American Journal of Ancient History (Vol 7.1) 9781463206741, 1463206747

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

7.1

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 7.1 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1982 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0674-1

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

P.J. Rhodes:Problemsin AthenianEisphoraand Liturgies .......................

1

Robert J. Rowland, Jr.: Beyondthe Frontierin Punic Sardinia..................

20

D.R. ShackletonBailey: Who is Junia? ..............................................

40

Daniel R. Schwartz:Apollonius,Son of Menestheus: WhoseAmbassador?.. 45 RichardA. Billows:The Last of the Scipios........................................

53

A.M. Eckstein:Human Sacrificeand Fear of Military Disasterin RepublicanRome ...................................................................

69

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

P.J. Rhodes:Problemsin AthenianEisphoraand Liturgies .......................

1

Robert J. Rowland, Jr.: Beyondthe Frontierin Punic Sardinia..................

20

D.R. ShackletonBailey: Who is Junia? ..............................................

40

Daniel R. Schwartz:Apollonius,Son of Menestheus: WhoseAmbassador?.. 45 RichardA. Billows:The Last of the Scipios........................................

53

A.M. Eckstein:Human Sacrificeand Fear of Military Disasterin RepublicanRome ...................................................................

69

PROBLEMS

IN ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

AND

LITURGIES

In thispaperI considerthreeproblemson whichtherehasbeenrecent discussion.

(I) J.K. Davies hasarguedthat the limitationswhich are attestedfor the fourth century to a man's obligationto perform liturgies did not existin the fifth, andthatbeforethe reformof thetrierarchyby Periander in 358/7 both the trierarchyand festivalliturgieswere performedby a narrowclassof 200-400 rich men. In replyI arguethatthe restriction did already exist in the fifth centuryand that the burdenswere borne by 1,200 or more men, so that the effect of Periander'slaw was not to extendliability for the trierarchyto more men but to distributethe burden more evenly among the same number of men. (II) It is normally believedthat the symmoriesusedafter 358/7 for the trierarchywere differentfrom the symmoriesusedsince378/7 for the collectionof eisphora, and that the classof men liable for eisphora was wider than the class of men liable for the trierarchy and other liturgies. E. Ruschenbusch and C. Moss6 have arguedthat there was a singleclassof men liable both for eisphoraand for the trierarchy, andthat after 358/7 the samesymmorieswere usedfor bothpurposes, but I argue that the normal view is to be preferred. (III) Davieshassuggested that the Thousandmentionedin fragments of LysiasandIsaeuswerea bodyof property-owners liablefor eisphora, and that the diadikasia-documents

of the late 380s were concerned with

membershipof thisbody:I accepthis interpretationof the documents, but if the conclusionsof my sectionsI and II are correcta body of that size will have been too large to be a body of payersof proeisphora, but too smallto be the bodyof all payersof eisphora,and moreprobably the Thousandwere listedin connectionwith the trierarchyor with all liturgies.The exceptional procedurefor theeisphoraof 362, based on reportsby the bouleutaiof propertyin their demes,I regardas an attemptto producea more completeregisterof propertythan had been obtainedfrom declarationsby the property-owners.

¸ 1985 by E. Badian. All rightsreserved.

2

P.J. RHODES

In a discussion of theliturgicalclassin Athens• J.K. Daviesmaintains (a) that the fourth-century limit of a man'sobligationto one festival liturgyin twoyears(Dem. 20 (Lept.)8) andto onetrierarchyin three (Isae.7 (Her. Apoll.)38, quotedbelow)didnotapplyin thefifthcentury; 2 (b) that"listsof trierarchscertainlyexistedandwerecontinuously kept

up to dateby the generals"; 3 (c) thattherewereno comparable lists for festivalliturgiesbutto a considerable extenttheperformance of these

liturgieswasoptional•4 (d) thatit wasaninnovation in Periander's law of 358/7 to makeas manyas 1,200 menliable for the trierarchy,and previouslythenumberliablehadbeenin the range200-400;s (e) that the classof menperformingfestivalliturgieswasmorefluid, but in practice wasaboutthesame,200-300men.6 Thesepointsrequirefurther discussion.

(a) On comingof age in 411/0 the speakerof Lys. 21 (Pec. Acc.) "embarked on a liturgical career of an intensityand expensiveness unparalleledin Athenianhistory", includinga largenumberof festival liturgies, more than oncetwo in the sameyear, and (õ2) sevenyears' continuousservice as trierarch.? However, sincethis was altogether exceptional,and sincehe claimsthat he would not have spenta quarter of what he did spendif he had limitedhimselfto what was required by the letter of the law (d gl•ov•,O[tqv }ca'c•t x•t y•ypa•t•t•vagvxC? v6•t• •,a'couo7giv, õ5), his careerdoesnot prove that limits to what couldbe requiredof a man did not yet exist: indeed,the clausequotedsuggests that somelimits did exist. The elder Thrasyllusof Leuconoeum"performed all the other liturgies, and servedall the time as trierarch, (i) notthrougha symmoryasmendo nowbut spendinghis own resources, (ii) not as one of a pair but on his own, (iii) not taking two yearsoff but continuously,(iv) not doingit perfunctorilybut providingas well as he could" (Isae. 7 (Her. Apoll.) 38) (delivered354). In the first of the four claimswhich I have numberedthere is an explicit and correct referenceto the presentday:thetrierarchywasperformedthroughsymmoriesin the time when the speechwas delivered,but was not in the time of Thrasyllus.The secondis lessclear: immediatelybeforethe adoptionof symmoriesfor the trierarchyjoint trierarchieswerebecoming increasinglycommon but were not invariable, but in the time of Thrasyllussingletrierarchieswere still the rule;8 the speakermay be assuming thatfact, andcontrasting theburdenin Thrasyllus'time with theburdenin more recenttimes,or he may be claimingthatThrasyllus virtuouslyperformedthetrierarchyaloneat a time whenothersdid not.

