I would like to thank Mr. P. M. Fraser for offering a number of important suggestions while this article was in preparation.

I must also thank Mme D. Peppa Delmousou for enabling me to study the inscriptions relevant to the Attalids in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, and for her permission to publish the photograph of the stone of IG ii². 885 (Plate 1a).

I use the following abbreviations in addition to the usual ones:

FD = Fouilles de Delphes.

IvP = Altertümer von Pergamon VIII. Die Inschriften von Pergamon i and ii, ed. Fränkel, M. (Berlin, 1890 and 1895).Google Scholar Reference is to the first volume unless the second is spedfied.

MvP = H. von Fritze, Die Münzen von Pergamon. Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften (1910).

Ohlemutz = Ohlemutz, E., Die Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon (Würzburg, 1940 and Darmstadt 1968).Google Scholar

¹ Polyb. ix. 42. 5. Cf. Niese, B., Gesch. d. gr. und mak. Staaten ii. 484 f.Google Scholar For the background to the events reviewed here, see the narratives of Niese, op. cit., and Holleaux, M., CAH viii. 122–37Google Scholar (Études v. 302–19).

² Livy xxvi. 24. 11. On the date and terms of this treaty see Klaffenbach, G., Der Römisch-Ätolische Bündnisvertrag vom Jahre 212 v. Chr. (SB deutschen Akademie, Berlin, 1954, 1).Google Scholar The chronology of the treaty and the problems raised by the inscription from Thyrrheion are further discussed by Lehmann, G. A., Untersuchungen zur hist. Glaubwürdigkeit des Polybios (Münster, 1967) 10–134.Google Scholar

³ Niese, op. cit. ii. 484 n. 5, put forward the view that Attalos took part in the Roman capture of Aigina, on the basis of his dedication to Athena in Pergamon, IuP 47 ( = OGIS 281): Cardinali's objection (Il Regno di Pergamo 178) that can be taken to connote payments exacted after Aigina had become Attalid seems to me to be valid. The most realistic appraisal of the situation is that of R. Flacelière, Les Aitoliens à Delphes 300 n. 2.

⁴ See E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 56–7.

⁵ That is, the of Polybios, the of Aitolian decrees. On the Aitolian assemblies see the fundamental study of Holleaux, M., Études i. 219–27Google Scholar (from BCH 1905), whose conclusions have been almost universally accepted; cf. Larsen, J. A. O., TAPA lxxxiii (1952) 1–33.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grèce etc. 209 n. 1. It was probably also in this year that the Pergamene garrison was put in the Aitolian city of Lilaia (Flacelière, op. cit. (n. 3) 301), whose members are honoured in the decrees from Delphi, , FD iii. 4, 132–5.Google Scholar

Two parallels to the Aitolians' action in offering their command to an outsider may be cited: Aratos had offered Ptolemy Euergetes command of the Achaian League in 242, during its war with Antigonos Gonatas (Plutarch, Aratos 24); and the Cretan koinon had elected Philip V in 220 (Polyb. vii. 11. 9; cf. F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon 67 n. 5).

⁷ Pindar, Paean vi. 123–6:

From Pindar's eleven odes for Aiginetan victors the island's great prestige and the affection it drew from the poet are very clear (see C. M. Bowra, Pindar 149 ff.). The history of the island from the fourth century onwards is known only in outline. Eventually its destiny became tied up with that of Corinth and Megara; thus it almost certainly passed with them into the hands of Ptolemy Soter in 308, contributing with him to the fund for the rebuilding of Thebes at about the same time (IG vii. 2419; Holleaux, M., Études i, ch. i, esp. 34–5)Google Scholar; then to Demetrios Poliorketes in 296/5 (Polyaen. iv. 7. 5; Holleaux, loc. cit.) and finally to Aratos, probably in 243 when he in turn acquired Corinth and Megara for the Achaian League (Plutarch, Aratos 18; Polyb. ii. 50. 9).

