k g r o u n d o f p r e c e d e n t . I n t h e c i v i c d e c r e e s , t h i s is a c h i e v e d b y t h e ττρότερόν re s u b - c l a u s e s u m m a r i z i n g p a s t c o n d u c t . A n e x a m p l e c a n b e f o u n d in t h e m o t i v a t i n g c l a u s e s o f the I a s i a n d e c r e e f o r L a o d i k e , w h i c h s t a r t s w i t h an e l a b o r a t e c l a u s e , a u g m e n t e d b y a genitive absolute describing A n t i o c h o s ' past b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s all t h e G r e e k s ; t h i s c l a u s e is f o l l o w e d b y d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g I a s o s in p a r t i c u l a r , e n u m e r a t i n g e a r l i e r b e n e f a c t i o n s (πρότερόν re), t h e n s p e c i f i c a n d r e c e n t d e e d s (in the lost p a r t o f the t e x t ) . T h e o p e n i n g o f t h e first T e i a n d e c r e e f o r A n t i o c h o s I I I , t h o u g h f r a g m e n t a r y , is c l e a r l y c o n s t r u c t e d a l o n g the s a m e p a t t e r n . 2 8 I n t h e r o y a l d o c u m e n t s , t h i s f u n c t i o n is p e r f o r m e d b y t h e e l e m e n t s p r e c e d i n g t h e m a i n d e c i s i o n . L a o d i k e a s c r i b e s h e r b e n e f a c t i o n to t h e I a s i a n s to f r e q u e n t l y (πλεονάκις) h e a r i n g f r o m A n t i o c h o s o f h i s s o l i c i t u d e f o r h i s f r i e n d s a n d allies g e n e r a l l y , a n d I a s o s in p a r t i c u l a r ; A n t i o c h o s I I I starts a l e t t e r to the T e i a n s b y n o t i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e t h e s a m e
D o c u m e n t 31 Β, I V 7 - 1 2 . Iasos: document 26 Β, I 9-18; T e o s : 17, 1 - 1 0 . Other examples: 9, 13, 44; also Habicht 1970: 162 η. 4 (e.g. OGIS 11).
27 23

d i s p o s i t i o n δια παντός, ' t h r o u g h o u t ' ; A n t i o c h o s I o r I I in a l e t t e r to t h e E r y t h r a i a n s n o t e s h o w t h e i r euvoia h a s h e l d δια παντός a n d s p e a k s o f h i s o w n εύνοια, w h i c h he h a s c o n t i n u a l l y c h o s e n to h a v e iv άρχήί.29 T h e p r e s e n t m o m e n t is e x t e n d e d b a c k in t i m e b y r e f e r e n c e s to e a r l i e r r e l a t i o n s ; b u t it is also p r o j e c t e d f o r w a r d b y t h e p r o m i s e o f f u t u r e b e n e f a c t i o n s , r e q u e s t e d b y the c i t i e s o r p r o m i s e d b y t h e k i n g o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s (the f u t u r e t e n s e is t y p i c a l o f t h e c o n t r a c t c l a u s e s , b u t c a n o c c u r o u t s i d e t h e m ) . A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c v e r b is σνναύξαιν, to i n c r e a s e t h e h o n o u r s e n j o y e d b y the cities. E q u a l l y t y p i c a l is the a d v e r b <xei, q u a l i f y i n g f u t u r e b e n e f a c t i o n s : L a o d i k e promises to the Sardians [και πει ρασό]μζθα àei τι άγαθον σννκατασκ€υάζ€ίν ττμ πό I [Aei].30 N o w o n d e r t h a t t h e v e r b διατελεω, 'to d o c o n t i n u o u s l y ' , f r e q u e n t l y a p p e a r s , b o t h as an a v o w e d a n d as an i m p u t e d state. 3 1 T h e s e e x a m p l e s c o u l d b e r e i n f o r c e d b y c o u n t l e s s p a r a l l e l s d r a w n f r o m the e p i g r a p h i c a l m a t e r i a l . T h e y e s t a b l i s h t h e u b i q u i t o u s u s a g e o f t i m e r e f e r e n c e s , as t h e o p e n i n g m o v e in b o t h c i v i c d e c r e e a n d r o y a l l e t t e r , a n d a l l o w u s to u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r function. C h r o n o l o g i c a l indications d r e w parallels b e t w e e n present a n d ( o f t e n s a f e l y g e n e r a l i z e d ) p a s t , a n d t o o k t h e p r e s e n t as j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r p r o g n o s i s o f s i m i l a r b e h a v i o u r ( e x p e c t e d o r p r o m i s e d ) in t h e f u t u r e . T h e y t h u s e x t e n d e d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n in t i m e , b e y o n d t h e i m m e d i a t e t r a n s a c t i o n (a r o y a l g i f t , c i v i c h o n o u r s ) : t h e y c o n s t r u c t e d a context of continuity for each r o u n d of the euergetical dialogue, m i r r o r i n g t h e l a t t e r ' s s t r u c t u r a l o p e n n e s s to i n d e f i n i t e r e p e t i t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n to ' v e r t i c a l ' g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t h r o u g h t i m e , s p e c i f i c acts c o u l d b e p l a c e d in a ' h o r i z o n t a l ' c o n t e x t o f c o n s t a n t b e n e f i c e n c e to 'all G r e e k s ' o r e v e n 'all m e n ' . T h e T e i a n s p r a i s e d A n t i o c h o s f o r m a k i n g 'a v e r y g r e a t d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f h i s p r e - e x i s t i n g t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s (πίοτις) t o w a r d s all m e n ' : in a d d i t i o n to d e s c r i b i n g a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n ( A n t i o c h o s ' s o j o u r n in T e o s ) a g a i n s t the b a c k g r o u n d o f q u a l i t i e s p r o v e n in the past, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p a s s a g e m a d e a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n a b o u t A n t i o c h o s ' r e l a t i o n w i t h 'all m e n ' , g e n e r a l i z i n g b e y o n d a s p e c i f i c p l a c e , T e o s , as w e l l as a p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t . 3 2 B o t h
29 Iasos: document 26 A , I 4. T e o s : 19 B, 4. Erythrai: RC 15, lines 6, 15-16. Also in letter of Ptolemy III to Xanthos: SEG 36.1218, line 21. 30 Future tenses in royal letters: documents 2, 1 8 - 1 9 (Laodike to Sardeis); 19 B, 1 2 - 1 3 (Antiochos I I I to Teos); 26 A , I 28-9 (Laodike to Iasos); 31 Β, I V 7 - 8 (Zeuxis to Herakleia); 34, 3 (Ilion). Συναύξειν. 20 A, I 10; 31 Β, III 15; also RC 15, line 12, RC 9, line 7 (for gods, as in document 4, 36), SEG 2. 663, lines 5-6; discussion of later parallels in V e y n e 1976: 367 n. 324. ΆεΙ\ i i , 6-7; 12, 2 - 6 (Amyzon), and in royal letters, quoted above, 2, 19 B, 26 A . 31 Self-referential, by royal speaker: documents 26 A , 6 and 37, 9, also RC 15, line 16 and RC 62, line 3; self-referential, by polis·, document 10, 9; OGIS 219, line 18. Descriptive, by city: documents 9, 9; 10, 17; 13, 5-6; 17, 26, 37; 44, 2, 29; concerning 32 D o c u m e n t 17, 24-5. non-royal honorands, 14, 4 - 1 2 ; 33, 11; 48, 32.

T e o s a n d I a s o s s p e a k o f t h e k i n g ' s b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s (or b e f o r e ) the p a n - H e l l e n i c c o m m u n i t y : in t h e T e i a n s ' w o r d s , he p r o f e s s e d to b e t h e ' c o m m o n [ b e n e f a c t o r ] o f all t h e G r e e k c i t i e s a n d o f o u r s ' a n d 'set b e f o r e the G r e e k s ' an e x a m p l e (-παράδειγμα) o f h i s c h a r a c t e r ; the Iasians described A n t i o c h o s preserving his ancestral disposition (προγονική αϊρεσις) t o w a r d s all the G r e e k s , a n d f o l l o w i n g h i s a n c e s t r a l b e n e f i c e n c e (ευεργεσία) t o w a r d s t h e G r e e k s . C o n v e r s e l y , L a o d i k e r e f e r r e d to ' t h e G r e e k s ' (in t h e d a t i v e , τοις Έλλησι) in h e r f r a g m e n t a r y l e t t e r to t h e T e i a n s . 3 3 T h i s t r o p e w a s less c o m m o n t h a n t h e u b i q u i t o u s r e f e r e n c e s to t i m e , 3 4 b u t p e r f o r m e d the s a m e f u n c t i o n of p l a c i n g a n y s i n g l e u t t e r a n c e in a g e n e r a l i z e d c o n t e x t o f parallels. In this case, the city receiving a b e n e f a c t i o n w a s c o m p a r e d to a w i d e r h u m a n g r o u p t o w a r d s w h i c h t h e r u l e r f e l t , o r s h o w e d , b e n e f i c e n c e ; t h e c o m p a r i s o n e s t a b l i s h e d the t y p i c a l i t y o f a n y i n d i v i d u a l t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d also c o n n e c t e d its s p e c i f i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s to a b r o a d e r , p u b l i c i z e d , s p a c e , the p a n - H e l l e n i c c o m m u n i t y o r e v e n t h e entire h u m a n race. Finally, another, and analogous, g e n e r a l i z i n g t r o p e is t h e n o t a t i o n κοινήι/ίδίαι, u s e d in c i v i c d e c r e e s to d e s c r i b e p a s t εύεργεσίαι, o r b y r o y a l l e t t e r s in f u t u r e p r o m i s e s : b e n e f a c t i o n e x t e n d s b o t h to t h e p u b l i c s p h e r e a n d to i n d i v i d u a l s , e a c h of w h o m ideally benefits f r o m the benefactions.35 B o t h t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l r e f e r e n c e s a n d t h e e x t e n s i o n in g e o g r a p h i c a l t e r m s i l l u s t r a t e an u n d e r l y i n g n o t i o n o f c o n s i s t e n c y , as m a d e v i s i b l e in a n y i n d i v i d u a l t r a n s a c t i o n . A g a i n s t t h i s b a c k g r o u n d , c o n s i s t e n c y is also d e c l a r e d o p e n l y in m o r a l i z i n g r e f e r e n c e s to c h a r a c t e r ; t h e s e m a k e e x p l i c i t the g e n e r a l i z i n g f u n c t i o n o f the chronological and geographical references. T h i s moralizing v o c a b u l a r y o f c o n s i s t e n c y a n d c h a r a c t e r is a s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m , e x p a n d i n g r a t h e r p e r f u n c t o r y r e f e r e n c e s to u t i l i t y a n d p r o f i t (χρείας παρέχεσθαι, το συμφέρον). A c t i o n d o e s n o t c o n stitute, but reveals, character, by ' m a k i n g a display' (άπόδειξιν ποιεΐσθαι)36 o f a m o r a l q u a l i t y o r b y p r o v i n g itself c o n s i s t e n t
33 Documents 17, 6-8, 26-7; 26 Β, I 1 0 - 1 1 ; 28, 3-5. Laodike: 19 D , 5. J. and L . Robert 1983: 134, give references under Antiochos III, and restore a mention of panHellenic benevolence in document 5, 2 (Zeuxis to Amyzon). 34 Erskine 1994: 7 1 - 6 , shows that for the Hellenistic period, the concept of common benefactor of all men is more frequent in private petitions than in the diplomatic language of the cities. 35 In civic decrees: documents 9, 10; 10, 16-17; 26 Β, I 12'< 44. 1-2; also 5 £ G 33.1183, line 9, SEG 2.663, l ' n e 6, OGIS 329, lines 23-4; document 33, 1 2 - 1 3 , f ° r a non-royal honorand (Priene). Royal letters: documents 19 A, 1 4 - 1 5 (Antiochos to T e o s ) , 34 (to Ilion, probably). 36 Documents 10, 7-8; 13, n (context mutilated); 17, 24-5 ( T e o s on Antiochos); 19 A , 6—7 and 17—18 (Antiochos on the T e i a n s demonstrating their qualities); 31 A , I 15 (in contract clause of Antiochos' letter to Herakleia). Holleaux 1942: 92-4, for a long roster of parallels (supplemented by Robert).

(ακόλουθα πράττειν)37 w i t h a m o d e l : f o r i n s t a n c e , a c c o r d i n g to a T e i a n d e c r e e , A n t i o c h o s ' b e n e f a c t i o n s 'set o u t as an e x a m p l e to all t h e G r e e k s w h a t c h a r a c t e r (τρόπος) h e b e a r s t o w a r d s t h o s e w h o are h i s b e n e f a c t o r s a n d w e l l - d i s p o s e d t o w a r d s h i m ' . 3 8 B e h a v i o u r is d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s o f ' c h o i c e ' , ai'ptOLs39 o r προαίρασις, t h e l a t t e r a deliberate choice revealing essential character: the T e i a n s used b o t h προαίρεσις a n d προαιρεΐσθαι in t h e o p e n i n g t h r e e l i n e s ( u n f o r t u n a t e l y f r a g m e n t a r y ) of t h e i r first d e c r e e h o n o u r i n g A n t i o c h o s . T h e p h r a s e is also u s e d b y t h e r o y a l i n t e r l o c u t o r s : A n t i o c h o s e x p r e s s e d h i s d e s i r e to see t h e S a r d i a n s ' s i t u a t i o n i m p r o v e ; L a o d i k e i n s i s t e d o n h e r ' r e a s o n e d c h o i c e ' (προαφουμζνη) to f o l l o w A n t i o c h o s ' f a v o u r f o r t h e Iasians. 4 0 T h i s r e p e r t o i r e is s u p p l e m e n t e d b y d e c l a r a t i o n s o r i m p u t a t i o n s o f i n t e n t i o n : t h e c h o i c e s are m a d e b y r e s p o n s i b l e a c t o r s , a n d r e f l e c t t h e i r d e s i r e s , w h i c h in t u r n r e f l e c t t h e i r c h a r a c t e r . T h e royal letters o f t e n motivate their decisions w i t h the participle βουλόμζνοι', the I a s i a n s s p e a k o f t h e i r διάληψις (literally their ' t h o u g h t ' ) t o w a r d s A n t i o c h o s and L a o d i k e , and, m o r e generally, the ' h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e s ' in t h e c i v i c d e c r e e s are in f a c t d e c l a r a t i o n s o f intent. 4 1 C o n v e r s e l y , b o t h p a r t i e s c o m m e n d t h e i r i n t e r l o c u t o r ' s w i s h to act in a c e r t a i n w a y , o r i m p u t e a c t i o n to s u c h a w i s h . 4 2 B u t the euergetical language includes m o r e than just neutral references to c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h c h a r a c t e r : it a l l o w s i t s e l f a w h o l e d e s c r i p t i v e a n d e v a l u a t i v e r e g i s t e r to talk a b o u t c h a r a c t e r . I n t h e l e t t e r o f A n t i o c h o s I o r II to E r y t h r a i , the v o c a b u l a r y is o r i g i n a l , b u t t h e t h o u g h t c o n v e n t i o n a l : the k i n g n o t e s t h a t ευχαριστία is a r e s u l t o f t h e E r y t h r a i a n s ' αγωγή, ( ' c o u r s e o f a c t i o n ' , l i t e r a l l y ' u p b r i n g i n g ' ) , a n d , f r o m t h e c i t y ' s d e c r e e , c a n d e d u c e t h e E r y t h r a i a n s ' n o b i l i t y , το eùyevès- υμών. B y s a y i n g t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of e u e r g e t i s m s t r i v e s at g e n e r a l i z a t i o n
D o c u m e n t s 12 (Amyzon asks official to follow the king's character); 16, 22 (different wording but equivalent meaning); 26 A, I 1 1 - 1 2 (Laodike says she follows Antiochos' οττούδη); 28, 3 - 5 (Iasians on Antiochos following the tvepyeoia of his ancestors). Holleaux 19386: 114, for parallels ('formule banale'). 38 D o c u m e n t 17, 26—7. 39 D o c u m e n t s 10, 19-20 ( A m y z o n on Menestratos) 26 Β, I 10 (Iasos on Antiochos); 19 A , 6, Β 8, C 13 (Antiochos on Teians). Parallels in royal correspondence: e.g. RC 14, line 13; 15, lines 15-16; 22, line 14; SEG 36.1218, line 20. T h e word is usually translated as 'policy'. 40 Προαίρεσις: Arist. Nie. Eth. 3 . 1 1 1 ib4~i 113814 (I thank M . Burnyeat for this reference); J. and L . Robert 1989: 22. T e i a n decree: document 17, 4-6. Sardeis: document 3, 1-3; Laodike and Iasos: 26 A , I 1 1 - 1 2 , 29-30. 41 Royal letters: document 26 A , which speaks both of Laodike's intentions, and, indirectly, of Antiochos' intentions (which Laodike wishes to follow); RC 15, line 25. Iasos: document 28, 11. 42 D o c u m e n t s 19 A , 6 (admittedly in Antiochos' summary of a T e i a n decree), 17, 16 (Teians on Antiochos' desire to χαρίζεσθαι τώι 8ήμωι), 37 (Teians on Laodike having the same γνωμή as Antiochos).
37

b y m a k i n g individual transactions into s h o w s of character, I argue a g a i n s t r e a d i n g too s t r i c t l y t h e v i e w t h a t t h e c i t i e s a w a r d e d τι,μαί f o r p a r t i c u l a r b e n e f a c t i o n s f r o m t h e k i n g , as H a b i c h t p o i n t e d o u t . T h e latter, perfectly true observation does not m e a n that the transaction o n l y c o n c e r n e d a p a r t i c u l a r c o n c r e t e b e n e f a c t i o n , to t h e e x c l u s i o n o f the h o n o u r e r ' s and the h o n o r a n d ' s personality: the o p e n , d y n a m i c structure c o n v e r t e d the euergetical transaction into o n g o i n g dial o g u e , the g e n e r a l i z i n g v o c a b u l a r i e s t r a n s f o r m e d i n d i v i d u a l a c t s i n t o p a r a d i g m a t i c m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f c h a r a c t e r . In S c h u b a r t ' s w o r d s , t h e d i a l o g u e w a s n o t j u s t a b o u t ' e i n z e l n e L e i s t u n g e n ' , b u t also ' d a u e r n d e H a l t u n g ' . 4 3 T h i s v i e w h a s to be q u a l i f i e d : the c i v i c d e c r e e s o r t h e r o y a l l e t t e r s o f t e n d i d n o t p r a i s e m o r a l q u a l i t i e s in g e n e r a l , b u t c h a r a c t e r as m a n i f e s t e d in a r e l a t i o n s h i p : n o t ( e . g . ) α'ipeais tout court, b u t αΐρασις πρός τινα, as in f a c t in m o s t of t h e e x a m p l e s q u o t e d above.44 T h e A m y z o n i a n s praised the epistates M e n e s t r a t o s f o r καλοκαγαθία eis πάντα τα τώι δήμωι συμφέροντα, ' e x c e l l e n c e in r e l a t i o n to t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p e o p l e ' . T h e m o r a l l y l o a d e d , a n d p o t e n t i a l l y a b s t r a c t , n o t i o n o f ' e x c e l l e n c e ' is u n a m b i g u o u s l y l i n k e d , in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e d e c r e e , to b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s a very specific community. 45 T h e moralizing notations described character, but their h o r i z o n s o f t e n remained those of the specific e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n benefactor and recipient. N o n e t h e l e s s , e v e n these c o n t e x t - b o u n d evaluative terms had a generalizing force. W h a t a c o n c e p t s u c h as καλοκαγαθία d i d w a s to m a k e e x p l i c i t t h e a s s u m p tions w h i c h u n d e r l a y the w h o l e dialogue: the existence of moral norms, w h i c h dictated appropriate behaviour (caring for subordin a t e s , r e t u r n i n g g r a t i t u d e ) , a n d a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h r a t i o n a l c h o i c e s w e r e m a d e a n d a p p r o v e d . T h e s e n o r m s also a p p e a r in the s h o r t p h r a s e s b u i l t a r o u n d προσήκεLV o r καθήκειν: A n t i o c h o s o r Z e u x i s p r o m i s e s ' a p p r o p r i a t e c a r e ' f o r a c i t y , t h e T e i a n s w a n t to b e s e e n to o f f e r ' a p p r o p r i a t e h o n o u r s ' to A n t i o c h o s a n d L a o d i k e , r o y a l l e t t e r s praise or expect appropriate b e h a v i o u r (gratitude or goodwill) f r o m the local c o m m u n i t i e s . 4 6 A p a r t f r o m d e s c r i b i n g the c o n t e x t f o r a c t i o n , c h a r a c t e r a n d m o t i Habicht 1970: 165, 208. Quote from Schubart 1937, 21. Documents 19 A , 6-7 (Teians' policy towards Antiochos III), 26 Β, I 10 (Antiochos' policy towards all the Greeks), 10, 19-20 (Menestratos' policy towards Amyzon), 17, 24-6, 26-7 (Antiochos' πίατις towards all men and τρόπος towards his benefactors). 45 Document 10, 7-8. 46 'Appropriate care': documents 19 A, 15, 31 Β, IV 5, 9; also RC 14, line 3 (Ptolemy II cared for Miletos, 'as was appropriate'). Appropriate honours: 18, 69; 40, 12; also Crampa 1969: no. 4, line 2 (in letter of Olympichos). Appropriate behaviour, ώς προσήκον εστί (vel sim), from the cities: 19 C , 13-14; 26 A, I 26; 31 A, 1 15; 31 Β, IV 9; also RC 15, line 32.
43 44

lines 29-30. 31 (Erythraians told to remember the king's 'most zealous efforts'). moral consistency. 11 and C . b u t .s c r i p t e d r e g u l a r i t y o f f o r m s is e s s e n t i a l to t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f l a c u n a r y d o c u m e n t s . also Welles's remarks after each letter in RC. Antiochos III: 19 A . 30-2. d i p l o m a t i c i d i o m . City for king. conventionally a d m i r a b l e m o t i v a t i o n . 9. avowed: documents 10. 14. in w h i c h a c t i o n s fall along a plot involving institutionalized characters. 44. B o t h p a r t i e s c l a i m or are said to act o u t o f z e a l a n d e n t h u s i a s m (εκτενεια. 8. T h e r e s u l t is a langue de bois. προθυμία) t o w a r d s t h e i r i n t e r l o c u t o r s : 4 8 t h e s e q u a l i t i e s are n o t o n l y t h e s t i m u l u s to b e n e f a c t i o n . c o n s t i t u t e a s t a b l e a n d u n i f o r m l a n g u a g e of r e a d y . σπουδή. K i n g or royal official for city. τα δίκαια δρών (Nie. 9. 17. 18. C i t y for king. line 2. I 7. imputed: document 19 A . I 12. 50 Style: Schubart 1920. K i n g for city. K i n g or royal official for city. F i n a l l y . 27. 92-3. avowed: 26 A . Further Schubart 1937: 8 . arguing that a royal letter is too curt and imperative to have been addressed to the city of Telmessos. ' g o o d w i l l ' . b u t c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . with prose rhythm). A c t i o n can b e d e s c r i b e d in i n t i m a t e t e r m s : the A m y z o n i a n s r e w a r d M e n e s t r a t o s f o r h i s ' g e n t l e b e h a v i o u r ' (συμπεριφερόμενος). b y e x p r e s s i n g it in t e r m s o f c o r d i a l i t y a n d c o u r t e s y . K i n g or royal official for city. Bousquet 1986 (analysing letter of Ptolemy III. εύνοια. a c c o r d i n g to t h e s a m e A r i s t o t e l i a n p a s s a g e . Eth. line 10. t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m also s u p p l i e d a v o c a b u l a r y f o r p r e s i d i n g v a l u e s . the d i p l o m a t i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f t h e k i n g s is e l a b o r a t e l y c u l t u r e d in its s y n t a x a n d its v o c a b u l a r y . lines 24. 48 C i t y for king. 5.1 0 (from king). a n d c o r d i a l i t y . as i l l u s t r a t e d in t h e d o s s i e r c o n c e r n i n g A n t i o c h o s I I I . the g r a t e f u l c i t y . also RC 14. o μεν γαρ ευεργετηθείς άνθ' ών πεπονθεν άπονεμει τήν εΰνοιαν. 12. 38-9. imputed: RC 6. A n y t r a n s a c t i o n c o u c h e d in t h i s l a n g u a g e b e c a m e 47 C i t y for king. 5 0 T h e generalizing vocabularies of time. 9-10. 7. t h e p r e . avowed: 18. line 16. 31 Β. 49 A m y z o n : document 10. 4 7 It d e s c r i b e s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f e e l i n g s a f t e r r e c e i p t o f b e n e f a c t i o n s : in A r i s t o t l e ' s w o r d s . RC 15. III 13. 17. T h e w o r d b e l o n g s to a r e g i s t e r w h i c h m i t i g a t e s t h e p r a g m a t i c p r o c e s s o f e x c h a n g e . i m p u t e d o r a v o w e d b y b o t h c i t y a n d k i n g . space. 31 A . 15. I i 0 7 a i 4 ) . φιλανθρώπως. the Roberts' remarks in BE 70. 17. 11. 553. a n d a set o f c o r d i a l v a l u e s to p r e s i d e o v e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l o c c a s i o n : the b e n e v o l e n t k i n g . 16-18 (from subjects). a f o r m a l i z e d . ευχαριστία. imputed: 9. 9. 93-4.m a d e p h r a s e s . 17. 5.v a t i o n . line 6. avowed: document 19 B. it also d e n o t e s g e n u i n e a n d ( p a r a d o x i c ally f o r the e u e r g e t i c a l d i a l o g u e ) d i s i n t e r e s t e d e s t e e m a n d g o o d w i l l . also Inschr. l i n e 13): w i t h f a m i l i a r k i n d n e s s . A n t i o c h o s accepts civic honours φιλοφρόνως. οικείως49 j u s t as o n e o f h i s a n c e s t o r s r e c e i v e d E r y t h r a i a n h o n o u r s οικείως (RC 1 5 . Delphinion 139. . r e p r o d u c i b l e . line 10. T h e m o s t c o m m o n w o r d in t h e e u e r g e t i c e x c h a n g e is εύνοια. imputed: documents 13. 15. t a k i n g t h e t r o u b l e o f c o u r t e s y t o w a r d s r e c i p i e n t s : a s t y l e r e f l e c t i n g the b r o a d e r ' s t y l e ' o f c o r d i a l i t y in t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s b e t w e e n c i t y a n d k i n g . 17.

a n d t h e r e w e r e o t h e r w a y s o f e x p r e s s i n g i n t e r a c t i o n ( a b o v e . It is c l e a r t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m w a s n o t c o n f i n e d to t h e d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n c i t y a n d r u l e r . a n d b e t w e e n cities: t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' f i r m a n d t r u e χάρις' is f o u n d in a X a n t h i a n d e c r e e f o r a r h e t o r as w e l l as a S e l e u k i d l e t t e r p r a i s i n g M i l e s i a n b e h a v i o u r . M e t h o d o l o g y and examples (from m o d e m and contemporary history) in Robin 1973. Memnon. 16. Favouring the demos: 17. it a t t a i n e d c u r r e n c y o r e v e n o r t h o d o x y . H o w can w e a p p r o a c h this language? T h e p r e c e d i n g paragraphs a t t e m p t e d to e x a m i n e it i n t e r n a l l y a n d s t r u c t u r a l l y . the e x p r e s s i o n ' w a n t i n g to f a v o u r t h e demos (χαρίζεσθαι τώι δήμωι)' w a s a p p l i e d b y t h e T e i a n s to t h e c o n d u c t of A n t i o c h o s I I I .S e l e u k i d W a r — f r e e a d h e s i o n to t h e R o m a n side a n d m i l i t a r y a s s i s t a n c e ( P o l . 70: the T e i a n s ask the Magnesians to do a favour to the demos (sc. lies b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . 5 1 B u t e v e n s o . it d e s i g n a t e s t h e s u p p o r t s h o w n b y a r m y a n d f r i e n d s to t h e k i n g ( O G I S 2 1 9 .g. e a c h r o u n d o p e n to i n d e f i n i t e e x c h a n g e a n d r e p e t i t i o n . F ° r Classical Athens. it is c l e a r t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m as u s e d b e t w e e n k i n g a n d s u b o r d i n a t e c i t y w a s e x t r e m e l y c o m m o n . 52 Χάρις: document 23.1 0 : 'établir patiemment le ou plutôt les lexiques politiques de l'antiquité'. f o r r o y a l o r d e r s . e. § 5). w h e n t h e l a t t e r sent ' f o r e i g n j u d g e s ' to T e o s (easily p a r a l l e l e d ) .1 6 ) . t h e g e n e r a l i z i n g v o c a b u l a r i e s l o c a t e d it a l w a y s at t h e s a m e p o i n t in t i m e and space (present dealings m i r r o r i n g the past and a n n o u n c i n g the f u t u r e . a p p r a i s e d in a s h a r e d m o r a l i z i n g v o c a b u l a r y ) a n d w i t h t h e s a m e o u t c o m e o f εύνοια. w i t h q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d s e m a n t i c a n a l y s e s . 4 5 . f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s ( t h e c h a r a c t e r o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s . line 12. b u t also to the c i t y o f M y l a s a . is u s e d as a c o d e d e x p r e s s i o n f o r s u b m i s s i o n (or l a c k t h e r e o f ) in a r e p o r t b y an official to S e l e u k o s I o n H e r a k l e i a P o n t i k e (μή εύνοικώς εχειν τοις τοϋ Σελεύκον πράγμασι. also I. of their lexicon and their syntax. OMS i. lines 23-4. s t y l i z e d affair: s y n t a x p r o c l a i m e d it a c o n t i n u o u s r e l a t i o n . and parallels listed by Robert. εύνοικώς. the 'language of public approbation' in honorific decrees. 5 2 Εννοια is s i m i l a r l y flexible. line 4. I n a I l i a n d e c r e e . of T e o s ) by noticing T e i a n honours for a Magnesian. o r k i n g ) . l i n e s 1 5 . Mylasa 624. 65. A full linguistic treatment of the political languages of the Hellenistic age. 94—5. it w a s u s e d b y t h e R o m a n s . the l i m i t s o f a p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c t r e a t m e n t o f e u e r g e t i s m a p p e a r r e a d i l y . 51 Manifesto in Nicolet 1990: 9 . as w o r k i n g s y s t e m of m e a n i n g . 5 ) .a s t e r e o t y p i c a l . to d e s c r i b e t h e b e h a v i o u r o f E r y t h r a i d u r i n g t h e R o m a n . . a n d t y p i c a l o f d e a l i n g s w i t h m e n in g e n e r a l ) . are studied in Whitehead 1993. and the 'cardinal virtues' which appear in the epigraphical material. 2 1 . T h e e x p r e s s i o n 'to b e w e l l d i s p o s e d ' . E v e n t h o u g h o u r d o c u m e n t a t i o n is i n c o m p l e t e . b e l o w . Inschr. Magnesia 97. b u t also o p e r a t e d b e t w e e n c i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l b e n e f a c t o r ( c i t i z e n . RC 22. e v e n if it fell s h o r t o f total h e g e m o n y . f o r e i g n e r .

5 3 I n t h e p r e s e n t case. exploring individual applications of linguistic competence) are at least as suitable for the Hellenistic documents. 1. .FGrHist 4 3 4 F 7). in the s e a r c h f o r ' r e a l ' e v e n t s . . in the belief that its methods (studying political vocabularies and grammars. t o u t e e n f o r m u l e s a b s t r a i t e s ' . o r b y a s u b o r d i n a t e c i t y ( w h a t e v e r its f o r m a l s t a t u s ) f o r its r u l e r ? ' L o y a l t y ' o r ' f a i t h f u l n e s s ' ( o f f e r e d as a t r a n s l a t i o n b y S c h u b a r t 1 9 3 7 : 8 . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e is t h a t the l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m is c l e a r l y a w e l l . w h e r e it p e r f o r m s s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s . o r — p a r a d o x i c a l l y — d i s m i s s these elements because of their v e r y u b i q u i t y . ' u n e x e m p l a i r e . ' c e t t e l a n g u e . t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s are the n a r r a t i v e o f A n a t o l i a n ( r e ) c o n q u e s t b y A n t i o c h o s I I I ( C h s . W e can evaluate the stereotypical utterances against w h a t w e k n o w or t h i n k to h a v e b e e n t h e c a s e . s t a b l e . a c c o m p l i et l a s s a n t . v e u l e et v a g u e .s c r e e n h i d i n g h i s t o r i c a l f a c t . in c o n d i t i o n s t h a t i n f l u e n c e a n d are i n f l u e n c e d b y t h i s l a n g u a g e . a n d t h e imperial structures of domination and exploitation ( C h . T h e present approach is inspired b y the ' C a m b r i d g e school' (Pocock 1987). 2). for difference between language and discourse. It is e a s y to p a s s o v e r t h e s t e r e o t y p i c a l e l e m e n t s in t h e a n c i e n t d o c u m e n t s . 3 ) — r e l a t i v e l y w e l l k n o w n . c a l q u é e s u r d e s m o d è l e s c o u r a n t s ' . l a n g u a g e . as d i s c o u r s e : l a n g u a g e as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r a m e d i a t i o n o f p o w e r . t h e s e a l l o w u s to s t u d y e m p i r e as d i s c o u r s e .7 ) . h o n o u r e d in t h e d e c r e e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . production. it also d e s c r i b e s t h e b e h a v i o u r o f the X a n t h i a n r h e t o r (et'voiκώς διακεΐσθαι). in O r w e l l ' s w o r d s . T h i s a p p r o a c h e n t a i l s t a k i n g t h e d i s c o u r s e of e u e r g e t i s m s e r i o u s l y . practice of utterance). 16: ' T r e u e ' ) do n o t e x h a u s t t h e v e r s a t i l i t y of t h e w o r d .1 0 . between studying 'énoncés' (utterances) and 'énonciations' (conditions.d e f i n e d . i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . as for the great authors studied by the C a m b r i d g e school. T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l n a t u r e o f e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e is o f t e n d e p l o r e d . 9 2 . a n d h e n c e t r y to u n d e r s t a n d f u n c t i o n s and effects. f a c t i c e et c o n v e n u e . is u s e d to c o v e r m u r d e r 53 Robin 1973: 20-9. as a s m o k e . b u t also t h a t w e m u s t s t u d y t h i s l a n g u a g e in its w o r l d . a j u d g e m e n t H o l l e a u x s u p p o r t e d w i t h a long roster of parallels for each conv e n t i o n a l p h r a s e ( H o l l e a u x 1 9 4 2 : 88. Y e t t h e fact t h a t t h e d e c r e e d i d n o t tell H o l l e a u x t h e t h i n g s h e w a n t e d to k n o w ( w h a t A g l a o s w a s d o i n g o n C y p r u s ) s h o u l d n o t p r e v e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e t h i n g s t h e C r e t a n s o l d i e r s w a n t e d to tell us. T h e o b v i o u s fact t h a t p o l i t i c a l l a n g u a g e . actual instances of parole politique. its p r i m a r y d e n o t a t i o n s as w e l l as its c o n t e x t specific meanings. . H o w s h o u l d w e i n t e r p r e t evvoia w h e n a v o w e d b y A n t i o c h o s I I I f o r a c i t y he c o n t r o l l e d . H o l l e a u x d e n o u n c e d t h e p l a t i t u d e s in a d e c r e e b y C r e t a n a u x i l i a r i e s o n C y p r u s f o r t h e later P t o l e m a i c official A g l a o s of K o s : 'l'art d'écrire p o u r ne rien dire'. de c e t t e l a n g u e p r o l i x e et d i l u é e .

