Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T00:58:00.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Constitutional Inscription from Cyrene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

M. Cary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The inscription with which this article is concerned was first published by S. Ferri. It has been commented on by Ferri, by Wilamowitz, by Heichelheim, and by De Sanctis. The text reproduced below closely follows that of Ferri, but incorporates a few corrections suggested by Wilamowitz and accepted by De Sanctis.

The main content of the inscription is a series of constitutional regulations. By whom, for whom, and at what date were these issued? Ferri, observing a point of contact between the new constitution and that of the Arcadian Federation as described by Xenophon, and finding evidence in several passages of an overriding control by ‘Ptolemy,’ concludes that the document was drafted c. 250 B.C. by the Arcadian reformers Ecdemus and Demophanes, on behalf of the short-lived Κοινὸν τῶν Κυρηναίων of that period, and subsequently confirmed and amended by Ptoemy III Euergetes. In this opinion he has been followed by Beloch and De Sanctis. But he has been effectively criticised by Heichelheim, who points out (i) that the ‘Alexandrian minae’ mentioned in 11. 9–10 of the text went out of circulation under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and (ii) that the ‘Ptolemy’of our inscription, not being styled ‘king,’ can be none other than Ptolemy I Soter, who did not assume the royal title till 305–304 B.C.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , 1928 , pp. 222 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1925, No. 5.

2 Ibid.

3 Klio, New Series, vol. 3 (1927), pp. 175–182.

4 Rivista di Filologia, 1926, pp. 145–175.

5 Polyb. x. 29; Plutarch, , Arat. 5, 7Google Scholar, Philop. 1.

6 Griechische Geschichte (2nd ed.), iv. 1, 616–7.

7 Cf. Ditt. Syll. 260 and Suppl. Epigr. Graecum, i. 75 (the Hellenic Leagues of Philip and Demetrius); Syll. 647 (Stiris and Medeon as members of the Aetolian Leaeue).

8 Diodorus, xviii. 19–21 points to 322 B.C.; the Marmor Parium, s.v. Philocles, to 321 B.C.

9 On this subject see esp. Plassart, A., Bull. Corr. Hell. 1914, p. 109 ff.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Papyrus Haleneis, ll. 167–170: ἀκούομεν . . . . αὐτὼν εἰς τὰς οἰκιὰς εἰσπηδώντων τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐγβάλλοντας βίαι ἐνοικîν. (The editors (p. 101) ascribe this to unskilful excerpting by a copyist, but give no reason for thinking that the royal ordinance was not quoted in extenso).

11 Herodotus, iv. 161.

12 Syll. 306. The same procedure was no doubt observed at Chios, where νομογράϕοι were appointed by Alexander's order (Hicks and Hill, No. 158).

13 Syll. 344; esp. ll. 43–55, 101–109.

14 For the various meanings of πολίτευμα, see Ruppel, W., Philologus, 1926, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar

15 Beloch, , Die Bevölkerung der griechischrömischen Welt, pp. 259–260.Google Scholar

16 Harpocration, s.v. μυρίανδρος πόλις. A case in point is Hiero's foundation at Aetna (Diodorus 11. 49).

17 The belief that the Spartan Apella was hedged in with an age restriction is probably erroneous. See Busolt, , Griech. Staatskunde (2nd ed.), p. 691, n. 3.Google Scholar

18 Aristotle, , Politics, 1278, a 23.Google Scholar

19 Cf. the low census of 2500 denarii prescribed for Roman jurors at Cyrene in an inscription of 7–6 B.C. Anderson, J. G., Journ. Rom. Stud. 1927, p. 34.Google Scholar

20 Diodorus, 18. 18.

21 According to another inscription published by Ferri (loc. cit. pp. 24–5) Cyrene made a gift of 805,000 medimni of corn to other Greek cities during the famine period 330–325 B.C.

22 Aristotle, , Politics, 1320, b 21–25.Google Scholar

23 Thucydides, viii. 97; Aristotle, , Ἀθ. Πολ., ch. 30Google Scholar. I agree with Ferguson, W. S. (Cambridge Ancient History, v. p. 338) in identifying Thucydides' and Aristotle's constitutions.Google Scholar

24 Cf. the contemporary inscription from Tegea, (Syll. 306)Google Scholar, in which restored exiles receive back τὰ ματρῶια as well as their paternal estates.

25 Politics, 1270, a 23–24.

26 Ἀθ. Πολ. ch. 4. I follow Ziehen, L. (Rhein. Mus. 1899, pp. 321 ff.)Google Scholar in ascribing this chapter to the ἀναγραφεῖς of 409 B.C.