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

The last of the four claims, that Thrasylluswas not perfunctory,is certainly a claim that he personallywas virtuousand not that he lived in timeswhenthe burdenwas heavy.The third claim is that Thrasyllus did nottaketwo yearsin threeoff but servedcontinuously:it is at least possiblethat this like the fourth is a claim that Thrasylluswas virtuous and not that in his time the burden was heavier than it became later.

There is thus no evidencethat obligationswere not limited in the fifth century,andan indicationin Lysiasthat they possiblywere. It may be that originally there was one year's exemptionafter the performance of any liturgy, and that the longer exemptionafter the trierarchy, like theinstitutionof joint trierarchies,wasa concession madeastheburden becametoo heavy for many men to bear.9 (b) From 357 onwardsthere was a definite list of men liable for the trierarchy, and by the time of Ath. Pol. one of the ten generals,the ozpazrl•bq •i z/xq ou[t[top•aq, was responsible for registering (•caza•gyetv)the trierarchs(61.1). Beforethe creationof that postthe responsibilitypresumablylay with the generals--eitherthe boardas a whole or the generalswho were to commanda particularexpedition.

All but one of the textscitedby Daviesrefer to the periodafter 357; the remainingone, Ar. Eq. 912-3(-8) with schol., tells us only that a generalcouldhavea manappointedtrierarch(andgivena badship). The inscribedDecree of Themistoclesrequiresthe generalsto appoint two hundredtrierarchsfromthosewhohaveland,a houseandlegitimate sonsand who are not over fifty yearsold, and to allot shipsto them (Meiggs-Lewis23.18-23). •0What we needto knowis how the generals set aboutfindingtrierarchsbefore 357. In dealingwith the archon's appointmentof chorggoiAth. Pol. says:"He appointschorggoifor the tragedians,the three richestfrom all the Athenians(zO•iq• (xxt•vzc0v 'A0rlvaic0v zobqn•ouotc0zt•zouq); previouslyhe usedto appointfive for the comedians,but now the tribessupplythem" (56.3). I shouldguess thattherewasa similarrulethatthegeneralswereto appointtherichest Athenians as trierarchs. The number neededwill have varied, accord-

ing to the numberof shipswhichthe Atheniansneededor thoughtthey mightneedto sendto sea;• probablytherewere listsof men who had servedrecently,astherewerelistsof menwhohadservedashoplites,•2 but I suspectthere was no completelist of men who were liable; volunteerswill alwayshavebeenaccepted;it may have beenpossible for one man to nominateanother,as it was for festival liturgies(cf. Andocides,citedõc,below);andprobablyin thelastresortthegenerals could themsalves nominate men and leave it to them to initiate an antidosis

or diadikasiaif theythoughttheir nominationwasunfair (cf. Ath. Pol.

4

P.J. RHODES

61.1). We shouldperhapsconcludefrom Dem. 20 (Lept.) 19 (of 355/4) that a trierarchytook precedenceover a festivalliturgy if a man was nominatedfor both, andthatmenwho fell shortof somestatedrequirement for liability were legally exemptfrom liturgies;sincetrierarchs not merely fundedtheir shipsbut commandedthem, the rich Athenians whowereregistered ascavalrymen oughtalsoto havebeenexemptfrom the trierarchy.13 (c) Probablythe legal positionconcerningchor[goi wasthe sameas that concerningtrierarchs:the statementin Ath. Pol. that the archon appoints(•a0fOTrlm)chor[goi for the tragedians,conductsantidoseis andintroduces sk[pseisfor chor[goisuppliedby the tribes (56.3) is parallel to the statementthat the oT0a•n•,6q•ni •q ou[t[toofaqregisterstrierarchs, conductsantidoseisand introduces diadikasiaifor them(61.1), andtheveryfactthatantidoseis andsk•pseis wereavailableindicatesthata manmightfind himselfappointedagainst his will. TMAntiphon's chor•gos says that he "was appointed" (•a•o•0rlV, Ant. 6 (Chor.) 11); Andocides,to showthat his enemies did not genuinelyregardhim as defiled, saysthat they proposedhim for liturgies(1 (Myst.) 132). Probably,asI havesuggested for thetrierarchy, volunteerscould be accepted,one man could nominateanother, or in the last resort the archon would nominate