A first a v e n u e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is to e x a m i n e separately the instrumental w o r k i n g s of the language of euergetism. it w a s a v e r y real p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f empire. Talking to: Instrumental Functions Because the language of e u e r g e t i s m did not s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l y e x p r e s s p o w e r a n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n . I n t r o d u c t i o n 54 Orth 1977: passinr.55 T h e stereotypical language of e u e r g e t i s m w a s the standard m e d i u m for interaction b e t w e e n ruler a n d r u l e d . 2. as in t h e case o f P o l y b i o s ' d e s c r i p t i o n o f S e l e u k i d i m p e r i a l s t r u c t u r e s . D i p l o m a t i c e x c h a n g e t h r o u g h language was a reality. Sardeis (probably. 3. 3 1-4. 3 § 3). f r o m the point of v i e w of b o t h king and city: w h i c h g o a l s t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r s u s e d l a n g u a g e to a c h i e v e . o r d o c u m e n t s m e n t i o n i n g local c o m m u n i t i e s l e f t in p e a c e to p r o d u c e m o r e i n c o m e f o r t h e r o y a l e c o n o m y ( C h . f o r t h e needs of interaction w i t h the king. as m u c h as t h e legal s t a t u s e s ( C h . Green 1990: e. (a) Power as Benefaction It w a s p o s s i b l e to talk a b o u t t h e e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n in a r e a l i s t i c l a n g u a g e a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e r e a l i t i e s o f c o n t r o l a n d e x p l o i t a t i o n . 19.g. 40. 198. ' t o a d y i n g ' . S! Documents 18. d o e s n o t m a k e it less i n t e r e s t i n g to s t u d y in its w o r k i n g s . though Robert thinks the lacuna may be too long for the restoration [τιμά. a n d o c c u p i e d an i m p o r t a n t p l a c e in t h e life o f the cities: T e o s a n d S a r d e i s h a d s p e c i a l f u n d s . for the importance of late-Roman culture alongside the realities of autocracy. Contrast Brown 1992: 7 .] required by the sense and the T e i a n parallel). s h a p i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d a c t i o n s . o r p o l i t i c a l f u n c t i o n s . as a h i s t o r i c a l fact r e q u i r i n g interpretation. on the 'fine dust of ancient phrases' and the role of rhetoric. 63. and a description w h i c h does not adequately c o v e r the v a r i e d r e a l i t i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n . e a r m a r k e d as τίμα ι τών βασιλέων. It is t o o s i m p l e to s p e a k o f ' p r o p a g a n d a ' — a p r o b l e m a t i c c o n c e p t to a p p l y to an a g e w i t h o u t m a s s media. a n d h o w t h e y a c h i e v e d t h e m . it p e r f o r m e d a n u m b e r o f i d e o l o g i c a l . o r r h e t o r i c a l v e r b i a g e : 5 4 its c u r r e n c y a n d d u r a b i l i t y still r e m a i n .8 . T e o s . T h i s a p p r o a c h is t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f b o t h p a r t i e s in d i a l o g u e w a s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h different intentions and results.a n d t h e f t (the o r g a n i z e d v i o l e n c e a n d s p o l i a t i o n a n a l y s e d in C h a p t e r 3). t h e m o r e so if w e are a w a r e o f the realities b e i n g c o v e r e d u p . . N o r h a s a n y t h i n g been achieved w h e n this language has been denigrated as ' g r o t e s q u e s e r v i l i t y ' .

O t h e r i d i o m s d i s s i m u l a t e d o r d e p r o b l e m a t i z e d the f a c t o f d o m i n a t i o n . I 8 . a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n o f c o n q u e r e d territory b y legacy). a n a l o g o u s l y . o n the f u n c t i o n o f the 'joli g e s t e s y m b o l i q u e ' c o n s t i t u t e d b y 'le c a d e a u s u p p l é m e n t a i r e ' . 503 (εννοώ as technical term for expected or promised behaviour from the benefactor). For theoretical writing on kingship. A n t i o c h o s I I I i n c r e a s e d the r o y a l g r a n t o f g y m n a s i o n . T h i s is the f u n c t i o n o f A n t i o c h o s ' r e f e r e n c e s to the S e l e u k i d p a s t . 5 8 T h e s t r i v i n g f o r o r i g i n a l i t y a d d e d w e i g h t to the 56 O n this 'sujet passablement ressassé'. Billows 1995: 56-70. a n d p r o m i s e d to finance an a q u e d u c t . it p e r h a p s also u n d e r l i e s the ' a n c e s t r a l i d e o l o g y ' . w h i c h j u s t i f i e d e m p i r e b y p r e c e d e n t . . 5 7 A s s u m i n g that s u c h a c t i o n s result f r o m the r u l e r ' s i n i t i a t i v e ( r a t h e r t h a n i n f o r m a l p e t i t i o n s n o t r e c o r d e d ) . M u r r a y 1970. the r u l e r ' s k i n d c o n c e r n f o r the r u l e d . the aqueduct probably). I 28-9 with BE 7 1 . Gauthier 1985: 40-2. 5 6 A s i m p l e w a y in w h i c h the r u l e r ' s g e n e r o u s n a t u r e e x p r e s s e d itself w a s the s u p p l e m e n t a r y g i f t : a f t e r g r a n t i n g f a v o u r s a s k e d f o r b y the H e r a k l e i a n s . Habicht 1997: 70: Antigonos Monophthalmos adds a grant of cash to a gift of grain and timber promised to the Athenians by Demetrios Poliorketes. a n d the e u e r g e t i c n a t u r e o f the k i n g . t h e y illustrate an i n s i g h t b y P. 57 D o c u m e n t s 31 A . 621 p. a b o v e the r o u t i n e o f p a t r o n a g e ( V e y n e 1 9 7 6 : 79). o n the i n i t i a t i v e o f a S e l e u k i d official r a t h e r t h a n on the c i t y ' s p e t i t i o n . the e u e r g e t i c a l r e g i s t e r c a l l e d f o r the i n v o l v e m e n t a n d the a c q u i e s c e n c e o f the r u l e d . For a parallel. V e y n e .a n d § 2). e x e m p l i f i e d b y c l a i m s to a n c e s t r a l b e n e f i c e n c e a n d the state c u l t f o r the S e l e u k i d a n c e s t o r s ( C h . 311 for the diffusion of 'ethical kingship' in documentary material. and p. U n l i k e the r e f e r e n c e s to the S e l e u k i d p a s t ( p r o g r a m m a t i c statem e n t s ) . T h i s conception of p o w e r justified by history w a s m a d e e x p l i c i t in r o y a l letters. for main references. a c i t y s a c k e d b y S e l e u k i d t r o o p s a s k e d f o r t a x . o r w h a t w a s r e p r e s e n t e d as g i f t s (often s i m p l y refraining f r o m certain f o r m s of exploitation). G i f t s . h i s d e s i r e to b e n e f i t t h e m . 58 D o c u m e n t 26 A . 3 § 3). w h i c h p r o v e s the d e p t h a n d g e n u i n e n e s s o f the b e n e f a c t o r ' s f e e l i n g s . 1 1 .e x e m p t i o n . a n d b y the a s s u m p t i o n that i m p e r i a l d o m i n a t i o n w a s b a s e d o n a set o f w e l l d e f i n e d p r o p e r t y rights (original conquest a c c o m p a n i e d by formal cession of territory o r the d e m i s e o f the f o r m e r o w n e r . 1 § 1).1 4 (the extra oil is certainly a voluntary gift. 36.2 1 . the h i e r a r c h y o f j u r i d i c a l s t a t u s e s is also a l a n g u a g e p r e d i c a t e d on the r u l e r ' s m o n o p o l y of p e r f o r m a t i v e u t t e r a n c e s ( C h . w e r e p r e s e n t e d as t o k e n s o f a m o r e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the r u l e r ' s i n i t i a t i v e is e x p l i c i t l y c o n f i r m e d b y the d o c u m e n t s : an i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e of the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the b e n e f i c e n t r u l e r a n d h i s a c t i o n s c o n c e r n s h i s e f f o r t s at o r i g i n a l i t y in his g i f t s (literally 'to t h i n k u p ' gifts).o i l b y t h i r t y metretai. a n d (it s e e m s ) w a s g r a n t e d a d d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e s .

t h e l e t t e r s h o w s h o w t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e n e f a c t i o n are a s s e m b l e d in a s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t m a k e s p o w e r a c c e p t a b l e . 34. Also RC 14. a n d a n a l y z i n g t h e s y n t a x .c o n s t a n t l y p r o c l a i m e d c o n c e p t s : r o y a l care (πολυωρία. H a v i n g often heard f r o m m y brother what urgent help he continually deploys for his friends and allies. with J. Robert 1983: 135 n.1 6 .1 8 . Q u e e n Laodike to the council and the people of the Iasians. Habicht 1970: 230. to s t u d y the a s s u m p t i o n s a n d ' t r u t h s ' w h i c h t h e b e n e f a c t i o n a n d its d e s c r i p t i o n f o i s t o n t h e I a s i a n s . Έπανόρθωσις: document 3. T h e d e c i s i o n to g i v e g r a i n to t h e I a s i a n s is p r e c e d e d b y a l o n g . 61 D o c u m e n t 26 A . a s p e c i f i c f o r m w a s h u m a n i t a r i a n aid f o r c o m m u n i t i e s in h a r d t i m e s . 31 A . damaged in the Seleukid conquest of 200. a n d u r g e s t h e I a s i a n s to a c c e p t S e l e u k i d p o w e r a l o n g w i t h S e l e u k i d b e n e f a c t i o n . 60 D o c u m e n t 26 A. and in the other matters he strives to increase the citizen b o d y 59 Care: documents 5. I 5. it is w o r t h c l o s e l y r e a d i n g t h e w h o l e p a s s a g e . c o m p l e x c l a u s e . 2. 9. εύχρηστίαν δε κοινήν τώι σνμπαντι δήμο)ι. A full translation can be found there.c l a u s e s . I 8-9 and Β. b y s p e a k i n g o f A n t i o c h o s ' άντίληψις. a short lexical essay ('le mot dit beaucoup'). .1 9 . also Jos. 22. Ajf 12. a n d a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e i r επανόρθωσις. and L . e x p l a i n i n g L a o d i k e ' s m o t i v a t i o n t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f p a r t i c i p l e s a n d s u b . 5 9 L a o d i k e ' s l e t t e r to t h e I a s i a n s i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s v o c a b u l a r y . also document 1 for the reconstruction of the city). and that after recovering your city as it had fallen into unexpected calamities. as in the case o f S a r d e i s o r I a s o s . 26 A (Laodike for Iasos). for t h e c i t i e s ' w e l f a r e a n d t h e i r r e p u t e (τιμή. γεγράφεικα Στρουθίωνι τώι διοικητήι εφ' ετη δέκα κατ' ενιαυτον πυρών χιλί16 ους μεδίμνους Αττικούς εις τήν πάλιν παρακομίζοντα παραδιδόναι τοις παρά τού δήμου· κτλ. generally. IV 2. 1 (Sardeis. an e x p r e s s i v e w o r d f o r e f f i c i e n t help. III 1 3 . 6 0 f u r t h e r m o r e . greetings. line 3. 3 . δόξα)'. d e s c r i b e d in t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . 6 1 T h e s e are w r i t t e n in the m o r a l i z i n g l a n g u a g e o f m o t i v a t i o n . he gave back to you your liberty and your laws. Βασίλισσα Λαοδίκη Ιασίων τήι βουλήι καί τώι δήμωι χαίρειν άκούουσα πλεονάκις του αδελφού ην 4 re άντίληψιν τών εαυτού φίλων καί συμμάχων διατελεί ποιούμενος καί ώς τήν ΰμετεραν πάλιν συμπτώμασιν περιπεσοΰσαν άπροσδοκήτοις άνακτησάμενος τήν τε ελευθερίαν ύμίν 8 άπεδωκεν καί τους νόμους καί τά λοιπά προτεθειται συναύξειν το πολίτευμα καί εις βελτίονα διάθεσιν άγαγεΐν. προαιρουμενη δή καί εγώ ακόλουθα πράσειν τη σπουδή αυτού καί εκτενείαι καί δια 12 τούτο καταθεσθαι τινά ευεργεσίαμ μεν εις τους άσθενούντας τών πολιτών. Robert i960: 5 1 7 . επιμελεια). lines 15-16.139 for reconstruction of Jerusalem.

. ancestral rights o v e r a local c o m m u n i t y . this time as facts: since L a o d i k e w i s h e s to act in accordance w i t h them. w h i c h the l o n g sentence finally c o m e s to as the point of c o m m u n i cation. because she had been hearing (άκονουσα) f r o m A n t i o c h o s of his disposition. T h e second participial clause f o c u s e s on L a o d i k e ' s desire (προαιρονμενη) to imitate the k i n g ' s euergetical e n t h u s i a s m . and s e c o n d . w h i c h describes the c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h A n t i o c h o s c a m e to s h o w care for Iasos: w h e n he had ' r e a c q u i r e d ' the city (άνακτησάμενος). to confer some benefaction on the poor among the citizens. since they are materialized in the repeated gift of grain. . and making it my own intention to act in accordance with his zeal and eagerness. and specific action for Iasos. and. the Iasians are s u p p o s e d to accept the S e l e u k i d v e r s i o n — w h i c h L a o d i k e h e l p f u l l y restates (she . A n t i o c h o s is b e n e v o l e n t . B y a c c e p t i n g the present. I have written to Strouthion the dioiketes for him to send along to the city one thousand Attic medimnoi of wheat a year. for ten years. he e n j o y s ancestral political rights as w e l l as b e i n g b e n e v o l e n t ) . and since he 'gave b a c k ' y o u r liberty as a sign of b e n e v o l e n c e . they m u s t be there for her to f o r m this w i s h at all. in the participial clauses w h i c h a c c o m p a n y and d e p e n d on the action expressed in the m a i n verb: facts w h i c h m u s t be true. T h e syntactical structure of the letter poses these t h e m e s as facts (and does so twice). T h i s long sentence declares that L a o d i k e gave grain to the Iasians. w h i c h tell us w h y L a o d i k e acted this w a y : first. e x p a n d s on this action (expressed b y the m a i n proposition) b y t w o participial clauses. because of her o w n c o m m i t t e d choice (προαιρουμένη) to f o l l o w A n t i o c h o s ' zeal. the k i n g ' s right to 'give back' local liberty and laws. and. the latter t h e m e is e x p a n d e d b y a participial phrase of its o w n . w h i c h m a k e s her (Stα τούτο) wish to c o n f e r a b e n e f a c t i o n on the c i t y ' s poor and the city m o r e generally. and a general advantage to the whole people. T h e euergetical t h e m e s stated in the first (άκονονσa) participial clause are repeated or alluded to in the s e c o n d participial clause. S u b . A c c e p t i n g the gift dissuades the Iasians f r o m q u e s t i o n i n g both the p r i m a r y statements (I did this because I heard of A n t i o c h o s ' b e n e v o l e n c e and because I w i s h to imitate h i m ) and the s e c o n d a r y .c l a u s e s g i v e details on the first participial clause (άκούονσα) c o n c e r n i n g the k i n g ' s attitude as p e r c e i v e d b y L a o d i k e : general care for allies and friends. m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y . M a j o r t h e m e s of royal i d e o l o g y or practice are expressed in this c o m p l e x of nested clauses: royal solicitude and b e n e f i c e n c e . since he 'rea c q u i r e d ' y o u r city. and hand them over to the representatives of the people .and bring it to a better condition. implicit statements (since m y b e n e v o l e n c e imitates A n t i o c h o s ' b e n e v o l e n c e . because of this.

T h e p o l i t i c a l f o r c e o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t w o u l d b e t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e if I a s o s h a d n o t p r e v i o u s l y b e e n s u b o r d i n a t e to the S e l e u k i d s ( u n d e r A n t i o c h o s I I o r S e l e u k o s I I ) . but a motivation for A n t i o c h o s ' subsequent actions. t h i s f a c t (or t h i s s t a t e m e n t . a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the act o f g i v i n g . p o l i t i c a l in n a t u r e .is i m i t a t i n g A n t i o c h o s ' e u e r g e t i c a l z e a l . b y s i m p l y a l l u d i n g to p r e v i o u s S e l e u k i d d o m i n i o n as a b a c k g r o u n d ( a n d a c o n d i t i o n ) to t h e p r e s e n t b e n e f a c t i o n . T h e H e r a k l e i a n s a s k e d Z e u x i s to p r e s e r v e τα υπό τών βασιλέων σνγκεχωρημενα. a g i v e n f a c t ) at t h e e n d o f t h e l e t t e r (lines 2 9 . 6 2 S e l e u k i d ( r e ) c o n q u e s t a l l o w e d A n t i o c h o s to e x t e n d to t h e I a s i a n s in p a r t i c u l a r t h e care w h i c h in g e n e r a l he s h o w e d h i s f r i e n d s a n d allies. a f t e r ' r e a c q u i r i n g ' t h e c i t y . a n o t h e r . less l o g i c a l . t h e f a c t o f g i v i n g . b u t r e f e r r e d to as c o n d i t i o n s o f b e n e f i c e n c e : A n t i o c h o s I I I . g a v e b a c k its l i b e r t y . t h e status quo o f p r e c e 62 Lines 6—11: I construct the clause in the present tense (τα λοιπά προτεθειται ανναύξειν κτλ. . ' h a v i n g r e a c q u i r e d y o u r c i t y as it h a d f a l l e n in u n e x p e c t e d d i s a s t e r s ' (the e a r t h q u a k e o f 1 9 8 ) — t h i s p a r t i c i p i a l c l a u s e q u a l i f y i n g τήν ύμετεραν πόλιν g i v e s n o t j u s t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e of reconquest. e f f e c t o f L a o d i k e ' s s e n t e n c e is to m a r g i n a l i z e t h e p o l i t i c a l t h e m e s : c o n q u e s t a n d m o n o p o l y o f s t a t u s e s are m e n t i o n e d in a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e (ώς τήν ύμετεραν πόλιν κτλ. f o r t h e s e n t e n c e to m a k e s e n s e . T h i s e x a m p l e is less e l a b o r a t e in its s y n t a x . F i n a l l y . a n d n o w s t r i v e s 'to i n c r e a s e its politeuma a n d to b r i n g it to a b e t t e r s i t u a t i o n ' . t h e I a s i a n s . i m p o s e d c e r t a i n t r u t h s : p o w e r p r e s e n t e d itself as b e n e f a c t i o n .) to a p a r t i c i p i a l c l a u s e q u a l i f y i n g the m a i n v e r b w h i c h n o t i f i e s the d e c i s i o n to g i v e g r a i n : t h e p o w e r r e l a t i o n is c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . p r e s e n t e d as a fact b y the p a r t i c i p i a l c l a u s e ) m u s t b e r e l e v a n t . T h e s e s t a t e m e n t s o n r o y a l b e n e f i c e n c e a n d its i m p l i c a t i o n s are r e i n f o r c e d b y a secondary participial clause: A n t i o c h o s gave back liberty and t h e l a w s . b e c a u s e he n o t i c e d t h e d i s a s t e r s w h i c h h a d b e f a l l e n I a s o s . w o u l d also a g r e e to t h e r e w r i t i n g o f t h e i r p a s t . b u t its s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d n e s s i l l u s t r a t e s all the b e t t e r t h e w a y in w h i c h l a n g u a g e . m e n t i o n e d as an a s i d e to t h e a c t i o n p r e s e n t e d as i m p o r t a n t . are n o t d i s s i m u l a t e d . o f r e c o n q u e s t justified b y ancestral rights and of m o n o p o l y over definitions and s t a t u s e s .3 2 ) . A n t i o c h o s a c t e d as he d i d . the ευεργεσία. A s i m i l a r c a s e to L a o d i k e ' s l e t t e r to t h e I a s i a n s is Z e u x i s ' d e a l i n g s w i t h the H e r a k l e i a n s . the sense would be the same. in a c c e p t i n g t h e b e n e f a c t i o n . b u t L a o d i k e w a s rewriting Iasian history into a S e l e u k i d past. but if the clause were paratactic. a n d it c a n o n l y b e r e l e v a n t if t h e k i n g f e e l s h u m a n i t a r i a n s o l i c i t u d e f o r his s u b j e c t s . τήν ύμετεραν πάλιν σύμπτωμασιν περιπεσοϋσαν άπροσδοκήτοις άνακτησάμενος. T h e f a c t s .) as still governed by the participial clause άνακτησάμενος'. b u t b e n e f a c t i o n w a s also an e x p r e s s i o n a n d m e a n s o f p o w e r .

2 2 6 . t h i s is n o t o n l y e x p l i c i t l y e x p r e s s e d in r o y a l l e t t e r s . II 14.e. Gauthier 1985: 40-1. 3 § 1. F o r i n s t a n c e . Conserving. 65 T h e theme is already analysed in C h . 1). 5. 18.p r o t e c t i o n is a t r a d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e o f N e a r . a n d — u n e x a c t l y — i n actual f a c t ) a S e l e u k i d d o m i n i o n s i n c e 281 BC ( C h . 64 D o c u m e n t 31 Β. as an essential part of the ideological tools of power (§§ 2d. T h e e s s e n c e o f k i n g s h i p c o u l d b e d e f i n e d as b e n e f a c t i o n .E a s t e r n k i n g s h i p .7 ) . 34. b y w h i c h all o f c i s T a u r i c Asia M i n o r had been (rightfully. 3. b u t . s i n c e its m o t i v a t i o n a n d its e f f e c t are to p r o m o t e t h e w e l f a r e o f the r u l e d ( M u r r a y 1 9 7 0 . and h e n c e a process of e u p h e m i s m . with references. w a s r e w r i t i n g local c o n t e x t s into a v a g u e S e l e u k i d past. III 14-15. a n d t h a t Z e u x i s . o r c a m o u f l a g e s . to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is t h a t t h e b e n e f a c t i o n e l i d e s . A r e l a t e d f e a t u r e is t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f r u l e n o t o n l y as b e n e f a c t i o n . line 11 'granted by the kings' is a local formula for status quo. ad finem. r a t h e r t h a n p o w e r 6 5 — a d e p r o b l e m a t i z i n g i m a g e o f p o w e r . p o w e r . it is p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e c i t y a c t u a l l y h a d n e v e r b e e n s u b j e c t to t h e S e l e u k i d s . also RC 15. Z e u x i s s u b s t i t u t e s t h e p a r t i s a n S e l e u k i d v e r s i o n . Generally. T h e n a t u r e o f the l i n k b e t w e e n t h e e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e a n d r o y a l p o w e r . B y a c c e p t i n g t h e g r a n t s a n d b e n e f a c t i o n s . 6 ) c o n t r a s t s t h e t y r a n t " Parallel: Crampa 1969: no. as r e l e v a n t to t h e p r e s e n t m a s t e r . further C h . u n d e r l i e s p h r a s e s a b o u t c o n s e r v i n g o r p r e s e r v i n g local p r i v i l e g e s — t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p o w e r a s . 67 Holleaux 1942: 226-7. On kingship and benefaction. o n έννοια. as in t h e c a s e of I a s o s . creating the illusion of 'témoignage spontané' of adhesion.d e n t s a n d g r a n t s m a d e b y i n d e f i n i t e r o y a l m a s t e r s in t h e c i t y ' s past. c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s . 5. to i n c r e a s e t h e c i t y — s t a n d a r d f o r m u l a s in t h e l a n g u a g e of r o y a l e u e r g e t i s m — a n d to p r e s e r v e τά re επί τών προγόνων τον βασιλέως [σνγκ€χ]ωρημ€να. a n d i n s t i t u t e s a fiction o f f r e e e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n r u l e r a n d r u l e d ( d i s s i m u l a t i n g the f a c t t h a t r u l e d in f a c t h a v e no c h o i c e ) . documents 19 B. 182-8 on the ideology of Near-Eastern kingship as protection. 'the grants m a d e by the a n c e s t o r s o f the k i n g (i. also CR NS 1 6 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . the H e r a k l e i a n s a c c e p t t h e r e w r i t i n g o f t h e i r l o c a l h i s t o r y into an e p i s o d e o f the S e l e u k i d p a s t . 6 6 T h e i n s i s t e n c e o n care l e g i t i m a t e s p o w e r . w h i c h is g i v e n s u b s t a n c e b y a c t u a l b e n e f a c t i o n s p r e s e n t e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e r u l e r ' s p e r s o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n a n d the n a t u r e o f h i s rule. a n d its e f f e c t . Briant 1982: 179-80. like L a o d i k e . 66 Protection: document 5. line 26. 6 7 P o l y b i o s ( 5 . 6 3 Z e u x i s r e p l i e d b y s p e a k i n g o f h i s d e s i r e to r e s t o r e t h e p e o p l e to its f o r m e r s i t u a t i o n . 4). A n t i o c h o s I I I ) ' . to an i n d e f i n i t e p a s t . 1 1 . b u t as p r o t e c t i o n a n d a c t i v e c a r e . . w e c o u l d d e s c r i b e the e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e as a r e w r i t i n g of p o w e r into benefaction. 3. 6 4 H e r e .

u s e d in c o n t r a c t c l a u s e s . T h e y i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t o f b e n e f a c t i o n . t h e exercise of kingship through pure benefaction seems a zone where p o w e r is a b s e n t . reduces a power relation to the free exchange and reciprocity between city and benefactor. t h e r u l e r ' s p r o c l a i m e d i n i t i a t i v e in t h i n k i n g u p n e w g i f t s . l i n e s 2 8 . G i f t s .3 0 ) : the a m b i g u i t y o n l y m a d e the f o r m m o r e v e r s a t i l e . T h e contract clause. T h e differences b e t w e e n these f u n c t i o n s of the euergetical disc o u r s e a p p l i e d f r o m a b o v e m a t t e r less t h a n t h e i r s h a r e d c h a r a c t e r i s tic. the p r o m i s e o f f u t u r e g i f t s . 540. a n d m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to o b f u s c a t e s u b o r d i n a t i o n . 535. also d e s i g n a t e s t h e a t t i t u d e o f c i t i e s t o w a r d s k i n g s w h o are n o t t h e i r p o l i t i c a l m a s t e r s (RC 2 5 . d r a w i n g a w a y t h e a t t e n t i o n o f the r u l e d . r e p l a c e d b y i n f l u e n c e a n d w i l l i n g a d h e s i o n . a n d g e n e r a l l y in r o y a l l a n g u a g e a d d r e s s e d to local c o m m u n i t i e s (§ i ) . both in a free and a subordinate context. T h e fact that the same language c o u l d b e u s e d in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r u l e r a n d r u l e d as w e l l as b e t w e e n king and i n d e p e n d e n t city69 s u g g e s t s yet another interpret a t i o n : e u e r g e t i s m c o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d as c r e a t i n g a r e l a t i o n p a r a l l e l to t h e p o w e r s t r u c t u r e — a d i s t r a c t i o n f r o m p o w e r . to t h e k i n g . m a n i f e s t e d in h i s d e c i s i o n s : r e f e r e n c e to t h e s e t h e m e s c r e a t e d l e g i t i m a c y f o r the k i n g . T h e c o n t r a c t c l a u s e in r o y a l l e t t e r s s u g g e s t s t h a t c o m p l i a n c e . Syll. 3.9 . in Holleaux 1942: 226 n. is a c h o i c e o f the local c o m m u n i t y . I. t h u s r u l i n g a n d p r e s i d i n g o v e r p e o p l e w i t h f u l l w i l l i n g n e s s ' . publicize royal generosity. w h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c is 'to do g o o d to all a n d b e l o v e d o n a c c o u n t o f h i s b e n e f i c e n c e a n d k i n d n e s s . Veyne 1976: 229. line 11). 66. E u e r g e t i s m o f f e r e d a c h a n n e l f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w h i c h d i d n o t p a s s t h r o u g h the r e a l i t i e s o f d o m i n a t i o n . signalled in Piejko 1991a: 64). lines 68-70.( w h o r u l e s b y fear) a n d t h e k i n g . lines 48—51. 65 On this topic. in this context. V e y n e r e m a r k e d o n t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n the d i f f e r e n t a i m s o f royal g i f t s to t h e c i t i e s ( m a i n t a i n d i p l o m a t i c cordiality w i t h i n d e p e n d e n t p o w e r s . t h e e v o c a t i o n o f p a s t g i f t s . Gauthier 19936: 214. such as that proclaimed at the end of Athenian honorific decrees (e.g. διά τήν εύεργεσ(αν καΐ τήν φιλανθρωπίαν άγαττώμενον. 6 8 P o l y b i o s s p e a k s o f k i n g s in t h e p a s t r e c e i v i n g εννοιαν και τιμήν in r e t u r n f o r m a g n i f i c e n t g i f t s — a relationship of p u r e e u e r g e t i s m . s y m b o l i z e ' u n e r e l a t i o n d e d é p e n d a n c e ' : V e y n e 1 9 7 6 : 2 2 8 . a n d t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m that a c c o m p a n i e d benefaction. h i s b e n e f i c e n t c h a r a c t e r . w h e n applied f r o m the r u l e r s to t h e r u l e d . a n d d e p r o b l e m a t i z e d it b y s h i f t i n g the f o c u s of d i s c o u r s e 68 Reference for «τϋνοια. a c t i n g o u t o f t h e m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n to r e m e m b e r a n d r e q u i t e p a s t b e n e f a c t i o n : t h e w o r d εύνοια. 227 η. . έκόντων ήγεΐσθαι και προστατείν: in t h i s ideal r e l a t i o n . o r d e f e r e n c e . βασιλέως 8è το ττάντας εν ποιούντα. r e p r e s e n t e d h i s p o w e r .

b u t in m o r a l i z i n g t e r m s . Inschr. T h i s d i s c o u r s e p l a y e d its role in f o s t e r i n g c o n s e n t a n d m a k i n g p o w e r a c c e p t a b l e . t h r o u g h t h e r e a d i n g o f t h e d e c r e e a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n b y t h e c i t y ' s e n v o y s : the a i m w a s e x p r e s s l y to b r i n g t h e c i t y to the a t t e n t i o n o f its r o y a l i n t e r l o c u t o r s . A s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e is t h e i n t r i c a t e s y n t a x o f a r o y a l u t t e r a n c e s u c h as L a o d i k e ' s l e t t e r to t h e I a s i a n s . 7 1 h o n o u r s d e c r e e d b y a c i t y ( p r a i s e . as p a r t o f t h e w h o l e package of royal euergetism. as a n a l y s e d a b o v e : t h e p a r t i c i p i a l c l a u s e s .a s . I 4 _ 5ί °f· RC 6. a n d p e r f o r m e d b e f o r e h i m . the l a n g u a g e o f τιμαί a n d h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e s in d i r e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e k i n g s . r e j o i c e o v e r his g o o d h e a l t h . w h e n s p o k e n b y k i n g o r q u e e n . OGIS 11. p r o m i s e d f u r t h e r b e n e f a c t i o n s if t h e y s h o w e d t h e m s e l v e s οίους καθήκ€ί. a p p e a l to e u e r g e t ical m e m o r y . M o r e simply."] T h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m . a n d r e a d o u t an h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e t a k e n b y t h e city. w h i c h reached o t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s . the royal euergetical g e s t u r e . t h e w h o l e w r i t t e n in c o m p l e x . m a k e the I a s i a n s a c c e p t r o y a l i d e o l o g y a n d t h e r o y a l w o r l d v i e w . (b) Diplomacy and Manipulation T h e royal language of giving w a s m a t c h e d by a civic language of r e c e i v i n g . n o t in t e r m s o f p o l i t i c a l s u b o r d i n a t i o n . 219. the m a i n action. d e p e n d e n t on the main action ( L a o d i k e has g i v e n grain). a n d a i m e d at i m p o s i n g c e r t a i n i m a g e s o f r o y a l p o w e r o n t h e m ( a d m i t t e d l y . r u l e r c u l t ) . talking about g i v i n g also a l l o w e d t h e r u l e r s to m e n t i o n t h e s u b j e c t s ' o b l i g a t i o n s . in t h i s r o l e . "va δε ό βασιλεύς Άντίοχος καί ή ά[δ]ελφή αυτού I [βασί]λισσα [Λ]αοδίκη ειδήσωσι τήν D o c u m e n t 26 A. its a i m w a s to d e p o l i t i c i z e t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e e m p i r e to its s u b j e c t s . e l a b o rate s e n t e n c e s p o s i n g t h e m e s o f r o y a l i d e o l o g y as f a c t s b y s h i f t i n g t h e m to s u b o r d i n a t e o r p a r t i c i p i a l c l a u s e s w h i c h e m p h a s i z e d . as ' a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r ' a f t e r r e c e i v i n g g i f t s a n d in t h e e x p e c t a n c y o f m o r e g i f t s : L a o d i k e . t h e y h a d less c h o i c e t h a n S m y r n a o r Lampsakos). T h e ' g e n t l e a d d r e s s e s ' to w h i c h A n t i o c h o s I I I treated the S m y r n i a n s and the L a m p s a k e n e s w e r e p r o b a b l y e x p r e s s e d in t h i s r e g i s t e r : p o w e r . T h a t t h e s e r e c a l c i t r a n t c o m m u n i t i e s w e r e n o t t a k e n in d o e s not detract f r o m the i m p o r t a n c e of this language. p r o m i s e o f g i f t s . 70 71 107-13. to s e n d g r e e t i n g s . I 20. e x p r e s s e s t h e w h o l e p o l i t i c s o f t h e act of g i v i n g f r o m r u l e r to r u l e d . . T h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e to b e n e f a c t i o n w a s the d i s p a t c h o f an e m b a s s y to the k i n g .b e n e v o l e n c e . in t h e a b s t r a c t . in t h e c o n t r a c t c l a u s e at t h e e n d o f h e r l e t t e r to t h e I a s i a n s .f r o m p o w e r to b e n e f a c t i o n . 3 1 A . D o c u m e n t s 11. w e r e p u b l i c l y c o m m u n i c a t e d to t h e k i n g . a n d w e r e substantiated b y . 4~7ί Delphinion 139. t h e e r e c t i o n o f a s t a t u e .

altars. s i m p l y d e s c r i b e d t h e a m b a s s a d o r s as ' e x h o r t i n g ' . t h e f o r m u l a w a s u s e d in a d e c r e e o f E u r o m i a n s / P h i l i p p e i s to describe reconquest b y Philip V — a n A n t i g o n i d official 'restored the c i t y to k i n g P h i l i p ' . 5 . lines 3-4. 7 4 E v e n if t h e l a n g u a g e o f h o n o u r s is n o t e x p l i c i t a b o u t t h e p o w e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i n v o l v e d . as t o k e n s o f s u b m i s s i o n . Fil. m a r c h e d into K o i l e S y r i a to t h e a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f c r o w n s . 226 for earlier parallels: golden crowns as initial acknowledgement of inferior status. 446-52. 1 3 . [καθά] I περ εύχόμεθα. lines 13-14: Eumenes has won καλώς και άνδόξως και ώς ίύχόμεθα τοις θεοϊς. 8 . 73 C i t y prayers: document 18. republished b y Segre. 75 T h e honours decreed by the cities after 'Antiochos' takes power on the death of 'Seleukos' (P. 28. 4. a f a c t w e n e e d n o t a t t r i b u t e w i t h P o l y b i o s to t h e n a t u r a l fickleness o f the inhabitants. 2 7 . might concern a similar situation. w i t h o u t d i r e c t o b j e c t o r e x p l a n a t o r y s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e : καί oi ττρεσβευταί παρεκάλουν 72 D o c u m e n t 18. ' i n o r d e r t h a t k i n g A n t i o c h o s a n d h i s s i s t e r q u e e n L a o d i k e s h o u l d k n o w t h e g r a t i t u d e o f the p e o p l e ' . a f t e r h i s v i c t o r y at R a p h i a . the Telmessian decree in honour of Eumenes II. 2 § 3). Riv. or e v e n submission. s a c r i f i c e s . C i v i c decrees i n s t r u c t e d t h e a m b a s s a d o r s to p r o c l a i m t h a t t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t y h a d t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e r u l e r at h e a r t . 6 a n d a b o v e . from the king.' 2 A first f u n c t i o n of c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e k i n g w a s t h e d e m o n stration of g o o d w i l l . 10-13. in a l e t t e r to t h e S a r d i a n s . in the a b s o l u t e . a l a r m e d at P h i l i p ' s s u c c e s s at L a d e in 2 0 1 . 21286: Brashear 1984). 1 5 . the Ionians ask Antiochos I to choose a site for a temenos to him: the request demands a reply. ώς ενχόμεθα. w h o t h e n e x h o r t e d t h e m to ' a l w a y s b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s o m e g o o d f o r t h e demos' (παρακαλεσουσιν αυτόν άεί τίνος αγαθού παραίτιον γενέσθαι τώι δήμωι). Berol. HC A i. 60 (1932). a n d o t h e r h o n o u r s ( P o l . cf. E u r o m i a n s / P h i l i p p e i s : E r r i n g t o n Ι 9 9 3 : 2Ι_3> no.1 1 ) . 1 ° OGIS 222. . lines 20-5 (long description of public prayers at Ilion for the welfare of king and queen).72.75 A m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d f u n c t i o n w a s the m e d i a t i o n o f r e q u e s t s to the ruler: h o n o u r s usually introduced petition. Bosworth. 1 6 . 8 6 . 112.1 5 . T h e d e c r e e s i n f o r m e d t h e k i n g o f s a c r i f i c e s o r p r a y e r s f o r h i s w e l f a r e . 107-8. L a o d i k e . C h . cf. b e c a u s e n e a r a n d r e c e n t l y v i c t o r i o u s in w a r — t h e first g e s t u r e w a s to issue an h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e a n d s e n d c r o w n s . P t o l e m y I V . as a T e i a n d e c r e e p u t it. t h i s e l e m e n t a r y f u n c t i o n of d e m o n s t r a t i n g s u b m i s s i o n e m e r g e s f r o m the b e h a v i o u r o f c i t i e s t o w a r d s k i n g s w h o are t h r e a t e n i n g . lines 20-4. t h a t t h e r u l e r ' s g o o d h e a l t h a n d f o r t u n e w a s in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c i t y ' s p r a y e r s . T h e A m y z o n i a n decrees for Seleukid officials were b r o u g h t b y ambassadors. 2 _ 5 (assuming this decree of a phyle was communicated to Antiochos III). and hence attention. d e c r e e d c r o w n s f o r the v i c t o r ( P o l . also OGIS 219.εύχαριστίαν τού [8]ήμου. definitely communicated to the king. loyalism. M i l e t o s . 74 Documents 2 Β.

