Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:19:39.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Standing of Delos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

W. W. Tarn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I am considering two things; the position of Delos as a ‘holy place,’ and the rules of the practice among Greek cities with regard to the grant of a τόπος or site for a stele. From these it follows automatically that the somewhat fashionable dogma of the ‘neutrality’ of Delos is not only (on our present materials) untrue, but is impossible,—it has no chance whatever of being true. It is strange that it should have gained the acceptance it has without any examination of its foundations ever having been made; however, this is so, and it presents rather a striking instance of the effect of mere repetition. Its importance, of course, consists in this, that, if it were true, then the festivals, etc., at Delos can never have any political meaning and we lose our only sure basis for the chronology of the middle of the third century. If this were necessary, one would naturally accept the consequences; the necessity, however, is in fact the other way. I am not going through what others have written; but I have borne in mind Professor Kolbe's argument for Delian neutrality in his drastic reconstruction of this period, a reconstruction which is ingenious, but is unfortunately based on other unsound hypotheses beside the Delian; and I shall notice in their place the four inscriptions with regard to the grant of a site on which he relied as exceptional, but which are really simple illustrations of well-established practice. I am dealing with that practice at some length, as I hope it may possess some interest of its own apart from the theme of this paper, seeing that the rules have never been formulated; but I was glad to find that Professor Wilhelm, who has done so much to elucidate the machinery of setting up decrees, in the two pages which he has incidentally given to the subject, at once noticed what I take to be the important matter, viz. that a question of interstate courtesy is involved.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , 1924 , pp. 141 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1924

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 König's, dissertation, Der Bund der Nesioten (1911)Google Scholar, which is usually cited, made no attempt to get to the root of the matter. For his arguments see my Antigonos Gonatas, App. iv.; I am not going over old ground.

2 G.G.A. 1916, pp. 433–475; see p. 452 seq. Fritze's, Fraülein dissertation, Die ersten Ptolemäer und Griechenland, 1917Google Scholar, and Schoch, article in Neue Jahrb. 1923, p. 77Google Scholar, merely reproduce Kolbe in the material parts.

3 The Delphic hypothesis has been refuted by Pomtow, , Klio, 16, 1920, p. 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See further n. 29.

4 Neue Beiträge, 6, 1921, p. 30. See n. 43.

5 Thuc. 4, 97; Polyb. 5, 9.

6 4, 98:

7 Well-known cases are: Smyrna (c. 242–238), O.G.I. 228, 229; Magnesia on the Maeander, 221/0, a mass of decrees in I. Magnesia; Alabanda (c. 205–202), O.G.I. 234; Teos, c. 203, Michel, 52 to 68; Miletus (c. end third to early second century), Herzog, in Berl. Sitzb. 1905, p. 979Google Scholar, see Syll. 3 467; Cyzicus (same period), Syll.3 1158; Seleuceia in Pieria (before 138/7), O.G.I. 257 and coins. I am not of course talking about ἀσυλία, which was a different matter altogether.

8 Strabo, 8, 537–8; Diod. 8, 1; cf. Polyb. 4, 73 seq.

9 Busolt, l2, p. 613 n. 1; Meyer, , Forschungen, 1, p. 242Google Scholarn. 1; Swoboda, Elis in Pauly-Wissowa.

10 Swoboda, , Staatsaltertümer, p. 257.Google Scholar

11 5, 1: The Athenians expel the Delians from Delos because they are not (as they ought to be) —i.e. the whole people.

12 1. 23. (other cities)

275.

13 44, 29: sanctitas templi insulaeque inviolatos praestabat omnes. Itaque permixti Romanique et Macedones et Eumenis navales socii in tempio, indutias religione loci praebente, versabantur.

14 I.G. xi. 4, 1050; cf. xi. 2, 287 A, 1. 80.

15 I.G. xii. 2, 15, 16; xii. 5, 526, 527; Syll. 3 443. See Wilhelm, , Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1914, p. 84.Google Scholar

16 Aetolia, guarantee (Syll. 3554)Google Scholar to another ‘holy’ city, Magnesia, certainly seems to refer to σῦλα. We have not the terms of the guarantee to Delos, which only mentions ἀσφάλεια.