a man or the tribal

assemblywould elect him, and leave it to him to initiate an antidosis or sk•psisif he objected.We learn from Dem. 21 (Mid.) 13 that the tribal mechanismfor appointingchor•goi involved officials called epimel•tai, and that on one occasionwhen his tribe had failed to elect a chorigosDemosthenesvolunteeredto serve.•5 Davies (Wealth 25-6) drawsattentionto thefactthatsomemenfrom whosepropertywe should expectthem to perform liturgiesdid not do so, and I agreewith him that "the elementof choice,and of appealto, and relianceupon, the generosityandphilotimia of the individual, alwaysformeda very far from negligiblepart of the system";but I attachmoreimportancethan he doesto hiscommenton Midias' careerthat "men couldup to a point choose,evenwith thetrierarchy[my italics],whetherto performa particularliturgy or not." At timeswhenAthenswassendingmanyships to sea she will have neededmore trierarchsthan chor•goi, and the pressureto serveon thosewhosewealth qualified them to do so will have been greater, so it may be that fewer rich men slippedthrough

thetrierarchicthanthroughthe choregicnet, but I do notthinkthere was any differencein principlebetweenthe appointmentof chor•goi and the appointmentof trierarchsbefore 357. •6 (d) If it was never obligatoryfor a man to perform more than one

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

liturgy in two years(õa, above), we needto allow a larger numberof potential performersbefore 357 than Davies does: at least c. 800, to provide300 trierarchsand 100 chorggoiin eachof two years.•?This shouldnot causesurprise:statisticscannotbe adduced,but it will be generallyagreedthat Athenshad a larger citizenpopulationbeforethe PeloponnesianWar than after,•8 that the general level of wealth was higher, and probablythat there was less of a gulf betweena limited numberof very richfamiliesandtherestof thecitizenbody;•9we should expectto find a larger numberof men capableof performingliturgies withoutserioushardship.In thefourthcenturyAthensdid notmansuch large fleets,2øbut with the increasinguse of joint trierarchsshe will havehad to draw on a pool of aboutthe samesize as earlier. The 1,200 of 357 wasa grosstotal,nota nettotalafterdeductingtheexempt(Dem. 14 (Symm.) 162•), and I suspectthat the effect of Periander'slaw was not to increasethe numberof mensharingthe burdenof the trierarchy but to distributethe burdenin a differentway amongthe samenumber of men.

(e) I agreewith Daviesthat chorggoicamefrom the samesetof men as trierarchs, with the one proviso that, whereasthe membersof the cavalryoughtto havebeenexemptfrom the trierarchy(õb, above),there is no reasonwhy they should not have performed festival liturgies. However,evenwithoutthecavalry,I believewe aredealingwith a much larger set of men than Davies allows. If this is so, his graph of the distributionof propertyin Athenswill have to be redrawn, with 1,200 or more men rather than 300 worth

at least 3-4 talents in the fourth

century.22

From 357 thoseliable for the trierarchywere definedasthe 1,200 richest citizens,lessthosewho couldclaim exemption;eachyear the total costs of the trierarchy were distributedequally amongthesemen; and for

administrative convenience themenweregroupedin twentysymmories (ouggoo[ott).In 354 Demosthenes proposedthat the list shouldbe enlargedto 2,000, so as to leave 1,200 active membersafter the exempt had beendeducted;that there shouldbe twenty symmoriesas at present,eachcontainingsixty activemembers;that eachsymmoryshould be dividedinto five merg, with eachmeroscontainingtwelve active membersandeachrepresenting thesameamountof wealth;thatwhatever numberof shipsAthensneededto put to seashouldbe distributedevenly over the hundredmerg (and, it is implied, the membersof the merg

6

P.J. RHODES

shouldcontribute in proportionto theirwealth24); sincethetotaltimgma (assessment) of Athenswas 6,000 talents,eachmeroswould represent

a timgmaof 60 talents(Dem. 14 (Symm.)16-19;cf. on post-357practice21 (Mid.) 155). Probablyin 340, Demosthenes didreformthesystem: the list was not enlargedto 2,000 but reducedto 300 (Hyp. fr. 160 Sauppe= 134 Jensen/Kenyon--43.iBurtt; cf. Aesch.3 (Ctes.)222, Din. 1 (Dem.) 42), andthe memberscontributedin proportionto their wealth (Dem. 18 (Cor.) 102-9). Aeschinesmay have beenresponsiblefor an amendmentor a furtherchange(Aesch.3 (Ctes.) 222, Dem. 18 (Cor.) 312, contradicting theimplicationin 107thatDemosthenes' law remained in force). Symmorieswere also used for the collectionof the property tax (eisphora),andDemosthenes wasenrolledby his guardiansin a symmory on his father's death in 376/5 (e.g. Dem. 27 (Aphob. 1.) 7): it will be thesesymmoriesto which Philochorusreferred when he wrote thatthe Athenianswere first dividedinto symmoriesin 378/7 (FGrHist 328 F 41). Two differentviewshavearisenof the relationshipbetween the liturgic classandthe eisphora-paying class,andbetweenthe trierarchic symmoriesand the eisphora-symmories. The current orthodoxy,which goesback to F.A. Wolf's edition of Demosthenes20 and the first editionof A. B6ckh'sStaatshaushaltung derAthener,is thatthe eisphora-paying classwaswiderthantheliturgic class,andthatthereweretwo independent setsof symmoriesfor eisphora andfor the trierarchy.24Cleidemus,whoseAtthiscannotbe datedprecisely within the fourth century, wrote that when Cleisthenescreated