" T h e S a r d i a n s . L a o d i k e . still c o u l d r e s o r t to t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e e u e r g e t i c a l l a n g u a g e . Β (II ι ο . . A parallel is found in the φιλάνθρωποι and the τιμαί offered to the Scipios by the same city (45. 78 D o c u m e n t 31 A (crowns). s a c r i f i c e s to g o d s and kings) for A n t i o c h o s I I I and his family. 3. 12. a f t e r t h e r a v a g e s o f s i e g e a n d sack b y t h e i r r u l e r . justifying restoration [τιμάς]). b u t 76 A m y z o n : documents 1 1 . 14-15.s c r i p t e d l i n e s of b e n e f a c t i o n : t h e e v i d e n c e a l l o w s u s to see e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e in a c t i o n . to a d d r e s s t h e r u l i n g p o w e r in a d i s c o u r s e t h a t w o u l d s h a p e its r e a c t i o n a l o n g p r e . A f t e r h o n o u r i n g L a o d i k e . in s t a n d a r d e u e r g e t i c a l l a n g u a g e .t w o e n v o y s : g i f t s in n a t u r e o r in k i n d . praising the Sardians' e n t h u s i a s m and p r o m i s i n g f u t u r e b e n e f a c t i o n s .78 T h e dealings b e t w e e n H e r a k l e i a a n d t h e r o y a l state g i v e a d e t a i l e d e x a m p l e o f the i n s t r u m e n t a l f u n c t i o n o f h o n o u r s in i n t r o d u c i n g s p e c i f i c p e t i t i o n s . start a d i p l o m a t i c e x c h a n g e — L a o d i k e w o u l d h a r d l y t u r n d o w n t h e c u l t i c h o n o u r s . 1 5 . Sardeis: 2 B. T h e h o n o u r s d e c r e e d b y the S a r d i a n s f o r L a o d i k e — c u l t i c h o n o u r s in t h e f o r m o f a temenos a n d a f e s t i v a l n a m e d L a o d i k e i a . as he l e t s h i m s e l f b e d r a w n i n t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d dialogue of h o n o u r s and benefaction. w h i c h a l l o w e d t h e S a r d i a n s to a p p r o a c h t h e r u l e r (or h i s w i f e ) in t h e e u e r g e t i c r e g i s t e r . t h e S a r d i a n s also a p p r o a c h e d A n t i o c h o s . a n d t h e i n c r e m e n t a l s h i f t s in t h e a t t i t u d e a n d l a n g u a g e o f A n t i o c h o s I I I . t e r r i t o r y .e x e m p t i o n s . b u t it no d o u b t a c k n o w l e d g e d similar h o n o u r s for himself.ακολούθως τοις iv τώι ψηφίσματι κατακεχωρισμάνοις·'6 In the latter case. h i s r e p l y is a l m o s t e n t i r e l y l o s t . h o n o u r s m o r e f r e q u e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d p r e c i s e p e t i t i o n s . a n d t h e i r c h i l d r e n — w e r e c l e a r l y a local i n i t i a t i v e . line 48. C (that this letter answers a different embassy than Β can be inferred from the different composition of the embassy). in t h e a f t e r m a t h o f t h e s e d i s c u r s i v e m o v e s . OGIS 219. to i n v i t e t h e r u l i n g p o w e r to r e s p o n d in the same language of euergetism. Rather than being mere homilies w h i c h requested royal euergeti s m in g e n e r a l t e r m s .1 6 . T h e H e r a k l e i a n s d e c r e e d h o n o u r s ( c r o w n s . 77 D o c u m e n t s 2 B.ι ι for sacrifices). L a o d i k e d u l y a c k n o w l e d g e d the h o n o u r s . probably contained a general exhortation to the king requesting good disposition towards Ilion. before presenting Z e u x i s w i t h a m u l t i t u d e o f d o s s i e r s (υπομνήματα) o n p r i v i l e g e s to b e d e f e n d e d o r b e n e f a c t i o n s to b e r e q u e s t e d b y the t w e n t y . s a c r i f i c e s to Z e u s G e n e t h l i o s f o r the s a f e t y o f A n t i o c h o s . v a r i o u s t a x . N e i t h e r Z e u x i s n o r A n t i o c h o s s e e m s to h a v e r e f u s e d m u c h o f t h e Herakleians' long and c o m p l e x petition. Sardeis had recently been recaptured and sacked b y A n t i o c h o s I I I . o f h i s d e s i r e to assist w i t h the c i t y ' s Ιπανόρθωσις a n d h i s c o m m i t t e d c h o i c e (προαιρούμενοι) to i m p r o v e t h e s i t u a t i o n of t h e c i t y — h e n c e a s e r i e s o f b e n e f a c t i o n s a n d t h e a l l e v i a t i o n of the b u r d e n o f b i l l e t i n g . a third letter b y h i m s p e a k s . s y m b o l i z i n g local g o o d w i l l — a n d .

. ]. h o n o u r s w h e n o f f e r e d as i n i t i a t i v e f r o m b e l o w s t a r t e d t h e e u e r g e t i c a l d i a l o g u e . 17. SEG 36.79 P a r a l l e l s a b o u n d : a d e c r e e o f the I o n i a n s c o n t a i n s c u l t i c h o n o u r s f o r A n t i o c h o s I. o p e n o r i m p l i c i t . L a t e r c i v i c d e c r e e s in p r e s e n t i n g p e t i t i o n s r e f e r to t h e p r e c e d e n t o f r o y a l a n c e s 75 'In accordance with your request': document 19 C . ' t h e y s p o k e of t h e eunoia o f t h e c i t y a n d h a n d e d o v e r t h e d o s s i e r s c o n c e r n i n g t h e t h i n g s y o u ask f o r ' . alluded to in lines 1 5 . g o l d c r o w n s o f real v a l u e . b e a r i n g a d e c r e e h o n o u r i n g h i m a n d B e r e n i k e II w i t h c r o w n s a n d s t a t u e s : τήν re εΰνοιαν της πόλεως ενεφάνισαν καί περί ών ήξιοντε τα νπομνήματ' επέδωκαν. .3. as s u g g e s t e d b y R . [κ]αθάπερ άξιοΰτε.1218. o r g i f t s o f m o n e y c a l l e d ' c r o w n s ' ) 8 1 — a n o f f e r i n g to t h e k i n g . Also C r a m p a 1969: no.1 6 (the T e i a n ambassadors speak of their instructions. Anab.13. Bikerman 1938: i n — 1 2 .s o .24. . the cities c o u l d exercise 'moral pressure' on the k i n g s to e n s u r e t h e f a v o u r a b l e r e c e p t i o n o f p e t i t i o n s . 1. in w h i c h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e w a s ( m o r e ) b e n e f a c t i o n s — t h e content of these benefactions being determined. A t r a c e o f s u c h a p e t i t i o n is p r e s e r v e d in A n t i o c h o s ' r e p l i e s to T e i a n e m b a s s i e s : o n e o f t h e l e t t e r s e x p l i c i t l y p r o m i s e s s o m e a c t i o n ' i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h y o u r r e q u e s t ' . d e m a n d i n g r e q u i t a l in s o m e f o r m . 8 0 W h y w e r e h o n o u r s a d d r e s s e d to t h e k i n g e f f e c t i v e in m a k i n g h i m r e s p o n d f a v o u r a b l y to p e t i t i o n s ? W e m i g h t c o n s i d e r the h o n o u r s as a s y m b o l i c a l f e e ( s o m e t i m e s n o t so s y m b o l i c a l . RC 15 and 22. 19 A almost certainly gave Antiochos' reply ([οιό]μεθα Seiv τήμ πόλιν [νμών . C i v i c h o n o u r s a n d t h e i r m e s s a g e s . b y t h e p e t i t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w e d the h o n o u r s . . 80 OGIS 222. l e t t e r s of A n t i o c h o s I I (?) a n d S e l e u k o s I I s u m m a r i z e petitions c o m i n g after civic honours. Millar 1992: 140-2 for Roman parallels. line 5. 2. t h o u g h not unpleasantly. 14. e s p e c i a l l y a g a i n s t the A i t o l i a n s a n d t h e i r T h e b a n allies. lines 14-18. P t o l e m y I I I a c k n o w l e d g e d the practical g o a l s o f an e m b a s s y f r o m X a n t h o s . w h i c h b y s p e a k i n g o f the k i n g ' s d i v i n e a n d active protection presents a n o t . b y p u b l i c i z i n g expectations and projecting n o r m s o n t o the r e c i p i e n t . Arr. whose precise tenor is now lost). B y e c h o i n g the r o y a l t h e m e s o f p o w e r as b e n e f a c t i o n o r ancestral attitudes.1 9 .26. 'we believe that your city should . 4 (Olympichos to Mylasa). lines 1 7 . most tersely.') to a T e i a n petition.2 (Alexander asks the Aspendians to pay a fee of 50 talents). B i l l o w s . A l s o D i o d . A n e a r l y e x a m p l e is t h e f a m o u s A t h e n i a n i t h y p h a l l i c h y m n to D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s (291 o r 290). a c c o r d i n g to the r u l e s o f e x c h a n g e . 81 RC 15. t h e a c t u a l e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e s p l a y e d an instrumental role. .t h e y are h a r d l y u n i q u e . F i n a l l y . as in t h e c a s e o f t h e g o l d ξένια o f f e r e d b y E r y t h r a i to t h e S e l e u k i d k i n g . o r at least s u g g e s t e d . 19 Ε could also be a response by a petition from the koinon of the Artists of Dionysos. a n d a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e k i n g p r o t e c t the f r e e d o m o f t h e cities. a i m e d at a c h i e v i n g a m a n i p u l a t i v e e f f e c t .8.h i d d e n request for assistance.

to p r o j e c t e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d s h a p e i n t e r a c t i o n into i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d e u e r g e t i c a l c h a n n e l s . w a s a p u b l i c r e m i n d e r of royal p r o m i s e s and a m e a n s of pressure on the king.4 . On the Athenian hymn. l i n e 20. 8 3 I f w e h a d the t e x t of a n y s p e e c h d e l i v e r e d f a c e . t h e p h r a s e . esp. Herakleia: 31. 74-8. τα δ' ε[ττι\τελέσει. T h e e x p l i c i t t h e m e o f t h i s p h r a s e is c e l e b r a t i o n o f A n t i o c h o s ' b e n e f i c e n c e a n d p o w e r . Letter to T e o s : 19 C. T h e ideal case illustrating this direct instrumental f u n c t i o n of euergetical discourse m u s t be the b e h a v i o u r of the R h o d i a n s . and inscribed on the m a i n city t e m p l e . p r o m i s e s a c t i o n 'in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e e x a m p l e [of m y a n c e s t o r s ] ' . w h i c h speaks a b o u t 'the great a d v a n t a g e s t h r o u g h w h i c h o u r city has r e a c h e d h a p p i n e s s — s o m e o f w h i c h he n o w is b r i n g i n g a b o u t . and its political context. 81 T e i a n decree: document 17. A r o y a l letter to T e o s . Its i m p o r t a n c e c a n b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y p a r a l l e l s in o t h e r 82 T h e s e examples are treated in Billows 1995: 70-80.f a c e b y c i v i c a m b a s s a d o r s to t h e k i n g . 14-16. T h e u s e o f l a n g u a g e b y t h e r u l e d to act u p o n t h e r u l e r s is e s s e n tial f o r a n u a n c e d a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e r e a l i t i e s a n d t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f e m p i r e . d e s c r i b e d b y D i o d o r o s as u s i n g h o n o u r s a n d s k i l f u l d e c r e e s to m a k e t h e k i n g s p a y t h e m εκουσίου s φόρους ( 3 1 . and the H e r a k l e i a n decree h o n o u r i n g the king and h i s f a m i l y ( b e f o r e d e t a i l i n g a l o n g list o f r e q u e s t s ) p r e s e n t e d t h e h o n o u r s in t h e g e n e r a l i z i n g r e g i s t e r of r o y a l b e n e f i c e n c e . n e v e r t h e l e s s . . a m e t a p h o r w h i c h reverses a m o r e usual relation o f k i n g a n d c i t y ) . G a u t h i e r 1993 b: 2 1 4 . w h i c h w a s read o u t to the k i n g . p e r h a p s c o m m e n t e d o n b y ambassadors. as in OGIS 2 2 2 . o r t h e p a r a p h r a s e o f a m b a s s a d o r s ' s p e e c h in RC 1 5 .1 5 ) . s o m e h e w i l l b r i n g a b o u t ' : [τ]ά μεν συντελεί τών αγαθών δι' ών εις ενδαιμονίαν παραγίνεθ' ή πόλις ήμ[ώ]ν. N e v e r t h e l e s s . f a v o u r i n g p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e s to p e t i t i o n . a g r e e i n g to a local r e q u e s t . 27-9. a s i m p l e b u t v e r y e x p l i c i t e x a m p l e c o m e s f r o m t h e 'first' T e i a n d e c r e e . 8 2 I n t h e case o f A n t i o c h o s I I I . w e w o u l d p r o b a b l y have m a n y more e x a m p l e s of directly manipulative r h e t o r i c a n d a p p e a l to t h e v a l u e s o f r o y a l e u e r g e t i s m . in t h e f o r m o f p o w e r o v e r the c i t y a n d o f p o w e r to d o g o o d . l i n e s 2 3 .t o . It is l i k e l y t h a t t h e S a r d i a n d e c r e e o n cult for L a o d i k e . 3 6 . O t h e r e x a m p l e s are i n d i r e c t . W e are e n t i t l e d to f i n d e x a g g e r a t e d t h i s i m a g e o f a c i t y u s i n g h o n o u r s to t r a n s f o r m k i n g s into b e n e f a c t o r s ( o r e v e n p a y e r s o f 'voluntary tribute'. a n d h e n c e v a l i d a t e s m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f this function.t o r s . p e r h a p s e c h o i n g t h e w o r d i n g o f the T e i a n d e c r e e it r e s p o n d s to. a n d it is t r u e t h a t R h o d e s w a s e x c e p t i o n a l b y its i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d its n e u t r a l i t y . D i o d o r o s d o c u m e n t s ancient awareness of the m a n i p u l a t i v e force of the honorific l a n g u a g e . Habicht 1997: 92-4. Sardeis: 2 B.

w h e r e the c i t i z e n s h o n o u r e d the g o v e r n o r at A l i n d a . also Habicht 1970: 57 n. a financial o f f i c i a l (?).7 0 ) . soldiers. T h e r e are m a n y i n s t a n c e s . Gauthier 1985: 45. i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m . and especially the statements and generalizations w h i c h f r a m e d the presentation of h o n o u r s . I n t h e case o f the H e l l e n i s t i c cities. 8 5 A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e h o n o u r e d the local c a v a l r y c o m m a n d e r for services. 85 Documents 9. Savalli-Lestrade 1996. another unspecified official. i. u s e d in a d i a l o g u e w h e r e t h e t e r m s w e r e n o t e x c l u s i v e l y o w n e d o r c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e e m p i r e . L a o d i k e i a b y t h e sea: 84 J. T h e s e s t a t e m e n t s p r e s e n t a s p e c i f i c case of t h e g e n e r a l f u n c t i o n of l a n g u a g e as ' r o l e a s s i g n m e n t ' w i t h i n a b i n d i n g l i n g u i s t i c c o n t r a c t . S e l e u k e i a in P i e r i a . o p e n to p e r m a n e n t i m m i g r a n t s ) to t h e ' c i t i e s n a m e d a f t e r t h e a n c e s t o r s o f the k i n g ' .d o c u m e n t e d a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t c a s e o f role a s s i g n m e n t is t h e d e c r e e h o n o u r i n g a r o y a l o f f i c i a l . to cast it in w e l l . 7 for Zeuxis at A m y z o n . 8 6 T h e m o s t e l a b o rate e x a m p l e c o m e s f r o m T e o s . amalgamates images of officials from below. 12. the p a r t y w h i c h w i e l d e d the m e a n s of physical c o m p u l s i o n . in g r a t i t u d e f o r s e r v i c e s o r as an initial d i p l o m a t i c m o v e ( r e q u i t i n g g e n e r a l g o o d w i l l r a t h e r t h a n s p e c i f i c f a v o u r s ) . Robert 1983: 194 (with further examples). in a c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . 13.e. g (Athens). 86 Apollonia: document 44. . a fragmentary decree f r o m Sardeis m i g h t h o n o u r a S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l w i t h a s t a t u e a n d a s h a r e o f the m e a t f r o m p u b l i c s a c r i f i c e s ( t h e h o n o r a n d is n o t a S a r d i a n ) . Sardeis: 40. w h e r e t h e y c o u l d a d d r e s s t h e r u l i n g p o w e r in c e r t a i n w a y s . h a d d i r e c t p o l i t i c a l f o r c e . (c) 'As for the Other Euergetai': Socializing the King's Officials A w e l l . 10. For a study of Attalid philoi between court and polis. allowed the ruled to c o n v e r t t r a n s a c t i o n s i n t o d i a l o g u e .p e r i o d s . A n t i o c h .d e f i n e d r o l e s a n d to o b t a i n w h a t t h e y w a n t e d f r o m it. 8 4 T h e t y p e is a t t e s t e d at A m y z o n . the a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e A r t e m i s i o n . Schubart 1937: 2 1 .6 . w h i c h o f f e r e d c i t i z e n s h i p ( o n a ' p o t e n t i a l ' b a s i s . t h e g r e a t S e l e u k i d c i t i e s o f n o r t h S y r i a . R o b e r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e t y p e as a s u b g e n r e o f t h e h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e . and L . perhaps t h e y also h o n o u r e d Z e u x i s ( w h o w e n t t h r o u g h t h e c i t y a n d d e d i c a t e d l a n d s to t h e g o d s o f t h e A r t e m i s i o n ) a n d t h e k i n g w i t h n o w lost d e c r e e s . f o r i n s t a n c e in L a t e A n t i q u i t y w h e n t h e c i t y é l i t e s c o n s t r a i n e d t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f an a u t o c r a t i c i m p e r i a l state t h r o u g h r h e t o r i c a n d the p r e s t i g e o f c l a s s i c a l c u l t u r e ( B r o w n 1 9 9 2 : 3 . T h e s h a r e d . 11. and prescriptions from above. and their c o m m a n d e r . m o d e s a n d c o n t e n t o f a d d r e s s s h a p e t h e r e s p o n s e . the m a n i p u l a t i o n o r p r e s s u r i z i n g o f rulers t h r o u g h discourse s h o w s h o w the h o n o u r s . L a u n e y 1987: 642-50. if t h e l a t t e r is to b e e x p r e s s e d w i t h i n t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e ( P o c o c k 1984).

90 D o c u m e n t 10. c i t i z e n .G a u t h i e r has a r g u e d that this m e a s u r e (purely honorific. and L . documents 1 1 . i n d i v i d u a l s are c a l l e d b y n a m e . the doctor Apollophanes. 1 2 1 6 . s o n of A g a t h o k l e s . 88 J. 14 for similar honours given to a citizen benefactor. b u t o n l y to f o r e i g n b e n e f a c t o r s . 12. B u t m o s t l y . a n d s o m e o f w h o m h a d e a r l i e r s t a y e d in T e o s . R o b e r t 1983: 1 1 4 . w h e n g r a n t e d to N i k o m e d e s . l i n k e d to l o c a l i d e n t i t y . Gauthier 1985: 7-39: cities never formally titled citizen benefactors as fvepyerai. 8 8 L i k e w i s e . I n r o y a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 91 D o c u m e n t 11. . 3 §§ 2c—d). t h e title ευεργέτης. a literal s h a r e o f t h e c o m m u n a l l i f e . and L . t h e i n s i s t e n c e o n p u b l i c i t y in the h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e . 39 lor a Friend from Seleukeia in Pieria.c i t i z e n s . t h e g o v e r n o r o f t h e A r t e m i s i o n . a n d L . and L . w i t h n o p a t r o n y m i c o r e t h n i k o n . p r o b a b l y a financial o f f i c i a l w i t h a w i d e r area o f c o m p e t e n c e t h a n s i m p l y A m y z o n . Robert 1983: 194. a n d also an h o n o u r g r a n t e d to o t h e r . by reinscribing t h e m i n t o t h e w o r l d o f the cities. a n d to h o l d o f f i c e . showing the title given to the Ptolemaic governor of Karia. as a f o r m a l title ( e q u i v a l e n t to r e g i s t r a t i o n in an official list o f a c i t y ' s b e n e f a c t o r s ) . a u t o n o m o u s l y o r g a n i z e d ( C h . SEG 3 4 . 3. and J. to p a r t i c i p a t e in f e s t i v a l s . w h i c h t h e A m y z o n i a n s g a v e to r o y a l o f f i c i a l s . M e n e s t r a t o s .90 T h e same privilege of A m y z o n i a n c i t i z e n s h i p . m a n y o f w h o m c a m e f r o m t h e s e c i t i e s . t h e A m y z o n i a n d e c r e e h o n o u r s M e n e s t r a t o s . Margos. H o n o u r s for royal officials socialized them. for the complicating fact that the A m y z o n i a n s may have started doing so in the late third century. 1 2 5 6 ) . w i t h t h e r i g h t to o w n l a n d . t h e local d i m e n s i o n o f t h e h o n o u r s i n t e g r a t e d t h e i m p e r i a l o f f i c i a l into t h e c i t y : A m y z o n g r a n t e d c i t i z e n s h i p to at least o n e S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l . 85 D o c u m e n t 10. 8 ' S o m e h o n o u r s p r o c l a i m e d distance b e t w e e n the city and the r o y a l official i n s t a l l e d n e a r o r in it: t h e d i s p a t c h o f an e m b a s s y . Robert 1983: no. t h e s e are c h a r a c t e r i s tic f e a t u r e s o f t h e d e c r e e f o r the r o y a l o f f i c i a l . s u c h as a p o r t i o n o f p u b l i c s a c r i f i c e s . cf. developing Herrmann 1965a: 79-84. b e n e f a c t o r s : καθότι και τοις [άλλοι? ενεργεταις]. cf. a n d d e s i g n a t e t h e l a t t e r as an o u t s i d e r to t h e city. g a v e h i m r i g h t s a n d p r i v i l e g e s in all t h e C h r y s a o r i a n cities: 9 1 p r a c t i c a l a d v a n t a g e s . as a b s t r a c t a n d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e c o n v e y o r s o r e x e c u t o r s o f o r d e r s (J.1 5 ) : this p r a c t i c e r e f l e c t s t h e p r a c t i c a l l a n g u a g e o f e m p i r e . A m y z o n also g r a n t e d h i m a d d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e s . 90-104. a n d the e m p i r e ' s a w a r e n e s s o f itself as an i d e a l l y r a t i o n a l state. s i n c e (as G a u t h i e r h a s s h o w n ) t h e title w a s n e v e r f o r m a l l y g i v e n b y H e l l e n i s t i c c i t i e s to t h e i r c i t i z e n s . 8 9 t h e title proxenos g i v e n to s o m e o f f i c i a l s c e r t a i n l y h a s t h i s i m p l i c a t i o n ( S E G 2 9 . rather than c o n c r e t e l y a d d r e s s e d to i m m i g r a n t s f r o m t h o s e cities) w a s d i r e c t e d at t h e S e l e u k i d k i n g ' s F r i e n d s . J. 37. m i g h t also c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e m as n o n . o f 87 D o c u m e n t i8. Gauthier 1985: 169-75. I n c o n t r a s t . Robert 1983: 223-5 o n f h e Chrysaorian League and its institutions.

σπευδόντes διά παντός. b e i n g z e a l o u s in all c i r c u m s t a n c e s . in our surviving decree. T e o s : 18. a n d w h o w a s p r a i s e d f o r h e l p i n g t h e c i t y w i t h [πά]ντα τα συμφέροντα [και καλώ? β]χοντα. καθά[π]ερ I [καλό]ν έστιν υπέρ TTJS ι'δια? πατρίδος.7 . 94 A m y z o n and Nikomedes: document II. 9 5 a n d t h e 92 Documents 10. o r s e r v a n t o f the k i n g ( H e r m a n 1 9 8 0 / 1 ) . Robert 1983: no. 96-9. he w a s p r a i s e d in t e r m s c o n s o n a n t w i t h local m o r a l v a l u e s a n d local i n t e r e s t s . 9. the g o v e r n o r o f A l i n d a . c r i t i c a l .94 E v e n if the m e a s u r e w a s s y m b o l i c a l . show Ptolemaic officials honoured for their καλοκαγαθία. f o r instance. A s u i t a b l e m e t a p h o r f o r the transaction c o m e s f r o m T h e a n g e l a . S e l e u k e i a . 9 3 T h e a s c r i b e d role as ε υ ε ρ γ έ τ η a l l o w e d t h e local c o m m u n i t y to a d d r e s s t h e r o y a l o f f i c i a l in t h a t c a p a c i t y a n d m a k e d e m a n d s : e n v o y s to N i k o m e d e s r e q u e s t e d h i m to d o g o o d to t h e d e m o s . B u t t h e r o y a l o f f i c i a l s c o u l d n o t a c c e p t local h o n o u r s a n d local i d e n t i t y w i t h o u t a s h a r e o f o b l i g a t i o n s . the grant of citizenship to these cities is only a possibility. w h e r e the citizens presented a r o y a l o f f i c i a l w i t h an h o n o r i f i c d e c r e e a n d t w o j a r s o f h o n e y ( R o b e r t 1936:90).1183). c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e r o y a l o f f i c i a l : t h e ' f l a t t e r e r ' . e i t h e r b y s t a r t i n g t h e e u e r g e t i c a l d i a l o g u e o r b y d e s c r i b i n g p a s t a c t i o n s in e u e r g e t i c a l t e r m s . as is a fine t h i n g f o r o n e ' s o w n f a t h e r l a n d ' . J. a n d L a o d i k e i a ( a n d . ' s i n c e he is an euergetes'. c o u c h e d in t e r m s o f m o r a l a p p r o v a l a n d g i v i n g t o k e n s o f r e s p e c t ( a n d also o f t h e v e r y s u b m i s s i o n a n d c o r d i a l c o n s e n t w h i c h t h e e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n s o u g h t a m o n g its s u b j e c t s ) . παρακαλέσουσιν δντα εύεργέτην πει I ράσθαι ÀEI TIVOS άγαθού παραίτιον γίνεσθαι τώι δήμωι. and L. 93 D o c u m e n t 10. κάλαξ.1 2 . N i k o m e d e s . a n d C h i o n i s a b o u t t h e ewoia o f A m y z o n t o w a r d s t h e k i n g s a n d t o w a r d s t h e m . w h o s e p a t r o n y m i c a n d ethnikon w e r e n a m e d b e f o r e h i s f u n c t i o n in t h e i m p e r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . B o t h f e a t u r e s c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d in t h e A m y z o n i a n d e c r e e f o r C h i o n i s . an i n d i v i d u a l w h o h a p p e n e d to h a v e b e e n a p p o i n t e d to a p o s i t i o n b y k i n g A n t i o c h o s . p r e s u m a b l y . to be proposed to the assembly in the following archairesiai: document 18. 4 (Amyzon) and 4 A (Xanthos. T h e l o c a l i d e n t i t y o f f e r e d b y t h e c i v i c d e c r e e s w a s m u c h p r e f e r a b l e to an a l t e r n a t i v e . republished SEG 33. 6 . 95 However. T h e T e i a n g r a n t o f ( p o t e n t i a l ) c i t i z e n s h i p w a s i n t e n d e d to m a k e the c i t i z e n s o f A n t i o c h . the r o y a l F r i e n d s w h o fell in t h i s c a t e g o r y ) ' t h e r e a d i e r t o w a r d s t h e b e n e f a c t i o n s .P h o k a i a : t h e S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l is g i v e n an i d e n t i t y in t h e n e t w o r k o f poleis. administrative communication (probably) between M e n e s t r a t o s a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s w a s r e w r i t t e n b y t h e A m y z o n i a n s as w r i t i n g to Z e u x i s . t h e l a n g u a g e o f h o n o u r s cast t h e m in t h e role o f b e n e f a c t o r s . f o r h i s καλοκαγαθία els πάντα τα τώι δήμωι συμφέροντα. . έτοιμότεροι 7r[pôs-] I τα? eùepyeatas·. as c i t i z e n a n d t h e s o n o f a c i t i z e n .92 T h e r o y a l o f f i c i a l s c o u l d h a r d i ) ' r e f u s e t h e s e h o n o u r s . 8 .

so t h a t t h e A p o l l o n i a n s m u s t h a v e c r e a t e d t h e ties f o r h i m to d e c i d e to i n t e r c e d e w i t h t h e S e l e u k i d state. C o n c e i v a b l y . T h i s m e c h a n i s m p r o b a b l y c a m e to p l a y at A p o l l o n i a S a l b a k e . t h e y are r a i s e d s h a r p l y b y t h e a p p a r e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e A p o l l o n i a n s in c o n v e r t i n g a S e l e u k i d c a v a l r y o f f i c e r into a local benefactor. It w o u l d b e f a s c i n a t i n g to k n o w m o r e a b o u t t h e case o f A p o l l o n i a u n d e r S a l b a k e a n d the (nown a m e l e s s ) S e l e u k i d h i p p a r c h : h o w t h e local h o n o u r s a f f e c t e d h i s sense of identity. b y g i v i n g it a f o r m a l . iteration. he d e f e n d e d the interests of t h e c i t y b e f o r e the c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t i e s at S a r d e i s . or c a l c u l a t i n g t h e A p o l l o n i a n s w e r e . t h o u g h o n a m o r e a m b i t i o u s scale. their .es.c i t i z e n s o f t h e s e t h r e e c i t i e s d i d n o t all i n s t a n t l y b e c o m e ' d u a l c i t i z e n s ' o f T e o s as w e l l as t h e i r o w n πατρίς. in a c o n s t a n t s p i r a l o f e x c h a n g e . h o w e x p e r i e n c e d . T h e s e h o n o u r s f u r t h e r e d the r e l a t i o n . and his routine dealings w i t h o t h e r S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l s . 96 D o c u m e n t 44. a n d h e n c e as q u a s i . e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r the e x t i n c t i o n o f t h e S e l e u k i d d o m i n i o n in t h e area in 189 BC. s t a t i o n e d t h e r e b y t h e S e l e u k i d state: repeatedly and w i t h ultimate success. i n s t i t u t i o n a l s h a p e (the c i t i z e n s h i p g r a n t ) . his relations w i t h his m e n .r a n k i n g S e l e u k i d d i p l o m a t 100-4. T h e c i t y r e w a r d e d h i m w i t h local c i t i z e n s h i p w i t h e x e m p t i o n f r o m c i v i c t a x e s . w h i c h m a n a g e d to h a v e its r e q u e s t f o r asylia p r e s e n t e d b y a h i g h . 9 6 T h e q u e s t i o n s are u n a n s w e r a b l e . and material rewards c o m b i n e d to g i v e t h e e u e r g e t i c a l c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n local c o m m u n i t y a n d Seleukid officer visibility (and hence a means for informal pressure to k e e p c o m m i t m e n t s ) a n d c o n t i n u i t y .c i t i z e n s w i t h a s e n s e o f o b l i g a t i o n towards Teos. a n d y e a r l y r e p e a t e d p u b l i c h o n o u r s at a f e s t i v a l : f r o n t s e a t i n g {prohedria) a n d c r o w n i n g w i t h a g o l d e n c r o w n . the proposal regulated concrete details (it is also possible that the proposal was rejected). w h e r e publicity. e x e r c i s i n g p a t r o n a g e a n d r e c e i v i n g h o n o u r s f r o m a c i t y . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e w a s to c o n v e r t t h e r o y a l official i n t o a l o c a l euerget. in t h i s s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e . T h e S e l e u k i d h i p p a r c h w a s n o t a n a t i v e o f A p o l l o n i a . a n d b y i n s e r t i n g t h e h i p p a r c h i n t o civic ritual. T h e A m y z o n i a n s h o n o u r e d S e l e u k i d soldiers along with c o m m a n d e r . b u t t h e y c o u l d b e a s k e d f o r m a n y m o r e cases. A similar transaction. m a y h a v e h a p p e n e d in t h e c a s e o f T e o s . w h a t o u t c o m e the ties b e t w e e n t h e c i t y a n d t h e o f f i c e r h a d . c y n i c a l . the g r a n t o f c i t i z e n s h i p w o u l d p e r h a p s have g i v e n the T e i a n s a w a y of addressing S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l s w h o w e r e also c i t i z e n s o f t h e s e c i t i e s (as m a n y w e r e ) : as m e m b e r s of c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h w h i c h T e o s had shared royal b e n e f a c t i o n s . w h e r e a d e c r e e h o n o u r s a c a v a l r y c o m m a n d e r ( h i p p a r c h ) . O p h e l a n d r o s : 13.

B y s o c i a l i z i n g t h e r o y a l o f f i c i a l s t h r o u g h e u e r g e t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n a n d role a s c r i p t i o n . p a t r i m o n i a l e m p i r e . M e n i p p o s thus cannot have been a p p r o a c h e d b y the T e i a n s qua c i t i z e n o f t h e c i t i e s in t h e S e l e u k i s . t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t i e s . d i r e c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to t h e r u l e r . F u r t h e r m o r e .6 ) . 3 § 2d). Even if the T e i a n mission was approved by Antiochos I I I . the M a c e d o n i a n g r o u p ('ethno-class') spread out across and d o m i n a n t in t h e e a s t e r n H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d s i n c e the t i m e of A l e x a n d e r . n o n e t h e l e s s . a n d m e m b e r ship of. w h e n h e w e n t to R o m e in w i n t e r 194/3 B C as part of the diplomatic confrontation b e t w e e n R o m e and A n t i o c h o s I I I ( C h . c o n s c i o u s l y o r n o t . 6 ) : l i k e Z e u x i s (or. 170—1. b e t w e e n the cities and the Hellenistic ruler. to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . a l a n g u a g e in w h i c h it w a s d i f f i c u l t to t u r n d o w n r e q u e s t s b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e t i e d to h o n o u r s . material and discursive. his p r i m a r y ethnic identity w a s not l i n k e d to a polis b u t r a t h e r d e s c r i b e d as d e s c e n t f r o m . b e c a u s e t h e y enabled the crucial activities of control and of exaction. the S e l e u k i d kings themselves). s e p a r a t i o n o f p o w e r s . 5 3 5 . in t h e m o s t c o n c r e t e s e n s e . t h e s e ivere t h e e m p i r e . M e n i p p o s . p o s e d a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m : t h i s p r o c e s s h a s g e n e r a l l y b e e n i d e n t i f i e d as a t h r e a t to t h e ' e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n ' as a s o c i a l f o r m a t i o n . 3 6 . B e c a u s e o f t h e i m p o r t a n t role o f S e l e u k i d o f f i c i a l s . T h e exercise of e m p i r e d e p e n d e d on the garrison c o m m a n d e r s a n d t h e o f f i c i a l s i n s t a l l e d l o c a l l y . s t r o n g s t a t e . 3 § 2 a ) . T h e process should not be m i n i m i z e d ( L a u n e y 1987: 642-3: 'dist i n c t i o n s h o n o r i f i q u e s i l l u s o i r e s et en g é n é r a l p e u c o û t e u s e s ' ) : w e s h o u l d b e a w a r e t h a t it r e p r e s e n t e d a s u b t l e m o d i f i c a t i o n in the c o n d i t i o n s o f e m p i r e . the Roman letter attributes the initiative and the choice of M e n i p p o s to the Teians. b u t at a n y rate a c t i v e l y . 9 ' M e n i p p o s w a s a M a c e d o n i a n ( L i v . it is l i k e l y t h a t t h e T e i a n s a p p r o a c h e d M e n i p p o s ( p e r h a p s w h i l e he w a s s t a t i o n e d in t h e r e g i o n ) in t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i c a l r e c i p r o c i t y .n e s s . . they represented the principles a n d t h e i d e o l o g y o n w h i c h the e m p i r e o f d o m i n a t i o n w a s b a s e d : the h i e r a r c h i c a l s y s t e m o f a state. t h e i r ' e m b e d d i n g ' in local c o n t e x t s . i n d e e d . It is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t T e o s f o u n d m e a n s to c o n v i n c e t h e S e l e u k i d d i p l o m a t to t r a n s a c t this p i e c e o f l o c a l b u s i n e s s a l o n g side the m u c h w e i g h t i e r m a t t e r o f the p r o t r a c t e d a n d i n c r e a s i n g l y frustrating m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n R o m e and A n t i o c h o s . t h e p u b l i c e n a c t m e n t of this ideology t h r o u g h the w o r k i n g of imperial institut i o n s as p e r f o r m a n c e w a s itself an i m p o r t a n t t o o l o f i m p e r i a l p o w e r ( C h . a n d o f t e n c u l m i n a t e d in an e m p i r e ' s d i s s o l u t i o n ( M a n n 1986: 1 4 4 . e n c o u r a g e d t h e p r o c e s s 97 D o c u m e n t 38. a n d b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e in c o n s t a n t c o n t a c t w i t h t h e r u l e d ( C h . t h e w e a k e n i n g o f t h e i r ties w i t h t h e r u l i n g p o w e r . or carried these activities out. a n d h e n c e g e n e r a l l y to t h e b a l a n c e o f p o w e r in the relation. 1 1 . 2 § 5).a n d o f f i c e r .