⁸ For numerous Athenian decrees honouring Pergamene citizens see below, p. 7 n. 34. It is hard to believe, with Attalos resident at Aigina on a number of occasions during the first Macedonian War, that this friendship was only ‘formed in 200’ (Holleaux, M., Études ii. 141Google Scholar). A passage of Polybios quoted below, p. 11, records a letter sent by Attalos to the Athenian people in 200, which refers already to previous benefactions on his part. Surely, then, the origin of this friendship should be sought in the First and not the Second Macedonian War, as between the new ruler of Aigina and its distinguished neighbour.

⁹ In the spring of 200 the Rhodian and Pergamene fleets, operating from Aigina, were able to recapture for the Athenians the ships which the Macedonian fleet had recently seized, and to prevent any further attacks. (Livy xxxi. 15. 5 ff.; of Polybios' account (xvi. 25) only the part recording the Athenian honours subsequently bestowed on Attalos has survived.) Furthermore, it was chiefly through Attalos' influence, and because they were reassured no doubt by the protection which he had just shown he could afford, that the Athenians finally declared war on Philip, as we see from Polybios' narrative (xvi. 25–6) describing Attalos' conference with the Roman commissioners; his arrival and welcome in Athens; and his letter to the Assembly after declining to appear in person. It was at this juncture that the Assembly voted for war (Polyb. xvi. 26. 7–8). Later in the same year Pergamene forces from Aigina helped Athens to resist a fierce attack on the city by land (Livy xxxi. 25. 1).

As a Pergamene naval station, Aigina was an asset to the Roman alliance as a whole, since Attalos' role in the alliance would be, as before, to co-operate by sea with the Roman fleet; note in particular Sulpicius' instructions in winter 200/199, as recorded by Livy (xxxi. 28. 3): ‘Attali legatis … mandat ut Aeginae rex, ubi hibernabat, classem Romanam opperiretur, qua adiuncta bello maritimo, sicut ante, Philippum urgeret.’

¹⁰ There is no record of the Senate's having confirmed Attalos' possession of Aigina at the end of the war, but this is understandable, since the transaction with Aitolia was a private affair. According to Valerius Antias, Attalos was given Aigina in 196 (Livy xxxiii. 30. 10–11), one year after his death! There is no point in attempting to find grains of truth in this annalistic muddle, such as Meischke's emendation of Aeginam to Andrum (Symb. ad Eum. II Perg. regis hist. 44–5). See especially Holleaux, M., Études v. 104–20Google Scholar (from Rev. Phil. 1931).

¹¹ When Cardinali wrote (Il Regno di Pergamo 235–6) there was less material available than now. E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon 154, deals cursorily with the altar from Aigina, and does not mention IG ii². 885 (see below).

¹² A full justification of this view would require a study in itself. Briefly, its chronological basis lies in the letter of Eumenes I to the mercenaries at Philetaireia and Attaleia (IvP 13 = OGIS 266) which still uses Seleukid dating and thus in my view must be placed before the decisive battle fought between Eumenes I and Antiochos I at Sardis and recorded by Strabo (xiii. 4. 2. 624). Eumenes' independence of the Seleukids thereafter is attested by his coinage, on which the head of Seleukos is replaced by that of Philetairos (MvP p. 7; cf. Westermark, U., Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon (Stockholm, 1960)).Google Scholar Since the battle at Sardis must have taken place between 263, the year of Eumenes' accession, and 261, the year of Antiochos' death, the building at Philetaireia and Attaleia must have been inaugurated before the accession of Eumenes, that is, during the rule of Philetairos.