thetentribestheywereorganised in fifty naukrariai,"just asnowthey are divided into the hundredmerg called symmories"(FGrHist 323 F 8): the hundredsymmoriesare held to be the eisphora-symmories of 378/7; andA.H.M. Jonessuggested thatthey, like the trierarchicsymmories,had sixty membersandthat therewere therefore6,000 payers of eisphora.25Hyperides'remarkthattherewere fifteen menin a symmory (fr. 173 Sauppe--159Jensen/Kenyon=25Burtt, from Harp. ou•ooitt)

will then be dated after 340 and be taken to show, as Har-

pocrationtook it to show, that there were still twenty symmoriesof trierarchs

at that time. 26

RecentlyE. Ruschenbusch and C. Mossdhave soughtto revive the view of G.F. Schoemann that the eisphora-paying classwas more or less27the sameasthe liturgicclass,andthatthe samesetof symmories was used after 357 both for eisphoraand for the trierarchy.28 They believethatCleidemuswaswriting c. 350, andthathis "hundredmerg called symmories"are the hundredmergof Demosthenes14, which

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

musthavebeenadoptedeventhoughthe wholeof the proposalmade in that speechwas not. They do not discussHyp. fr. 173. I considerthe argumentsin the orderin whichthey are presentedby Ruschenbusch.

(a) The oratorsinvariably speakof symmoriestout court, not of eisphora-symmories or trierarchicsymmories;andthereis no suggestion in the lexica that there were two kinds of symmory.29 However, what the readercanbe assumedto understanddoesnot need

to be explained.In almostall referencesto symmoriesin complete speeches, wherethe wordscanbe readin context,it is perfectlyclear whethereisphoraor the trierarchyis underconsideration. There are threeexceptions. 3øAesch.1 (Tim.) 159presents a metaphorical usage, wherethe sourceof the metaphordoesnotmatter.Dem. 18 (Cor.) 103, 312, refersto the leaders(hggemones), secondsandthirdsof the symmories in connectionwith the trierarchic reform of 340: for purposes of eisphorathe threehundredrichestAthenianswere distributedamong

the hundredsymmorieswhich were certainlyusedfor eisphora,to advance asproeisphora moneywhichtheywouldthenreclaimfromtheir colleagues (cf. [Dem.]42 (Phaen.)25); in thatconnection thethreehundred were a known set of men, and the same set of men was now to

beartheburdenof thetrierarchy. 3•Dem. 14 (Symm.)16-19(summarised above),which is certainlyconcernedwith the trierarchy,appliesto it a timgma of 6,000 talents, which was the timgma on which eisphora

wasbased(õ27, cf. Polyb. 2.62.7, with a figureof 5,750 talents):but the reasonfor this may be that the timgmafor eisphorawas a readily availablefigurebut no onehadcalculatedthe totaltimgmaof the men liablefor thetrierarchy;andDemosthenes is in anycaseusingthefigure dishonestly, sincemanyof therichest1,200areexemptfromthetrierarchyandto achieve1,200 actualcontributors he is proposingto extend liabilityto men who are lessrich. In the passages from Harpocration whichRuschenbusch lists it is againperfectlyclear whethereisphora or thetrierarchyis underdiscussion, exceptin the oneentryou[t[topia, which is simplyan unsortedcollectionof the referencesto symmories which the lexicographerfound. (b) Isoc. 15 (Anti&) 145 (of 354/3 or slightlyearlier32)refersto "the 1,200 who pay eisphoraand performliturgies": Ruschenbusch cites four menwho were or oughtto havebeenin the liturgicclassbut who are allegednot to have paid eisphora;and, notingthe referenceto the timgmafor eisphorain Demosthenes14 (õa above),he concludesthat the 1,200 were the payersof eisphora,and observesthat 1,200 men

8

P.J. RHODES

with 4 talents each would have a t/mgma of 4,800 talents, or 600 with 4 talents + 300 with 5 talents + 300 with 6 talents would have a timdma

of 5,700 talents.33Now Ruschenbusch's samplefigures, with the conclusionsof Davies on which they are based, certainly suggestthat it cannothavetakenas many as 6,000 men to producea timgmaof 6,000 talents,as Jonessupposed(cf. above);but if fewer men than he suggestspossessed appreciablymorethan4 talents,andif men seta lower valueontheirpropertywhendeclaringit for eisphorathanwhenclaiming it in a lawsuit,it is possiblethat about2,000 men were neededto producea timgmaof 6,000 talentsand that a significantnumberof men escapedliturgiesby a narrowmarginbut did not escapeeisphora..As for the four men cited by Ruschenbusch who allegedly did escape eisphora,it may be that the allegationsare untrue,34or it may be that they escapedbut ought not to have done, that they seriouslyunderdeclaredtheir propertybut were not exposeduntil the speecheswhich Ruschenbusch

cites were delivered.