T h e i r b e h a v i o u r t e n d e d t o w a r d s t h e d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f t h e m e a n s of i m p e r i a l p o w e r . i n t e n d e d t h a t 'that an e x a m p l e o f t h e g r a t i t u d e o f t h e p e o p l e s h o u l d b e s e e n in a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n b e f o r e all t h e f o r e i g n e r s w h o c o m e to the c i t y . in e r e c t i n g a f o u n t a i n n a m e d a f t e r L a o d i k e . a n d w h o c o u l d be s h i f t e d a r o u n d at t h e o r d e r o f t h e S e l e u k i d state.7 (inhabitants of Soloi and garrison pursue common (pro-Ptolemaic) policy during T h i r d Syrian War). a f t e r the d e f e a t o f A n t i o c h o s I I I at M a g n e s i a . o f f i c i a l s w h o o w e d t h e i r l o y a l t y to t h e k i n g a n d h e n c e l o o k e d to a c e n t r e o f p o w e r . II. col. 9 8 T h e i n t e g r a t i n g a n d s o c i a l i z i n g f o r c e o f e u e r g e t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n c i t y a n d official v i v i d l y i l l u s t r a t e s h o w t h e l a n g u a g e o f e u e r g e t i s m .that m o s t w e a k e n e d the practical exercise of e m p i r e . A s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s p r o c e s s is the b e h a v i o u r . S c i p i o . t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f r o y a l o f f i c i a l s t h r e a t e n e d t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f local h o r i z o n s a n d r e l a t i o n s f u l l o f local m e a n i n g to p e r f o r m a n c e in a h i e r a r c h i z e d . because w e do not know how long royal officials were stationed in any community. . n e a r b y . . i n f l u e n c e d t h e r e a l i t y o f e m p i r e in an e f f e c t i v e a n d 'real' m a n n e r . theoretically an official of the C o u n t of Foix. T h e T e i a n s . But it is difficult to evaluate the phenomenon in the Hellenistic period. lines 6 . obeys Montalionais notables. 95: the châtelain at Montaillou. in t i m e s o f crisis. 37·44·7· Also FGrHist 160. t h e c i t i z e n s o f S a r d e i s a n d t h e g a r r i s o n in t h e a c r o p o l i s s e n t j o i n t a m b a s s a d o r s to s u r r e n d e r to L . For a parallel. . and hence the g r o u n d i n g of the 'free-floating resources' on w h i c h it d e p e n d e d : o f f i c e r s a n d f u n c t i o n a r i e s . 'all t h e G r e e k s ' (§ 1). i n d i v i d u a l s a d d r e s s e d b y the king and b y their colleagues b y bare n a m e w i t h o u t p a t r o n y m i c o r ethnikon. iva . before being transferred (in fact. see L e Roy Ladurie 1975: 35. T h e ' h o r t a t i v e c l a u s e s ' o f d e c r e e s f o r k i n g s o r r o y a l o f f i c i a l s m a k e e x p l i c i t t h e d e s i r e to p u b l i c i z e t h e e u e r g e t i c a l t r a n s a c t i o n . t h o u g h occasionally w i t h S e l e u k i d aulic titles. s e l f . role a s s i g n m e n t b y the c i t i e s c o u l d p l a y a m o r e diffuse function: p u b l i c i z i n g perceptions of the rulers and the n o r m s t h e y s u p p o s e d l y a d h e r e d to. t h e T e i a n s a n d t h e I a s i a n s p r e s e n t e d A n t i o c h o s I I I as a c t i n g in a b e n e f i c e n t w a y t o w a r d s . A t t h e i d e o l o g i c a l l e v e l . a c t i o n s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d as p e r f o r m a n c e s b e f o r e t h e w o r l d . o r b e f o r e . w h i c h chose locally m e a n i n g f u l solut i o n s o v e r l o y a l t y to t h e f a r a w a y c e n t r e o f e m p i r e : in w i n t e r 1 9 0 / 1 8 9 BC. a u t o n o m o u s . e m b o d i m e n t s o f i m p e r i a l p o w e r . (d) Publicizing Norms and Expectations I n a d d i t i o n to t h e t a r g e t i n g o f s p e c i f i c . of imperial garrisons. τoîs εις τήμ πάλιν αφικνουμενοις τ ώ ν ξενα>ν [παρά] I δείγμα πάσιν υπάρχον εμ μέσωι φαίνηται της ευχαριστίας το[ΰ 98 Liv.a w a r e s y s t e m o f i m p e r i a l state p o w e r . in a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . I n t h e a b s t r a c t . we do not know if the Seleukids regularly practised the transferral of adminstrative personnel at all).

A l l the inscribed civic decrees h o n o u r i n g A n t i o c h o s III or h i s o f f i c i a l s ( i n d e e d . Béquignon and Laumonier 1925: 290. and cordial relations w i t h a benevolent king. p a s t o r f u t u r e . f o r f o r e i g n e r s to see a n d talk a b o u t . f r o m its site o n t h e a g o r a . 14-15 (recognizable 'open space' with monuments near the south harbour). i s s u i n g in a v i s u a l a n d p e r m a n e n t f o r m its m e s s a g e a b o u t r o y a l b e n e f a c t i o n a n d c i v i c g r a t i t u d e . likewise. A n t i o c h o s the euerget. e x p o s e d f o r a n y o n e to r e a d . Hamilton 1842: ii. all i n s c r i b e d H e l l e n i s t i c c i v i c d e c r e e s h o n o u r ing a king or a royal official) ideally p e r f o r m e d the same function.δή] I μου. a n d c e r t a i n l y w a s r e n a m e d a f t e r h i m . b e c a u s e he p r e s e r v e s t h e d e m o c r a c y a n d t h e p e a c e f o r t h e A n t i o c h e i a n s . m o n u m e n t s . I n a d d i t i o n to b e i n g p u b l i c i z e d in the c i t i e s . the c i t y s p o k e o f c i v i c ." T h e m o n u m e n t w a s c o n c r e t e l y d e s i g n e d to p e r f o r m c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e rest o f t h e w o r l d . the benefactor of the A n t i o c h e i a n s . b y t h e i r n a t u r e as p u b l i c i n s c r i p t i o n : t h e y d i f f u s e d a local p e r c e p t i o n a b o u t t h e H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g a n d p r o c l a i m e d t h e n o r m s g o v e r n i n g the transaction b e t w e e n local c o m m u n i t y and ruler. i m a g e s of a king's euergetical activity or character w e r e actively diffused b y diplomatic contacts. the king's statue m a y have been located a m o n g earlier statues of D o c u m e n t 18. T h e e m b a s s y d o e s n o t s e e m to h a v e m e n t i o n e d in a n y o t h e r w a y t h a n an a l l u s i o n to t h e e x a m p l e o f S e l e u k i d a n c e s t o r s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c i t y in q u e s t i o n h a d b e e n (in s o m e w a y ) r e f o u n d e d b y A n t i o c h o s I I . n e a r t h e h a r b o u r w h e r e m a n y f o r e i g n e r s w o u l d first set f o o t in t h e city. he s p o k e w e l l about king A n t i o c h o s . but the centre for religious rituals (next section). 99 100 . O n an i n t e r n a t i o n a l . T h e A m p h i k t i o n s collaborated. f o r all t i m e s . T h e Antiocheian/Alabandan ambassador w h o w e n t r o u n d G r e e c e a s k i n g f o r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f asylia f o r the c i t y . in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e e x a m p l e of h i s a n c e s t o r s ' . a n d b y f u r t h e r d i f f u s i n g t h e m t h r o u g h e p i g r a p h i c p u b l i c a t i o n at D e l p h i and large statues of A l a b a n d a / A n t i o c h e i a and A n t i o c h o s I I I . s p o k e b e f o r e t h e D e l p h i c A m p h i k t i o n s : ομοίως δε καί περί βασιλεος I Άντιόχου τοΰ εύεργετα Άντιοχέων εύλογηκε ευχάριστων I αντώι διότι ταν δημοκρατίαν καί ταν ειράναν {αν} τοις Άντιοχεϋσιν I διαφυλάσσει κατ ταν τών προγόνων ύφάγησιν. g i v i n g t h a n k s to h i m . 64-9. in i n s c r i p t i o n s . h i s d e f e n c e o f p e a c e a n d l i b e r t y f o l l o w i n g t h e a n c e s t r a l e x a m p l e . s c e n e . perf o r m e d p u b l i c l y . ' l i k e w i s e . 1 0 0 T h e m o n u m e n t w a s n o t isolated. by issuing a decree of their o w n echoing these themes. o r p a n .H e l l e n i c . b y presenting a p e r m a n e n t v e r s i o n . n o t d y n a s t i c i d e n t i t y . to the city. o r r i t u a l s .es. t h e c i t y ' s eucharistia: these notions were disp l a y e d before the prestigious audience of a p a n . these rituals h o n o u r i n g A n t i o c h o s I I I s p o k e o p e n l y a n d r e p e a t e d l y o f h i s b e n e f a c t i o n s .H e l l e n i c shrine.

the p e r f o r m a n c e s b e f o r e a p a n . w e r e also p e r f o r m a t i v e .8 6 ) .p e r f o r m a t i v e . local d e s c r i p t i o n s of the k i n g ' s a c t i o n s and m o t i v a t i o n s c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d . in that their e f f i c i e n c y d e p e n d e d o n t h e i r r e l e v a n c e to a c o n t e x t . since it a l l o w e d the cities to c o n s t r a i n and m a n i p u l a t e the H e l l e n i s t i c k i n g s (as a n a l y s e d in the t w o p r e v i o u s sections).c o m m u n a l interaction. A u s t i n i a n sense of ' d o i n g t h i n g s w i t h w o r d s ' ( Ί declare y o u f r e e ' ) .a c t t h e o r y . p r o m o t i n g the e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e as the o r t h o d o x m e d i u m f o r i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n ruler and r u l e d . 1 0 1 T h e b e h a v i o u r of the A m p h i k t i o n s illustrates h o w the c o m m u n i t y of cities c o u l d c o l l a b o r a t e to d i f f u s e a c c e p t a b l e i m a g e s of k i n g s h i p . esp. o r d i f f u s e d . 1 0 2 S o c i v i c s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t k i n g s . 1993: 2 6 5 . T h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t s of the s y s t e m of cities in d i f f u s i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s and praise of rulers in the e u e r g e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e c o n s t i t u t e d the latter into an a c c e p t e d political c u l t u r e . G i o v a n n i n i in B u l l o c h et al. w h e n c o n s i d e r e d as u t t e r a n c e s in the real w o r l d . p u b l i c i z i n g m o r a l i z i n g n o r m s and c o m m i t m e n t s to these n o r m s . and in that t h e y had an e f f e c t o n t h e i r recipients. the i m p l i c i t m e s s a g e s of m o n u m e n t s and rituals. W i t h i n this w o r l d . 140. b u t n o n e t h e l e s s had a significant political f o r c e . ' A l l the G r e e k s ' : the n o t i o n w a s not s i m p l y the h o r i z o n t a l d i m e n sion for g e n e r a l i z i n g l a n g u a g e . Statue. as d o c u m e n t e d b y the e p i g r a p h y of the cities i n v o l v e d ( A . 102 Pocock 1984. on the power of language to define the world and shape political relations. since p r e d i c a t e d o n t r u t h . w e r e efficient in d e f i n i n g actors a n d b e h a v i o u r . 19-22. T h e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t the k i n g ' s a c t i o n s and his c h a r a c t e r . in w h i c h the r u l e d c o u l d a c h i e v e a m e a s u r e of a g e n c y . and h e n c e e n f o r c i n g b e h a v i o u r d e s i r e d b y the local c o m m u n i t i e s . o b s e r v e d that s t a t e m e n t s (abstractly c o n s i d e r e d as n o n . and generally the essays in Shapiro 1984. as l o n g as p o w e r t o o k the p r e f e r r e d m a n i f e s t a t i o n 101 Speech: document 16. A u s t i n h i m s e l f . b u t also a v e r y real s p a c e of dense a n d v i b r a n t i n t e r . b u t o n certain t e r m s . possibly among earlier Seleukid portraits: I Iintzen-Bohlen 1992: 104-6. in a g e s t u r e e c h o i n g the A n t i o c h e i a n / A l a b a n d a n a m b a s s a d o r ' s s p e e c h in praise o f A n t i o c h o s ' a d h e r e n c e to ancestral e x a m p l e .H e l l e n i c a u d i e n c e : these w e r e not ' p e r f o r m a t i v e ' in the strict. p e r c e i v e d . d i f f u s e d b y v a r i o u s m e a n s .v a l u e ) . qua p u b l i c d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the rulers.S e l e u k i d rulers ( p r o b a b l y starting w i t h his father. c i r c u l a t e d and r e c e i v e d v e r y w i d e l y . Austin on statements: Austin 1975: 132-47· . the initiator o f s p e e c h . and the c o m m i t m e n t s of s p e c i f i c k i n g s . A parallel (closely related c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y ) is the d e s c r i p t i o n of the R o m a n s as ' c o m m o n b e n e f a c t o r s ' b y the G r e e k cities of the s e c o n d and first c e n t u r i e s : the title a c k n o w l e d g e s R o m a n u n i v e r s a l h e g e m o n y . S e l e u k o s I I ) .

of its relation to the king. T h e practice e x p r e s s e d R o m a n p o w e r b u t also an i d e o l o g y of e m p i r e and its acceptance b y the Greeks. G a m b e t t a . and the same i m p a c t w h i c h apparently constative statements can have on people and t h i n g s — b u t b o t h in a local context. . for 'characteristically acute criticism': this act of p u b l i c praise p r e s u m e s the a u t h o r ' s capacity. and hence implied an asymmetrical relationship b e t w e e n the two latter parties. and it is i m p o r t a n t because it represents an act of local p o w e r . and its right to f o r m u l a t e a p u b l i c j u d g e m e n t . b u t also an implicit description of the city. 104 I o w e the c o n c e p t to an u n p u b l i s h e d paper b y D . for Iasos to praise A n t i o c h o s and L a o d i k e implies the right to do so.c l a s s E n g l i s h m e n b e n t on e n j o y i n g their G r a n d T o u r . to protect themselves against the real article.1 5 . T h i s role is a local d i m e n s i o n of civic discourse: statements about the self.5 . 1 0 3 T a l k i n g a b o u t rulers p l a y e d its part in the w i d e r p h e n o m e n o n of 'role assignm e n t ' . it is m u c h closer to the civic statements about rulers. T h i s f u n c t i o n is not directly practical and m a n i p u l a t i v e . b y w h i c h the ruled trusted in the stereotypical language of e u e r g e t i s m and its socializing and civilizing force 1 0 4 to constrain rulers w i t h i n acceptable n o r m s . y o u n g 18thcent. D a v i s reflect that the ideal type of the ' E n g l i s h g e n t l e m a n ' m u s t have been d e v e l o p e d and diffused b y Italian c h a m b e r m a i d s and servants. F o r a city to a p p r o v e the k i n g ' s a'ipeais is an explicit description of the king. as in the cases studied above. u p p e r . Erskine 1994: the title passed f r o m the world of the individual petition to the king. II 4 . Local Meanings and the Self-Identity of the Polis T h e cities' statements.8 1 . the p h e n o m e n o n I a m c o n s i d e r i n g here c o n c e r n s the same sort of statements. an a c a d e m i c author m i g h t thank s o m e o n e . in his a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s . circulated internationally to achieve relevance and impact. and establishes his right. on the reality of symbolical gestures.of b e n e f a c t i o n . 105 D o c u m e n t 26 Β. In fact. to p r o n o u n c e such j u d g e m e n t s . o n c e the n e t w o r k of cities had d i f f u s e d the c o m m i t m e n t s of individual rulers and the n o r m s w h i c h they (or their subjects) said they w o u l d f o l l o w . 1 4 . I have often heard J. 105 A n a l o g o u s l y . p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t role w i t h i n the cities in m a k i n g local k n o w ledge: they defined the cities t h e m s e l v e s as well as the ruler. V e y n e 1976: 7 8 . to that of diplomatic interaction b e t w e e n G r e e k city and R o m e . It is a w i d e s p r e a d and i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n of civic discourse. 103 p e r r a r y 130-2. outside of direct interaction or the indirect c o n s t r u c t i o n of a political w o r l d f a v o u r i n g euergetical interaction. 3. for c o n s u m p t i o n b y the p r o d u c e r s themselves.

f o r m a l l y e q u i v a l e n t to 'if Ρ — a n d Ρ is the c a s e — t h e n Q ' . saviour) f r o m T e o s 1 0 7 — possible e c h o e s of a royal speech in the T e i a n a s s e m b l y . are his b e n e f a c t i o n s to T e o s f r o m an u n d e t e r m i n e d afar. A n t i o c h o s w a s the source of m a n y f a v o u r s for the T e i a n s . 11-22. the people may have gone out in procession. to greet A n t i o c h o s . in the local h o r i z o n s of the decree. the w i s h to receive titles of h o n o u r (benefactor. 8 . the m o t i v a t i o n s are a statement of truth: επειδή . w i t h its religious o v e r 106 D o c u m e n t 17. sacrificial v i c t i m s at the ready. it integrates A n t i o c h o s and his m o t i v a t i o n s w i t h i n local intra-poliad cordiality.(a) Talking about the Ruler T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t place f o r s u c h statements is the series of m o t i v a t i n g clauses in the civic decrees.n . then Q ' . A n t i o c h o s acts out of desire to do a f a v o u r to the city. b u t the only relevant facts. θελων χαρίζεσθαι τώι δήμωι: because this expression is part of a p r e . w i t h troops and F r i e n d s .e x i s t i n g d i p l o m a t i c l a n g u a g e . the m o t i v a t i o n s for his b e h a v i o u r are d e s c r i b e d in local terms. for both? W h e n the king stays in the city. . of the sort so b e l o v e d b y the Hellenistic m o n a r c h s and so flattering to their p o w e r . 107 Ibid. used b e t w e e n cities (above).. T h e k i n g ' s actual entrance. for the city. m a y have been a pageant of royal m i g h t . 'since P. 2 § 2). the decree describes his a c t i o n s — w h i c h w e w o u l d dearly like to k n o w m o r e a b o u t — i n general t e r m s (he restored t h i n g s to an ' e x p e d i e n t ' state). piety t o w a r d s the c i t y ' s great g o d D i o n y s o s . of w h i c h little has s u r v i v e d .203. T h e general context is first indicated: on the other side of the T a u r u s . in the c e r e m o n y of άπάντησις. o r g a n i z e d b y civic b o d i e s or age g r o u p s . dressed in w h i t e and w e a r i n g c r o w n s . he then w e n t to 'our region' (τovs καθ' ήμάς τόπους) and 'restored the affairs to an e x p e d i e n t state'. . W h e n the k i n g arrives in the region. the b r o a d e r historical context w i l l have been A n t i o c h o s ' return f r o m his impressive eastern e x p e d i t i o n ( C h . w h e r e they n o w b e c o m e part of local k n o w l e d g e a b o u t the ruler and his e s t e e m for the city. and as strictly oriented t o w a r d s T e o s : c o n cern for its plight. b u t repeated in the civic narrative. T h e considerations of the first T e i a n decree for A n t i o c h o s and L a o d i k e are fairly p r e s e r v e d . and narrate the k i n g ' s dealings w i t h the city. the m o t i v a t i n g clauses s u p p l y the cities' narratives: b y c o m p a r i n g these w i t h our o w n narratives. In the absence of local h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . w e can try to u n d e r s t a n d h o w the cities represented their p o w e r relation to the empire. 1 0 6 If the date is c. E v e n m o r e than the participial clauses of the royal letter (§ 2a). . and a m b i g u o u s l y : w a s the situation after A n t i o c h o s ' actions ' e x p e d i e n t ' (συμφέρουσαν) for the k i n g .

22-5. w h e r e kings c o m m e n d officials or s u b j e c t s for trustworthiness: the local p e r s p e c t i v e s e s p o u s e d by the T e i a n decree allowed the T e i a n s to appropriate the royal language of appraisal for their o w n uses. w h o g i v e s her o w n narrative of past relations b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s I I I and Iasos. for city. L a o d i k e ' s letter m a r g i n a l i z e d the question of r e c o n q u e s t and legal status. the k i n g ' s entrance in the city. in a festive atmosp h e r e ' (J. about the takeover of T e o s . and their epigraphical p u b l i c a t i o n . 110 D o c u m e n t 4. to talk a b o u t royal b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s the city. Brown 1992: 1 3 . or it describes these events f r o m the point of view of local interests. and o u r e n t h u s i a s m (eVreWia) t o w a r d s the k i n g and his f r i e n d s ' . A s e c o n d decree spoke of 'the g o o d w i l l (ewota) of the king and his f r i e n d s for the p e o p l e . also Robert i960: 105-6 with 106 n. 111 D o c u m e n t 18. the k i n g ' s keeping his e n g a g e m e n t s to the city. for royal courtier (cf. a fact w h i c h w e m u s t read b e t w e e n the lines. in a polis-centred narrative. offered (where w e w o u l d write h i g h political and administrative history): a selective. 23—4 (restored in line 21). and w e can contrast the t w o versions.o f . 1 0 8 the city p e r h a p s s u r r e n d e r e d ' f r e e l y . 109 D o c u m e n t 17. cf. 523-4. it is still clear that. and the e m p h a s i s is on his πίστιs. and L . T h i s is the v e r s i o n w h i c h the T e i a n decrees. a crucial e l e m e n t in the S e l e u k i d state) is p o r t r a y e d as one of cordial r e c i p r o c i t y . e v e n as it rested on the i d e o l o g y of los Habicht 1970: 234. R o b e r t 1983: 137). RC 63.tones. 1 1 0 T h e decree does not say explicitly that the city s u r r e n d e r e d to A n t i o c h o s I I I . T h e case of T e o s is h a r d l y u n i q u e . 1). as an occasion to give a m o r a l i z i n g description of the king. Robert 1987: 470-4. it is v a g u e about the a c h i e v e m e n t of royal c a m p a i g n s . line 2. B u t these h y p o t h e s e s remain no m o r e than s u g g e s t i o n s w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the sober narrative in the decree itself. lines 92-4. polis-centred narrative.1 4 for the parallel of the late-antique adventus.f a c t l y . m a k i n g a very great d e m o n s t r a t i o n of his p r e . c o m pared w i t h the T e i a n decree. line 8. the Iasian d o c u m e n t c o m e s after the letter of L a o d i k e . T h e m o t i v a t i o n s of the Iasian decree on cult for L a o d i k e are i n c o m p l e t e . A p p r o v a l of the k i n g ' s m a r i s is a reversal of the royal l a n g u a g e . V a l u a b l y . It neglects any celebration of the king on his o w n terms. S e l e u k i d and local.e x i s t i n g t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s t o w a r d s all men'. they are m o r e specific about the arrival of A n t i o c h o s . as the situation w h i c h m o t i v a t e d the T e i a n s ' desire to grant isopoliteia to the S e l e u k i d cities of n o r t h e r n Syria: 1 1 1 the relationship b e t w e e n T e o s and the S e l e u k i d king (and his friends. rather than a p o w e r relation. w h i c h tells us s i m p l y that 'the king stayed in the city w i t h the F r i e n d s and the troops w i t h h i m . 1 0 9 A n t i o c h o s ' entrance is m e n t i o n e d m a t t e r . RC 44. .

in the case of Iasos. repeated three times.1 8 . political. T h e c o n siderations (lines 2 . T h e rephrasing of S e l e u k i d v i e w p o i n t into local narrative and polis values illustrates the vitality of civic i d e o l o g y . inherited e m p i r e . looked on w i t h f a v o u r b y the g o d s (το 8αιμόνιον). C i t i e s are not part of the 1. his patrimonial rights o v e r an to pragmata. F a c e d w i t h the e l e e m o s y n a r y c o n c e r n s of L a o d i k e . and d r e w attention to. or s u m m o n e d . A n t i o c h o s e x p e l l e d the g a r r i s o n i n g soldiers and m a d e the Iasians masters of their city again (ήμάς κυρίους). this d u l y (διό) h a p p e n s . and essentially unitary o r g a n i s m . In contrast. T h e k i n g ' s successes are celebrated w i t h i n a c o n c e p t u a l g e o g r a p h y .c e n t r e d . insistently d e v e l o p e d . not a k i n g ' r e a c q u i r i n g ' a city and setting it free out of c o m p a s s i o n . restated and imitated b y L a o d i k e herself (§ 2a). and to 'reacquire his paternal e m p i r e ' . . and F r i e n d s .η1 T h e Iasian decree b r i n g s back the political aspects (subordinated to b e n e f a c t i o n in L a o d i k e ' s letter) to the f o r e g r o u n d . but also chose to c o m m e m o r a t e . w h i c h carried royal b e n e f a c t i o n and s e n t i m e n t s deep into the polis. the central trope in this passage is the antithesis. chasing a f o r e i g n garrison to m a k e the city free again.c o n q u e s t . social divisions w i t h i n the city b e t w e e n the poor citizens and the others.g r a n t and royal m o n o p o l y of status definition: these w e r e less important than (even t h o u g h validated by) the m a i n fact of royal generosity.a n d .1 6 ) echo royal i d e o l o g y : the king and his relation a r m y . the Iasians e c h o e d the t h e m e of royal solicitude and humanitarian c o n c e r n . his military p r o w e s s (αρετή). p r o b ably h o n o u r i n g A n t i o c h o s I (as I believe: A p p e n d i x 1). the Iasians in their r e s p o n d i n g decree reasserted the existence of the polis as corporate. and the k i n g d o m to its original situation. w h i c h distinguishes b e t w e e n πόλεις and τα πράγματα/ή βασιλεία. as e x e m p l i f i e d in his striving to help the w e a k and to free the enslaved. a u t o n o m y . and increase to τα πράγματα καί τήν βασιλείαν. the Iasian decree speaks of A n t i o c h o s ' p a n . I 9 .H e l l e n i c e u e r g e t i s m . b e t w e e n cities and k i n g d o m : the king seeks to restore the cities of the S e l e u k i s to peace and original happiness. e v e n if the decree m u s t have gone on to c o m m e m o r a t e royal b e n e f a c t i o n s . N o n e t h e l e s s . the king then g o e s to 'the region on this side of the T a u r u s ' and b r i n g s peace to the cites. but a liberator.2 D o c u m e n t 26 Β. and the f u n c t i o n s of the civic imagination: narrative on t e r m s acceptable to the polis. w h e n the k i n g ' s 'fine and j u s t enterprise' results in the restoration of the cities to peace. he rescued the city f r o m slavery (τήν 8ε ήμετεραν πόλιν πρότερό[ν] I [re] εγ δουλείας ρυσάμενος εποίησεν ελενθεραν—not quite h o w L a o d i k e p o r t r a y s the situation). A third e x a m p l e is p r o v i d e d b y the Ilian decree OGIS 2 1 9 .

contrast w i t h other w a y s of representing royal p o w e r : for instance. c o n t a i n i n g D a h a i . T h i s feature w o u l d be the m o r e remarkable if the decree c o u l d be p r o v e n to date f r o m the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I (as some argue): w h a t e v e r the exact date. G e e r t z f o r E l i z a b e t h a n E n g l a n d or traditional I n d o n e s i a n k i n g s h i p . in the France of L o u i s X I V . and in its fleet m a n n e d b y S i d o n i a n s . w i t h i n o u r period. T h e selective narratives of civic decrees m o v e d in a different w o r l d . b y p r o m o t i n g a polis-centric c o n c e p t i o n ( w h i c h does not c o r r e s p o n d to S e l e u k i d administrative g e o g r a p h y — t h e r e w e r e in fact poleis w i t h i n the basileia: C h . and illustrate even m o r e strikingly h o w civic decrees p r o p o s e d narratives f r o m a local v i e w p o i n t . these features are self-fulfilling: the implicit 113 Marin 1978.48. w i t h their reticence about celebrating the k i n g on an}' t e r m s b u t their o w n .k i n g ' s affairs. they restated civic i d e o l o g y : a sense of the dignity of the local c o m m u n i t y . 3 § 3).3 4 ) . A n o t h e r w a y of maintaining distance is the v a g u e n e s s and allusiveness of the narrative of royal successes. T h e d e c r e e ' s m o t i v a t i n g clauses (considérants) are thus s t r u c t u r e d around a tension b e t w e e n royal i d e o l o g y and civic w o r l d v i e w : they e x p r e s s t h e m e s of royal i d e o l o g y . c o m p a r a b l e to the narrative in the first T e i a n decree. E l y m a i a n s .20). M e d e s . T y r i a n s . A r a d i a n s . T h e local narratives in the civic decrees. of their o w n m a k i n g : they v i e w e d the king f r o m local perspectives. b u t especially if dated to c. and have a different relationship to the king f r o m that of the k i n g d o m : the latter is the k i n g ' s hereditary possession. A n t i o c h o s h i m s e l f spoke of his p o w e r in the same w a y w h e n he w r o t e to the G r e e k cities in the preliminaries and the early stages of the R o m a n . 1 1 3 or. Fogel 1989. its a u t o n o m y or autarky. its status as a g e n u i n e interlocutor of the king. w h i l e the cities e n j o y the k i n g ' s care for their peace and their happiness. S i d e t a n s ( L i v . in 192 BC: the e m p i r e of d o m i n a t i o n materialized in its variegated a r m y . the portrayal of royal w e a l t h and m i g h t g i v e n b y an e n v o y of A n t i o c h o s I I I before the A c h a i a n s . calamo et atramento militât (ORF 8.S e l e u k i d W a r . .4-6). w h e r e s u b j e c t s collaborate w i t h the rulers in p r o d u c i n g festive images ( G e e r t z 1993: 1 2 1 . K a d o u s i a n s . yet keep their distance f r o m this i d e o l o g y . 35. its existence outside the k i n g ' s pragmata. a practice archly d e s c r i b e d b y the elder C a t o : litteris calamento hello gerit. the absolutist h i s t o r i o g r a p h y or the ' c e r e m o n i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n ' b r o a d casting the n e w s of royal victories (never defeats). T o a certain extent. the decree w o u l d give a bland and dramatically simplified version of the e x p l o i t s p e r f o r m e d by A n t i o c h o s I I I since his accession. they a c k n o w l e d g e d his m i g h t . 197 BC. b u t related it to polis interests. the lavish celebrations d e s c r i b e d b y C .

a p o w e r g r e a t e r t h a n the polis b y s u b l i m a t i n g it into d i v i n e o r p r o v i d e n t i a l f o r m s ) . '[as to c o m j m o n g o d s o f t h e c i t y ' . c l a s s i f y i n g t h e p r o b l e m a t i c extra-poliad m i g h t of the king w i t h divine p o w e r . (b) Ruler Cult as Social Memory I n a d d i t i o n to e x p l i c i t local n a r r a t i v e s a b o u t t h e k i n g . . 50-2. a w a y o f c o m i n g to t e r m s w i t h r o y a l p o w e r . 1 1 4 T h e I a s i a n s o f f e r e d p u b l i c s a c r i f i c e s to A n t i o c h o s I I I a n d h i s a n c e s t o r s [ω? καί KOL] \ VOLS θεοΐς τψ πόλεως. b r i n g i n g [τάγ]αθά to t h e c i t y . P r i c e . T h e T e i a n s p r o c l a i m e d that A n t i o c h o s I I I had b r o u g h t t h e m to h a p p i n e s s . f r o m t h e k i n g d o m . also p e r f o r m e d an i m p o r t a n t local role in h e l p i n g c i t i e s to talk a n d t h i n k a b o u t t h e r u l i n g p o w e r .5 D o c u m e n t 26 Β. 50-3. 1. ευδαιμονία: in r e s p o n s e . G a u t h i e r 1985: 4 2 . T h e s a m e a p p l i e s to P r i c e ' s findings: the c u l t m a y b e a w a y o f c o m i n g to t e r m s w i t h t h e p o w e r of the Hellenistic king.r e l i e f ! ) is d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s fitting f o r d i v i n e p o w e r . t h e m a i n g o d o f t h e c i t y . t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m a y e x p l a i n the o r i g i n s o f c u l t i c h o n o u r s ( r e s p o n d i n g to. h i s g o d l i k e p o w e r to s a v e t h e c i t y ( H a b i c h t 1 9 7 0 : 1 7 0 . F o r S . to s h a r e in the g o d ' s h o n o u r s . to b e i n t e r p r e t e d f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e local c o m m u n i t i e s ( H a b i c h t 1 9 7 0 ) .7 . b u t t h e r e is r o o m to e x p l o r e t h e r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f local m e a n i n g s . c u l t i c h o n o u r s a c t e d as a c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n . a n d e s p e c i a l l y t h e m e m o r i a l sites a n d g e s t u r e s c o n v e n t i o n a l l y c a l l e d ' r u l e r c u l t ' . T h e s e also m a d e a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the c i t y ' s r e l a t i o n to t h e k i n g . r u l e r c u l t b e l o n g e d to t h e s y s t e m o f c i v i c τιμαί w h i c h r e s p o n d e d to specific b e n e f a c t i o n s or services ( H a b i c h t 1970: 160-5. t h e y p u t c u l t i c i m a g e s o f h i m a n d L a o d i k e in t h e t e m p l e of D i o n y s o s . a n o t h e r c u l t i c i m a g e . 2 3 0 . a n d to act as KOLV[OL σωτήρε]s a l o n g s i d e t h e g o d . 206-13). 160). and m a k i n g sense of i t — b u t w h i c h terms? and w h a t sense? H o w did this practice insulate civic identity f r o m t h e s y m b o l i c a l v i o l e n c e o f t h e r o y a l state? T h e s e q u e s t i o n s c a n 114 Documents 17. 28. 5 1 . A s h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d .6 . t h i s is i l l u s trated b y a Prienian decree for L y s i m a c h o s treating ruler cult apart f r o m (and hence after) diplomatic transactions w i t h the king ( O G I S 1 1 ) . r i t u a l . is c o n f i r m e d b y the v e r y p r o d u c t i o n o f s u c h n a r r a t i v e s . b y r e c o g n i z i n g h i s s u p e r h u m a n q u a l i t i e s . 1 1 5 C i v i c r u l e r c u l t is a local p h e n o m e n o n .1 . real o r s y m b o l i c a l . H a b i c h t i n t e r p r e t e d the p h e n o m e n o n as local a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f i n f e r i o r i t y and d e p e n d e n c y b e f o r e t h e g o d l i k e p o w e r o f t h e k i n g . p r e s e n t e d an i m a g e o f t h e k i n g as p r o v i d e n c e .2 ) .m e s s a g e a b o u t the i n d e p e n d e n c e . in t h e bouleuterion. o r m a k i n g s e n s e o f it. II 12-13. w h o s e m e a s u r e s h a d m a d e w o r k a n d h a r v e s t safe: a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n ( t a x . o r m a k i n g s e n s e o f . 18.4 0 . f r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e G r e e k c i t y a n d its t r a d i t i o n s ( P r i c e 1984: 2 5 .