27 Syll. 647, 1. 10.

28 Syll. 364, 1. 38.

29 Bull. Corr. Hell. 1888, p. 27, ll. 4, 14.

30 Pap. Halensis, i. ll. 254–257. The word γείτονες here appears twice, but each time it is a restoration.

31 So the editors of the papyrus (p. 153), followed by Weiss, E., Griechisches Privatrecht, i. p. 250.Google Scholar

32 Ferguson, W. S., Klio, 1911, pp. 265 ff.Google Scholar

33 Ἀθ. Πολ. ch. 29, § 5.

34 According to Aristotle the usual census periods were one, two, or three years (Politics, 1308, a 40). In the Delian Confederacy re-assessments were made every four years ([Xenophon] Ἀθ. Πολ. 3, §5) by commissioners appointed for the occasion (I.G. 2, i. 13).

35 At Athens ten καταλογεῖς were selected from each φυλή (Lysias, 20, § 13). No doubt at Cyrene the τιμητῆρες were likewise selected from the φυλαί, which probably were five in number (§ 3). At Alexandria the five tribes were divided into sixty δῆμοι (Pap. Hibeh, i. 28), and at Heracleia Pontica the citizens were apportioned among sixty ἑκατοστύες (Aeneas Tacticus, 11. 10α). The number of the τιμητῆρες at Cyrene suggests a similar subdivision.

36 Politics, 1320, b 21–25. The date unfortunately is not given. (Perhaps c. 450 B.C., when the first democracy was set up. Heracleides Ponticus, fr. 4, § 4, F.H.G., ii. 212).

36a Pliny, , Epp. x. 79Google Scholar. The ordinance here quoted is the Lex Pompeia. But it is probable that Pompey merely confirmed an existing usage.

37 Prytanies (or their equivalents) can be traced in the βουλαὶ of the following oligarchies: Corinth (Whibley, , Greek Oligarchies, p. 164, n. 2Google Scholar); Delphi (Pomtow, , Philologus, 1898, p. 542Google Scholar); Chios (Collitz-Bechtel, , Griechische Dialekt-Inschriften, 5632 a, bGoogle Scholar); Byzantium (Michel, , Recueil, 535, 1. 62Google Scholar); Massilia (Strabo, p. 179).

38 For an example of life tenure by βουλευταί, cf. Massilia (Strabo, loc. cit.).

39 Ἀθ. Πολ. 30, § 4.

40 For a similar rule relating to executive officials, cf. I.G. xiv. 421 (Tauromenium), where a couple of στρατηγοὶ διὰ πέντε ἐτέων are grouped under each ἐπώνυμος.

41 Aristotle, , Politics, 1317, b 23.Google Scholar

42 Demosthenes, 24. 150; Hicks and Hill, No. 32, 1. 12; Aristotle, , Politics, 1307, b 7.Google Scholar

43 The existence of φυλαὶ at Cyrene is proved by another inscription published by Ferri (loc. cit. p. 21), and by Aristotle, , Politics, 1319, b 22.Google Scholar

44 Loc. cit.

45 From the copious data of Corp. Inscr. Lat. viii, it can be calculated that the average longevity of males in the provinces of Africa, Numidia and Mauretania was forty-seven to forty-eight years, which suggests a somewhat higher proportion of older men.

46 For this device, cf. Aristotle, , Politics, 1294, a 38Google Scholar; Ἀθ. Πολ. 4, § 3, 30, § 6.

47 On the relations of γερουσίαι to βουλαὶ see Keil, B. in Gercke-Norden's Einleitung (2nd ed.), iii. p. 345.Google Scholar

48 So the Areopagus (Ἀθ. Πολ. 3, § 6, and 8, § 2). Cf. Polities, 1298, b 2–3.

49 For other small senates, cf. the thirty γέποντες at Sparta; the thirty βουλευταὶ at Delphi (Bourguet, , L'administration du sanctuaire pythique, p. 44Google Scholar); the sixty ἀμνήμονες at Cnidus (Plutarch, , Quaest. Graec. 4Google Scholar); the Eighty at Argos (Thuc. v. 47); the Ninety at Elis (Aristotle, , Politics, 1306, a 18Google Scholar).

The odd number of γέροντες at Cyrene was, no doubt, as Ferri suggests, on account of its judicial functions. Cf. the fifty-one ἐφέται at Athens.