When

Isocrates

refers to a class

of richAthenians as "the 1,200whopayeisphoraandperformliturgies", thisdoesnotprovethat the two obligationsare coextensive:theremay be a classof not quite so rich Athenianswho pay eisphorabut do not perform liturgies. (c) Ruschenbusch repeatsthe argumentof J.H. Lipsiusthat, since after 357 thoseliable for the trierarchywere not the 1,200 but the 1,200 lessthosewho couldclaim exemption,the 1,200 as a distinctcategory musthavebeencreatedfor somepurposeotherthanthe trierarchy:we know that the estatesof epiklgroiand the like were not exemptfrom eisphora,and so that purposemay well have beeneisphora.3sThis is not, I think, conclusive.Epikl•roi andthe like are exemptedfrom the trierarchy (and from festival liturgies) becausethey can provide the moneythat is neededbut not the personalservicethat is neededalso; but an estatewhichbelongsto an epikl•rostodaywill one day belong to an adultmale citizenagain, so althoughfor immediateusea net list of activecontributorsis of morevaluethana grosslist of potentialcontributorsit is notimpossible thatin reformingthetrierarchytheAthenians shouldhave taken a longer view and have startedwith a grosslist of potentiallytrierarchic estates.36 (d) Ruschenbusch and Moss• claim that parts of Demosthenes'proposalof 354 were adopted:that eachof the twenty symmoriesshould be split into five mer• (which couldthemselvesbe called symmories, theyconcludefrom the referenceto "the twentylargesymmories" !•Td;•cov'c•v •[•:oot ou[t[to0t•v) in Dem. 14 (Symm.) 19, cf. 21); 36and (Ruschenbusch adds)thatparticularshipsshouldbe assigned to particular

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

"small symmories".They take Cleidemus'referenceto a hundredsymmories to have been written c. 350 (cf. above), and note that the three hundred who stood to lose from Demosthenes'

reform of 340 were the

"leaders, secondsand thirds" of a hundred symmories(õa, above);

andRuschenbusch remarksthatinIG II 2 1615+ 1617+ 1618+ 1619,1616 and 1625 (which he dates 353-348) all triremes are assignedto symmoriesand more than twenty symmoriesexist simultaneously. 37 It would be wrong to insistthat at any one momentthe word "symmory"shoulddenoteonlyonekind of unit (seepp. 10 f., below),though Demosthenes14, while calling the twenty symmories"large" to point the contrast between them and the smaller merg, never calls the smaller

units "symmories". EnoughhasbeensaidaboveaboutCleidemusand Demosthenes 18: theyshowthatby 340 a hundredsymmories werebeing usedfor eisphora,but they do not showthat a hundredsymmorieswere everusedfor thetrierarchy,andHypeddesfr. 173 is mosteasilyinterpretedas showingthat twenty symmoriescontinuedto be usedfor the trierarchy. Full discussionof the navy lists must await D.R. Laing's promisedrepublicationof them. Ruschenbusch has taken accountof Laing's combinationof four lists from IG, but not of his view that the resultingtext shouldbe datedvery closeto 357/6, presumablybefore rather than after Demosthenes 14; and of course if a hundred "small

symmories"hadbeenadoptedfor the trierarchytherewould havebeen a one-to-onecorrespondence betweenshipsand symmoriesonly when a hundredshipswere in use. The explanationof the inscriptionsmay be that in a few lists "symmory" was usedof the group (of whatever size) of men responsiblefor one ship. There are some texts to which Ruschenbusch and Moss6 seem not

to do justice. Dem. 20 (Lept.) 28 statesunambiguously:"Those whoseproperty is belowthevaluesetfor thetrierarchycontributeto thewar in eisphorai, while thosewho reachthe trierarchiclevel are usefulto you for both purposes,performingthe trierarchyandpayingeisphora." This directly contradicts the conclusion which Ruschenbusch and Moss6 draw from

Isoc. 15 (Anti&) 145 (õb, above). Ruschenbusch, while on the whole he thinksof the trierarchicclassand the eisphora-paying classas the same,doesallow for a smallcategoryof men within the 1,200 but too poor to serve as trierarchs. Dem. 14 (Symm.) 16 lists as thoseof the 1,200 who are exemptfromthetrierarchyepiklgroi,orphans,cleruchic properties,propertiesowned in partnership,39 "and any one who is unable" (•cot• • -ctq(x86va-coq). Ruschenbusch acceptsan interpretation

1o

P.J. RHODES

which goesbackto B6ckh, that &b6va'roqrefersto financialinability,4ø and suggests that in a singlesystemof symmoriesthosewhoseproperty qualifiedthem for eisphorabut not for the trierarchycould easily be listedwith a distinguishing mark.41However, all the otherexemptions listed by Demosthenesare for caseswhere the propertyqualifiesfor the trierarchybut for goodreasonpersonalservicecannotbe demanded: &bOva'roq can refer to financialdisability,but it neednot invariablydo so, andI suspectthat hereit refersto personalinability to serve. Those whosepropertyqualifiedfor eisphorabut not for the trierarchyshould have been outside the 1,200.