17 Stengel's statement to the contrary (s.v. ‘asylon’ in Pauly-Wissowa) is a mistake; of his two references, Livy 44, 29 (see n. 13) refers to holiness, not ἀσυλία, and Livy 35, 51 refers to Delium, not Delos.

18 The facts are conveniently collected by Durrbach, , Choix d'Inscriptions de Délos, vol. i. fasc. 1 (1921)Google Scholar, section 1.

19 Athens even accepted arbitration on the subject; to this belongs Hypereides' Delian oration. See Tod, , International Arbitration, 1913, p. 133.Google Scholar

20 Its coins shew it was holy by 138/7; Grypus, who freed it (O.G.I. 257, 1. 14), began to reign 125.

21 O.G.I. 234, Syll. 3 554, 598.

22 It does not seem to occur either in inscriptions or in literature, except as a ‘commonplace’ in rhetoric.

23 See e.g. the section on neutralisation in Philipson, , The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome (1911), 2, p. 301Google Scholar, with the authorities there cited.

24 Polybius' statement is alone perfectly conclusive against permanent neutrality. Kolbe omits to notice the passage.

25 Not a foregone conclusion; a king might reserve his assent. There is nothing, e.g., in I. Magnesia, 19 or 23, to shew that Antiochus or Ptolemy accepted the ‘holiness’ of Magnesia.

26 Those at Teos had been plundered, and were collected from neighbouring villages.

27 I.G. xi. 3, 290, 1. 130; see Durrbach, , Choix, fasc. 1, p. 43Google Scholar, Eidocritos' year, 246. Through the kindness of Professor Durrbach I have seen the whole passage; the restoration is certain.

28 I.G. xi. 4, 694; before 240, Holleaux, , R.E.A. 1912, p. 370.Google Scholar See further Zeno Pap. no. 63, and thereon Edgar, , Annales du service des ant. de l'Égypte, 21, 1921, p. 91Google Scholarn. 1, and Rostovtseff, , A large estate in Egypt (1922), p. 184.Google Scholar

29 Andros, not Cos and Andros. I incline now to return to the Beloch-Ferguson date for Cos, i.e. somewhere in the obscure war which lies between the peaces of 261 and 255, and probably near its end; though the difficulties I felt before still remain. Kolbe's date, c. 260, may not therefore be far out in itself, but he gets it from Rehm's placing of the Miletus, documents I. Delphinion, 139Google Scholar, which can hardly stand; for both scholars have overlooked the inscription, Bull. Soc. Arch. d'Alexandrie, 8 (1905), p. 110, no. 1, which prima facie puts that important set of documents much earlier. They require to be examined again in the light of all the evidence, especially that which dates Callicrates, which I gave, J.H.S. 1911, p. 254; see Syll. 3 420.

30 On this question I have the advantage of a careful statement by ProfessorRoussel, , B.C.H. 1911, p. 441Google Scholar, who gives everything that can be urged against Delos being a member. I need hardly notice König's strange argument, that Delos could not be in the Island League because Delphi was not in the Aetolian, which Kolbe cites (with the Epicrates decree) as the two positive proofs that Delos was neutral. Whether Delphi was in the Aetolian League or not (Swoboda, , Staatsalt. p. 336Google Scholar, argues she was, but I cannot agree), Aetolia sometimes governed her through an epimeletes, and she has therefore no possible bearing on ‘neutrality.’ The real equations are that the Island League stands to Delos as the Amphiktyonic to Delphi, while Aetolia at Delphi plays the same part as Macedonia or Egypt at Delos.

31 Hence if Gythion wanted a site in this temple it had to ask the owners, the priests (I.G. v. 1, 1146 = Syll. 3 748), a proceeding which would be unintelligible did we not know of the sale.

32 Members of the city, like demes, also owned their local hiera, and shew the same practice as cities. I omit these here, though the Rhodian demes are interesting.