50 This is only equalled or surpassed, to our knowledge, at Sparta, where the γέροντες were at least sixty years of age.

51 Cf. Sparta, (Politics, 1270, b 39)Google Scholar; Crete (ibid. 1272, a 37); Elis (ibid. 1306, a 18); Cnidus (Plutarch, loc. cit.); the Areopagus (Ἀθ. Πολ. 3, § 6).

52 Instances of probuleumatic γερουσίαι are particularly common in Roman Asia Minor. From Ephesus we have a case which dates back to 302 B.C. (Ditt. Syll. 353.)

53 For the Achaean γερουσία, cf. Polyb. 38. 13, 1.

54 The tendency to confine executive officials to a merely formal part in judicial trials is best illustrated by the law-court practice of Athens. A similar division of functions obtained in Egypt under the early Ptolemies. (Zucker, F., Philologus, Beiheft 12Google Scholar).

55 An instance of much more limited scope may be quoted from the constitution of the Aetolian League, which forbade στρατηγοὶ to influence by means of speeches the decisions of the Assembly on peace and war (Livy, 35. 25, 7).

56 Cf. inscriptions published by Ghislanzoni, E. in Rendiconti dei Lincei, “Classe morale, etc.,” ser. vi. 1, pp. 418–421Google Scholar, and an inscription from Benghazi (Ferri, loc. cit. p. 18).

57 Plaumann, G., in Pauly-Wissowa, , s.v. ἱερεῖς, viii. 2, col. 1415.Google Scholar

58 On the relation of the Attalids to Pergamum, see Cardinali, , Il regno di Pergamo, pt. ii. chs. 5–8.Google Scholar

In Demetrius' κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων there is mention of ὁ ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων ἀποδεδειγμένος στρατηγός. Suppl. Epigr. Gr. i. 75, ll. 16–17.

59 Plaumann, , Ptolemais in Oberägypten, p. 28.Google Scholar

60 This was the rule at Athens before the Macedonian era (Ἀθ. Πολ. 61, § 1).

61 Heracl. Ponticus, fr. 31; F.G.H. ii. p. 222.

62 Plutarch, , Aratus, 16, 20, 30, 38Google Scholar; Dubois, M., Les lignes achéenne et étolienne, p. 201.Google Scholar

63 Bourguet, op. cit. p. 47.

64 For other instances, cf. the ταγεία and the στρατηγία in Thessaly (Michel, , Recueil, 1281EGoogle Scholar; I.G. ix. 2, 544); and the στρατηγία in Ilium (Or. Gr. Inscr. 218, 1. 70).

65 Suppl. Epigr. Gr. i. 75.

66 Ἀθ. Πολ. 43, § 4.

67 Ghislanzoni, loc. cit.

68 Lex. Cantabr., s.v. νομοφύλακες.

69 Ferguson, loc. cit.

70 Aristotle, , Politics, 1298, b 29, 1323, a 8.Google Scholar

71 Ditt. Syll. 656, ll. 35, 39.

72 Gärtringen, Hiller v., Inschr. v. Priene, 3, ll. 17–19.Google Scholar

73 Corcyra: I.G. ix. 1. 694, I. 104; Demetrias: Ditt. Syll. 1157; Ilium, , Athen. Mitteilungen, xxiv. p. 451Google Scholar. Other boards of νομοφύλακαες are cited by Cardinali (op. cit. p. 270, n. 1); but little can be ascertained as to their powers.

74 Pap. Lille, i. 29, col. 1, 1. 12.

75 I.G. xii. 2, 484 (Mytilene).

76 I.G. ix. 2, 1108–1109.

77 The existence of νομοφύλακες at Halicarnassus has recently been proved by C. C. Edgar, The Zenon Papyri, No. 59, 037 (258–257 B.C.) This office was in the gift of Ptolemy's Minister, Apollonius, and there fore was, no doubt, of some importance.

78 Lysias, xii. 43.

79 I.G. v. 1, 50–77.

80 Polyb. 4. 4, 2.

81 I.G. xiv. 645.

82 I.G. xii. 3. 322, 336.

83 Fr. 4, § 5. F. H. G. ii. 212.

84 From Benghazi, of early third century B.C. (Ferri, loc. cit. p. 18).

85 Other examples of executive officials exercising probuleutic functions may be cited from Megara (αἰσιμνάται— I.G. vii. 15), Argos, (ἀρτυναι—Thuc. v. 47Google Scholar; I.G. iv. 554. 2); Epidaurus, (ἂρτυοι—Plut. Quaest. Gr. 1)Google Scholar; and the Euboean towns of Carystus, , Chalcis, , Eretria, , and Histiaea, (πρόβουλοι—I.G. xii. 9.Google Scholar 2, 207, 223; xii. 5. 594). A small board of probuleutic officials was regarded by Aristotle as an oligarchic institution (Politics, 1299, b 34).