Ruschenbusch and Mossf do not discussHyperides fr. 173, the text mentionedabovewhich statesthat therewere fifteen men in a symmory. On the view that there were alwaystwenty trierarchicsymmories,this can be accommodated

to our other evidence if it is taken to refer to

the trierarchy after Demosthenes'reform of 340: I do not know how they would deal with it. 42 A text mentionedby Mossf but not by Ruschenbuschis [Dem.] 47 (Ev. et Mnes.) 21, whichrefersto Periander'slaw of 358/7 as the law "in accordancewith which the symmorieswere organised" (•:a0' 8v 0t[ ov•t•opf,0ttovvg'rdtZ0rlo0tv). According to Mossf, this "ne fait pas fitatde la crfationde nouvellessymmories";butthe speechwasdelivered within a few yearsof 358/7, and I find it hard to believethat that verb shouldhave been usedif the law had not creatednew symmoriesbut had given an additional function to symmorieswhich had been in existencefor twenty years. In addition,a point of principleneedsto be made. It is easyfor those who are not native speakersof a languageto be more rigid about its use than thosewho are. It is easy for us who are not native speakers of classical Greekto recognise "symmory"asa technicalterm, sospecial that we cannottranslateit but reproducea form of the Greek word in our own language,andto feelthattherecannothavebeendifferentkinds of symmoryin Athens.In fact the word was alreadyknown in Athens before 378/7: Xenophonusesit of a division of the Athenian fleet at thebattleof Arginusae(Hell. 1.7.30). Eisphoraandthetrierarchywere bothwaysof makingtherichestcitizenscontribute to thestate'smilitary expenses,but theywere two separateinstitutions--onepurelya tax and the other a liturgy calling for personal service as well as expenditure4't--and they could well have been imposedon different classesof citizens.It may seemlessparadoxicalif we summonup the courageto translateov[t[topi0tas "contributiongroup", and say that there is no reasonwhy there shouldnot have beendifferentcontribu-

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

11

tion groupsfor differentkindsof contribution.Meros ("division") is of coursea commonword: when Cleidemussaysthat the citizensare divided into a hundreddivisionscalled symmories,and Demosthenes proposesthat eachof the twentylarge groupsof trierarchscalledsymmoriesshouldbe splitinto five divisions,makinga hundreddivisions in all, it is by no meansinevitablethat the two setsof a hundred"divisions"

should be the same.

Scholarsfrom F.A. Wolf to Davies have been worried by the state-

ment of Dem. 13 (Synt.) 20=2 (Ol. 2) 29, "Previously you paid eisphora by symmories(rcO6•Oov ... •cct•6touggoo•ctq•o•(p•o•): now you engagein politicsby symmories."4sIf Demosthenes13 is an authenticspeechof 353/2, 46the imperfecttensewas alreadybeingused in that year of paying eisphoraby symmories;in any caseit was so used in 349/8. I cannotcite Dem. 39 (Boe. Nom.) 8 as evidencethat symmorieswere used for eisphorain 349/8, as I do not believe that passage refersto eisphora;47butan eisphorawasleviedin 352/1 (Dem. 3 (Ol. 3) 4), andthereexistedthreehundredmen liable for proeisphora who could be called the leaders, secondsand thirds of the symmories in 340 (Dem. 18 (Cor.) 103: õa, above).The answermustbe that scholars havebeenmisledby Demosthenes'"previously" and imperfecttense, andthathismeaningis, "You usedto pay eisphoraby symmories; now you engagein politicsby symmories." He could have made that meaningclearer to us by inserting•caiin the second clause,andperhapsg6vovin the first; but of courseit wasnot his purposeto inform us, and his audiencedid not need to be told how the collectionof eisphorawas currentlyorganised. 48 I thereforebelievethattheAtheniansliablefor eisphorawereorganised in a hundredsymmoriesin 378/7; and that the smaller number of

Atheniansliable for thetrierarchywere separatelyorganisedin twenty symmoriesby the law of 358/7, and that thesetwenty symmoriessurvived Demosthenes'proposalsof 354 and his reform of 340, and were still in use after that. 49 III

Havingestablished thatthe numberof menliable for the trierarchyand otherliturgieswas about 1,200 before as well as after 357 (part I), and that the numberof men liable for eisphorawas somewhatlarger (part II), I turn to the Thousandand the diadikasia-documents. 5øHarpocration, at the end of his note on "the twelve hundredwho performed liturgies" (i.e. the 1,200 who were made a distinctclassfor the pur-

12

P.J. RHODES

posesof thetrierarchyby thelaw of 358/7), saysthatLysiasandIsaeus usethe rounded-offnumberof 1,000 (Lys. fr. 146 Sauppe,Isae. fr.