¹³ OGIS 335, line 141 (IvP 245 c, line 50): The group of decrees, arguably late Attalid (Swoboda, H., RhMus xlvi (1891) 503)Google Scholar or early republican (Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor ii. 905–6 n. 125Google Scholar), are concerned with a land settlement involving Pitane and Mitylene in which Pergamon was the arbiter. They constitute invaluable evidence of the early development of the Attalid Kingdom. The fragments are now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

¹⁴ See Holleaux, M., Études ii. 88–92Google Scholar (from BCH 1924), and (especially on the date) the additional remarks of De Sanctis, G., Riv. di Filologia liii (1925) 71 ff.Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World iii. 1472 n. 44.Google Scholar The inscriptions from Labraunda supply a close parallel in Olympichos' acquisition of authority over the city of Mylasa: (Crampa, J., Labraunda, Greek Inscr. i, no. 8, line 13Google Scholar).

¹⁵ Thus we can speak of a ‘Kingdom of Eumenes I’ which retained its significance even after the drastic reorganization of the Pergamene Kingdom in 188 B.C.

¹⁶ A Pergamene boundary inscription reading ΟΡΟΙ ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝѠΝ at Cape Hydra on the Elaitic Gulf between Cyme and Myrina, adds weight to this statement: BCH v (1881) 283. Cf. G. Cardinali, Il Regno di Pergamo 80; Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen der hell. Staaten in Kleinasien 98.

¹⁷ Polybios' narrative deals with a number of cities outside the area of authority established by Eumenes I: Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion. The last four received especially favourable treatment from Attalos on account of their loyalty during his recent war with Achaios. Of Teos and Kolophon Polybios says simply that he received their envoys and ‘renewed their former terms’ (v. 77. 6: ) The context of this statement implies that the applied to the other cities as well, concerning which Polybios has more important points to make: Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion were especially well treated; Teos and Kolophon were not, but their former terms were renewed. It is thus inconceivable that Teos and Kolophon were entitled to these specific relations while the other cities were not.

¹⁸ Andros was captured by Rome in 199 and the city given to Attalos, according to Livy xxxi. 45. 7: ‘ea ab Romanis regi Aitalo concessa.’ A list of documents relating to Attalid rule in Andros is given ap. Holleaux, M., Études v. 42 n. 1.Google Scholar The record is very scrappy, as is the history of Andros throughout antiquity, and there is little hope that it will ever be improved since the city-site of Palaiopolis is bare: a recent survey of the island undertaken by the author brought no new inscriptions to light.

¹⁹ Polyb. xxi. 46. 9–11.

²⁰ IG iv. 1 = OGIS 329. A decree of Megara (Syll.³ 642) honouring Kleon's predecessor Hikesios of Ephesos, calls him but emanating from a non-Pergamene city this description cannot be regarded as constitutionally exact.

²¹ OGIS 268.

²² L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure ² 36 n. 6.

²³ Ibid. 31–40.

²⁴ I apply the term tributary (as distinct from the complete subjection of the four cities, including Ephesos, which were specified as gifts in the Roman settlement: see above, n. 19) to cities which were, according to Polybios, made tributary in 188 (xxi. 46. 2): ὅσαι δ᾿ Ἀττάλῳ σύνταξιν ἐτέλουν, ταύταις ἐπέταξαν τὸν αὐτὸν Εὐμένει διδόναι φόρον. One of the cities, as we now know, which paid σύνταξις to Attalos I was Teos, according to a recently published decree of that city honouring Antiochos III and his queen, Laodike (Herrmann, P., Anadolu ix (1965) 29–159Google Scholar); see, in the text, B lines 18–20: ῖ Ἀττά|λωι ὑπεδέξατο ἀπολυθήσεσθαι ἡμᾶς δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ κτλ and 33–4: [ὅτι πα]ραλέλυκε τὴμ πόλιν εἰς ἀεὶ καθότι ἐπηγίλατο ὦν συνετάξα|[μεν φ]όρων βασιλεῖ Ἀττάλωι. This contemporary evidence reinforces Polybios' distinction between the σύνταξις paid before 188 and the φόρος to be paid thereafter. The view of Heuss, , Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus (Klio, Beiheft xxxix. 187)Google Scholar, that Polybios uses the two words with no distinction in meaning, does justice neither to Polybios nor to the other evidence. It is essential to realize that a class of tributary cities, including Teos, was instituted in the Pergamene Kingdom as a result of the Roman settlement, whose status was different from that of Aigina, Andros, and the four gift-cities.