33 I.G. ii.2 34, 140, 212, 448, 643 (Athens); vii. 298 (Oropus); Syll. 3 614, 615, 637, 671, 698 A, 711 L, Klio, 15, 24, no. 47 (Delphi); Syll. 3 679 (Magnesia), 709 (Chersonnesus), 426 (Bargylia), 282 and Michel 481 (Priene), M. 520 (Gambreion), 546 (Anisa).

34 I.G. vii. 303, 412, 2849; Syll. 3 725; Supp. Epigr. Gr. 1, 132. See generally Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, 6, 1921, p. 63Google Scholar, with the reconstructed decree of Erythrae, p. 68.

35 I.G. ii.2 450, 1041; vii. 190; xii. 3, 170, 249; xii. 5, 129, 604; xii. 7, 23, 24, 229, 231; Syll. 3 126, 731; O.G.I. 4; Michel, 544; I. Magnesia, 94; Ath. Mitt. 1907, p. 243, no. 4. In O.G.I. 222 the Ionian League request Antiochus I to select the site for his τέμνος.

36 O.G.I. 213 is a case.

37 I.G. ii.2 1048, 1049.

38 I.G. xi. 4, 1022, 1023, 1027, 1054, 1055 (period of freedom); Durrbach, Choix, no. 9 (during Delos' brief independence after the Peloponnesian war).

39 Instances are C.I.G. 2909; I. Priene, 47, 50, 63; I. Magnesia, 90; Wilamowitz, , Nordionische Steine, p. 57Google Scholar, no. 13.

40 I.G. vii. 4131; xi. 4, 1054, 1055; Syll. 3 721, 711 L, 562; G.D.I. 3089, 3619, 5104 (xiii.); Michel, 455, 457; I. Priene, 57, 59; Paton and Hicks, I. Cos, no. 14; Fouilles de Delphes, iii. 2, no. 120; Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1914, p. 180, no. 240.

41 It was the practice at Ephesus to mention explicitly that the Artemision was their record-office, Syll. 3 352, 353, 354. The requests to Magnesia for a place in the stoa, i.e. the building in the agora where so many of the extant decrees were found (I. Magnesia, 64, 67, cf. 101), shews that this building was well known as one of their record offices. Samothrace adopted the cautious practice of asking for a site I. Priene, 68, 70, Michel, 352.

42 Universal. I.G. vii. 19, 20, 21, 4130; v. 1, 1428; xii. 2, 17; xii. 3, 1073; Syll. 3 656, 1158; Michel, 357, 462, 514; I. Magnesia, 15, 97, 101; I. Priene, 57, 61, 71, 77; I. Delphinion, 152, 152a, 153; O.G.I. 437, and 345 + B.C.H. 1911, p. 471; B.C.H. 1913, p. 122, no. 39; Herzog, Koische Forschungen und Funde, no. 190. Variants are I.G. xi. 4, 665, 1027; Michel, 477; Arch. f. Papyrusf. 6, 1920, p. 9.

43 Cf. Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, 6, p. 31Google Scholar: Dagegen wird die Bezeichnung des Platzes, an dem in einer anderen Stadt eine Stele errichtet werden soll, höflicherweise dieser überlassen. (My italics.)

44 Athens, , I.G. ii.21006Google Scholar, 1. 96, 1008, 1. 72, 1009, 1. 57; Sparta, I.G. v. 1, 5; Epidaurus Limera, ib. 932; Ilium, , Syll. 3330Google Scholar, no. 5; Smyrna, , O.G.I. 229, 1. 30.Google Scholar See generally Wilhelm, , Beiträge, p. 261seq.Google Scholar

45 As at Athens nothing could be set up near the statues of Harmodius, and Aristogeiton, , I.G. ii.2450, 646.Google Scholar An exception was made for the statues of Antigonus I and Demetrius.

46 Cf. I.G. xii. 5, 129 (Paros), where a choice is given See Wilhelm, in Festschrift für Otto Benndorf, p. 247.Google Scholar

47 Cf. I. Pergamon, 256, where the city moves an ἀνάθημα elsewhere to make room for a new statue.

48 That a site could be reserved see G.D.I. 3059, Byzantium grants a site

49 I have tried to see every decree accessible to me, except some of the Athenian, where I have relied on indices. Naturally I have missed a certain number; I hope not too many.