106 Sauppe,ap. Harp. Z•,tot6t0t}c6otot), 5• andDaviesrightlyargues that here we shouldsee not a rounding-offof 1,200 but allusionsto an earlier list of 1,000, in someway similarto the list of 1,200.52There is a set of inscriptions,somebearingdatesbetween383/2 and 380/79 and the others of about the same time, which record the results of

diadikasiaiin accordancewith a decreeof the d[mos (IG ii 2 1928.2-3), in theform, "B insteadofA".53 The acceptedview hasbeenthatthese are concernedwith the obligationto performdifferentliturgies,the chor[gia in the caseof a text foundin the theatre,proeisphorain the caseof a textarrangedby demes,thetrierarchyin theremainingcases. 54 However,sinceit seemslikely thatin spiteof differences betweenthem all the textsbelongto a singleseriesof stelae,55, and to a period of a few years, Davies arguesconvincinglythat they shouldbe connected not with the kind of diadikasiathatcouldarisein any year whena man nominatedfor a liturgy thoughtthat there was a strongercase for nominatingsomeoneotherthanhimself,56but with a specialexercise carried out at that time only.57 What was that exercise? Davies links the Thousand with the diadikasia-

documents,notesthat someof the property-ownersrecordedin IG 112 1932 as incurringliability are not individualcitizensbut sanctuaries, andthatproperty-owners incapableof givingpersonalservicewere not

subjected to thetrierarchyor to festivalliturgiesbut wererequiredto pay eisphoraandproeisphora,andthereforesuggests that in the 390s or 380s a list of 1,000 rich estateswas drawn up in connectionwith eisphora.Drawing attentionto the factthatin the fifth centurydemarchs had financialresponsibilities, 58he arguesthat originallyeisphorawas collectedthroughthedemes,but thissystembrokedownasin andafter thePeloponnesian War it becameincreasingly oftenuntruethatcitizens livedandownedtheirpropertyin thedemesof whichtheyweremembers; thelistof theThousand wasintendedpartlybutnotentirelyto supersede thelocaladministration of eisphora,butthisprovedunsatisfactory; and soin 378/7 the demeswere by-passedin the new systemof a hundred symmorieseachcontainingthreeproeispherontes. 59 Now if I am right in arguingthattherewere about1,200 propertyownersliablefor liturgiesanda largernumberliablefor eisphora,1,000 seemstoo few to be the total numberliable for eisphorabut too many to be an early list of thoseliable for proeisphora.On the other hand, it is in the rightrangefor a list of menliablefor liturgies.Daviesruled out thisinterpretation,partlybecausehe believesin a smallernumber

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

13

liable for liturgies, and partly becausesomeof the property-ownersin IG ii 2 1932 are sanctuaries.6ø However, we have seen that the 1,200

men made liable for the trierarchy from 357 were not a net body of men who could immediatelybe requiredto take part but a grossbody of property-ownerswithin which thosewho could not immediatelybe requiredto takepart were grantedexemption.6• Thereis no reasonwhy the sameprocedureshouldnot have been followed with an earlier list of property-ownersliable for the trierarchyor for all liturgies.We can add an argument from common sense(though such argumentsare dangerous,as what seemssensibleto us may not have seemedsensible to classicalAthenians). Davies stressesthat the list of the Thousandand the form of diadikasiain which one property-owneris removedand anothertakeshisplacebothpointto a fixednumberliablefor theburden in question. 62With liturgies,thestate'sneedwasto havea certainnumber of responsibilities acceptedeachyear, but with eisphoraits needwas to raise a certainamountof money: thus assignmentof liability to a fixed numberis moreappropriatefor liturgies(andindeedfor thetrierarchyit is attestedin the reform of 358/7, Demosthenes'proposalsof 354 andhis reform of 340), while assignment of liability to thosewith morethana fixed amountof propertyis moreappropriatefor eisphora. I suggest,therefore,that the list of the Thousandwas a list produced in the 380s of property-ownerspotentiallyliable for the trierarchy or for all the liturgies.Originally, perhaps,a rule thatthe burdensshould be imposedeachyear on the richestcitizenswho were not temporarily or permanentlyexempt63hadbeensufficient;but in the fourthcentury, with fewer citizensand fewer rich citizensthan in the fifth, there may have been an increasingnumber of casesin which inability triumphed overphilotimia,andit may havebecomenecessary to protectthosewho hadsomewealthbut not a greatdeal by producinga list of thoseliable and guaranteeingthat thosenot on the list were not liable. Continuing difficultyin findingmen who couldbe inducedto acceptliturgiesled, in the caseof the trierarchy, to the reforms of 358/7 and afterwards; in the case of festival liturgies to Leptines' law of 356/5,64 which

increasedthe supplyof chorggoiby abolishingpersonalexemptions, andwhichdespiteDio Chr. 31 (Rhod.) 128 probablysurvivedthe attack to which Demosthenes20 belongs.65 Davies' suggestion thateisphorawascollectedthroughthedemesuntil 378/7, andthatchangesin thepatternof residenceandproperty-owning madethis increasinglyinconvenient,is attractive.One purposeof the new systemof symmoriesandof the new assessment whichaccompanied it will havebeento catchmenwho hadenoughpropertyto renderthem