²⁵ According to a fragmentarily preserved letter written by Eumenes II to the Ionian Guild of Dionysiac Artists whose seat was at Teos (IvP 163 = Welles, Royal Correspondence 53), the city could be bound by royal (C lines 7–8: Cf. Holleaux, M., Études iii. 205 n. 3)Google Scholar, and by this means a settlement of the dispute with the Artists could be imposed on the city. On the copious body of evidence relating to the Dionysiac Artists at Teos, see Daux, G., BCH liii (1935) 210–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., Dramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd ed. revised by Gould, and Lewis, , Oxford, 1968) 279–305Google Scholar, and appendix of texts, 306–21.

²⁶ EA 1913, 90–2 pl. 8 = Moretti, L., Iscr. Storiche Ellenistiche i. 84 f.Google Scholar, no. 36.

²⁷ The only published photograph known to me is that of the original publication (see previous note), which is inadequate by present standards.

²⁸ Strack, M. L., Archiv für Papyrusforschung iii (1906) 126, no. 1.Google Scholar

²⁹ Examples can be cited from the rule of Philetairos onwards: from Pergamon, , AM xxxv (1910) 437 f.Google Scholar, no. 22, pl. xx, 4 and 438, no. 23, pl. xviii: From Thrace two nearly identical dedications (OGIS 301; Kalinka, , ÖJh xxiii (1926) 151–2Google Scholar, no. 87). See also the group OGIS 302–4 and, on OGIS 302, Ferguson, W. S., CP i (1906) 231–4.Google Scholar

³⁰ See OGIS 327 and 328; Inscr. Délos 1554; AM xliv (1919) 30, no. 16 (= SEG i. 374, IGR iv. 1712); the dedication of a temple to Hera Basileia at Pergamon by Attalos, II, AM xxxiii (1908) 402Google Scholar, no. 27, pl. xxiii, 2+AM xxxvii (1912) 283, no. 6. These two blocks of the architrave, of which the former is in the museum at Bergama (Inv. 266), provide the reading the dedication for Theophilos from the Agora, Athenian, Hesperia xxiii (1954) 252Google Scholar, no. 33, pl. 53—the text is reprinted in Hesperia xxvi (1957) 83–8, no. 31 (photographs, pls. 18–21, facsimiles, pls. 26–7). The foregoing are dedications of Attalos II; the following are dedications on his behalf: OGIS 320 (Miletos); CRAI 1917, 29–30 = BCH lii (1928) 440 n. 8 (this dedication from Elaia provides the only survival of Philadelphos' title Soter). This consistency does not apply to documents dated by Philadelphos' reign, where we find (OGIS 325; AM xxxii (1907) 427 no. 272 or simply (Keil-Premerstein, , Reise in Lydien (1908) 46Google Scholar, no. 94 and 47, no. 95, the latter being a fuller text of AM xxiv (1899) 230, no. 68); nor to letters written by him (OGIS 331, II; probably also Welles, Royal Correspondence 62, on which see Robert, L., BCH liv (1930) 348–51Google Scholar).

³¹ Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées Hellénistiques i. 25 ff.Google Scholar

³² On the cult of Athena at Pergamon in the third century, see Ohlemutz 25 ff., and on the foundations of festivals for Athena, Holleaux, M., Études ii. 61–2Google Scholar (from REA 1916); Segre, M. in Robert, L., Hellenica v (1948) 102–38 (especially 114 ff.)Google Scholar.