t h e c i t i z e n s s a c r i f i c e d b y summoriai. a n d n o t j u s t the i m m e d i a t e χάρις o f e u e r g e t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e b e n e f a c t o r : μή μόνον χ[άριν] I εχονσαι τήμ τταραυτίκα αλλά και μνήμην ποιούσα: τήν eis. a n d t h e w a y in w h i c h it w a s w o v e n i n t o c i v i c l i f e .το [ν α] I τταντα χρόνον. w i t h a s u b s i d y f r o m t h e c e n t r a l finances of the polis. . 21. T h e holiday.η 6 T h i s a p p r o a c h l e a d s to e x a m i n i n g t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s o c i a l m e m o r y a n d c i v i c i d e n t i t y . but which also make memory for all times'). 65-7 ('(honours) which not only have gratitude in the immediate present. t h e ' g r a d u a t i o n ' to c i t i z e n status of the ephebes. 118 D o c u m e n t 18. n e x t to its altar (παρά [τον βωμον της σνμορίας]): the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of altars illustrates h o w r e p r o d u c t i o n of existing ritual a l l o w e d t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f r u l e r c u l t w i t h i n e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s . an a c t i v e p r o c e s s w h o s e c o n t e n t s a n d f u n c t i o n s w e can study. 37—8. and more abstractly as a time for memory and selfaware communion. m a y h a v e s e r v e d as r e m i n d e r s 116 Distinction in document 18. Leukathea and summoriai: Çahin 1985 for evidence. T h e f e s t i v a l t o o k p l a c e in L e u k a t h e o n . b y t h e i r v e r y n a m e s . O n e i n s t r u c t i v e case is t h e c r e a t i o n o f a n e w f e s t i v a l at T e o s .u n i t s . Ceremonial month: ibid. t h e f e s t i v a l r e a s s e r t e d the b o u n d a r i e s w i t h i n the citizen b o d y and b e t w e e n citizens a n d o t h e r s . T h e c i v i c s u b . must count among the mechanisms which define the 'imagined community' (Anderson 1991). a n d s u p e r v i s i o n b y a p r i e s t o f t h e c i t y (the p r i e s t o f P o s e i d o n f o r the L e u k a t h e a . the ' h o n o u r s w h i c h m a k e m e m o r y ' . t h e A n t i o c h e i a a n d L a o d i k e i a . a c e r e m o n i a l l y c h a r g e d m o m e n t in t h e ritual c a l e n d a r . a festival of the civic s u b d i v i s i o n s k n o w n as t h e summoriai.b e a n s w e r e d . t h e D i o n y s i a c a r t i s t s i n s t a l l e d in T e o s ) h e l d an o f f i c i a l f e a s t . y e t a l w a y s a w a r e o f b e l o n g i n g to it ( t h r o u g h c e n t r a l f u n d i n g a n d c e n t r a l r e l i g i o u s s u p e r v i s i o n ) .. 3-28. 117 Leukatheon: document 18. 1 1 8 T h e r i t u a l s p e r f o r m e d b y t h e summoriai w e r e p a t t e r n e d o n t h e L e u k a t h e a . t h e first m o n t h of t h e y e a r .d o c u m e n t e d cases of T e o s and Iasos. t h r o u g h the w e l l . implies that the festival took place in this month. a n d t h e f o r e i g n e r s in t h e c i t y p e r f o r m e d p r i v a t e s a c r i f i c e s in t h e i r h o u s e s . as moment of ritual celebration or simply of general pause from daily labours. since the deadline for financial applications to the city tamias was Leukatheon 4. w i t h t h e i n a u g u r a t i o n o f n e w m a g i s t r a t e s . the p r i e s t o f A n t i o c h o s f o r t h e A n t i o c h e i a a n d L a o d i k e i a ) . 1 1 7 T h e f e s t i v a l m o b i l i z e d all l e v e l s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n : t h e m a g i s t r a t e s ( a n d t h e i r g u e s t s . e v e n as it a f f i r m e d t h e polis as a p h y s i c a l p l a c e a n d a p o p u l a t i o n i n t e g r a l l y a f f e c t e d b y the p r e s c r i b e d h o l i d a y a n d c o u r t v a c a t i o n . It w a s into t h i s c i v i c t i m e t h a t the A n t i o c h e i a a n d L a o d i k e i a w e r e i n t r o d u c e d . 39. b y s t u d y i n g t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f r u l e r c u l t . and the L e u k a t h e a . T h e n e w f e s t i v a l i n t r o d u c e d r u l e r c u l t at t h e l e v e l o f local a s s o c i a t i v e life b e l o w the l e v e l o f t h e polis. t h e y i n v o l v e d o f f e r i n g s o n an altar w h i c h e a c h summoria b u i l t o n its p r o p e r t y .

o n L e u k a t h e o n 1. to t h e k i n g . b u t also.o f t h e c i t y ' s m y t h i c a l h i s t o r y . and ή Δατύλου συμμορία. a n d e c h o e s h i s b e n e f a c t i o n . timouchoi. T h e bouleuterion (perhaps the 'small theatre' which can still be seen on the site) could presumably have held many. a n d h e n c e a c t e d as i m p o r t a n t loci f o r c i v i c i d e n t i t y . 17. t h e i n t e n t i o n w a s d i d a c t i c . 1 2 0 T h e i n t e n t i o n w a s 'to c o n s e c r a t e to K i n g A n t i o c h o s t h e G r e a t ' t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e s e e v e n t s h a p p e n e d . tamiai) s a c r i f i c e d o n t h e c o m m o n h e a r t h o f t h e c i t y . 33-8. see J. as i n s c r i p t i o n w i t h i n t h e c o n stituent structures of civic identity. t h e bouleuterion as v e n u e f o r h i s s p e e c h b e f o r e t h e a s s e m b l e d ekklesia:{2x t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n itself is a c u l t i c h o m a g e to A n t i o c h o s as r e c i p i e n t o f d i v i n e h o n o u r s . u p o n g r a d u a t i o n into a d u l t s t a t u s . or all. Hauvette-Besnault and E. the editors: the stone bears traces rendered as ΑΛΤΥΛΟΥ. f ° r Roman Ephesos. presumably named after a local hero. 58). the e p h e b e s . 123 Ibid. b o t h l i t e r a l l y . T h e o t h e r p h e n o m e n o n d o c u m e n t e d at T e o s is the c r e a t i o n o f n e w c e n t r e s f o r c i v i c life. 29-63. 310 n. attested on a Teian gravestone recording honours paid to the deceased by various bodies. Robert. as a n e w e n t r y in t h e o f f i c i a l c a l e n d a r (άναγ[ράψαι] I [Sè τ]αντην τήν εορτήν els τήν ίεράν βύβλον). t h e bouleuterion adorned w i t h a s a c r e d s t a t u e ( ά γ α λ μ α ) o f A n t i o c h o s . Béquignon and Laumonier 1925: 288-9). ( T h e form Δα τύλου was suggested by Wilhelm for Άλτύλου. s h o w i n g the c i t i z e n s . m o r e g e n e r a l l y . the euergetical values of reciprocal gratitude and m e m o r y . Pottier. a n d o f f e r e d t h e s a m e s a c r i f i c e . i n t e n d e d as m e m o r i a l acts o f h o m a g e to the benefactions and the character of A n t i o c h o s and L a o d i k e . 1 1 9 T h e n e w f e s t i v a l f o r A n t i o c h o s and L a o d i k e w a s i n s c r i b e d in t h e ' h o l y b o o k ' o f t h e c i t y . and L. for references. T h e T e i a n s c r e a t e d a n e w site f o r r u l e r c u l t . OMS vii. 38-44. 120 Document 18. t h e p r i n c i p a l m a g i s t r a t e s (strategoi. I n f r o n t o f t h i s s t a t u e . . the c o n s e c r a t i o n o f t h e c i t y a n d t e r r i t o r y o f t h e T e i a n s as asylos. 1 2 2 O n the s a m e d a y . s o m e he p r o m i s e d a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y r e a l i z e d ' : w h a t h a d b e e n a c o n s t r a i n i n g f o r m u l a in d i r e c t a d d r e s s to t h e r u l e r (§ 2b) h a s n o w t u r n e d into c e l e b r a t i o n . line 76. 122 Document 18. ' s o m e o f w h i c h he r e a l i z e d . 121 Document 17. τα κοινά:123 ίνα μηθεν πρότερον άρξοινται πράσσειν τών κοινών πριν ή χάρ[ι]~ [ra]s a7roS[o]wai τοις ευεργεταις και εθίζωμεν τους εξ ήαυτών πά\ν\[τα] υστέρα και εν ελλάσσοντι τίθεσθαι προς άποκατάστασιν χάριτος 119 Rogers 1991. of the Teian citizen body (on the 'small theatre' or odeion at Teos. w e r e l e d b y t h e g y m n a s i a r c h i n t o t h e a g o r a f o r t h e first t i m e . proposed by H. first identified by Wilhelm in IG ι3 383. t h e Charités. and Mneme. Datylos might be the same as an Athenian hero Datylos/Datyllos.t o be that gratitude t o w a r d s b e n e f a c t o r s w a s the m o s t i m p o r t a n t part o f p o l i t i c a l l i f e . as a m e m o r i a l o f h i s b e n e f a c t i o n s . T h e only attested summoriai are the Έχίνον συμμορία (Çahin 1985).

and the p e r m a n e n c e of the c i t y ' s gratitude. and also served as the spot w h e r e p u b l i c lists and decisions w e r e t e m p o r a r i l y p u b l i s h e d on w h i t e n e d b o a r d s . the rite de passage b y w h i c h the city a d m i t t e d n e w m e m b e r s . 46-50. 127 D o c u m e n t 18. 1 2 4 T h e traditional gestures of the city's finest. to w h i c h first fruits of 'the crops w h i c h g r o w on trees' w e r e o f f e r e d . J. 125 T e m p o r a r y publications: see the inscription relative to the absorption of K y r b i s s o s by T e o s . lines 1 7 . are n o w r e c o n figured as tribute to the king. 1 2 5 m a r k e d as a m e m o r i a l site. 1 2 8 124 D o c u m e n t 18. since it was the m e e t i n g place of the council. G a u t h i e r 1985: 11—12. Charités. Herrmann 1965a: 68. Robert. and p r o b a b l y of the a s s e m b l y .so that they do not start to undertake anything concerning the community before returning gratitude to the benefactors and so that we should accustom our progeny to value everything less than the returning of gratitude. . their first act on their eiselastic entrance into the city. t h u s m a k i n g it a centre for p u b l i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the polis as state and the citizens. Robert 1989: 21-2. 299. the path of their m o v e m e n t in the city rechanelled to the new centre. 64-90. v i c t o r i o u s in the prestigious pan-Hellenic ' c r o w n e d ' contests w e r e n o w to c r o w n the k i n g ' s agalma ( p r e s u m ably w i t h the very w r e a t h they had w o n ) and offer the same sacrifice to king. w h o s e b e n e f a c t i o n s had b r o u g h t prosperity. m o n u m e n t a l statue. T h e message is p e r h a p s that the k i n g ' s p o w e r to benefit the city is superior to the s y m b o l i c a l a d v a n tages athletic v i c t o r y b r o u g h t to the city. v i c t o r i o u s in contests abroad.1 8 . T h e T e i a n s h o n o u r e d L a o d i k e w i t h an e p o n y m o u s fountain. or that the athletic contests are less i m p o r t a n t than the contest to gain a city's gratitude t h r o u g h e u e r g e t i s m (on this notion. and w h i c h stood c r o w n e d with a w r e a t h w h i c h w a s c h a n g e d as the seasons w e n t by: 1 2 7 a s y m b o l of the providential nature of the k i n g . there is an instance in document 16. T e i a n athletes. On eiselastic entrances and customary sacrifices. 126 'Umgestaltet'. T h i s image was m a d e concrete b y the cult statue. 3 1 .2 (Pausimachos will 'introduce' into Antiocheia/Alabanda the crown he won at the Soteria). C i v i c life w a s r e c o n f i g u r e d around a particular image: K i n g A n t i o c h o s the G r e a t . 50-9. m a n i f e s t e d b y r e c u r r i n g patterns of c h a n g e centred around the e n d u r i n g . the t r i u m p h a l entrance of the v i c t o r i o u s a t h l e t e s — t o pay h o m a g e to the agalma and the sacrifice to king. T h e bouleuterion w a s already an i m p o r t a n t location on the m a p of civic life. it n o w b e c a m e the centre to w h i c h civic ritual a c c o m p a n y i n g cardinal m o m e n t s w a s s h i f t e d 1 2 6 — t h e u n c e r t a i n m o m e n t w h e n the magistracies w e r e r e n e w e d . and reprinted in OMS vii. and Mneme on the c o m m o n hearth. and L . 129—30). 128 Ibid. and L. Charités. and Mneme. published by J.

T h e f o u n t a i n h a d the s a m e m e m o r i a l f u n c t i o n . c r o w n s . 5. an altar at I a s o s ) . t h e c a r d i n a l e v e n t s o f d e a t h a n d m a r r i a g e in T e o s w o u l d n o w r e q u i r e t h e f e t c h i n g of w a t e r f r o m t h e f o u n t a i n o f L a o d i k e .e x i s t i n g c i v i c c e r e m o n y . to t h e k i n g a n d h i s a n c e s t o r s . and. t h e I a s i a n s i n s t i t u t e d a c u l t o f L a o d i k e as A p h r o d i t e L a o d i k e .w h i c h c a n b e a n a l y s e d in the s a m e t e r m s as t h e n e x u s o f r i t u a l s a r o u n d the bouleuterion. n o w c a p p e d w i t h a s a c r i f i c e to t h e k i n g . some v e s t i m e n t a r y o r ritual f e a t u r e d e s c r i b e d in a l a c u n a o f t h e t e x t ) . II 6. f o r use in the p r e s c r i b e d a b l u t i o n s . w h o t h e n o f f e r e d s a c r i f i c e . in b o t h c a s e s . e s t a b l i s h e d a m o n u m e n t o f T e i a n eucharistia in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e p u b l i c s p a c e o f the c i t y . 1 3 0 A l s o p a r a l l e l is t h e sense o f m e t a p h o r : t h e k e y s . t h e strategoi p a s s e d t h e k e y s o f t h e c i t y to t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s . T h e f o u n t a i n a n d t h e c e r e m o n i e s . to a r t i c u l a t e the m e t a p h o r in the ritual. T h e p r o c e s s e s at T e o s find c l o s e p a r a l l e l s at I a s o s . It c o m m e m o r a t e d L a o d i k e ' s b e n e f a c t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e l y ( t h e q u e e n p r o v i d e d d o w r i e s f o r p o o r c i t i z e n w o m e n ) a n d also e x t e n d e d r u l e r c u l t into p r i v a t e l i f e . a s y m b o l a n d an i n s t r u m e n t o f the s t a t e ' s s e c u r i t y . are p a s s e d b e f o r e t h e altar o f the k i n g w h o h a s p r o v e d t h e φύλαξ o f t h e c i t y : t h e title is u n u s u a l . 1 3 1 L i k e w i s e . '[as to c o m j m o n g o d s o f t h e c i t y ' : 1 2 9 a p a r a l l e l w i t h t h e i n a u g u r a t i o n o f n e w m a g i s t r a t e s at T e o s . T h i s p i e c e o f c e r e m o n y o c c u r s in a d e c r e e m o s t l y d e v o t e d to h o n o u r s f o r L a o d i k e : it m u s t b e an a d d i t i o n to a n e x u s o f r i t u a l s d e c r e e d e a r l i e r a n d c e n t r e d a r o u n d t h e altar o f A n t i o c h o s ( a l r e a d y in e x i s t e n c e w h e n t h e c e r e m o n y o f t h e k e y s w a s d e v i s e d ) : if w e k n e w about these. D o c u m e n t 26 Β. w e r e m a r k e d as s a c r e d b y r e l i g i o u s d r e s s w o r n w h e n d r a w i n g water (white clothes. t h e d e l i c a t e m o m e n t in the l i f e o f t h e c i t y is p u t u n d e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f the k i n g a n d a m o n u m e n t w h i c h m a k e s h i m v i s i b l e (a s t a t u e at T e o s . εμ μέσωι. a n d p a i d h o m a g e to h e r p i e t y . p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e . j u s t as t h e f o u n t a i n o f L a o d i k e 125 150 1!1 D o c u m e n t 26 Β. w h i c h presided over marriage: the cult involved sacrifices by n e w l y married couples and processions of w o m e n of m a r r y i n g age. t h u s i n t e g r a t i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f r u l e r c u l t a n d its m e s s a g e s into p r i v a t e l i f e . for the bridal bath. A r o u n d this n e w c e n t r e . It is also l i k e l y t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r r a l o f t h e k e y s h a d b e e n a p r e . o n t h e altar. B e f o r e the altar o f A n t i o c h o s I I I . II 6-14 Parallel: document 30. for the practice as purely civic ceremony at Euromos. the T e i a n s r e a r r a n g e d p u b l i c r e l i g i o n — p r i e s t s a n d p r i e s t e s s e s d r e w w a t e r f r o m t h e f o u n t a i n to use in p u b l i c s a c r i f i c e s προ πόλεων—and p r i v a t e ritual: j u s t as i m p o r t a n t m o m e n t s o f c i v i c l i f e w e r e r e l o c a t e d at t h e s t a t u e o f A n t i o c h o s . . its c i v i c m e a n i n g s o v e r l a i d w i t h the f u n c t i o n s o f r u l e r c u l t f o r A n t i o c h o s I I I . a n d w a s d e v i s e d b y t h e I a s i a n s . w e w o u l d p r o b a b l y notice m a n y points of contact with p r a c t i c e s at T e o s .

599-636. 149 (Seleukeia as extension of Panathenaia. 496. honouring A n t i o c h o s a n d h i s f a m i l y . Demetrios: Habicht 1970: 44-5. p o l i t i c a l . pre-existing festivals: Habicht 1970: 50-5 (Demetria and Dionysia. I. Habicht 1970: 143-4. Private elements: Robert. Ilion 31. t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e polis) to c r e a t e a n d m a n i p u l a t e D o c u m e n t s 26 Β.k n o w n a n d s t u d i e d p a t t e r n s . a n d an e x t e n s i v e c o m m e n t a r y could be easily p r o v i d e d b y d r a w i n g on m a n y parallels w h i c h can be f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t the Hellenistic w o r l d — for the i n v o l v e m e n t o f e p h e b e s . F i n a l l y . R o b e r t . 134 BE 69. 27. at A t h e n s . I t s i m p o r t a n c e lies in t h e r i c h n e s s a n d t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f d e t a i l s . t h o u g h r i c h l y d o c u m e n t e d . ruler cult in the g y m nasion is attested at Soloi under Antiochos III (document 20). Euboia). 85-7 (Dionysia and Seleukeia. II 1 7 . o f t e n w i t h f u n d i n g f r o m t h e c i t y . Festivals grafted onto. this practice is further documented in OGIS i l . at all l e v e l s of p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e l i f e — i n c i v i c c e r e m o n i a l s s u c h as t h e m a g i s t r a t e s ' passation de pouvoirs o r t h e g r a d u a t i o n o f e p h e b e s . on I. B y a c o n s c i o u s . announcing a new document from T e o s relevant to the question. i m a g e s o f A n t i g o n o s M o n o p h t h a l m o s a n d D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s w o v e n into A t h e n a ' s peplos)·. T h e process demonstrates h o w a rational. Erythrai). e m p h a s i z e d t h e e l e g a n c e w i t h w h i c h r u l e r c u l t w a s i n t e g r a t e d into p r e . o p e n . Ilion 31. Ephebes: Inschr. lines 24-6. a n d the e x t e n s i o n to t h e p r i v a t e s p h e r e .4 4 and frag.d i d at T e o s . Dem 10. Delphinion 139 (ephebic oath). 1 3 2 R u l e r c u l t at T e o s a n d I a s o s . 76-8 (Demetria and Dionysia. in p r i v a t e g e s t u r e s s u c h as t h e w a s h i n g o f a c o r p s e o r t h e b a t h i n g o f a bride. t h e I a s i a n phyle m a y also h a v e b u i l t an altar to the k i n g . a n d h e n c e its connection w i t h local institutions of great vitality. c u l t i c p r a c t i c e at t h e l e v e l o f c i v i c s u b d i v i s i o n s ( f o r i n s t a n c e the i m i t a t i o n in the d e m e o f R h a m n o u s of t h e A t h e n i a n c u l t f o r A n t i g o n o s G o n a t a s ) .2. Robert 1987: 291 and n. Subdivisions: SEG 41. Athens). t h e c o n s e c r a t i o n o f m e m o r i a l sites ( s u c h as t h e p l a c e w h e r e D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s set f o o t in A t h e n s in 304). to ' c r e a t e m e m o r y ' . 48-50 (on Diod.75 (Rhamnous). also Price 1984: 37-9 (against the conventional (or obsolete) thesis of decline in traditional religion in conjunction with the rise of ruler cult). p r o c e s s ( d e c i s i o n . and was widespread: Robert i960: 124-55 with further references. fits i n t o w e l l . 338a). Ilion). in t h e o u t l i n e o f an u n p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e o n ' n o u v e a u x c u l t e s de T é o s ' . which also shows central funding for tribal cult.. Plut.46. 20. OMS vii. the T e i a n s c o n s t r u c t e d and m a n i p u l a t e d social m e m o r y . Habicht 1970: 152. or imitated from.e x i s t i n g f o r m s ( f o r i n s t a n c e . 132 133 . 1 3 3 T h e s e p a r a l l e l s e n s u r e t h a t the case of T e o s is n o t u n i q u e . t h e g r a f t i n g of r u l e r c u l t o n t o p r e .e x i s t i n g r e l i g i o n a n d c i v i c c e r e m o n y .5 and Mor. 66.m a k i n g in the a s s e m b l y ) .134 T h e creativeness and s m o o t h n e s s of the process should not o b s c u r e h o w deliberately and c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y i m p o r t a n t constituents of social l i f e w e r e r e o r g a n i z e d a r o u n d n e w c e n t r e s . historicallym i n d e d s o c i e t y c a n c o n s c i o u s l y m o b i l i z e s o c i a l r e s o u r c e s (in the p r e s e n t c a s e . t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r u l e r c u l t into c i v i c s u b d i v i s i o n s a p p e a r s in t h e d e c r e e o f an I a s i a n phyle.

T h i s is the message carried deep into civic structures.pervasive. cannot come much later than Seleukid takeover. systematic character of the creation of civic ritual in Roman Ephesos by Vibius Salu taris. T h i s event was fast consigned to μνήμη. in late 201. notably at p. T h e thoughts presented here owe much to Rogers 1991. the Iasians) made sense of a potentially traumatic occurrence (armed takeover by the Seleukid empire. T h e second T e i a n decree. violence. two and a half years after the Seleukid takeover. T h e memorial sites and rituals of 'ruler cult'. T h e memories w o u l d be not be those of conquest. w o u l d become memorials). anthropological world. However. a local priest of Antiochos III and Antiochos the son is not attested in document 9 (autumn 202). its sense of participation in a process of exchange: memories of euergetical χάρις. submission by local communities w h i c h had no choice. consonant with civic pride. not when they created the priesthood: this could have taken place earlier. likewise. but appears in document 10. 1 3 5 T h e analysis and laying out of the workings of social m e m o r y thus leads us back to the question of its function. . where 'everything happens in the present tense'. confronted and processed a large. but acceptable ones. by a new festival. 137 Xanthos: document 23. which took place in M a y 203 (document 5). its sense of worth. for the world of the polis presented as a timeless. by the almost immediate creation of commemorative ritual. A n t i o c h o s I I I and A n t i o c h o s the son. the city's desire to reciprocate by honours (which themselves. alarmingly resurgent under A n t i o c h o s I I I ) by classifying it into the past and choosing how to remember it. document 10 only shows when the A m y z o n i a n s started to date their civic documents by the priest of the kings. threatening event: the campaigns of (re)conquest waged by A n t i o c h o s I I I . T h e process was a speedy one: the T e i a n and the Iasian decrees document the creation of 'instant m e m o r y ' soon after the Seleukid takeover. 1 3 7 135 See Loraux 1997. the year following A n t i o c h o s ' campaign in the region. living memories of the past. the T e i a n s (and. the king's benefactions. on the rational. as they worked themselves out in local contexts. document 18. 139. the same applies for the Iasian decree 26 B. through repetition. and for the deliberately depoliticizing force of this way (both ancient and modern) of conceiving the polis. a priest of the kings. 136 Ruler cult worked as 'instant m e m o r y ' : it created m e m o r y and hence meaning out of the confused present. and by the reconfiguration of public ceremonial and private ritual around new centres. at X a n t h o s . T h e consequence of this finding is that it allows us to examine the political functions and the effect of social m e m o r y as deliberately reconstructed in reaction to the coming of A n t i o c h o s III. A t A m y z o n . is in office in 196 BC. for a political purpose. within the c o m m u n i t y . motivated by concern for the T e i a n s ' plight and resulting in the city's happiness. which is not the first decree in honour of Antiochos and Laodike. extra-poliadic.

the speech in the bouleuterion declaring the city asylos and free f r o m tribute. m o u t h scarred and teeth missing f r o m a cavalry battle in Baktria. Boffo 1988 (e.41. iterated in public and private rituals to mobilize civic subdivisions and human groupings. introduction (the 'imperialist' tag is borrowed from S h e r w i n W h i t e and K u h r t 1993).41. 22). euergetical promises kept.g.2) or in documents where the exploitative nature of empire is stated without qualms. concrete image around w h i c h manifestations of civic life r e v o l v e d — A n t i o c h o s I I I as benign agrarian deity. or that some Iasians had favoured the A n t i g o n i d s (just as the Seleukids had long-standing partisans in K y m e or Miletos: RC 17. 10. w h i c h we might call 'non-realistic' in contrast with the realistic w a y of talking about empire in the passage of P o l y b i o s analysed in C h a p t e r 2 (21. restorer of the Seleukid fortunes.T h e manipulation of social m e m o r y — s w i f t l y cast into m o n u ments. substituting 'inoffensifs' to 'dangereux'). T h e local narratives historicize the potentially traumatic present: conquest. So the T e i a n s w o u l d reach consensus on consciously crafted memories of A n t i o c h o s ' coming and its results. first-fruits at his feet. T e e t h : Pol. prone to heavy drinking and after-dinner dancing in arms. M o n u m e n t s and ritual thus substituted social m e m o r y to politics. 21-2. 139 V e y n e 1978: 63: 'l'histoire est un des produits les plus inoffensifs qu'ait jamais élaborés la chimie de l'intellect' (silently reworking an epigram by P. 2. leaving the power relation unsaid. a changing crown of seasonal produce on his head. T h e creation and perpetuation of an agreed-on version of the recent past could help to reinstate social harmony and polis coherence after the potentially divisive adhesion to a new power: it is likely that certain T e i a n s had supported the Attalids. and proclaimed by inscriptions in visible spots of the c i t y — w o u l d ensure the u n i f o r m i t y of remembrance and impose consensus. .49. 4. On civic epigraphy as local history. all these events subsumed and fetishized in the unarguable. VH 2. imperialist. but real) were written into the inert stuff of history. on the production of local memory and local knowledge). and focusing on 133 Warrior: C h . Consciously crafted memories: in preference to a narrative of conquest by A n t i o c h o s I I I . 1 3 9 in w h i c h form they could be shaped to produce acceptable versions. warrior king. Valéry. Dancing: Athen. subordination (greater or lesser.155b. (c) The P o l i s ' Version T h e motivations of the civic decrees and the selective social m e m o r y created by ruler cult worked to the same effect: they created local narratives. Drinking: Bikerman 1938: 34-5 on Aelian. 1 3 8 the T e i a n s unanimously and repeatedly made themselves commemorate the king's beneficence.

a fact that is sufficient to warrant examination. that the 140 141 D o c u m e n t 18. . and hence exercise some form of symbolical power over. their rulers. honoured h i m in certain terms. a slave-owner beats a slave (after an argument over the interpretation of the slave's eating the master's pig: theft. imagine their relation to the ruler. the slave himself?): the beating demonstrates that 'definitions belonged to the definers. through local narratives the cities could objectify. and against. i. to try to control it. In T . they created local forms of ideological counter-power. Local narratives also allowed the cities to offer their o w n definitions of the world. Quoted by K . and insulated civic pride f r o m their impact. T h e 'non-realistic' narratives organized the experience of empire. in the past or the present tense. remembered his actions in certain forms. and ideological structures of the Seleukid empire (explored in C h a p t e r 3): the very difference illustrates the function of 'nonrealist narratives'—to offer local definitions within. CJ 90 (1995). gave meaning to his actions. spoke approvingly of his trustworthiness. the T e i a n s and the Iasians could reassure themselves that the local historiography of civic decrees and memorial rituals w o u l d pass on to their descendants carefully controlled narratives crafted out of the confused present. 445. and the ability to reward adequately anyone. 1 4 1 But the cities offered their o w n selective narratives about the king and his relation to them. T h e s e practices should not be scorned as pure wishful thinking or local delusions. Bradley.e. In the aftermath of traumatic events. a broader imperial ideology where definitions were the m o n o p o l y of the king. or improvement of the master's property. M o r r i s o n ' s Beloved. and took an active part in the 'struggle for the real' through their o w n discursive resources (Rogers 1991: 69.memories of euergetical exchange. and by talking about the world. they neutralized the problematic realities of Hellenistic high politics. proclaim confidently that the honours they offer to A n t i o c h o s and Laodike will show the world that they know how to 'decree the honours w h i c h are suitable for each person': an assertion of the capacity to j u d g e . not the defined'. T h e s e local versions were quite different f r o m the administrative. affirming their o w n definitions. on the parallel case of civic ritual in R o m a n Ephesos). and their right to define. legal. including a Seleukid royal couple. if only for local consumption: they j u d g e d the king. 1 4 0 T a l k i n g about the ruler was a way for the cities to talk about themselves. T h e T e i a n s . in their decree. praised him. line 69. f r o m the point of view of the subordinate c o m munities. quoting G e e r t z .

studying the propagation of official ideology into the decrees of the G r a e c o . T h e T e i a n s put concrete representations (a statue of A n t i o c h o s I I I .R o m a n cities. its acceptance within the polis contributed to the creation of a cultural koine centred on empire. this persistence of purpose allowed the local communities to develop the patience. by manipulating civic structures at a ver}' deep level. I have tried to show that ruler cult performed local functions. and diffusing the effects of the ideological force of empire. these must have been conceived in ways that preserved civic identity as well as interacted with the rulers. 'non-realistic' narratives allowed the polis to preserve a sense of purpose in the face of subordination and integration within a supra-polis empire. 'Cultural koine': the concept is inspired b y M o u r g u e s 1995. analysed earlier (Ch. S m y r n a had earlier offered cultic honours to the Seleukids (Habicht 1970: 99-102). as the recalcitrant cities of S m y r n a and L a m p s a k o s did. nonetheless. the sense of local interests. and the opportunism 1 4 2 w h i c h characterized their behaviour in the multi-polar Hellenistic world. is worth pondering. 143 T h e case of the T e i a n s . we might notice the speed and fluency w i t h w h i c h the ceremonies of ruler cult introduced into the heart of the city images of kingship w h i c h corresponded to the royal ideology itself. a fountain named after Laodike) of the Seleukid king and queen in sites w h i c h were central to the symbolical map of the Rostovtzeff 1941: 35. the tenacity of their values and sense of autonomy. Price 1984. 3 §§ 2 and 3). that might have strengthened or insulated civic identity. the power-as-benefaction w h i c h was the central representation in the king's discourse. T h e Hellenistic polis. for all the resilience of its ideology. it is impossible not to notice that ruler cult thoroughly reorganized civic ritual around royal images. T h e p h e n o m e n o n had practical political consequences. was not impermeable to this discourse. for the role of the imperial cult in Roman Asia Minor. 4. and another is possible: instead of focusing on local versions preserving polis pride. A t the very least. T h i s could realize itself in action to seize independence f r o m the Hellenistic empires. again.local communities responded to imperial power by offering narratives where power was omitted in the favour of beneficence and reciprocity is itself revealing of their strong self-identity. By insulating local civic identity and pride. The Successes of Royal Discourse T h e interpretation offered above might seem too optimistic. 142 143 .

the hearth' of the S e l e u k i d state's p o w e r (σχεδόν ώς ειπείν έστίαν ύπάρχονσαν της αύτών δυναστείας). T h e grant of isopoliteia m a y have resulted in d i p l o m a t i c contacts. j u s t as it is a fine thing to do w i t h o n e ' s o w n fatherland'. b y sharing T e i a n citizenship.4) A n t i o c h o s ' p h y s i c i a n .1 0 4 . and p o s s i b l y in the adoption b y the T e i a n s of practices f r o m the imperial cities of the Seleukis. w h e r e it is attested ( H e r r m a n n 19650: 1 4 9 . and the agora. so to speak. after a grant of o u r citizenship to t h e m . itself represented as m e r e l y a w a y to share royal b e n e f a c t i o n s 1 4 5 — ' t o put in c o m m o n . a d o p t i n g a practice f r o m n e w royal f o u n d a t i o n s . o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f S e l e u k i d B a b y l o n i a d o e s n o t d e t r a c t f r o m t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e S e l e u k i s in t h e A e g e a n w o r l d ( w h o s e c o n c e p t u a l g e o g r a p h y b a l a n c e s ' A s i a on this side o f the T a u r u s ' a n d N o r t h S y r i a ) .W h i t e a n d K u h r t 1 9 8 7 : r 10-33. 9 0 . M i l l a r . f o r m a l l y ' a u t o n o m o u s ' . A t the v e r y least. O n t h e c i t i e s o f t h e S e l e u k i s . 2 4 6 — b o t h after the time of A n t i o c h o s I I I ) . H e r r m a n n s u g g e s t e d that the T e i a n s imitated the S e l e u k i d practice of civic dynastic cult f r o m these cities. and w h e r e citizen m e t citizen in daily interaction. A p o l l o p h a n e s of S e l e u k e i a in Pieria. one of the administrative and s y m b o l i c a l centres of the S e l e u k i d e m p i r e : in P o l y b i o s (5. b y S h e r w i n .city: the bouleuterion w h e r e political processes took place ( m e e t i n g s of the council and a s s e m b l y . they should be the readier to b e n e f a c t i o n s and s h o w eagerness in all matters.58. the cultic title Μέγας in T e o s w a s taken f r o m central S e l e u k i d practice b o t h administrative (as in the 'regnal f o r m u l a ' ) and p r o b a b l y cultic.W h i t e a n d K u h r t 1 9 9 3 .144 E v e n if the T e i a n grant w a s p u r e l y s y m b o l i c a l . 145 D o c u m e n t 18. p u b l i c a t i o n of p u b l i c acts). T h i s w o u l d s h o w an old H e l l e n i c city. and directed at S e l e u k i d officials w h o m i g h t c o m e f r o m these cities (as s u g g e s t e d b y G a u t h i e r : above. so to speak. so that. w h e r e the p r i v i l e g e d position g i v e n to A n t i o c h o s I I I p r o b a b l y indicates that the cult was i n t r o d u c e d in his reign ( O G I S 245: n e w text in SEG 3 5 .5 6 . R o s t o v t z e f ï 1935). called the latter city the ' f o u n d r e s s ' (άρχηγέτις) and 'almost. the central space w h e r e o n l y g r o w n citizens c o u l d enter. § 2c). w i t h the cities n a m e d after the ancestors of the k i n g the f a v o u r s w h i c h w e r e g i v e n and those w h i c h will be g i v e n b y the king to the p e o p l e . in S h e r w i n . 1 5 2 1 . F u r t h e r m o r e . T h i s cult is attested b o t h at S e l e u k e i a in P i e r i a — a n d T e o s . the T e i a n s granted their citizenship to the cities of the S e l e u k i s . the decision w a s still represented as the result of a desire for close relations w i t h these cities. S i n c e the 'second T e i a n decree' tells of T e o s ' desire to foster links w i t h the cities at the centre of the e m p i r e . n a m e l y a civic cult for A n t i o c h o s I I I and his ancestors. 'subject' cities par excellence. F . w h o s e identity w a s defined b y their dynastic n a m e ('the cities n a m e d after the ancestors of the king'). . B y a d o p t i n g these 144 T h e r e c e n t e m p h a s i s .

16 147 143 145 A n t i o c h : K r a e l i n g 1 9 6 4 . . found in all 'Seleukid' cities irrespective of formal status—at A n t i o c h (one of the 'imperial' cities of the Seleukis). I 9. such as referring to A n t i o c h o s III as 'the Great K i n g A n t i o c h o s ' . I a s o s : 26 Β . A more widely attested feature is the assimilation of royal language into the language of civic decrees. l i n e s 13—14. such the designation of A p o l l o as ancestor of the Seleukid dynasty. 1 4 7 or the adoption of chancery forms. in the considerations of their decree.i 2 . but also to the king. 1 4 6 T h i s goes further than usual cultic honours f r o m subordinate cities for Hellenistic rulers: the opening gesture of the chief military magistrates of the city was a ritual w h i c h acknowledged an important theme of Seleukid ideology under A n t i o c h o s III (the 'ancestral theme' so important in his self-representation and his actions).7 .forms. Assimilation goes deeper than simply repeating items f r o m the royal repertoire. Iasian strategoi. after we had recovered for the king the city w h i c h had originally belonged to his ancestors. l i n e s 2 6 . d o c u m e n t s 22. M o r e conclusively: as motivation for honours. but also echoed the practice of dynastic cult in the royal foundations. 2 1 2 . seem to have accepted the Seleukid version of their past. 3 § 2d). according to w h i c h Z e u x i s was not conquering the city. the kings. 28. but merely recovering it. 27. 122 (used b y the Amphiktions). 1. A m p h i k t i o n i c : L e f è v r e 1 9 9 6 ) d o c u m e n t c o m m e n t e d in BE 55.1 0 . D o c u m e n t 31 Β . to offer sacrifices to the gods. ' y o u r d e c r e e . Iasos offers a parallel showing that the case of T e o s is not unique: as already mentioned in the preceding section. cities can mention the honorand's services not only to themselves. a c c o r d - ing to w h i c h you thought it right. upon entering office. and their children'. expressed through the ubiquity of signifiers of empire imposed on geographical diversity and extension (Ch. sacrificed on the king's altar to the king and his ancestors. Β II i i . D e l p h i a n ( o r r a t h e r . X a n t h o s (a 'subject' city) and Iasos (a 'free' city). the Herakleians. for D o c u m e n t 26. T h e A m y z o n i a n s honoured O p h e l a n d r o s and his soldiers. 148 A n example of deeper assimilation is perhaps to be found in Z e u x i s ' paraphrase of a decree f r o m Herakleia under Latmos: τό ψήφισμα καθ' ο ώιεσθε Seîv. A s s u m i n g that Z e u x i s is accurately paraphrasing the civic decree. I θν σίας τ€ συντίλεσθήναι τοις θεοίς και τοις βασιλεϋσιν και τοις τέκνοις αυτών. T e o s participated in a wider culture of empire. II 8 . άνακεκομισμέ I νων ήμών τώι βασιλεΐ τήν πόλιν έζ αρχής υπαρχουσαν τοις προγονοις αυτού. 1 4 9 H o w e v e r . in virtue of the ancestral property rights of the Seleukids. 3. this might more likely be the result of Z e u x i s reformulating in Seleukid terms a vaguer local narrative. A g a i n . like those found in T e o s or Iasos (§ 2a). 28. X a n t h o s : d o c u m e n t 22. OGIS 2 1 9 . 1 2 .