50 The fullest directions to envoys are given in I. Priene, 47, 50, 53, 54, 71, and I. Delphinion, 146.

51 Syll. 3 402, 538, 562.

52 I.G. vii. 4130, 4131; G.D.I. 3059; B.C.H. 1900, p. 74; Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1914, p. 180, no. 240.

53 See on this decree Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, 6, p. 4.Google Scholar

54 E.g. the decree of Abdera, , B.C.H. 1913, p. 125Google Scholar, on which see Holleaux, , B.C.H. 1914, p. 63Google Scholar, and Wilhelm, op. cit. p. 30.

55 G.D.I. 3619; I. Magnesia, 15; cf. I.G. xi. 4, 1053. In the rare cases where the reply is a general grant of a site, like Durrbach, Choix, no. 9, no doubt it is understood that the magistrates are to see to it.

56 Syll. 3 538; I.G. IX. ii. 1105 (1); I. Magnesia, 89.

57 On their organisation, etc., see Schulthess, in Pauly-Wissowa (1921).

58 Instances are O.G.I. 225, 266; I. Pergamon, 163.

59 A good instance is the much discussed decree of Athens for king Pharnaces, set up at Delos, , I.G. xi. 4, 1056Google Scholar; whether the formula be a request or an order depends on whether the decree be before or after 166, and not vice versa; its date must be ascertained aliunde.

60 It is strange enough in another way; a long recital in the indicative mood follows the enacting words, and the verb then changes from indicative back to infinitive without warning. Is it quoting another document?

61 Instances of expressed orders being given by a League to a constituent city are Syll. 3 419, the Amphiktyonic League to Delphi, and O.G.I. 222, 1. 25, the Ionian League to the city whose turn it is to celebrate the Alexandreia.

62 Compare the Amphiktyonic, decrees, Syll. 3360 and 729Google Scholar, and O.G.I. 334, with the Delphic, , Syll. 3614Google Scholar, 615, 637, 671, 672, 698 A, and 711 L.

63 See Wilhelm, , Beiträge, p. 260Google Scholarseq.

64 Syll. 3 715; Michel, 553, 554; Wilhelm, , Neue Beiträge, 4, p. 54Google Scholar (decree of Perge).

65 I.G. xi. 4, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1048; xii. 7, 13; Syll. 3 390. The actual phrasing varies a little.

66 The only case I know of to the contrary is a decree of the League, Ionian, Syll. 3368Google Scholar; there αἱ πόλεις does mean all the cities, as one would expect, this League being in the exceptional position that the federal centre, the Panionion, was not in any city and was (as the circumstances of its foundation explain) owned by the League itself (C.I.G. 2909). The fact that Priene could grant σίτησις in the Panionion, (I. Priene, 18, 34, 108, 113, 117, 133)Google Scholar relates to administration, not ownership; Priene did not keep her records there.

67 Temple accounts passim; see I.G. xi. 2, 147 B, 7; 158 B; 161 A, 25; 203 A, 73 seq.; 287 A, 122 seq.; xi. 3, 290, 129. The amounts are substantial; nearly 25,000 dr. in 282, over 15,000 in 250.—It is of course conceivable that the League borrowed through the city of Delos; but it is not probable, for Delos herself provided the security for her borrowings by mortgaging her 2 per cent, import and export duty.

68 Clearly shewn in the loans in I.G. vii. 2405–2406; ib. 1737, 1738; I.G. xii. 9, 7. The practice is shewn by I. Delphinion, 138.

69 Vollgraff, , Mnemosyne, 44, 1916, p. 219Google Scholar, a decree of Argos; Rhodes has lent Argos 100 talents, and the unusual round figure makes it possible that the money was lent by Rhodes and not by a number of Rhodians.—The money advanced by Sparta to the Thirty Tyrants was a political measure, as was Heracleia's advance to Byzantium, Memnon, 51.