³³ Amlada may have been garrisoned during the Galatian War of Eumenes II in the 160s: see the letter of Attalos II to the city remitting some of its obligations (Welles, Royal Correspondence 54). If so, it also ‘served the purpose of a frontier post’ (Welles, loc. cit.), and the imposition was an ad hoc one. A text from Sardis, (Sardis vii. 1, 2)Google Scholar recording a royal letter concerning the status of a city whose name begins with T (line 7), and including the provision (lines 19–20), is relevant only on the assumption that the letter concerns an Attalid city and emanates from the Attalid chancery; and, in any event, it constitutes evidence of liberation, presupposing the absence of a garrison as the normal state of affairs: compare the Attalid liberation of a city in Helles-pontine Phrygia which passed the decree in honour of Korragos (above, n. 14). A Pergamene garrison is attested at Aigina in 200 by Livy (xxxi. 25. 1: ‘praesidium Attali ab Aegina’), but with no indication of its permanence.

³⁴ IG ii². 953 in honour of a of Eumenes II, 160/59 (Kirchner, Imagines pl. 40, no. 102); 945 (= Syll. ¹ 651) in honour of Diodoros, also a of Eumenes II, c. 168/7; 946 ( = Syll. ³ 655), revised by Wilhelm, A., Wien. Anz. 1921, 81Google Scholar, in honour of 166/5; 947 in honour of two Pergamene citizens, ? 166/5. See also IG ii². 955 in honour of a citizen of Kyzikos (before 159). Of these, only IG ii². 945 has well-cut lettering, but even this does not compare with our decree. The lettering of IG ii². 922 in honour of Hikesios of Ephesos provides a closer parallel, and is remarkably similar to that of a Megarian decree, IG vii. 15 (= Syll ³ 642), in honour of the same Hikesios (see above, p. 4 n. 20), but this lettering is exceptional. The lettering of third-century Athenian decrees is typified by IG ii². 833, of 229/8 (Kirchner, Imagines pl. 37, no. 92).

³⁵ See also the series of decrees in honour of prytaneis: S. Dow, Hesperia, suppl. i (1937).

³⁶ Megara, : IG vii. 15Google Scholar = Syll. ³ 642. Thera, : IG xii. 3.Google Scholar 327+suppl. p. 283 (OGIS 59), photograph, O. Kern, Inscr. Graecae p. 33. Tenos, : IG xii. 5. 798.Google ScholarNisyros, : IG xii. 3. 387.Google ScholarDelos, : IG xi. 4. 563Google Scholar (photograph, pl. i), 1049 (pl. iii), 1067 (pl. v).

³⁷ At Miletos: Herrmann, P., Ist. Mitt. xv (1965) 71 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 74 n. 3. At Pergamon, alpha with straight cross-bar is common under Attalos II (159–138) and Attalos III (138–133); see IvP 246 (OGIS 332), 248 (OGIS 331, Welles, Royal Correspondence 65–7), 249 (OGIS 338).

³⁸ Alphas with fully developed broken cross-bars occur in the early third-century Pergamene treaty with Temnos (IvP 5 = OGIS 265), but this is an isolated instance. On alpha in the Hellenistic period see Fraser, P. M. and Rönne, T., Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones (Lund 1957) 81–91Google Scholar, and on an early occurrence of Α (at Olympia) 87 f. n. 38.

³⁹ IG ii². 945 and 958, both of the second century, have cross-bar thetas. A change in the first half of the second century applies also to Pergamon; cf. C. Paepcke, de Perg. Litt. 15 f.

⁴⁰ If the last surviving line of the text is understood to refer to Attalos' arrival at Aigina, e.g. the decree is perhaps dated to the year 208, shortly after Attalos' arrival for the winter 209/8 (see above, pp. 1–2).

⁴¹ OGIS 227 = Welles, Royal Correspondence 22, lines 5–6.

⁴² OGIS ii. 746 = TAM ii. 266. Cf. Holleaux, M., Études iii. 161Google Scholar (from BCH 1908).