153 this awareness is voiced through expressions taken f r o m royal language. Q u e e n Laodike and their children. RC 44. and. D o c u m e n t s 13. H o l l e a u x ls° 151 1 9 4 2 : 94. 4 1 . and towards themselves' (i. 6 (Antiocheia on P y r a m o s for Seleukid financial official). 1 1 1 3 . 343. lines 1 0 .1 2 . and the affairs of the kings'.1 1 (Olbasan decree for Attalid official).9 (in S m y r n i a n decree describing royal action). 1 5 0 T h e figure is c o m m o n : the Euromians/Philippeis mentioned services to the interests of Philip V in their decree for his general A l e x a n d r o s A d m e t o u . 342. Bikerman 1938: 128 n. I V 10. the Xanthian neoi praised their gymnasiarch L y s o n 'for eunoia towards the city. 400 (decree of A p a m e i a in P h r y g i a for citizen w h o s h o w e d his eunoia towards the pragmata of the Attalids). and Laodike may have done the same with the Teians. Also: Syll. 1 1 4 (Laodikeia in Pieria for the chief minister Heliodoros). OGIS 229. 4. IG 1 1 .1 6 (Athenian decree for O x y t h e m i s of Larisa. likewise. d o c u m e n t s 31 A . 4 . By admitting goodwill towards the king as part of the reasons to honour an individual. IG 1 1 . Kearsley 1994 ( S E G 44. themselves. RC 44. the king and Z e u x i s advised the Herakleians to keep their eunoia towards the king's pragmata. 9.2 (Bargylietan decree f o r j u d g e f r o m T e o s ) . lines 6 . lines 8 . 1 5 2 earlier. in the 'hortative' clause: the A m y z o n i a n s made clear that they honoured those w h o strove for the interests of the kings.1486 (same city for citizen). des qualités reconnues à ses bienfaiteurs'. 1 1 . Syll. 153 G a u t h i e r 1996: 7: 'dans une cité dépendante. Syll.173. A n t i o c h o s the son. le loyalisme dynastique fait partie. K r a e l i n g 1964. whose interests (the personal interests of the king) are of relevance to the city. 1 5 1 It is natural that the king should praise individuals or c o m m u n i ties for their attitude towards himself and his pragmata. 9 .1 4 . A n t i o c h o s I I I and A n t i o c h o s the son). 7 1 . in effect.1 5 (Athenian decree for M e d e i o s of Larisa. 19. the citizens of Antioch). introducing a royal third party in the exchange between benefactor and honourer.e. significantly. lines 1 2 . the A n t i o c h e n e s praised T h e o p h i l o s of Seleukeia in Pieria 'for his philotimia and his eunoia towards the Great K i n g A n t i o c h o s . 58. 2 M a c c . 3 . I 15 and Β. 426. . the city proclaims awareness of its integration within a supra-poliad empire.1 0 . It is far more surprising to see this expression in the civic decrees: the city says. for communities: RC 22. au m ê m e titre que le patriotisme. 31. the decree. P a r a l l e l s — for individuals. Antiochos I praised the eunoia of Aristodikides in a letter concerned with a land grant to him ( R C 12). 152 D o c u m e n t 4. 'we praise you for services to him'. as part of the patrimonial ideology of empire: A n t i o c h o s I I I praised N i k a n o r in these terms. 45.services vnep τών τών βασιλέων πραγμάτων (the phrase occurs in the considerations. 1 2 . LBW 3. for his behaviour towards 'the kings' (Antigonos and D e m e t r i o s ) and their pragmata)·. MAMA 6. 24> 3 2 ~34· Errington 1993: no.1108). Friend of A n t i g o n o s M o n o p h t h a l m o s and D e m e t r i o s Poliorketes). or a courtier w h o m he appointed to a priesthood in A n t i o c h . ' ' n e J4> with BE 39. 19 D . lines 1 0 . now integrated within the cardinal form for civic self-expression.

44. Priene 24 probably was). prefaced the decisions with the formula [ά\γαθήι τΰχηι κάιπι σωτ[η] I [ρίαι του re βασιλέως και τών έκ]γόνων αύτοΰ. T w o instances may illustrate the depth w i t h w h i c h the 'cultural koine of empire' had entered. 3 attests sacrifices and libations at T e o s . but also named in precedence the polis itself—in an old. in place of the more usual formulas stating that the decisions in a decree are taken for the welfare of the city. 16. A n t i o c h e i a and Laodikeia. as part of civic ceremonial. and to the city': έπεύχεσθαι Se τους φυλέτας \ βασιλίσσηι πάντα γίν] I εσθαι τάγαθά βασιλεΐ re μεγάλωι πόλει. 1 5 4 Ά[ντιόχωι] I και Λαοδίκηι και τοις τέκνοις I και τήι A t the level of the civic subdivision. A t Iasos. for instrumental purposes in interaction with the ruler (§ zb). C h . T h e phyle was one of the constituent parts of the city and hence a prime context for ceremonials of belonging to the polis (above. 1 1 . 352. for T e i a n summoriai. 156 A t Samothrake. a phyle carried out rituals (libations. lines 6 . 17. 1 . j u s t as Laodikeia on L y k o s did with Z e u x i s ( d o c u m e n t 32 and C r o w t h e r 1993.7 ) . 18. at least its public forms. if not the consciousness of the polis. 18. a decree (in honour of L y s i m a c h o s ) prefaces the decisions with the formula άγαθήι τΰχηι I 154 D o c u m e n t 27. now to speak of loyalism and integration within a suprapoliad empire: the welfare of the rulers was not only mentioned in the public prayers. the Ephesians by organizing people [of the εκ\γόνων P e r h a p s [α\γαθήι τύχηι κάίττί σωτ[ηρtat της πόλεως και του βαοιλέως και τών αύτοΰ? F o r e x a m p l e s of the n o r m a l formula. T h e second p h e n o m e n o n (though not yet uncontestably illustrated under A n t i o c h o s I I I ) is the introduction of the king into the forms of decrees: a city (name now unknown). or simply άγαθήι τΰχηι: the local decree is taken under the wish for the welfare of the king and his descendants (Inschr. responded to the n e w s of military successes by D e m e t r i o s Poliorketes prayers 'for things to g o [even better] for D e m e t r i o s the king and the Ephesians]' (Syll. perhaps a sacrifice) and pronounced public prayers. yet the public prayers w h i c h manifested the citizens' sense of c o m m u n i t y were diverted f r o m their primary function. 155 as part of the the D i a d o c h s . in a decree honouring a king A n t i o c h o s and Priene for the dispatch of a Prienian 'foreign j u d g e ' . Rogers 1991 for R o m a n Ephesos). 32. 1 5 5 N o r is the practice isolated or restricted to 'subject' cities (as the city in Inschr. queen L a o d i k e . . Priene 24. and their children.5 . 13. 156 It applied to the k i n g for a foreign j u d g e . the phyle nowuttered c o m m o n prayers for the welfare of the king and his family w i t h the welfare of the polis. juridically 'free' city like Iasos.T h e p h e n o m e n o n goes b e y o n d the mere demonstration of loyalism. Earlier. 3 § 3). d u r i n g the formative period of w h e n m a n y of the f o r m s of d i p l o m a c y and interaction w e r e d e v e l o p e d . lines 19-20). 'for [all] advantages to happen to the Great K i n g Antiochos. d o c u m e n t s 10.

L u k e s 1974. ls? 1SS . 1 5 8 A n o t h e r possible channel for the diffusion or imposition of royal ideology is the creation of state cult for A n t i o c h o s III and his ancestors. may have represented local obligations and hence possible restraints on the officials' behaviour. as argued above. Menestratos: document 10. and later for Laodike. l i n e s 19—20): as in the Iasian prayers. became an A m y z o n i a n citizen: what did he say. conversely. before they come to the light of decision-making. the epistates of the Artemision at A m y z o n . but they are suggestive enough to the historical imagination. a r o o m in a gymnasion. the dedication (of a statue. meet citizens on a daily basis. the price to pay was possibly the admission of very big fishes into small ponds. and always take the Seleukid state into account w h e n transacting c o m m o n affairs? N o n e of these questions can be answered. w h i c h w o u l d have accepted royal ideology as part of the benefactions f r o m Ptolemaios. 1 5 ' A n important role was certainly performed by the details of interaction.[βα]σιλ€ως Λυσιμάχου και της irô\ea>[s] (Syll. they make it possible that Menestratos helped introduce Seleukid-influenced forms and ideology into the polis of A m y z o n . H o w royal ideology was diffused among the cities is unclear. w h o m the cities tried to socialize by citizenship grants and honours (§ 2c). 3 7 2 . the king is named before the city. even without the need for vocalizing the 'Seleukid point of view'. A t the very least. a whole gymnasion?) by Ptolemaios T h r a s e o u at Soloi may have been part of a w h o l e nexus of euergetism and dealings with the local c o m m u n i t y . but. where these men could sit in the assembly. A n o t h e r channel may have been the local Seleukid officials. so that the A m y z o n i a n s felt it w o u l d be politic to make the right gestures and references. the introduction of Seleukid officials into the space of the city. It is true that this state-organized. local initiative may have played the major part. D o c u m e n t 21. On the notion of power as influencing the issues. Seleukid governors and dignitaries perhaps performed a role. w h e n royal interlocutors could use their discursive position (gifts accompanied by explanations and descriptions) to impose their assumptions on the cities: I have examined the letter in w h i c h Laodike explains her gift of grain to the Iasians (§ 2a). Menestratos. w h e n the assembly of A m y z o n i a n s met (no doubt in the theatre w h i c h belonged to A m y z o n ' s monumental complex)? H o w constrained did he feel by his new co-citizens as he sat in their midst? W h a t sort of speeches did he make? D i d his mere presence inhibit discussion of issues that might have gone against Seleukid interests? D i d it exercise subtle pressure. T h e s e honours. for instance. and 'partake of all the other things' alongside the citizens.

or experienced. documents 2. or effects. 7. retrospectively. a register of successes for the e m p i r e of d o m i n a tion. in 190. perhaps p r o p o s e d .W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 202-10. by its u n i f o r m i t y and mobilization of e m p i r e . T h e T e i a n s . S h e r w i n .w i d e resources. such as the golden crowns bearing her portrait. the T e i a n s supplied the 159 Gauthier 1989: 73-8: this series of earlier cults of Laodike does not affect the essential distinction between civic cult and state cult. kept their eunoia to A n t i o c h o s I I I . 26 B. s y m bolically. 209). 1 5 9 In the prostagma creating the state cult for L a o d i k e . T h e one case d o c u m e n t e d in some detail is the cult for L a o d i k e . T e o s ( p r o b a b l y c. linguistic elements f r o m royal discourse.S e l e u k i d W a r . during the R o m a n . the acceptance by the polis of practices. as a w a y for the ruling p o w e r to offer. as m o d e l s for local practices. once more. t h o u g h they had not received a S e l e u k i d garrison (as Iasos did) and t h o u g h other cities rallied to the R o m a n s (like n e i g h b o u r i n g K o l o p h o n ) . A n t i o c h o s is content to m e n t i o n his personal motivation: to increase L a o d i k e ' s h o n o u r s . in the symbolical realm: the d e v e l o p m e n t of an imperial culture. local manifestations within a broader. then. the creation of o v e r a r c h i n g f o r m s s u c h as centrally organized ruler cult. such as (perhaps) f r e q u e n t contacts w i t h S e l e u k i d administrators. and hence a means to s u b s u m e . the e x a m p l e of the T e i a n s . A t the same time. 141 It would be interesting to know if local cults for Laodike in turn imitated features of the subsequently developed central cult for the queen.centrally administered ruler cult should be distinguished f r o m the local cults. decreed by the cities for local reasons (Bikerman 1938: ch. w e are left to guess at broader f u n c t i o n s . esp. 18. values.203) and Iasos (c. a u n i f y i n g m o d e l for pre-existing. shared by ruler and ruled alike. 196) in fact all preceded A n t i o c h o s ' decision to h o n o u r L a o d i k e w i t h a state cult (193). It is impossible to say h o w m u c h these i m p i n g e d on the t h o u g h t s or the consciousness of citizens in the local c o m m u n i t i e s b e y o n d the f o r m s and the course of p u b l i c b e h a v i o u r . supra-poliad form: the very nature of imperial activity. it is difficult not to see some relation b e t w e e n the two f o r m s ( S h e r w i n . 160 Gauthier 1989: 77. local cults. is suggestive. 1 6 1 A t first sight. . and 37. A s concerns the latter.W h i t e and K u h r t 1993: 209. the operation of channels for royal f o r m s and royal ideology to enter the space of the polis. D i d the local cults s o m e h o w 'prepare' or 'facilitate' the creation of a state cult for Laodike? 1 6 0 A n o t h e r interpretation is to see the central cult. t h o u g h it hardly presents a simple picture of centrally defined practice imitated locally: civic cults at Sardeis (213 BC). but raises the issue of the relation between the two forms. worn by the high-priestesses in the state cult. because of her love and care for h i m and her piety t o w a r d s the divine. H a b i c h t 1970).

33. O f course.1 7 . 1 6 3 D o c u m e n t 12. b y the Aphrodisians who received a copy of the decision). 37. chastizing tone of Antiochos' ambassadors to Lampsakos and Smyrna. 162 163 . A parallel can be f o u n d in the considerations of a X a n t h i a n decree for a P t o l e m a i c p h r o u r a r c h . R o y a l discourse. a d o p t e d locally. assimilated at a local level. in different c o n t e x t s and for different audiences. I. 5. and p r o m i s e d five t h o u s a n d jars of w i n e ( L i v . Y e t the situation is m o r e c o m p l e x . Conclusion: Kings Hellenistic Period and Cities. Threatening letters: L i v . W e do not have any t h r e a t e n i n g letters f r o m the kings. κάλος κάγαθος . officials) as discrete strands. Refusal of petition: a later case in Reynolds 1982: no. the diversity w o u l d appear greater if other l a n g u a g e s or voices than that used in the dialogue of e u e r g e t i s m had s u r v i v e d in any sizeable a m o u n t : the epigraphical material tells us that w h i c h the cities chose to m o n u m e n t a l i z e .38. καϊ άξιος τον βασιλέως}62 A t h e m e of royal i d e o l o g y . line 7. in the S o the different effects of the d i f f u s i o n of royal discourse at the local level b e l o n g to a w i d e r diversity: the features studied above perf o r m e d a variety of f u n c t i o n s . cities. lines 1 4 . c o u l d be used to f u r t h e r local interests. 13 (Octavian refusing autonomy to the Samians. w a s used to m a n i p u l a t e or to ascribe roles to the royal officials ( p r e v i o u s section): a w a r n i n g against a s s u m i n g that the d i f f u s i o n of royal discourse implies the passivity or d e b a s e m e n t of local c o m m u n i t i e s . 502. or letters r e f u s i n g petitions. ευχαρίστως). . a city c o u l d use images of royal beneficence as u n a n s w e r a b l e a r g u m e n t s in petitions or h o m i l i e s addressed to royal officials: the A m y z o n i a n s asked an official to b e h a v e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the ' c h o i c e ' of the king (παρακαλ<ί\σονσιν αύτον] I [άκό]λουθα ττράσοντα τήι τ[où βασι] I [Aejojs· atpeoei). significantly. rather than as a c o n t i n u o u s p h e n o m e non o p e r a t i n g at man}' levels s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . Also Syll. Power and Language. T h e T e i a n s ' loyalist b e h a v i o u r was no d o u b t shaped b y the constant infusion into civic life of particular i m a g e s — t h e k i n g ' s past services to t h e m . SEG 33. since this same royal discourse can be r e c o n t e x t u a l i z e d b y the local c o m m u n i t i e s .5. M o r e m o d e s t l y . Stratonikeia 4. their debt of gratitude t o w a r d s h i m — a n d p e r h a p s b y their imitation of practices f r o m the 'imperial' cities of the Seleukis.S e l e u k i d fleet benigne (for w h i c h read evvows. this e x a m p l e s h o w s the limits of analysing the discursive interaction b e t w e e n the various actors (king. T h e S m y r n i a n s c o n d u c t e d their annexation of a S e l e u k i d c o l o n y at M a g n e s i a u n d e r S i p y l o s in the l a n g u a g e of loyalty t o w a r d s S e l e u k o s II and c o n c e r n for his interests ( O G I S 229). published.1183.3). . I n d e e d .27.

21. a piece of bait. W e know that T l e p o l e m o s A r t a p a t o u was a priest pro poleos in the city.3. N o r is there any large surviving b o d y of Hellenistic political rhetoric or of Hellenistic literature f r o m the cities (rather than the royal courts). but with equal forcefulness. especially in Polybios: observations that the kings are intent on enslaving the cities. 1 6 4 T h e speech shows awareness of the language of euergetism. or the dealings between the Attalids and A m l a d a after a revolt (RC 54). to entrap the Achaians. a former Ptolemaic courtier (and product of a family with a distinguished tradition of Ptolemaic service). to what extent the adoption of a certain type of language and attitude mirrored internal changes in the conduct of public affairs in the assembly of any polis.T h e r e are some cases of confrontation or subordination. w h e t h e r decisions were reached with large or small majorities (as far as I k n o w . now retired to his home city: if he attended the assembly where decrees were passed inaugurating ruler cult for A n t i o c h o s I I I . for instance. because the προαίρεσης of the benefactor and the purpose (χρεία) of the gift were bad. the Panamarians. for speech of Apollonidas. the new 164 M e m n o n FGrHist 434 F 11.6 BC. once Karia became free in 167. only to subvert and d e m y s t i f y it. S o m e traces remain of realistic discourse. 22. the gift was a mere δελεαρ. FGrHist 434 F 7). L e s s sophisticatedly than Polybios' d e m y s t i f y i n g moves. It is difficult to picture. these remain exceptions in our material. in w h i c h L y s i m a c h o s speaks bluntly of the Prienians' obedience to his general. or the stormy interview between Seleukos I and Herakleia Pontike ( M e m n o n . or a speech urging the Achaians to refuse a gift f r o m E u m e n e s II. Stratonikeia 9). T h e decrees w h i c h e m b o d y deliberate. even if it was w o r t h y of the Achaians.8.22. whether there were groups opposed to these motions. the assembly at X a n t h o s in 1 9 7 . Pol. stylized gestures do not inform us on dissent or debates within the cities: we do not know how easily these decrees were adopted. and the general political culture m u c h more diverse (Will 1988: 333-5). chiselled out the name of a Rhodian governor they had earlier honoured w i t h a decree of the standard form for imperial officials (I. once greatly powerful in Alexandria where he acted as regent for y o u n g Ptolemy V in 203-202. public. A n o t h e r area where the evidence is lacking concerns the internal workings of thQ polis. ibid. . such as RC 6.8. T h e ideological debate between ruler and ruled may have been harsher than the deliberate blandness of the euergetical language lets on. no honorific decree for a king or royal Friend mentions the size of the assembly or the n u m b e r of those w h o voted against the proposal).

the cities never complete the hortative clauses of their decrees honouring rulers by the c o m m o n p l a c e (found in decrees for 'normal' euergetai) that public honours will create emulation among other potential benefactors. V e y n e 1976: 235-7. L i k e wise. an inappropriate conceit in the exclusive 165 T h e s e thoughts are only the beginning of a reply to questions raised in an examination by M . the civic decrees precisely avoid talking about power. juridical or de facto. but merely helped it by interceding with Attalos I to ask for tax relief. celebratory. T h e contract clause. vividly evoke the figure. It is a mistake to speak of civic decrees as overt expressions of submission. 1 6 6 It was a close reading of royal letters and civic decrees. Giovannini 1983. and the language of euergetism is not intrinsically servile. Austin. though it does not tell us about things w e w o u l d like to investigate in further depth (attitudes b e y o n d the surface of euergetical cordiality). the pervasiveness of its distribution. T h e nature of the evidence (mainly epigraphical. that led H e u s s to describe the relationship between king and cities as purely euergetical (seen formally). and in fact its very uniformity emphasize the currency of this language as means of communication between political actors in the Hellenistic world. and a willingness to take their primär}'· meanings as the whole story. promising benefactions in return for evvoia. this situation. Xanthos: documents 22. 1 6 o r t h 1977: 50-61. Robert 1983: 168-71. G i o v a n n i n i proposed. albeit obliquely. that A n t i o c h o s I I I had not taken over T e o s . Gawantka 1975: 123.Seleukid master of the city. 23. is in itself important and demands serious attention. with a cynical or a jaundiced eye. a language where power is not spoken of. or G a w a n t k a in describing the 'ungewöhnliche Ergebenheitsadresse an dem K ö n i g ' of the second T e i a n decree. O n the civic style of honorific decrees 6 expressing the city's dignity and sense of worth. 167 Heuss 1937. as O r t h does w h e n he interprets OGIS 219 as imbued with Unfreiheit. 1 6 ' Y e t power does impinge on the language of euergetism. the vast majority of the epigraphical evidence is written in the language of euergetism: the bulk of the material. and reflecting Seleukid discourse. 24. is absent f r o m contexts other than the dialogue between ruler and ruled. or if he was forced to view the process f r o m the sidelines. A . and selective) entails studying a power relation mediated through the language of euergetism. Tlepolemos: J. Royal letters mention conquest. 1 6 5 Nonetheless. and hence m o n u mental. and L. with no juridical link of subordination: a remarkable homage to the p o w e r of this language to dissimulate power. we can only w o n d e r if he argued unsuccessfully against the Seleukidization of X a n t h o s . at a primary level. furthermore. on a strict reading of the T e i a n decrees. .

D o c u m e n t 38 is a special case. 1 6 8 T h e language of euergetism itself invites us to study how it is used to mediate the extratextual dimension of power. the list of benefactions and grants received by Herakleia under L a t m o s is particularly impressive. but Antiochos I was not the master of Miletos at the time. contains a hortative clause. Inschr. the diversity of the different interlocutors' behaviour can be studied within a picture w h i c h integrates the multiplicity of possible v i e w points and functions. but also the royal principles of ancestral rights and monopoly over the right to define statuses: the transaction ends up strengthening royal power. 129-30. another exception is RC 52. the language of euergetism was part of a structure of repressive tolerance. introducing petitions in such way as to apply moralizing pressure on the rulers and channel reactions along the pre-scripted lines of euergetism. lines 32-7. representing a Roman attempt to exploit the ambivalence of the form: formally free of power. Didyma 479. catalogued over four inscribed blocks.interaction with a political master. but the perceived weakness of Eumenes II. by making the local communities agree to the legitimizing. yet indirectly expressing it. A t the same time. Gauthier 1985: 11—12. and the same contents. power as benefaction. where the Ionians promise that Eumenes II will receive 'all things pertaining to honour and repute' if he responds to the eucharistia of the Ionians. deproblematizing discourse of the king. the fact that the king allowed himself to be petitioned into euergetical behaviour in itself strengthened his rule. the same language. the concept of power as benefaction. the same language of euergetism also represented public c o m m i t m e n t s . in terms drawn f r o m the language of l6S Contract clause: C h . to interact with the rulers. Hortative clauses and emulation: Habicht 1970: 165 η. W h o s e interests did this transaction serve? T h e cities could obtain w h a t they wanted. by lessening the need for actual violence (as opposed to ideological violence). . a Milesian decree for Antiochos I. H o w e v e r . C o n v e r s e l y . I hope to have shown that the language of euergetism could be used by royal interlocutors to represent. the formulas a c c o m p a n y i n g royal acceptance of petitions defined a royal ideology w h i c h the cities received along with the gifts. might have influenced the language of the Ionian decree. F u r t h e r m o r e . T h a n k s to the very uniformity of the m e d i u m . and hence a restriction on his liberty of action: hence the collaborative effort by the c o m m u n i t y of cities to broadcast and acknowledge. by presenting the latter as accessible and flexible to the subjects' wishes: petition becomes a more viable solution than local revolt. on the ruler's part. ι. as seen in the previous chapter (§ 3). were used by the local communities. 2 § 5. lines 27-30. to specific actions and to general norms. as a means to foster local quiescence and hence multiply the indirect rule of the empire of domination. or camouflage. after rebuff at Rome.

or favoured. Local narratives allowed the cities to describe their world and their relation to the ruler.euergetism. and control over the past. Both parties collaborated in dialogue. a cultural koine w h i c h mirrored forms of political integration of local communities within a supra-poliad state (even if both cultural koine and political forms were not as developed as under the R o m a n empire). was open to forms of imperial ideology w h i c h went against local autarky. but f r o m the mediation of power through a language precisely designed to . but each seeking its o w n aims and achieving different e f f e c t s — s o m e t i m e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y — f r o m the same language. images w h i c h it introduced deep within the institutions of collective life. T h e euergetical register also provided the subjects w i t h an effective means to socialize royal officials. T h e ideological autarky and local identity of the polis were strongly affirmed in the Hellenistic age. and royal c o m m i t m e n t s to such norms. 'autonomous' or subject. S o m e of the evidence can be interpreted as local narratives. A preliminary conclusion should bear on the fluidity of the situation. the assimilation of royal discourse and the values of the 'patrimonial' empire into civic forms. T h e Hellenistic k i n g d o m s created. yet the Hellenistic polis under royal rule. S m y r n a and Lampsakos). but towards the king and his 'affairs'. and resistance (as in the case of the former Seleukid cities. By enabling forms of local ideological p o w e r . and to precipitate a potentially traumatic present of royal conquest into a remembered past of euergetical cordiality. the open-ended nature of dialogue resulted in this diverse and imbricated situation. resulting not simply f r o m the fluidity of all dialogue. local narratives insulated civic pride and civic i d e n t i t y — w h i c h could provide the impetus for political conduct such as opportunism in time of superpower conflict. even under political subordination. dissidence. old or new. T h e evidence for local narratives intersects with the evidence for another phenomenon. as at T e o s (particularly well documented. norms of royal behaviour. but not unusual). or e m b e d d e d in social m e m o r y by deliberate and systematic measures. the contents of the local narratives were disturbingly consonant with royal ideology and its images of power-as-beneficence or euergetical dialogue without (or overshadowing) any power relation. T h e other p h e n o m e n o n studied above is less dialectical. and hence weaken the king's means of direct administration. A t the same time. such as cult. expressed in the considerations of civic decrees. w h i c h could praise a royal official or a citizen for services not to the city. but also the civic decrees. but equally complex: the ambiguity of the polis' discourse.

mentioned this god first w h e n e v e r associated with other deities: he wrote to his army to respect the shrine of A p o l l o and A r t e m i s at A m y z o n — a shrine we call the Artemision. was it a case of local initiative and loyalism. important in a period of dramatic change in international politics (Ch. stereotypical. . ' T h e Great K i n g A n t i o c h o s dedicated the city to L e t o . performed a stabilizing role in the interaction between rulers and ruled. 2 1 . Nonetheless. ι): 169 it provided the forms and the substance for exchange in the aftermath of warfare. J. on account of the kinship uniting him to t h e m ' — r e s t a t i n g the traditional order of precedence in a city whose main shrine was dedicated to Leto. Y e t the A m y z o n i a n s adopted the Seleukid usage. it spoke in both registers at the same time. and ambiguous language is highly significant. T h e language of euergetism. or did the presence of Menestratos of Phokaia. in the case of A m y z o n . or it could express power and dependency. while the other rephrased a royal utterance to fit traditional cultic precedence is baffling. 'reconquering' what he claimed were ancestral Seleukid possessions. A n t i o c h o s I I I . co-opted into the citizen b o d y . it allowed a multiplicity of meanings and functions. a n d L . In contrast. the Seleukid official in charge of the Artemision. the descendent of A p o l l o . A t the same time. and Artemis. w r o t e Βασιλεύς μέγας Άντίοχος Λητώι και τώι Άπόλλωνι I και τήι Άρτέμιδι I άφιέρωσεν τήν πόλιν I τήι δια τήν I προς αυτούς σννάπ- τουσαν I σννγένειαν. conveying orders (as in the prostagma of 209 appointing N i k a n o r to his function) or agreeing to requests (such as Ptolemaios' requests con169 170 T h e n o t i o n o f ' s t a b i l i z i n g ' s t e r e o t y p e s f r o m O r r i e u x 1983: 123. as in the case of A n t i o c h o s I I I . the diversity was presumably due to local factors. the very fact that the interaction between ruler and ruled was largely conducted in this elaborate. D o c u m e n t 6. the Xanthians. with its stereotypes and its generalizing vocabularies. influence the behaviour of the assembly and the language of its decrees (above)? A t any rate. ambiguously.avoid overtly talking about power. R o b e r t 1 9 8 3 : 2 0 2 n o . A p o l l o . so that. following local usage. T h e king could c o m m u nicate in short administrative notes to his subordinates. w h i c h are n o w unclear. T h e contract clause could express collaboration and exchange. referring to the shrine in the same order as A n t i o c h o s rather than the local 'temple of A r t e m i s ' . the example of these two cities invites us to exercise caution over broad statements about the 'internal surrender' or the resilience of the Hellenistic poleis. In some cases. 1 7 0 W h y one subject city adopted a Seleukid form into its decrees. w h e n inscribing on their gate a s u m m a r y of A n t i o c h o s ' decision to consecrate the city to the l o c a l t r i a d . d o c u m e n t 2 2 .

It thus becomes the more noticeable and significant that this register was not employed in dealing with the cities: the administrative tone of the king's replies concerning Ptolemaios' Skythopolis estates contrasts with the courtesy and elaboration of Z e u x i s ' . on the basis of shared assumptions and values 1 7 4 i m p l y i n g some form of parity. C h . 2 § 3. 174 P o c o c k 1 9 8 4 . P h i l i p V : C h . where both parties had a right to speak back to each other. expectancies.cerning his estates at Skythopolis): 1 7 1 σννταξον ούν. oppressive. 173 L y s i m a c h o s : B r e s s o n 1 9 9 5 . but a pre-existing. T h i s style of interaction is removed f r o m the picture of harsh. the city. a city could make the same promise to a king. and the general political culture. T h e standardized nature of the euergetical language meant that. i n t r o d u c t i o n . G a u t h i e r 1985: 3 3 . 3. at the m e r c y of the predatory local kings. 'the cities wished to manipulate the kings'). T h i s is precisely the function of the abstract terminology: the language establishes parity and asserts the city's belief that the honours it decrees have A b o v e . then A n t i o c h o s ' dealings with Herakleia. 171 172 . 4 1 . far f r o m being monopolizable. A king could promise to increase τα els τιμήν και δόξαν ανήκοντα of a city. w i t h references. o v e r w h e l m i n g royal power sometimes offered (Orth 1977. we might reflect on the effect of this language on the nature of the relation. demonstrate the practical importance of the norms. 1 7 3 w h e n they behaved in w a y s perceived as unrestrainedly brutal. along set diplomatic forms and couched in a conventional language of benefaction and reciprocity. U n l i k e the brisk dialect of administration. G r e e n 1990)—a picture w h i c h rather suits the situation of the cities of the N o r t h Pontic shore. institutionalized idiom used in diplomacy and in relations between cities and individuals. 1 7 2 T h e difficulties w h i c h L y s i m a c h o s or Philip V experienced. T h e abstract terms minimize the fact that the possibilities of a king and a subordinate city are rather d i f f e r e n t — t h e king could offer material benefactions. honours. conversely. G a u t h i e r 1 9 8 5 : 1 1 . and search for simple functionalist explanations ('the kings needed the cities' collaboration'. It prevented benefaction f r o m b e c o m i n g a solitary celebration of royal splendour (as in T h e o c r i t u s 17) or a pure expression of asymmetry and royal power: it did so by creating a process of dialogue. Rather than w o n d e r w h y the kings and cities resorted to the language of euergetism and the attendant style of politics. this language was not the king's own thing. B e r t r a n d 1 9 9 0 : 1 1 4 — 1 5 o n p a p y r o l o g i c a l p a r a l l e l s . or yeveoOw ώσπερ άξιοι. o n L y s i m a c h o s ' d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h v a r i o u s c i t i e s . and hence an interaction where language was polity. p a r t l y s t e m m i n g f r o m h i s u n a c c e p t a b l e i m a g e . it could be used indefinitely by both parties.6 .

as battlefield. 26-8). A king could praise a city. and hence the c o n v e r s i o n of the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d ' p o w e r . or L a o d i k e ' s euergetical reaction to s u c h r e m e m brance. instead of the (more familiar) reverse situation. 1 " 175 7 a eis τιμήν καί δόξαν ανήκοντα: d o c u m e n t s SI 3 1 Β . T h i s is the final impression w e can draw f r o m the e l o q u e n t .c o n q u e s t ' of e m p i r e into the far less s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d ' p o w e r . 7. 177 Foucault 1975: 35: power not as property or privilege. I I I ι ό . . 1 7 5 W h e n L a o d i k e w r o t e to the Iasians τών άπαντω[μ]ενων εύεργεσιών μεμνημενοις [ευχαρίστως the a d v e r b . I 27-9. Stratonikeia 3. II 4-5. 18. 74. and the city c o u l d praise him. for the Scipios promising 'return of gratitude' to the Herakleians in exchange for honours. 176 D o c u m e n t 26 A . S t r i k i n g l y . but as 'un réseau de relations toujours tendues'. 25—7. πειράσομαι και άλλα α αν επινοώ συν[κατ]ασκενάζειν. Algazi. I V ι Ι . reversible language entailed parity b e t w e e n the t w o parties.real (if s y m b o l i c a l ) value. 3 1 A . Ευχαριστία: IJ. or p e r h a p s b o t h . m i g h t describe either the Iasians' r e m e m b e r i n g of past b e n e f a c t i o n s . απο κοινού. a city c o u l d represent itself as the euergetes of the king. and speak of royal eucharistia. 15.1/6 ευχαρίστως. I 8. 26 Β. stylized sentences on the inscribed stones: no matter w h a t the detailed effects of the a p p l i c a t i o n — a n d I have tried to s h o w h o w they c o u l d w o r k to the advantage of either party.a s . on the negotiations between lord and peasant through constantly reinvented tradition. 45. 14-15. 341 OGIS 219.b a t t l e f i e l d ' of interaction and n e g o t i a t i o n . lines 3 2 . 4. g u a r d e d . A parallel: G .3 · Praise: 19 A .Ι 2 .a s . in late medieval G e r m a n y (Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 105 (1994). rulers or r u l e d — t h e institutionalized nature of the shared. 10.

until diplomatic clashes and geopolitical misunderstandings with R o m e led to war. it further entailed reconstructing the political and military narrative of the years 226 to 193 BC. . Antiochos the Great . 33. and of the challenges to their power. w h e n A n t i o c h o s I I I took over. A n t i o c h o s I I I and the cities: exploring the background to the confrontation of winter 197/6 BC (Liv.38) has initially meant evoking the earlier history of Asia M i n o r . since we cannot collate the evidence to produce a systematic tableau of structures. by looking at the implication of other pieces of evidence). centralized and active administration. what he considered to be ancestral possessions in Seleukid Asia M i n o r . or illustrate the issues involved in it. to dissimulate material limitations (which our evidence for institutions of power precisely will not tell us about. in the region. but w h i c h can be detected in other ways. But this implied picture might be an illusion p r o d u c e d by the inclusive. I tried to describe and think about the purposes and means of e m p i r e — t h e initial violence of conquest. the same L i v i a n passage offered the opportunity to explore its ramifications. followed by 'organized violence' in the long term. ENVOI 'Once there was a king. integrating ideology of empire. the Seleukids' presence. the narrative of their power. especially by interpreting the primary evidence w h i c h relates to this particular m o m e n t in history. the implications of the L i v i a n passage led to a characterization of empire and polis. A m o n g the ideological resources at the disposal . E P I L O G U E . and to conclusions about their relation. w h i c h enabled the mutually supporting activities of control and exploitation. M o r e broadly. or took back. in spite of the limitations of the evidence: this picture can be reached by pursuing the richly evocative implications of our documents for the functions and capacities of Seleukid 'institutions'.C O N C L U S I O N . F r o m this study of 'empire at w o r k ' emerges the picture of an impressively extensive. O n c e the background and the narrative context were established.

and the rewriting of power into the language of beneficence could work to the ruler's profit. all but irrecoverable because we do not have the evidence for a meaningful study of local factors and the complicated flux of power-as-interaction. culminating in 'freedom' dependent on the ruler's grant. his right to take back as well as to give away: these were meant to form the limit of the local communities' horizon. insensitive. they interacted with their master and mediated power through a stereotypical. served to impose the assumption of the ruler's authority over local statuses. the cities were not powerless and abject. f r o m subjection to full liberty on the ruler's consent. legal statuses and privileges gave material advantages to the local communities. T h e 'catalogue-andspeculation' presentation. in an open-ended dialogue. ambiguous language designed to talk not about power but about reciprocity and exchange. A d m i t t e d l y . as has been done by some scholars. the cities drew on the empire's need for collaboration to negotiate privileges. But I have tried to show that the typology of statuses and privileges. whatever their status. as is sometimes claimed on the basis of reductive. In this dialogue. w h i c h not only carried out concrete duties. the cities were acknowledged as interlocutors of the central power. does not attain this goal. we must count the very structures of imperial power. sometimes favoured by scholars of the Hellenistic world. and 'naturalness'. and hence through an exchange where both parties could attempt to shape the world and each other. his control over definitions. T o varying degrees (and this diversity in itself is a warning against facile generalizations on the p o w e r relationship between ruler and city) the cities were capable of resistance or opportunism. . effectiveness. city by city. In subordination. thus converting what might have been a straight relation of domination into a complicated reality of negotiation and mutual a c c o m m o d a t i o n — e v e n if all the exact details of this reality are. N o n e t h e less. or the subjects' profit. so that they should not be minimized as mere hypocritical sham. A n o t h e r set of important ideological functions were performed by the legal statuses w h i c h were granted to the cities by the ruler. but also made visible the empire's ubiquity. Y e t faced w i t h the material resources and the ideological force of a Hellenistic empire. legal constraints on his power. for the m o m e n t . or superficial readings of our documents. and represented public c o m m i t m e n t s on the part of the ruler and formal.of the Hellenistic imperial states. the conclusion remains: the final result of this interaction was not predetermined. especially because the ideology of empire was expressed through language and interaction between ruler and ruled.

by focusing on the crucial area of civic pride and identity. e m b o d y i n g the texture and experience of empire as lived by Hellenistic men and w o m e n . A n t i o c h o s ' illadvised evacuation of T h r a c e and L y s i m a c h e i a . T h e analyses I have proposed in the preceding chapters are functions of two different. the cities resorted to various strategies (local narratives. and a reflection on. f r o m P o l y b i o s d o w n to M . of the Seleukid experience. the issues involved in writing the history of the Hellenistic period. in the eastern A e g e a n and Asia M i n o r ( 1 9 1 . presents a military narrative. Neither perspective is the exclusively 'correct' one. where unspoken power structures. the land marches leading to the final battle at Magnesia in winter 190/189. and d r a m a t i c — t h e strategic manoeuvring with great naval clashes. Robert's dictum on the persistence of thQ polis in the Hellenistic age. and both must be integrated into any satisfying account of the Hellenistic world. as its greatest historians were aware. yet complementary perspectives on the Hellenistic world: f r o m above.S e l e u k i d W a r . b e y o n d the specifically Seleukid aspects of the story (even though I have been at some pains to establish a Seleukid narrative earlier on). and this is one of the impressions that emerges f r o m this study: the existence of a fluid. and hence the dispensability. T h e Seleukid aspects were soon dismantled in the R o m a n . whose diversity influenced the vicissitudes of high political history. as the military narrative of conquest and its concomitant history of empire. and helps to explore it. Finally.or do both at the same time. euergetical assumptions. reproducing Polybios). but also the shape of empires on the ground. selective m e m o r y . It is this final picture of a complex and shifting reality w h i c h matters. conducted. since the very production of these local narratives proved a persistence of local identity: a finding w h i c h substantiates L . as a history of local communities. T h e exercise was self-fulfilling. well documented (through L i v y and A p p i a n . Robert. T h i s conclusion in itself shows the fluidity of the relations between city and ruler in the period. after Antiochos' defeat at T h e r m o p y l a i (191 BC).S e l e u k i d W a r and its aftermath. T h e R o m a n . in the L y d i a n plain: A n t i o c h o s I I I lost the c i s . T h e study of A n t i o c h o s I I I and his relation to the cities of Western Asia M i n o r is thus also an exercise in. the practical exercise and the monumental celebration of civic discourse) to preserve their sense of identity and civic pride. f r o m below. illustrated by ironical juxtapositions w h i c h highlight the typicality.T a u r i c dominions on the . open-ended interaction between ruler and ruled. and mutual role assignment along moralizing norms combined in a c o m p l e x game. Rostovtzeff and L .1 9 0 ) .