86 In the third-century inscription from Benghazi (Ferri, p. 18) the βουλή (confirmed, no doubt, by the μύριοι), confers a προξενία.

87 The limitation of active franchise to ‘One Thousand’ is also attested in Acarnania, Acragas, Colophon, Aeolian Cyme, Heraclea Pontica, the two towns of Locri, and Rhegium. (Busolt, , Griech. Staatskunde, 2nd ed., p. 355, 1465Google Scholar). But all of these, except Acragas and perhaps Heraclea, were small compared with Cyrene.

88 Politics, 1319, b 14–18.

89 The στρατηγοὶ of the early Ptolemies in Egypt played much the same part (Zucker, op. cit.). The Athenian στρατηγοὶ had a small independent jurisdiction (Lipsius, , Attischer Prozess, pp. 113–114).Google Scholar

90 For numerous other instances of Greek βουλαὶ acting as courts of law, cf. Swoboda, , Griech. Staatsaltertümer, pp. 134–135.Google Scholar

91 Lipsius, op. cit. pp. 176 ff.

92 For similar precautions taken by the Athenians within the Delian Confederacy, cf. Hicks and Hill, 32, ll. 28–29; 40, ll. 73–76. The cases referred to Ptolemy would no doubt be heard by proxy. Similarly in Egypt numerous petitions addressed ‘βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίῳ’ never reached the king in person.

93 Ἀθ. Πολ. 48, § 5.

94 Aristotle, , Politics, 1298, b 6.Google Scholar

95 καταστᾶμεν ἐς ϕυλὰν καὶ πάτραν ἐς θ’ ἑννέα ἑταιρηίας.—In the ‘stele dei fondatori,’ ll. 15–16 (Ferri, pp. 20–21).

96 Strabo, p. 483; Code of Gortyn 10. 38; Ditt. Syll. 527, l. 125; Plutarch, Lycurgus, 12.

97 Aristotle, , Politics ii. 9, p. 1271a, l. 28 ff.Google Scholar

98 Recueil des Inscrs. Juridiques Grecques, i. pp. 410 ff.

99 Cf. the third-century inscription (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1893, p. 555), recording a grant of ἀτίλεία to teachers.

100 Pap. Halensis, i. ll. 260–265: διδάσκαλοι τῶν γραμμάτων and παιδότριβαι exempt from salt tax.

101 πολυδικία a misdemeanour: Heracl. Ponticus, 4, § 5. F.G.H. ii. 212.

102 Aristotle, , Politics, 1278, a 2–5, 1321, a 28Google Scholar: θῆτες disfranchised in oligarchies; at Thebes traders lose the ‘ius honorum.’ Cf. also Xenophon, , Oeconomicus, 4, § 3.Google Scholar

103 Pap. Halensis, i. ll. 124–150.

104 Suppl. Epigr. Graecum, i. 75, ll. 6–11.

105 Hicks and Hill, 164.

106 Ditt. Syll. 306.

107 Ll. 37–38.

108 I.G. i.2 40, ll. 10–12; J.H.S. 1925, pp. 246–249.

109 Diodorus, xi. 72–73.

110 Pap. Halensis, i. ll. 166–185.

111 Ibid.; Pap. Tebtunis, i. 6, ll. 99–101.

112 Ditt. Syll. 331 (306 B.C.).

113 Inschr. v. Priene, 21–22.

114 Hicks, 189, l. 8.

115 Ditt. Syll. 241, ll. 150–162.

116 Cavvadias, P., Ἐφημ. Ἀρχαιολ. 1918–1919, pp. 124–128.Google Scholar

117 Hicks and Hill, 158.

118 Ditt. Syll. 344, ll. 43 ff.

119 Suppl. Epigr. Gr. i. 75. In particular, Ptolemy did not exploit for himself the distinction between peace-time and wartime conditions, as Demetrius did.

120 Diodorus, xviii. 22.

121 On this subject see Plaumann, op. cit., and Schubart, , Klio, 1910, pp. 41–71.Google Scholar Cf. also Ditt. Syll. 390, in which the κοινὸν τῶν νησιωτῶν thanks the first two Ptolemies for ‘freeing the cities and restoring their laws.’