⁴³ On Dionysos Kathegemon see the fundamental study of von Prott, H., AM xxvii (1902) 161 ff.Google Scholar, followed by Ohlemutz 90 ff.

⁴⁴ AM xxxii (1907) 380 f.

⁴⁵ Keil, J., Wien. Anz. xxii (1951) 331–6Google Scholar, no. 1 = SEG xvii 510. For the restoration see Robert, J. and Robert, L., RÉG Bull. Épigr. lxvi (1953) 169Google Scholar, no. 178.

⁴⁶ This recognition is attested by the group of documents studied by Herrmann, P., Ist. Mitt, xv (1965) 71 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See the instances cited by L. Robert. Ét. Anat. 85 n. 3.

⁴⁸ A letter of Attalos II and two letters of Attalos III: IvP248 = Michel, Recueil 46 = OGIS 331 = Welles, Royal Correspondence 65–7.

⁴⁹ Loc. cit. (n. 43) 164.

⁵⁰ Ibid. (n. 43) 162 ff.

⁵¹ This information is derived mainly from the last of the letters of the royal correspondence (see n. 48), written by Attalos III to the city of Pergamon, and dated 5 October 135. For the enshrining of Sabazios with Athena Nikephoros, see lines 51–3, According to the correspondence Athenaios was already priest of Sabazios when he succeeded his father to the priesthood of Dionysos Kathegemon; thus, for a time at least, the two priesthoods were combined in one person. See, on Sabazios, Ohlemutz 269–72.

⁵² See G. Welter, Aigina 119 f. The Aiakos legend is told by Apollodoros iii. 12.6. Pausanias adds that Aiakos was the only known king of the island (ii. 29. 2). Cf. J. G. Frazer on Apollodoros (loc. cit., Loeb ed.) for a full account of the legend and its sources.

⁵³ AM xxxiii (1908) 407, no. 36.

⁵⁴ Cicero, , ad Atticum xii. 45. 3Google Scholar; cf. xvi. 28. 3. On this, and the other points raised concerning temple-sharing, see the study of Nock, A. D., Σύνναος θεός, HarvSt xli (1930) 1 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The site of the Attaleion is not known with certainty; Welter, 's suggestion (AA 1954, 46)Google Scholar rests on insubstantial evidence. Few remains that can confidently be assigned to the Pergamene period have come to light on the island, with the notable exception of some painted graves dating from the middle of the second century B.C.: Karo, G., AA 1931, 274 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economie History of the Hellenistic World iii. 1508 n. 22.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ IvP with addenda ii, p. 510 = Michel, Recueil 515 = OGIS 332. The stone was found at the village of Klisseköy, near the site of ancient Elaia, and is in all probability a decree of that city. See Ohlemutz 89 n. 79; A. D. Nock, loc. cit. (n. 54) 22–5.

⁵⁷ Only an ἄγαλμα was intended to be an object of worship; an εἰκών was offered to the deity on the ruler's behalf. On this distinction, see Hepding, H., AM xxxii (1907) 250 f.Google Scholar; A. D. Nock, loc. cit. (n. 54) 3 n. 2.

⁵⁸ Schol. Ol. vii. 156; Nem. v. 78; Ol. xiii. 155.

⁵⁹ See the decree cited in n. 56, lines 7–9: καθιερῶσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄγαλμα πεντάπηχυ τεθωρακισμέ|νον καὶ βεβηκὸς ἐπὶ σκύλων ἐν τῶι ναῶι τοῦ Σωτῆρος Ἀσκληπιοῦ, ἵνα ἦ[ι]| σύνναος τῶι θεῶι κτλ. At Teos, Apollonis, the queen of Attalos I, was worshipped after her death as σύνναος with Aphrodite (L. Robert, Ét. Anat. 9 ff.).

⁶⁰ On the Attalids and Boiotia, see Fraser, P. M., RÈA liv (1952) 233–45.Google Scholar