1 0 6 5 . had celebrated a festival called the Antiocheia. In the second-century BC. d i s c o v e r e d in t h e r e c e n t e x c a v a t i o n s at K l a r o s . ai τών καιρών μεταβολαί (J. Priene 5 7 . 2 T h e H e l l e n i s t i c w a l l s w h i c h e n a b l e d N o t i o n to r e s i s t A n t i o c h o s I I I a r e n o t t r e a t e d in M c N i c o l l 1 9 9 7 . where Seleukos I had settled military colonists w h o offered cultic honours to the king. 1 A t Sardeis. K o l o p h o n (probably a Seleukid city till then). in different conditions and with different results. the Kolophonians. M a n y cities rallied to the Romans.s e a ) was besieged by A n t i o c h o s .45. line 11). S a r d e i s : s e e C h . A f t e r w a r d s . as an A m y z o n i a n decree puts it. Robert 1983: no. ZPE 15 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . w i t h P . Herakleia under L a t m o s took the step of sending an embassy to the Scipios before the battle of Magnesia. honours were proclaimed only in the two former festivals. 3 § 2.1 6 . Inschr.901. revolted f r o m the king: the lower town (Notion. A p o l l o K l a r i o s is ' l e a d e r a n d s a v i o u r [ o f t h e c i t y ] ' . and their successful resistance against A n t i o c h o s I I I . for the local communities caught in 'the changes in circumstances'. F r i s c h . Seleukid authority no longer held (Liv. fragmented. 4 5 7 . thus securing the city's position after the R o m a n victory. m a y clarify the situation. w i t h c o m m e n t a r y b y H e r r m a n n on cultic honours). A sign of this history is recorded in the festivals of K o l o p h o n . and the Antiocheia.same field where Seleukos I had w o n them. the Great Klaria. 5 D o c u m e n t 42. also a focus of Seleukid military settlement.S e l e u k i d W a r . and Sardeis. but resisted until the king lifted the siege 2 and marched to meet the R o m a n army in the field. 36.3-7)· A s suggested by these cities. there is another. both just appointed by Antiochos: even in Sardeis. the provincial capital. or K o l o p h o n . T h y a t e i r a : OGIS 211 (same d o c u m e n t Τ Α Μ 5. 1 0 6 5 ) : t h e t i t l e m i g h t r e f e r to t h e c i t y ' s s u c c e s s f u l r e s i s t a n c e t o A n t i o c h o s I I I i n 190. .b y . 1 F o r a n a r r a t i v e of the R o m a n . b u t t h e f e s t i v a l is a b s e n t f r o m SEG 4 2 . A n t i o c h e i a : I. under the Seleukids. Lampsakos 33. 3 7 . the city was rewarded with privileges by the Scipios after the war. 2 6 . 3 Other Seleukid cities passed over to the R o m a n s . U n p u b l i s h e d m a t e r i a l . In the third century BC. M a g n e s i a u n d e r S i p y l o s : OGIS 2 2 9 . W i l l 1982: 2 0 4 . the citizens and the garrison ignored the cityc o m m a n d e r and the governor of L y d i a . the administrative centre for 'the regions on the other side of the T a u r u s ' . d o c u m e n t 46. starting with several 'Seleukid' cities: T h y a t e i r a . του καθηγέμονος και οωτήρος [TIJS πόλεως] in a K o l o p h o n i a n d e c r e e o f t h e e a r l y s e c o n d c e n t u r y ( S E G 4 2 . whose importance is conveyed by the fact that public honours at K o l o p h o n were proclaimed at three occasions: the Dionysia. presumably as a result of their rallying to R o m e . 37. at Magnesia. Magnesia under Sipylos.1 3 . Iasos 80. 9 8 a n d BE 7 4 . 5 . I. narrative. almost a century earlier. the cities surrendered en masse to the victor (just as they had surrendered to Seleukos I in 281 BC). and L . suggesting that the K o l o p h o n i a n s ceased to celebrate the Antiocheia. L i v .

7. T e o s surrendered after a meeting of the assembly.1—3).8. 5 T h e Rhodians' intervention in favour of the Iasians recalls their earlier intervention. perhaps held in the same bouleuterion where A n t i o c h o s had once declared the city and its territory free. 21. 3 7 . as emphasized by ironical similarities with the now extinct Seleukid 4 H e r a k l e i a : d o c u m e n t 4S. 9 . the citizenry repelled the assault by stubborn resistance. 36. across the Straits.5. 37. T h e city finally surrendered. 3 § 1. or A b y d o s .9. it adopted all of them in succession: adhesion to the R o m a n s in 191. A p p . saw its territory ravaged by R o m a n troops. such as Patara ( L i v . 37. after being approached by Iasians expelled by the Seleukid garrison. rallying to the Seleukids. 'out of fear' ( L i v .12. Syr.215. .21.3-7. w h o intervened in favour of their συγγενείς. to meet the R o m a n soldiers.1 4 ) — a n incident w h i c h recalls the economic motive for empire and warfare (Ch.2).6. w h e n they interceded with Philip V to protect the Iasians against O l y m p i c h o s (Ch. Phokaia. after an attempt at neutrality (Pol. w i t h H e r r m a n n ( s u r r e n d e r p e r h a p s d e c i d e d in t h e bouleuterion). only to be sacked and plundered by the R o m a n soldiers (Liv. 1 0 . aided by Seleukid troops ( L i v . held by Seleukid f o r c e s — w h i l e Sestos. 37.17. these Iasians claimed that their city was unanimous in wishing to escape regia servitus—using the same metaphor as an Iasian decree had done in 197. sent two priests of K y b e l e .T e o s : L i v . A u s t i n 1986)—activities conducted at the expense of the local communities.the embassy included three men w h o once had gone to Z e u x i s about the city's privileges. business carried on. L i v . 4 Other cities resisted the Romans.32. 'showing that arms and courage were of greater help than walls' ( L i v .9. 5 1965a: 156-7 Liv. 3 7 .3—28.38. c. the ancient walls breached by the battering-ram: nonetheless. T h e end came in a R o m a n siege. divided on which course to chose. 37.8-9). Iasos. a perplexing echo of 33. T h e case of another city. 3 2 . (Liv.16).43.6. 21. w h e n the presence of the R o m a n fleet proved too burdensome. is exceptional only because. the meeting where the T e i a n s renounced their adhesion to the Seleukid king's pragmata took place before the bronze king's cultstatue. in full regalia. to castigate the A n t i g o n i d dominion f r o m w h i c h A n t i o c h o s had freed the city. military resistance to the Romans. 1 § 4). occupied by a Seleukid phylake. but was spared on the intercession of the Rhodians. 37. A f t e r Magnesia and the Peace of A p a m e i a . asylos and taxe x e m p t (privileges w h i c h the R o m a n s had acknowledged in 193).2-6). crowned w i t h seasonal vegetation and earlier made into the focus of carefully recentred civic rituals.27. 22). If so.8—1 x. 37. before surrendering formally (Pol. 37. 1 5).

near Sardeis. w h o have authority f r o m the R o m a n s victorious both in war and in treaties. between E u m e n e s II (who received Aiolis. though eager to deny their authority and affirm the stability of his R o m a n . notably in Pisidia: 7 the landscape of Asia M i n o r w o u l d bear Attalid traces exactly similar in nature to the traces of Seleukid power. K e a r s l e y 1 9 9 4 . P i s i d i a : RC 5 4 . where a Seleukid officer had made a dedication to Z e u s Porottenos for the safety of Apollophanes. a ruling concerning the shrine of A p o l l o of Pleura. . G e n e r a l l y . a g o v e r n o r o f t h e topoi a r o u n d E p h e s o s ) a n d d i s c u s s i n g p r e v i o u s l y k n o w n e v i d e n c e ( s e e a l s o t h e r e m a r k s b y P h .natolia. 6 9 0 ( A t t a l i d ) . control and administration. also shows how Attalid p o w e r has taken precisely the place once assumed by the Seleukids.4 .7 ) . l i n e s 2 0 . g . f o r A i g a i . d o w n to the M a e a n d e r . and to the Kilikian Gates) and the Rhodians (who received Karia and Lykia). A l l e n 1983: 7 6 . n e w e v i d e n c e has appeared: K e a r s l e y 1 9 9 4 a n d e s p e c i a l l y M a l a y 1 9 9 6 . 'given by me. visiting Phrygia shortly after the peace of A p a m e i a .4 o n Apollonis. t h e A t t a l i d s a l s o k e p t t h e o f f i c e o f < ΙττΙ των ίΐρών ( M a l a y a n d N a l b a n t o g l u 1 9 9 6 . military activity in the inland. 21. exercised the victor's m o n o poly of performative utterances. colonization in L y d i a (both 'military colonies' and cities). 4 5 . the 'high-priest of all the shrines' in xA. R o s t o v t z e f f 1941: 6 3 7 . R o b e r t 1987: 2 1 1 . 7 . r e c o r d i n g n a m e s a n d t i t l e s o f A t t a l i d o f f i c i a l s (a g o v e r n o r o f T r a l l e i s a n d o f a c t i v e t r o o p s ( σ τ ρ α τ η γ ό ς του υπαίθρου).1 7 ( n o t e R h o i t e i o n a n d G e r g i t h o s . p u b l i s h i n g an ostotheke found near ancient T r a l l e i s .22. o n t h e A t t a l i d k i n g d o m a f t e r 188. T h e Romans. distribute territory. W h e n granting the status of polis to a settlement at T y r i a i o n . and hence the right to define statuses (freedom or subordination).dominion. ΤΑΜ 5 . E u m e n e s II. M o s t of the Seleukid province was divided up (like dishes at a rich feast: Pol. 8 ( T h e r e are of course new developments. C o h e n 1 9 9 5 : 2 0 1 .13). physician to A n t i o c h o s I I I . L i v . affirmed the validity of his grant. P l e u r a : d o c u m e n t 49. In many cases. 5 T y r i a i o n : J o n n e s a n d R i c l 1 9 9 7 : 3. Ionia. the T r o a s . and even give away cities by fiat6—-just as A n t i o c h o s I I I had done. R o b e r t 1 9 3 7 : 7 4 . and the inland swathe. and his brothers. the c o m m a n d e r of Attalid troops erected a similar stele for the safety of E u m e n e s II. for the Attalids. and Q u e e n A p o l l o n i s ' . Saviour and Benefactor. such as the 6 Pol. F o r both. 2 1 . 5 2 6 ) . ' K i n g E u m e n e s . a n a l y s i n g Τ Α Μ 5. the same activities can be traced as for the Seleukids: for the Rhodians. unlike (a letter) written by those w h o do not hold power. issued (probably on the eve of Magnesia) by Nikanor. E u t h y d e m o s . A p p e n d i x 7. G a u t h i e r . for the latter favour (χάρις) w o u l d be rightly considered e m p t y and deceitful'. euergetism for the cities. E u e r g e t i s m : e . BE 9 7 . was confirmed by his Attalid successor. E u m e n e s II. A l l e n 1 9 8 3 : 9 6 . g i v e n to I l i o n ) . 7 Lydia: D e b o r d 1 9 8 5 .4 9 .1 3 5 . 3 8 .8 9 . 3 9 . In making this allusion to the Seleukids. 8 G ö r d e s : d o c u m e n t 39. at A p a m e i a .s u p p o r t e d rule. the new power continued earlier practice: at G ö r d e s .

All the same. once a Seleukid city named Seleukeia. published in stone on a m o n u mental building) remained the same. to safeguard the city's privileges. and the similarity of issues and behaviour again produced ironical echoes of the Seleukid period. A m y z o n praised a citizen. new text in SEG 35. Local reactions were the same as under the Seleukids. then to the Rhodians. offered cultic honours to E u m e n e s II and served as a royal residence for Attalid kings. we are entitled to w o n d e r if it was soon after 190 that the T e i a n s discarded the pilasters bearing the decrees inaugurating m o n u m e n t s and honours for A n t i o c h o s I I I and Laodike I I I : the stone blocks 9 A p o l l o n i a : d o c u m e n t s 48.3 ) . 1 9 6 ( d o c u m e n t 3 1 ) a n d o n t h e n o l e s s c r u c i a l e m b a s s y to t h e S c i p i o s in l a t e 1 9 0 . but the local c o m m u n i t y (and its public records.Attalid introduction of a restricted monetary system. W ö r r l e 1 9 8 8 : 4 5 5 : s e v e r a l H e r a k l e i a n s w e n t b o t h o n t h e c r u c i a l e m b a s s y to Z e u x i s c . Ptolemaic) officials. indeed. and the political masters that had to be dealt with. in all probability. is recorded in an honorific decree for a citizen w h o distinguished himself on the mission. b e f o r e t h e b a t t l e o f M a g n e s i a (45). Apollonia under Salbake sent an embassy before the ten R o m a n commissioners at A p a m e i a . A m y z o n : 47. dealt matter-of-factly with Seleukids and R o m a n s in succession.g. a n d L . the same man. w h i c h . documented in an altar w h i c h lists Seleukid kings d o w n to the middle of the second century. c f . R o b e r t 1 9 5 4 : 286. M o r k h o l m 1991: 1 7 1 . T h e Trallians. and 'likewise'. Dionysios. to negotiate a settlement and oppose the claims of local villagers (probably the Saleioi concerning w h o m the Apollonians had opposed the Seleukid financial administration). 44 a n d J. I. T h u s . T h e decree was inscribed on the anta of a public building. . along the same lines. Stratonikeia 9). the event. bore the honorific decree for a Seleukid hipparch w h o had helped the city in its dealings with the Seleukid administration: high-politics changed. the same city. W h a t happened in T e o s to the elaborate cultic arrangements honouring A n t i o c h o s I I I is u n k n o w n . ομοίως. the cistophoric coinage: W i l l 1982: 229-30. A t least some form of Seleukid dynastic cult survived. 9 T h e K a r i a n cities offered honorific decrees to their Rhodian governors (e. as in their decrees for Seleukid (and.1521). T h e adverb gives the city's perspective: changes in international politics did not affect the structural need to defend local interests nor the techniques for doing so: sending out embassies of articulate citizens bearing decrees and holding forth before representatives of w h a t ever power held sway in Asia M i n o r . to the R o m a n consuls in 188. and no doubt to achieve the same socializing effects. for going on embassy to Z e u x i s . long after A n t i o c h o s I I I had lost Asia M i n o r ( O G I S 246. naturally.

strikingly. " Gerousia: V i t r u v . I m a y m e n t i o n some of the better k n o w n or m o r e evocative events. those for L a o d i k e I I I : the agora. i m p l y i n g collapse rather possibility that a R o m a n graffito f o u n d near 3. F u r t h e r m o r e . the A t t a l i d s . 1 7 3 w i t h BE 39. P l i n . c o n t i n u e d as a ' s u b j e c t ' A t t a l i d city. 1 1 7 8 . F o r the A t t a l i d q u e e n A p o l l o n i s . received an altar c o m m e m o r a t i n g the landing of A p o l l o n i s in the city. and a base for the Pisidian forays of A n t i o c h o s I I I . and for p r o v i d i n g m o n e y for the A t t a l i d a r m y ( M A M A 6 .5 4 . and p e r h a p s imitated f r o m . for successful e m b a s s i e s and excellence 'in the j u d g e . 400). carried out w i t h local military forces. h o n o u r e d a citizen f o r e r e c t i n g statues of E u m e n e s II and his b r o t h e r A t t a l o s . 1 0 A p a m e i a in P h r y g i a . to fight the Galatians: his m a r c h revealed a w o r l d of local rancours and conflicts. Sardeis. almost certainly b y A n t i o c h o s I I I or L a o d i k e I I I . is inscribed on the same b l o c k as a royal letter.8. t h o u g h an A t t a l i d city. 1 7 2 . F o r the r e m o t e T e o s a l l u d e s to A n t i o c h o s I I I . m a n y cities r e m a i n e d free. OMS ii. the j u x t a p o s i t i o n in itself contains a small narrative of the new existence of S a r d e i s as polis a m o n g poleis. w h i c h had p r o b a b l y b e e n the residence of the S e l e u k i d k i n g and his g o v e r n o r . and one m a y w o n d e r if the effect was intended. C r o e s u s ' palace on the acropolis. the n e w d o m i n a n t p o w e r . A p o l l o n i s : H e r r m a n n 1 9 6 5 a : 61—2 a n d 3 5 . as a full participant in the concert of poleis.9 0 ( o n H e r r m a n n 1 9 6 5 a : 1 4 9 . Sardeis. w h e r e the T e i a n s had w i s h e d to set a m o n u m e n t of their eucharistia t o w a r d s L a o d i k e . b e t w e e n the battle of M a g n e s i a and the peace of A p a m e i a . a d e c r e e r e p u b l i s h e d a s I.2 . b r o k e n and not in situ. t e d l y . T e o s : 3 1 . the m e e t i n g . H e l i o d o r o s . W i t h o u t g o i n g into a detailled history of the second c e n t u r y as e x p e r i e n c e d b y the cities.p l a c e for the council (or p e r h a p s a special council of elders) of Sardeis. A f t e r the settlement of 188. also illustrates the c o n t i n u i n g life of the polis. n a m e d after a S e l e u k i d q u e e n . b e h i n d the t e m p l e of D i o n y s o s . and p u r s u e d their 10 T r a l l e i s : R o b e r t . or about. the T e i a n s d e v e l o p e d cultic f o r m s directed to. o n findspot o f T e i a n d e c r e e s ( a d m i t f o u n d in Sturzlage. T h e f o r m e r S e l e u k i d a d m i n istrative centre h o n o u r e d a citizen. a w o r l d w h i c h V u l s o e x p l o i t e d to his financial profit ( l e v y i n g r a n s o m f r o m the cities) but on w h i c h he did not impose order. the f o r m e r S e l e u k i d provincial capital.p a n e l s sent out b y the people to the other cities': S a r d e i s n o w sent ' f o r e i g n j u d g e s ' to help other The c o m m u n i t i e s . 4 B. D u r i n g the year 189. 2. they decreed h o n o u r s similar to. was transf o r m e d into a gerousia. o n OGIS 246. A p p e n d i x Robert 1937: 9-20. H e r r m a n n s p e a k s of the b l o c k s b e i n g than deliberate discarding).9—10.w e r e f o u n d . NH . Tralleis 2 3 ) .11 decree. E v e n m o r e striking is the c o n t i n u i n g e v i d e n c e for a significant n u m b e r of cities b e h a v i n g as military and political actors. M a n l i u s V u l s o m a r c h e d t h r o u g h A n a t o l i a . H e l i o d o r o s : G a u t h i e r 1989: no.

X a n t h o s . the cities fought wars over disputed territory. free cities in or near the Rhodian province. t h e M y l a s a n s a n d t h e A l a b a n d a n s in 1 6 7 . the consecration of the city b y the 'great king' 12 G e n e r a l l y . and H e r a k l e i a : I. mediated by these Milesian Friends were gratefully acknowledged by Miletos ( H e r r m a n n 1987): the reality and the threat of Seleukid power having disappeared. 2 § 3). 633. a n d d e f e a t i n g . and the Termessians.interests (Will 1982: 238). w i t h E r r i n g t o n 1987: 1 1 4 . Miletos. Miletos expanded by absorbing its smaller neighbour. at t h e t i m e w h e n t h e K i b y r a t a n s a i d e d t h e K a u n i a n s in r e v o l t f r o m R h o d e s . T h e object of competition seems to have been territory.44 and C h . 'tyrants' in the X a n t h o s valley. M i l e t o s a n d P e d a s a : Inschr. R o b e r t 1 9 8 7 : 2 1 0 . 588 (with E r r i n g t o n 1 9 8 9 a f o r d a t e ) . M y l a s a . and A l a b a n d a . T h e sympoliteia in t h e l a t t e r d o c u m e n t m i g h t b e t h e ' o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e c i t i e s i n E u r o m o s ' o f P o l . at whose court Milesians served as royal Friends. 2 § 5). organized in a league of cities. all that was left was the euergetical cordiality w h i c h had once served to mask or make palatable the prospect of Seleukid rule. L y k i a . 5 . Mylasa. the Seleukid ruler. probably in the latter second century. E u r o m o s . Mylasa 102. Z i m m e r m a n n 1993 w o u l d d a t e s o m e o f t h e e v e n t s in t h e d e c r e e b e f o r e 1 6 7 . A f t e r 167 BC. 1 2 In this world. w h i c h l e d to t h e R h o d i a n s fighting a g a i n s t .1 4 . finally coming to elaborate peace treaties. against the Kibyratans. T h i s story is given a vivid and monumental representation in the southern gate of the great L y k i a n city. w h e n he redistributed the mosaic of civic territories in the area (Ch. conducted a complicated and protracted game of war and diplomacy.570. such as the military services of Orthagoras of A r a x a . E u r o m o s . for his city and for the L y k i a n L e a g u e . and whose benefactions. where Magnesia on Maeander. engaged in frequent military activity: L y k i a n inscriptions honour the services of citizen commanders. Priene. especially in Southern Ionia and W e s t e r n Karia. 1 3 T h e independence of L y k i a w o u l d formally last until C l a u d i u s provincialized the region in AD 43. in 167. w h e n the L y k i a n s g a i n e d their f r e e d o m f r o m the R h o d i a n s ) . to the alarm (and violent reaction) of their neighbour. in a monumental inscription. T h e right-hand gatepost recorded. w h o fought. l s A r a x a d e c r e e : SEG 18. 18. the adjoining cities of E u r o m o s and Mylasa united in sympoliteia. A n t i o c h o s I V . in a process initiated or aggravated by Philip V . the city of Pedasa (which once had figured among the list of R o m a n demands to Philip V : Pol.1 8 (date m u s t be after 167. M y l a s a . in the second-century. as d e s c r i b i n g t h e s t r u g g l e o f t h e L y k i a n s against the R h o d i a n s . Alabanda) w o u l d even fight against Rhodes. S o m e communities (the Kibyratans. w o u l d only appear as a far-away figure. 3 0 . to aid or profit f r o m the revolt of Rhodian subjects. Herakleia. . Herakleia. b e c o m i n g actors in their o w n histories. the communities of Karia and L y k i a were freed from Rhodian domination. Delphinion 149. P e a c e t r e a t i e s : Syll. 1 1 .

also the square basis. 4 1 . Liv. victorious general and successful admiral of the L y k i a n fleet. 2^5· S i m i l a r is Syll. events of the years 190-189. an event w h i c h presumably appeared definitive at the time to the Xanthians (who put up the inscription on their o w n initiative). I n t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f 1 8 8 . 1 4 T h e R o m a n settlement of Asia M i n o r in 188 BC did more than just debar Seleukid power f r o m the region.226. ΤΑΜ 2 . using the T a u r u s .A n t i o c h o s I I I . c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e L i v i a n v e r s i o n . 16 B o f f o 1988 a n a l y s e s the f u n c t i o n o f e p i g r a p h y as local h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . active in the L y k i a n s ' o w n history as manifested by military activity. . where Seleukid letters were succeeded by the letter of the Scipios. n o w k e p t in S m y r n a . this Seleukid officer had no doubt been overlooked during the more exciting. b u t c o m p a t i b l e a i m s of the R o m a n s : r e s t o r e t h e status quo u n d e r A t t a l o s I a n d a l s o r e w a r d d e f e c t i o n s f r o m t h e S e l e u k i d s in 190. as an international frontier. then 2 1 8 ) — a n 'Attalid past' (see A p p e n d i x 7). perhaps under the Rhodians. 1 2 2 6 . and the absence of any sub14 D o c u m e n t 21. A f t e r L y k i a was freed. I b e l i e v e b o t h can b e r e c o n c i l e d . w h e n they dominated L y k i a . 1 . w h o d i e d f o r h i s f a t h e r l a n d in b a t t l e (ΐμ παρατάξει): R o b e r t 1 9 3 7 : 9 8 η .39. M y s i a w a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e A t t a l i d s ' a n c e s t r a l p o s s e s s i o n . A l a b a n d a n p u b l i c e p i t a p h s f o r c i t i z e n c o m m a n d e r s f a l l e n in b a t t l e îmèp της πατρίδος. W h e n challenged. or the 'epigraphical m u s e u m ' of the A m y z o n i a n Artemision. of u n k n o w n o r i g i n . which had once been a feature of Seleukid administrative geography. b u t a t t r i b u t e s it to an A t t a l i d s o u r c e o f P o l y b i o s ' a c c o u n t . 1 6 A sense of this evolution can be gained f r o m a rather Cavafian interlude in Polybios ( 2 1 . w h i c h h e r e j e c t s as e r r o n e o u s . P o l . but to the situation w h i c h had pertained under the Attalids (in c. w h i c h P r o u s i a s h a d s e i z e d f r o m t h e m ( B a r o n o w s k i 1 9 9 1 : 4 5 2 n . recorded in the local epigraphical narratives such as the antas of the temple of A t h e n a at Herakleia. It was also an exercise in history-writing: it undid Seleukid Asia M i n o r . the hapless phrourarch invoked his royal orders. M a n l i u s V u l s o was surprised to discover. 15 T h e settlement of 188 consigned the Seleukid project to h i s t o r y — n o longer a live reality in its manifestations and its ideology. 21. but of interest only to the historian. in winter 189/8—just before the peace of A p a m e i a was finalized—that a garrison-commander appointed by A n t i o c h o s I I I over Perge had not evacuated that city. 38. w h i c h t h e i n s c r i p t i o n d e s c r i b e s as t h e heroon o f o n e D i o n . Y e t the Seleukid dominion was not permanent. by referring not to the Seleukid past as the status quo for local rights. Y e t Rhodian rule also came to pass away: constantly challenged. and as a free community. and the inscription was erased. 15 B i k e r m a n 1 9 3 7 is a w a r e o f t h i s a s p e c t . Seleukids. 2 6 4 .46. Rhodians. or depressing.15). 4. it was finally dissolved by R o m a n ç a i in 167. and reflect t w o different.5 ) .10. the left-hand post was inscribed with dedications by a local citizen. recording the life of the city under Ptolemies. 2. after Seleukid conquest in 197.

since powers were formally separated.2 ) — a n d especially the fact that he acted thus even while the R o m a n settlement was undoing the Seleukid c i s . gained currency in R o m e after Magnesia (Syr. . or w h a t punishment he received. thirty days to await instructions. he quite simply had heard nothing f r o m anyone'. A p p i a n notes. he was ordered out 'after a few days'. and we can only speculate about what reward he expected. unsurprisingly. A n t i o c h o s the Great'.sequent instructions: παραλαβών γαρ iv πίστει παρ' Άντιόχον τήν πόλιν τηρίΐν ταντην. T h e phrourarch asked for. a world of w h i c h the phrourarch's behaviour was a last. 'once there was a king. W h a t is striking is his adhesion to Seleukid administrative practice (a garrisonc o m m a n d e r under direct oath to the king obeyed orders f r o m no other source. 3 §§ 1 . he was holding it. until the further course of action was made clear by him w h o had entrusted the city. and was granted. but up to now. 'since he had received the city f r o m Antiochos. unwittingly ironical. ê'ws αν διασαφηθή πάλιν παρά τον πιστενσαντος τί δει ποιβίν μέχρι 8i τον νύν απλώς ονδέν αντώι παρ' ονδενος άποδεδηλώσθαι. the historicization of Seleukid Asia M i n o r is embodied by a tag w h i c h . as an object of trust. in accordance with an old rule for imperial stability: C h . T h e phrourarch's subsequent fate is not recorded. 37)—ήν βασιλεύς Άντίοχος 6 μέγας.T a u r i c province. active remnant. M o r e succinctly.

during activity in Anatolia on his return from the East. 2. 599-635. treatment). son of Seleukos'—Antiochos I or Antiochos III. Frisch's lemma to I. Unfortunately. . fairest. in the campaign from Kilikia to the Straits. T h e evidence is familiar. in the latter case. Jones 1993 (Antiochos I). and OMS νii. also Mastrocinque 1983: 67-8). Orth 1977: 66-7. However. the date of the inscription is controversial. Strobel 1996: 208. but inconclusive. the question is not settled (in spite of determined cases made for either dating). Ilion 32) is a well-known decree of Ilion. In my opinion. Ilion 32. the best. In the former case. OGIS 219 (same document now in I. the date would be some time after 281 bc. or c. but on balance. under Antiochos I. 3. verbal parallels with the Teian decrees for Antiochos III. Piejko 1991 b (characteristically depressing. honouring a Seleukid king with cultic activity and an equestrian statue. the date could be f. Antiochos III). Verbal Parallels T h e texts from Teos and from Iasos offer parallels to the text from Ilion. when Antiochos crossed the Taurus to reduce Achaios.203. palaeography. when Antiochos I succeeded Seleukos I. also including earlier bibliography. the similarity to the early years of Antiochos III as described in Polybios. each of these arguments is open to challenge. Antiochos III). I lean towards the earlier dating. Mastrocinque 1993 (against the 'war of Syrian succession'. ι. Both in Teos and Ilion. 245—6 (early date: immediately after 278). as did Piejko (19916: 18-20) and Mastrocinque (along no less than eight 'terni' he believes he can discern: Mastrocinque 1993: 28-9. it has drawn the attention of scholars working on the Hellenistic period. the king crosses over to the region on 'this side of the Taurus'. T h e king honoured is 'Antiochos. or 197/6.A P P E N D I X ι T h e D a t e of OGIS 219 Select bibliography: Robert 1966b: 11-12. Because the motivating clauses give a short narrative of the king's actions and movements.216. Three main arguments can be offered in support of a low dating (Antiochos III): 1. Orth 1977: 61-72 (examines the case for Antiochos III but favours Antiochos I. listed these.

Piejko 19916: 35—7). and the tone of the description of royal fortitude and success recalls OGIS 219.12. Orth notes that Apame is called the sister of Seleukos I in Liv. and that only he had been honoured by the cities after such actions. In contrast. T h i s argues in favour of the low dating. OGIS 219. in the present state of the evidence. I l i o n . OGIS 229 mentions Seleukos II crossing the Taurus. It is possible that this semi-formal usage existed before Antiochos III: there is not enough evidence for a compelling argument ex silentio. I l i o n . 10. setting things aright. K r a e l i n g 1 9 6 4 . 2 But the parallel merely proves a compatibility with the reign of Antiochos III and not the necessity of attributing OGIS 219 to that king. particularly the abolition of the Attalid tribute (document 17. 2 1 . of the king).1 1 . the Iasians spoke of Antiochos III making them free instead of slaves (document 26 B. I l i o n . I i t . l i n e s 1 3 . Furthermore. 18-20. T h e troubles in OGIS 219 recall the difficult beginnings of ' C r o s s i n g t h e T a u r u s : d o c u m e n t 17. bringing peace' were ever only said of Antiochos III. there is one major difference between OGIS 219 and the documents of Teos and Iasos.W h i t e a n d K u h r t 1 9 9 3 : 27—8). 38. I). A reference to Apollo as dynastic god is possible under Antiochos I. T h a t Laodike III was sometimes referred to as Antiochos' 'sister' is well documented (Orth 1977: 64-6. T h e c o i n a g e of A n t i o c h o s I starts r e p r e s e n t i n g A p o l l o on the o b v e r s e ( M o r k h o l m 1991: 113).sets aright a troubled situation and brings peace to the cities. 44). the presence of these themes in OGIS 219 does not make a dating in the time of Antiochos III necessary. mentions public prayers by the priests to Apollo. Therefore. but used in certain contexts. BE 5 5 . 47-8). However. more suited to Antiochos I than Antiochos III. OGIS 219 presents a picture of continuous Seleukid power. 1 2 2 . S e t t l i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n : d o c u m e n t 17. or echo of the court title used early on? Finally. lines 26-7. Apollo appears under Antiochos III as founder of the Seleukid dynasty. P e a c e : d o c u m e n t 18. emphasising the good relations between king and queen. Other parallels: the (unnamed) queen in OGIS 219 is called 'sister' (lines 22.1 4 . to reinforce or re-establish Seleukid authority. 50. These insist on the change brought about by Seleukid takeover: the Teians referred to Antiochos' decision on their status.3 2. d o c u m e n t 26 Β. Parallels betzveen the Reign of Antiochos III and the Events in OGIS 21g T h e account of Antiochos' first years in Polybios seems to match the events in OGIS 219. d o c u m e n t 2 2 .5: mistake. col. parallels in themselves are not compelling. OGIS 2 3 7 . p e r h a p s i m p l y i n g early c u r r e n c y for the m y t h of A p o l l i n i a n origins ( S h e r w i n . into the Seleukis: both concepts were operative in the language of the cities before Antiochos III (admitted by Piejko 19916: 32). Jones (1993: 81-6) pointed out that 'sister' was not an official title. 1 0 . l i n e 1 2 . since it is not clear that 'crossing the Taurus. All of his predecessors crossed the Taurus at some point of their reign. 1 However. τώι άρχηγώι τοϋ γένους αύτοΰ (namely. c f . l i n e 13.

4 In the first case. a l r e a d y O r t h 1 9 7 7 : 70). 5 7 . l i n e s 5 . T h i s similarity has often been noted (Piejko 19916: 24-9. Mastrocinque 1993: 29. which describe the return of the status quo as a unified action. the local Ilian narrative was under no obligation to accurate or consistent representation of royal campaigns. attacks on the pragmata. bringing peace to the cities and increasing the pragmata. 6 J o n e s 1 9 9 3 : 7 7 . with Huss 1977 and H a b i c h t 1980: 3). 1 9 9 (I t h a n k P .6 ) : P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 6 : 29—30. active and visible in those years (Jones 1993: 88). αποστάτης (Pol.6 w o u l d t h e n d e s i g n a t e the K y r r h e s t i a n r e b e l s . a raccourci saisissant over 26 years. It is also difficult to fit the expedition to Atropatene. T o J o n e s ' s p a r a l l e l s .8 . 6 T h e campaigns across the Taurus might apply to Antiochos III recovering Asia Minor from Achaios in 216 (Orth 1977: 68-9). Another argument against a dating to 197-196 is that OGIS 219 fails to mention by name Antiochos Megas' sons. Admittedly. because the narrative. 5 in the latter case. both actions are represented as fairly close in time. Seleukos. p . summarized by Antiochos III in his letter to Herakleia under Latmos. because the detail of the sufferings of the Syrian cities implies a single event: the war against the Baktrian king Euthydemos might be represented as war against a rebel. the Fourth and Fifth Syrian Wars. the necessity of recovering the 'paternal empire'. success is followed by a campaign across the Taurus. and Mithridates (the future Antiochos IV). as proposed in the considerations. the situation would recall the time of Antiochos III. w h o c a u s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e t r o u b l e f o r s o m e t i m e . 8 . or external aggressors. but it is improbable that the Ilians imagined that the cities of the Seleukis suffered because of him. 4 1 9 . o n e m i g h t a d d P.34). t h e a l l e g e d p l o t of E p i g e n e s . the άττοοτάται τών πραγμάτων o f l i n e s 5 . Schmitt 1964: 108-88). the m u r d e r o f H e r m e i a s . I have difficulties with dating OGIS 219 later than 216 bc. then the king's presence in cis-Tauric Asia: as in OGIS 219.8 . line 7).Antiochos III (on these. 4 J o n e s 1993: 7 7 . and the Anatolian campaign of 203 into lines 2—12. T h e king of OGIS 219 faces rebels in the Seleukis (not revolts by the cities as sometimes said). the situation would fit Antiochos I better than Antiochos III who started his reign by attacking the Ptolemaic possessions of Koile-Syria). b e f o r e b e i n g s u b d u e d b y S e l e u k i d f o r c e s ( P o l . B u t J o n e s d o e s n o t s h o w t h a t t h e v e r b o n l y m e a n s e x t e r n a l a t t a c k (cf. in 220. 5 M o l o n ' s r o y a l p r e t e n s i o n s . l i n e s 2 8 . Antiochos the son. A c h a i o s ' m a r c h on S y r i a w o u l d fit. 11. Haun. 1. a s s u m e s t w o d i s t i n c t t h r e a t s . 4 ) . the K y r r h e s t i a n r e b e l s w o u l d b e t h e c a u s e f o r the m i s f o r t u n e s s u f f e r e d b y t h e c i t i e s o f the S e l e u k i s ( O G I S 2 1 9 . 5 . BE 6 1 . . 5 0 . H e r r m a n n f o r t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s ) .1 2 would have to cover the eventful years 223-197. Likewise. fr. 5 .3 4 : P t o l e m y I I I s e n d s h i s s o n M a g a s εις Άσίαν επιθησόμενον. 8-11 (Teos) involves a first stage 'on the other side of the Taurus'. In t h i s case. This is unlikely. the chronological scheme of document 17. b u t the t e x t m i g h t r e f e r to t h e s a m e event with stylistic variatio. T h e Herakleian decree. 6. 1983: 65-8). are the same as the rebels. lines 2 . It is unclear whether the 'people who attack the pragmata' (οί επιθέμενοι τοις πράγμασιν. would be a strange representation of the activity of Antiochos III after those years: if dated in 197. honours each member of the royal family: Laodike. the m u t i n e e r s w e r e still a c t i v e : P o l . the documents from Iasos forgo such detail. On the other hand.

H a b i c h t 1970: 89-90. 12 C o n t r a s t the I a s i a n d e c r e e h o n o u r i n g L a o d i k e ( f o u n d a t i o n o f a p r i e s t h o o d o f L a o d i k e . on the a r g u m e n t t h a t the r o y a l c h i l d r e n ( t h e u s u a l r e s t o r a t i o n f o r the line) a r e n o t a t t e s t e d in the t w o o t h e r p a s s a g e s w h e r e t h e q u e e n is m e n t i o n e d (line 22. 5 . I l i o n p r o b a b l y h e l d o u t a g a i n s t A c h a i o s . d a t i n g f o r m u l a s in the h e a d i n g s of decrees. OGIS 219. I l i o n w a s S e l e u k i d at t h e a c c e s s i o n of A n t i o c h o s I. 8 D o c u m e n t s 17. as w e l l as a r e f e r e n c e to t h e k i n g ' s M a c e d o n i a n o r i g i n s ( O G I S 2 3 9 ) . I n c o n t r a s t . 7 8 . I n OGIS 2 1 9 . u n l i k e o t h e r d o c u m e n t s of 197 9 ( J o n e s 1993: 87). l i n e 29. 10 T h e filiation o f A n t i o c h o s I I I is m e n t i o n e d o n c e . t h e I l i a n s m e n t i o n t h a t at t h e t i m e of t h e a c c e s s i o n of t h e k i n g t h e y c o n t i n u o u s l y p e r f o r m e d p u b l i c p r a y e r s a n d sacrifices o n h i s b e h a l f (εύχάς καί θυσίας îmèp αντον πάσι τοις θεοις 8ιετελει ποιούμενος). 13 P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 6 : 3 2 a n d n . t h i n k s that t h e a m b a s s a d o r s o f OGIS 2 1 9 . 2 § ι . 1 3 S t r o b e l 1996: 7 P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 6 : 43 u n a c c e p t a b l y r e s t o r e s L a o d i k e in line 44. F i n a l l y . t h e s o n of t h e r e c e n t l y d e c e a s e d S e l e u k o s I.3 .H e l l e n i c c o n t e x t . b u t this p r i v a t e d e d i c a t i o n . T h e f a c t t h a t t h e q u e e n in OGIS 219 is n o t n a m e d 7 also a r g u e s a g a i n s t a low d a t i n g . 27. s i n c e L a o d i k e I I I w a s o f t e n n a m e d in c o n t e m p o r a r y inscriptions. OGIS 219 d o e s n o t r e f e r to ' t h e g r e a t k i n g A n t i o c h o s ' . P i e j k o ( 1 9 9 3 3 ) b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e n e w s of t h e a c c e s s i o n w a s b r o u g h t b y A c h a i o s w h e n h e r e c o n q u e r e d t h e city. 1 0 as f a r as w e c a n r e c o n s t r u c t p r a c t i c e in 197 a n d a f t e r ( A p p e n d i x 4). OGIS 219 r e f e r s t w i c e t o ' k i n g A n t i o c h o s .2 4 ) : b u t n e i t h e r is t h e q u e e n ' s name. s i n c e t h e city h a d b e e n u n d e r A t t a l o s I. is d i f f e r e n t in n a t u r e f r o m the i n s c r i p t i o n s in ' S e l e u k i d ' c i t i e s . 6 d o e s n o t d e s c r i b e the r e c o n q u e s t ( P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 b: 3 3 . T h i s u s a g e w o u l d b e a n o m a l o u s f o r A n t i o c h o s I I I . 11 C h . w h e n t h e s o n s w e r e d i s p e r s e d . P o l . o n j o i n t c u l t i c h o n o u r s f o r S e l e u k o s I a n d A n t i o c h o s I in 281). l i n e s 2 3 .8 F u r t h e r m o r e . 7 5 . t h e S e l e u k i d a m b a s s a d o r . the P h i l i p p e i s w e r e n o t y e t a ' S e l e u k i d ' city ( t h o u g h on the p o i n t of b e c o m i n g one). Conversely. 7 8 . 1 2 I t is u n l i k e l y t h a t I l i o n h a d a p r i e s t of A n t i o c h o s I I I w h e n t h e l a t t e r t o o k it. 18. in a s t a t u e set u p o n D e l o s b y M e n i p p o s . b u t f r i e n d l y d e a l i n g s w i t h c i t i e s w h i c h h a d s t a y e d l o y a l . D i v e r g e n c e is p o s s i b l e . s o n of k i n g S e l e u k o s ' (lines 2 .1 8 . s o n of K i n g S e l e u k o s ' fits A n t i o c h o s I. 26 B . t h e h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n of I l i o n a r g u e s a g a i n s t t h e low d a t i n g . t h e office a l r e a d y e x i s t e d w h e n t h e d e c r e e ( t h e first of its k i n d f o r t h e k i n g in q u e s t i o n ) w a s p a s s e d . 30 9 T h e e x c e p t i o n s a r e A n t i o c h o s ' o w n u s a g e in l e t t e r s . ' K i n g Antiochos. T h e m o v e m e n t o f A t t a l o s I w e s t w a r d s w a s o c c a s i o n e d b y the m u t i n y o f t h e A i g o s a g e s ( P o l . b u t u n l i k e l y b e c a u s e of w i d e s p r e a d consistency and sufficient documentation. and the o p e n i n g lines of the alliance b e t w e e n A n t i o c h o s and E u r o m o s . in a p a n .b u t t h e y w e r e p r o d u c e d a f t e r t h e c a m p a i g n of 197. lines 1 6 . T h e latter c a s e can b e e x p l a i n e d : at the m o m e n t o f t h e t r e a t y . n o t b y t h e n e e d to r e a s s e r t a u t h o r i t y o v e r the T r o a d . since Seleukos I and Antiochos I r u l e d j o i n t l y ( P h y l a r c h o s FGrHist 81 F 29. w i t h d e t a i l s a b o u t e l e c t i o n a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) : d o c u m e n t 26 B. 28. 1 1 a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e p e r f o r m e d sacrifices at t h e a c c e s s i o n of A n t i o c h o s I I I . line 26 m e n t i o n s a p r i e s t of K i n g A n t i o c h o s . T h e s i t u a t i o n w o u l d fit A n t i o c h o s I b e t t e r : I l i o n c o u l d h a v e c r e a t e d a p r i e s t h o o d for the king after K o u r o u p e d i o n .4 ) o f the T r o a d b y A t t a l o s in 2 1 8 . w i t h o u t f u r t h e r details.4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n . 36-7) a n d o n c e to t h e p r i e s t of k i n g A n t i o c h o s (line 26). 5 . t a k e n o v e r a f t e r K o u r o u p e d i o n . a l o n g s i d e the title ' g r e a t k i n g ' . 1 . are . H o w e v e r .

was recarved under Antiochos I I I . the benefactions for w h i c h K i n g Antiochos is praised and honoured as saviour would be the defence of Ilion. I. a n d OMS vii. 17 but no broken bars (however. H o w e v e r . T h e copying of an earlier document m i g h t explain the extremely divergent character of the lettering. in the last years of the third or the very early years of the second century. T h e actual sight of the stone at the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m in C a m b r i d g e reinforces this impression of a divergent. a n d t h e p h o t o g r a p h in RC is t o o s m a l l t o b e u s e f u l . I. s a m e d o c u m e n t p u b l i s h e d as Inschr. 3. T h i s view is supported by circumstantial evidence (the crossing of the Galatians and their passage by Ilion.8 I n t h e L a o d i k e l a n d . B u t other features point to a low date. under Antiochos I. RC 4 2 (cf. p r o n o u n c e d the l e t t e r .s a l e (RC 1 8 .27). OGIS 2 1 2 ) l o n g a t t r i b u t e d to S e l e u k o s I. or the divergent bars of some sigmas. b u t m i g h t also be (for instance) Attalid. against the Galatians. . 1 4 T h e approach is hampered by the lack of secure local parallels. as p o i n t e d o u t b y P i e j k o . 605. Ilion 31 ( c f .f o r m s early ( b u t q u o t e d c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n s ) . all o f h i s ' p a r a l l e l s ' c o n cern the n o r m a l e x c h a n g e of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and ambassadors.3 ) . the presence of the Seleukid commander Antipatros: M e m n o n FGrHist 434 F 11. Strabo 13.1 3 ( u s i n g t h e ' t a b l e o f a l p h a b e t s ' o f RC). A l p h a occurs in a broken-barred version (along straight-barred and curved-barred alphas). but certainly not as early as the 270s. c f · I· Ilion 3 3 ) is d a t e d to A n t i o c h o s I. by Seleukid forces. Hallof. c o u r t e s y o f D r Κ .s T h e A r i s t o d i k i d e s s t e l e (RC 1 0 . 18 T h e r e f o r e . as other documents squarely do. . the palaeography appears to favour a date in the late third century or early second century. . S e l e u k i d e n v o y s s e n t a h e a d o f t h e e x p e d i t i o n o f 1 9 7 . Didyma 4 9 2 ) . n o t e s t h a t t h e a l p h a s w i t h b r o k e n b a r h a v e n o m a t c h in RC 1 0 .3. O r t h 1 9 7 7 : 62. t h e s t o n e is n o w l o s t .1 3 . not d i p l o m a t i c contact as a f o r e r u n n e r o f c o n q u e s t . 1 5 T h e letter-forms in OGIS 219 vary. p r o b a b l y h o n o u r s S e l e u k o s I I ( O r t h 1 9 7 7 : 7 2 .1 2 . Palaeography A r g u m e n t s f r o m letter-shapes and general presentation of the d o c u m e n t have been adduced for both high and low dating.1. C u r v e d . H o w e v e r . the six-line sample w h i c h I examined is not sufficient to establish if RC 10-13 did not exhibit the same variation in forms as OGIS 219. dates OGIS 219 to 278: on this view.2. T h e e x p r e s s i o n w o u l d a l s o b e r e m a r k a b l y d i s c r e e t f o r r o y a l envoys. almost 'schizophrenic' lettering. or some of the same shapes). and hence of probable recarving.b a r alphas appear in RC 10-13 (I. Ilion 3 7 ) is v e r y p o s s i b l y f r o m A n t i o c h o s 111. Ilion 33).245-6.2 0 . immediately after they crossed the Hellespont. 16 I a m g r a t e f u l to t h e F i t z w i l l i a m M u s e u m f o r a s p l e n d i d s q u e e z e . 17 I i n s p e c t e d a s q u e e z e o f s i x l i n e s at t h e Inscriptiones Graecae o f B e r l i n . T h e earliest examples for broken-barred alphas are found before 250. u n f o r t u n a t e l y . but would be stronger if the decree actually mentioned Galatians. this dating bears only on the actual carving of the document: I suggest that a d o c u m e n t f r o m the 270s. which mingles early Hellenistic and later Hellenistic forms. 14 R o b e r t 1966b: 1 1 . 1 6 Certain features favour a high dating: the airy layout.

2 1 If the document were to date to Antiochos I I I . and hence that the situation in OGIS 219 cannot apply to the time of Antiochos I I I . 19 20 M a s t r o c i n q u e 1 9 9 3 : 27—39. 2 0 I incline to the view that Ilion had not been taken by Achaios. w i t h h i s q u e e n . ομως άνασοισάμενος τήν πατρώιαν αρχήν (FGrHist 4 3 4 ^ 9)· 21 P r e c e d i n g n o t e . a r g u e s a g a i n s t t h e ' w a r o f S y r i a n s u c c e s s i o n ' . a n d s e n t P a t r o k l e s o v e r t h e T a u r u s . as w e l l as in t h e r e p l y o f A n t i o c h o s I I I to t h e R o m a n c o m m i s s i o n e r s at L y s i m a c h e i a i n 1 9 6 ( P o l . and specifically L y s i m a c h e i a ) . 10. arguments (about a Ptolemaic aggression against Antiochos I. even less conclusive. άνακτήσασθαι τήμ πατρώιαν αρχή v. J o n e s ( 1 9 9 3 : 9 1 ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t a B a b y l o n i a n d o c u m e n t a t t e s t s t h e p r e s e n c e o f A n t i o c h o s I i n c i s . T h i s d o e s n o t p r o v e t h a t OGIS 2 1 9 is t o b e a t t r i b u t e d t o A n t i o c h o s I . L i k e w i s e . s u c h s h o r t i n i t i a l a s s e s s m e n t s w e r e w i d e s p r e a d in H e l l e n i s t i c h i s t o r i o g r a p h y (Pol.9.216 or c. 6 .203 (for the latter. I would favour as the most likely c. B u t M e m n o n explicitly locates the r e c o v e r y of the ' p a t e r n a l e m p i r e ' b e f o r e t h e d i s p a t c h of P a t r o k l e s . reminiscent of.T a u r i c A s i a . yet not equivalent to. new evidence may confirm or challenge this view. . at S a r d i s . 19 or the expression 'the paternal k i n g d o m ' . 5 1 . in t h e y e a r s 2 7 5 t o 2 7 4 b c . I t h a s b e e n c l a i m e d t h a t M e m n o n d e s c r i b e s t h e w h o l e o f t h e r e i g n o f A n t i o c h o s I ( O r t h 1 9 7 7 : 6 3 η .1 . d i s p a r a g i n g them). T h e narrative of OGIS 219 might echo the account of the early struggles of Antiochos I.26. the a d j e c t i v e is a n a l o g o u s to t h e r e f e r e n c e to t h e a n c e s t o r s . o b s e r v e s t h a t t r o u b l e s in t h e S e l e u k i s m i g h t e x p l a i n w h y A n t i o c h o s I s t a y e d in S y r i a . M e m n o n d o e s u s e t h e e x p r e s s i o n f o r A n t i o c h o s I: ό Sè Σέλευκου Άντίοχος -πολλοίς πολέμοις. Mastrocinque 1983: 68-9). as preserved in M e m n o n of Herakleia. P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 6 : 2 3 . T h r a c e . M a s t r o c i n q u e 1 9 9 3 : 30. l i n e 8 s p e a k s o f r e c o v e r i n g ' t h e p a t e r n a l e m p i r e ' . a n d the a l l e g e d e x a m p l e s of ' c a r a t e r i z z a z i o n e iniziale' g a t h e r e d b y M a s t r o c i n q u e are s i m p l y c i r c u m s t a n t i a l aorist participles. J o n e s 1 9 9 3 : 9 0 . T h e v e r b c a n b e p a r a l l e l e d i n t h e l e t t e r o f L a o d i k e t o I a s o s . c o n c e r n i n g C h e r s o n e s o s . d και μόλις και ού&€ πάσαν. O n the other hand. the 'ancestors' in documents of Antiochos III). w h i c h a r e s o p r o m i n e n t i n t h e literary and the epigraphical evidence (Piejko 19916: 2 1 .4 ) . w i t h e x a m p l e s ) . 69. 1 8 .T h e r e are other. OGIS 2 1 9 . b u t s h o w s t h a t t h e e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d in t h e i n s c r i p t i o n a r e c o m p a t i b l e with the record for that king.

a view based on the datings for the Delphian archon Megartas and the Aitolian strategos Alexandros of Kalydon. 2 L i v y 3 3 .203. 18. t h e A i t o l i a n d o c u m e n t a n d t h e A t h a m a n i a n letter are c o n t e m p o r a r y . anno 1 9 7 ' ( P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 a : 14): t h e y e a r r e f e r r e d . A. 1 hence a terminus ante quem for the T e i a n documents. 19 in the present volume). 3 8 . especially two decrees honouring the king shortly after he took over T e o s . 1 6 6 . A more recent view holds that the decrees date to Antiochos' campaign of 197/6 BC. T h e D e l p h i a n d e c r e e f a l l s s l i g h t l y b e f o r e 200. 1 d o e s n o t s p e a k o f 'eodem t o is a c t u a l l y 1 9 6 . he mistakenly believes that the date of the a r c h o n s h i p d e p e n d s on 'the date already established for A l e x a n d e r ' .1 T h e main argument for dating the T e i a n decrees to c. Herrmann dated these two decrees to c. documents 17. n o . and a i a t e series' f r o m the second century). it is t h e D e l p h i a n a r c h o n s h i p w h i c h p r o v i d e s the c h r o n o l o g i c a l p e g for the A i t o l i a n s t r a t e g o s A l e x a n d r o s : t h e r e is n o p l a c e f o r M e g a r t a s in t h e D e l p h i a n a r c h o n s o f t h e 1 9 0 s ( W i l h e l m ) a n d t h e fives t r o n g .60-85 (see now R i g s b y 1996): an 'early series' f r o m the late third century.2 0 ) . H e r r m a n n 1965α: 94. I n f a c t . P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 α : 2 θ . tries t o d o w n d a t e t h e A i t o l i a n a n d D e l p h i a n d e c r e e s to 1 9 6 . W i l h e l m showed that three documents f r o m central G r e e c e (issued by the Aitolians.2. 2 1 9 . FD. and that 'the year for M e g a r t a s has not b e e n d e t e r m i n e d b y c o m p l e t e l y i n d e p e n d e n t c r i t e r i a ' . t r i m e s t r i a l boule p o i n t s to a d a t e b e f o r e 2 0 1 ( C o l i n . T h e context would thus be Antiochos' passage in Asia Minor on his return f r o m the East: c. Ι .203 BC: hence they attested Antiochos' presence in Asia M i n o r on his return f r o m his eastern expedition.A P P E N D I X 2 T h e Date of the Teos Documents T e o s has produced a series of important documents relative to A n t i o c h o s III (Herrmann 1965a. in Göttingen Gelehrte Anzeiger 160 (1898).9 ( q u o t i n g e a r l i e r c o n c l u s i o n s b y A . f a s c .203 (Herrmann 1965a: 93-100) is that the declaration of T e i a n asylia by Antiochos should precede all other similar documents (abundantly preserved and published in LBW 3.ι . the A m p h i k t i o n s . and the Delphians) date between 205 and 201. 1 3 5 ) . t h e s e c o n d strategia of A l e x a n d r o s of K a l y d o n . Piejko argues that the T e i a n documents should be dated to the campaign of 197 (Piejko 1991α: 14-27): 2 the early asylia documents should ' H o l l e a u x 1 9 5 2 : 1 7 8 . High or Low Dating? 1. since t h e y n a m e the s a m e T e i a n a m b a s s a d o r s : see f u r t h e r L e f è v r e 1 9 9 5 : 204—5 a n d n . 1. 2. W i l h e l m .

4 ('motiviert d u r c h eine göttliche Willenserklärung'). lines 2 .2 ) . T h i s m i g h t be the case of Antiocheia/Alabanda (document 16 is 1 Herrmann 1965e: 1 2 2 . under T i b e r i u s . R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 . Antiochos I I I simply recognized the T e i a n claim. a n d b e c a u s e of the o r a c l e s ' . 226-30 on T a s y l i e des s a n c t u a i r e s et d e s villes c o n s a c r é e s à u n e d i v i n i t é ' . did not initiate it. cf. j u s t as the asylia of Smyrna was a local initiative acknowledged and supported by Seleukos II. s i n c e M a g n e s i a o n M a e a n d e r w a s p r o b a b l y n o t a S e l e u k i d c i t y at t h i s p o i n t . 33. I favour a high dating. l i n e 5.1 0 . 5 9 0 .20. at l i n e s 9 .63. since they do not refer to a royal 'grant' of inviolate status. 3. w h i c h P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 α : 18. Ann.1). f u r t h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t i n t h e c a s e o f A n t i o c h e i a / A l a b a n d a . 4 T h i s is h o w Piejko (1991a: 18-20) classifies the T e i a n s ' efforts. and thus were solely a T e i a n initiative. T h e procedure combined acknowledgement of the city's consecrated status and an agreement to refrain f r o m spoliation against the city or on its territory. the Seleukid takeover of T e o s is free to be located in 197/6.1 0 ) . a l s o a l l e g e s . S m y r n a . T h e M i l e s i a n d e c r e e Syll. c i t i e s . A n t i o c h e i a o f t h e C h r y s a o r i a n s / A l a b a n d a : d o c u m e n t 16. a city (with its territory) had to be declared 'holy' (iepd) to a d e i t y — o f t e n a local decision. T h i s is n o t t h e c a s e : t h e A l a b a n d a n a m b a s s a d o r c o n s u l t e d t h e o r a c l e o n l y a f t e r h e h a d s t a r t e d a s k i n g t h e G r e e k c i t i e s f o r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f h i s c i t y ' s asylia ( d o c u m e n t 16. by the m e m b e r s of the international c o m m u n i t y .1 8 ) — i t is p o s s i b l e t h a t A n t i o c h o s I I I h a d i n i t i a t e d t h e p r o c e s s . k i n g s . ' b e c a u s e of Z e u s ' a n d L e t o ' s u n i o n in this place. 1. 3 T h e city then asked for recognition as 'holy and inviolate'. 2 1 . on this view.be dissociated f r o m Antiochos' proclamation of the city as inviolate. 5 2. L i v y is sketchy (33. a n d f o r d i v i n e a p p a r i t i o n s (at M a g n e s i a . this c o n s e c r a t i o n p r e c e d e d t h e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t b y ethne.1. but. Ann. prompted by an oracle or an apparition. each in a specific decree. lines 4-5). a Seleukid king grants asylia to the shrine of Z e u s at Baitokaike.13.63. 1 4 . P i e j k o 1 9 9 1 a : 1 9 n n .5-6). Magnesia 16. 4 O n asylia in g e n e r a l . T o enjoy asylia.4.3. a collection of such decrees could be referred to as 'the asylias' (τάς ασυλίας'· I• Stratonikeia 7. A l l t h e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e r e p u b l i s h e d a n d t r e a t e d in R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 . In RC 70 (same d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1996: no. indeed first broadcast by the king on the international scene. but only new documentation will establish the chronological context. t h e d e c i s i o n w a s p r o m p t e d b y a n a p p a r i t i o n o f A r t e m i s L e u k o p h r y e n e h e r s e l f : Inschr.38. G a u t h i e r 1972: 209-84 modifies Schlesinger. T a c . b u t not initiated by h i m ( O G I S 228. b y c i t y . g . 218). w h i c h could only be granted piecemeal. W i t h o u t Herrmann's terminus ante quem. ' t h e n e w s t a t u s w a s a l s o c r e d i t e d to t h e g o d ' s o r a c l e ' . OGIS 2 2 8 . a n d s i n c e A n t i o c h o s I I I a c t u a l l y d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e asylia o f t h e c i t y . R i g s b y 1996: 95-8. 3. s p e a k s o f t h e c i t y a n d t e r r i t o r y b e i n g c o n s e c r a t e d . H e r r m a n n 1965a: 118-38. The Asylia of Teos 2. for o r a c l e s ( e .2. 2. somewhat differently). 20. 16). T h e literary sources are deficient: Polybios is not extant to confirm or disprove the high dating. is i n a p p r o p r i a t e . 5 T h e e x a m p l e o f M a g n e s i a o n M a e a n d e r a n d its d e a l i n g s w i t h A n t i o c h o s I I I (RC 3 1 . the asylia of a city could also result f r o m a royal grant. H o w e v e r . e a r l i e r w o r k s a r e S c h l e s i n g e r 1 9 3 3 . . the Sardians described their asylia as 'Alexandri victoris donum' ( T a c .

a n d t h a t b o t h actions w e r e c o n d e n s e d into a m i s l e a d i n g f o r m u l a t i o n b y the T e i a n decree ( d o c u m e n t 17. where 'the G r e a t K i n g . It is unhelpful to write (Piejko 1991a: 62) that asylia could be indifferently expressed through a plethora of phrases. and 'consecrated' T e o s to Dionysos. which received acknowledgement of asylia and the grant of a royal prerogative (άνεπισταθμείa) in the same royal pronouncement (RC 70. Stratonikeia received a grant of asylia f r o m Sulla.8 4 . 7 H o w e v e r . 2. 7 T h e r e are two parallels: A m y z o n . r e f e r s to e a r l i e r r e c o g n i t i o n o f asylia b y t h e e x p r e s s i o n καθιερώσαμε ν τάν χώραν και τάν πόλιν. T h e usual formulas are δέχεσθαι compounds. line 13). Antiochos I I I seems to have taken the initiative. asylia. or the v e r b άναδείκνυναι. w i t h o u t t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t the T e i a n s ' e a r l i e r e f f o r t s at w i n n i n g a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t f o r asylia. l i n e s 1 9 . in t h e 2 n d c e n t . Cret. F u r t h e r m o r e . R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 : n o . consecrated the city to L e t o and A p o l l o and Artemis.ambiguous).2 1 . n o . p r o b a b l y p a r t o f t h e asylia d o s s i e r : c o u l d it b e p a r t of an i n s c r i p t i o n like the X a n t h i a n r e c o r d that A n t i o c h o s ' d e d i c a t e d t h e c i t y a n d the t e r r i t o r y ' to a g o d ( d o c u m e n t 22)? 8 A l r e a d y H e r r m a n n 1 9 6 5 a : 128. 15—16: καθιέρωσαν ημών τήν πόλιν και τήν χώραν). 4 7 . document 17. 5. on account of the kinship that unites h i m to them' (document 22). A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y is t h a t A n t i o c h o s r e p r e s e n t e d h i m s e l f a s g r a n t i n g asylia to T e o s .1 3 . and Xanthos. in Inscr. a unitary grant of holy status. a n d R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 . T h e w o r d καθιέρωσε ν o c c u r s at T e o s in LBW 94. T h e decrees f r o m T e o s give the impression that they belong to this group (Herrmann 1965a: 125—6). B o t h possibilities w o u l d open the w a y for the low d a t i n g . cf. n o . 6 ( B i a n n o s . s e e S c h l e s i n g e r 1 9 3 3 : 7 1 .3. an infinitive construction (εΐναι. and analysing the practice. T h e verbs used are striking. l i k e w i s e . c o l l e c t i n g texts.4 8 m e n t i o n s t h e a c t i o n s s e p a r a t e l y ) . it is p o s s i b l e t h a t A n t i o c h o s a c k n o w l e d g e d (7ταραδέχεσθαι) T e i a n asylia u p o n the T e i a n s ' i n i t i a t i v e . 2. T h e s e e x a m p l e s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e v e r b καθιερόω m i g h t b e u s e d s i m p l y to a c k n o w l e d g e asylia ( b u t a g l a n c e at R i g s b y ' s i n d e x w i l l s h o w t h a t t h e y are the o n l y e x a m p l e s in t h e w h o l e c o r p u s to u s e the v e r b this w a y ) .3 ( A p t e r a : s a m e d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 . t h e act o f r o y a l t a k e o v e r s u p e r s e d i n g p r e v i o u s d i p l o m a t i c activities. 2. άφιέναι used at T e o s . then Piejko (1991a: 17-20) because of the failure of other cities to attribute the 6 F o r a list o f d o c u m e n t s . 8 where A n t i o c h o s 'gave back the shrine inviolate' (document 8 B). Antiochos. which did not dispense the city f r o m its own subsequent efforts at international recognition ( O G I S 441. Cret. 47 — 8: αφέντες τήμ πόλιν και τήν χώραν ίεράν και άσυλον). . νπάρχειν) dependent on a verb of decision. Inscr. illustrating usage. 1 . and 'let free our city and our territory as holy and inviolate and free f r o m tribute' (document 17. n o . 156). ι T h i s interpretation was rejected by Giovannini (1983: 181-2). Antiochos I I I at T e o s grants asylia and exemption f r o m tribute as part of the same gesture: this is paralleled in the case of the shrine of Zeus at Baitokaike. line 34). and where the verb recalls άνιέναι. . T h e same expression describes the grant of autonomy to Mylasa by Seleukos II: Σέλευκον δε άφιέντα τήν πόλιν ελεύθεραν (Crampa 1969: no. RDGE 18). T e i a n e n v o y s s p e a k o f τάν πόλιν ύττο τών προγόνων καθιερωμέναν τάν πόλιν και τάν χώραν. a n d t h e n g r a n t e d (άνιέναι) f r e e d o m f r o m t r i b u t e .6 In the case of T e o s . 2. lines 1 0 . 19—20: άνηκε τι)^] πόλιν Kai τήγ χώραν ήμών ίεράν και άσυλον και άφορολόγητον. Antiochos' action is described as άνιέναι or άφιέναι. Antiochos III 'consecrated our city and our territory' to D i o n y s o s (document 17. and άφορολογησία. tfi e action in both cases is the royal grant of a privilege. 1 5 4 ) .

9 T h i s led Holleaux to postulate that T e o s . s a m e d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 : n o . . Allaria) 1 0 —the same v e r b used to describe the action taken b y A n t i o c h o s I I I in the assembly at T e o s (see above). A p t e r a (Inscr. even though that city did not directly receive a grant of asylia f r o m Seleukos II. w h i c h received Perdikkas. Aptera. and yet absent in the contemporary Delphian decree for T e i a n asylial ' S e e H o l l e a u x 1 9 5 2 : 1 8 2 . which notes the Alabandans' praise for Antiochos I I I and honours the latter. l i n e s 4 . 2 .2. no. and the Seleukid presence is less prominent than the Antigonid support for the Teians. H e r r m a n n 1 9 6 5 a : 1 3 4 . the Antigonid envoy would not insist on the Seleukid origin of the campaign for T e i a n asylia. It is a l s ° difficult to explain the absence of any reference to Antiochos III in the documents f r o m Central G r e e c e . T h e verb άνύημι also appears in four of the Cretan decrees acknowledging T e i a n asylia (Polyrrhenia. 2. T h e d e c r e e s are r e p u b l i s h e d as R i g s b y 1996: nos. N o n e of the Cretan decrees calls Antiochos I I I the initiator of the T e i a n asylia campaign. and document 16. an envoy of Antiochos I I I appears three times (in the decrees f r o m Rhaukos. around 201. in contrast with OGIS 228 (Delphian decree for Smyrna under Seleukos II). 2. Cret.3. 9 ) . n o . l i n e s 9 .203 or 202). àviévai turns up at Allaria.3. 136-52. 2. 1 5 1 ) .1 1 . was taken by Philip V (Holleaux 1952: 184-6).asylia of T e o s to royal initiative. cf. L a p p a . the converse is also possible: that Antiochos III acknowledged an already pre-existing status of asylia at T e o s by using a verb supplied to h i m by the T e i a n s themselves (àviévai). If both involved royal initiative. In contrast. Cret. 7 . as supporting the T e i a n embassies.3. T h i s is not incompatible with an initial grant of asylia by Antiochos III: Philip's standing as προστάτης of many Cretan cities (Pol. R i g s b y 1996: no. especially in the D e l p h i a n decree (Syll. c. 1 3 7 ) . s a m e d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 : n o . 134). s a m e d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 : n o . Cret. 1 0 . perhaps upon Antiochos' request. n o .7 ( p l a c i n g the d e c r e e s earlier. In the Cretan decrees concerning the asylia of T e o s (C. l i n e s 2 4 . 7). 3 .3. n o . n o . and Antiocheia/Alabanda (document 16) drew attention to royal support. 1 . and recycled by the T e i a n s in their speech to these four Cretan cities (Rigsby 1996: 287). Cret. and E l e u t h e r n a ) — i n fact. the envoy of Philip V . 1. a Rhodian sent to broker a peace between the Cretan cities. K y d o n i a (Inscr. 2 . H o w e v e r .4. 10 P o l y r r h e n i a ( I n s c r . the envoy of Philip V . R i g s b y 1996. K y d o n i a . T h e cities which use the peculiar verb àviévai are also not the same as those three w h i c h say that they are acting upon the urging of a Seleukid envoy.5 . 1 1 . 1 . s a m e d o c u m e n t R i g s b y 1 9 9 6 : n o . 1 4 5 ) . cf. 2 3 . 3. In contrast. indeed.6 . It is likely that these Cretan d