14

P.J. RHODES

liable for eisphorain total, but not enoughin any one deme. I agree with him thatthe singlingoutof thethreerichestmembersof eachsymmory, astheThreeHundredfrom whomproeisphoracouldbe demanded, was part of the reform of 378/7, 66and that the procedureof 362, in whichwe hearnot of symmoriesandthe Three Hundredbut of a report madeby thebouleutaiof propertyin theirown demes([Dem.] 50 (Poly.) 8-9), was exceptional. Davies' theory that this exceptionalprocedurewas devisedbecause proeisphora in its normal form was a liturgy, and too many men were invokingthe limits to what couldbe requiredand soevadingeitherthe trierarchyor theproeisphora,67dependspartly on his belief that only threehundredmenwere liablefor thetrierarchy,andgivesriseto other difficulties. If the liturgy of proeisphora,imposedon the three hundredrichestproperty-owners of Athens,did tendto be playedoff against otherliturgies,it is surprisingthatwe do notencountercomplaints about thispractice,or otherattemptsto put an endto it. Moreover, at a time when it was importantto raise moneyand sendout shipsquickly (õ6), it would have been much easierto suspendthe limits to liability than to introducea new (or reintroducean old) methodof levyingeisphora.68 It had alreadybeendecidedthatproeisphora,thougha liturgy, could be imposedon those incapableof giving personalservice, as other liturgiescouldnot. If a reportof propertyownedin eachdemewas requiredfrom men other than the property-owners,this pointsrather to a suspicionthat in the currentregister,probablybasedon declarationsby theproperty-owners, holdingsof propertyhadbeensuppressed. I suggestthat what was intendedin 362 was not to circumventthe liturgical characterof the establishedform of proeisphorabut to producea more accurateregisterof property-owners--butI doubtif we canregardthe 6,000 talentsof Dem. 14 (Symm.)19, 27, andPhiloch. 328 F 46 as precise,and concludethat the effect of this exercisewas to raise the total tim[ma to that level from the 5,750 talentsof Polyb. 2.62.7.

I have arguedthat the useof symmoriesfor eisphorawas not abandonedaboutthe middle of the fourth century.69The collectionofproeisphorafrom the Three Hundred persistedto the 320s: [Dem.] 42 (Phaen.) was written for a man who was trying throughan antidosis to have Phaenippusappointedto the Three Hundredin his place; the ThreeHundredarepresumably beingthoughtof asproeispherontes rather than as trierarchs,sincethere is no mentionof the navy in the speech, but liturgiesappearseveraltimes, eisphoraappearsin õ3, and in õ25 thejury is askedto sparepatrioticcitizenswho perform liturgiesand

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

15

belongto the Three Hundredbut to bring into the ranksof the proeispherontes thosewho begrudgeexpenditurefor the state.TM P.J. Rhodes

Universityof Durham NOTES

1. J.K. Davies, Wealth and thepower of wealth in classicalAthens(1981) 15-28. I refer to that book as Wealth, and to his Athenianpropertiedfamilies, 600-300 t•.c. (1971) as APF. I refer to the following by author'sname: A.

B6ckh,Die Staatshaushaltung derAthener 5(•1817;31886);B. Jordan, The Atheniannavy in the classicalperiod (U. Calif. Pub. C1. Stud. 13 (1975); C1.

Moss6,in Pointsdevuesurlafiscalitda,ntique,ed. H. vanEffenterre(Centre G. Glotz, Publicationsde la Sorbonne,Etudes14 (1979)) 31-42; E. Ruschenbusch,ZPE 31 (1978) 275-84; R. Thomsen, Eisphora (Humanitas3 (1964)). For convenienceI extendthe meaningof the word "chorggos" to cover men performingfestival liturgies of any kind. 2. Wealth 17 with n. 6; 16 with n. 5 doesacceptfor the fifth centurythe rule that a man couldnot be obligedto performtwo liturgiesin the sameyear ([Dem.] 50 (Poly.) 9, cf. Dem. 20 (Lept.) 19, 21 (Mid.) 155). There was also

a rule thatno manwasobligedto performthe samefestivalliturgymorethan once in his life (Ath. Pol. 56.3). 3. Wealth 24 with n. 21. 4. Wealth 24-6. 5. Wealth 15-24. 6. Wealth 26-8.

7. APF 592-3 D 7. Wealth 17 n. 6 acknowledgesthat this careeris not to be taken as typical. 8. Thrasyllusdied in 415-413 (Isae. 7 (Her. Apoll.) 5). Jointtrierarchies are first attestedin the DeceleanWar (Wealth 22 with n. 15); Jordan70-1 triesto pushthembackto 420-410; I shouldexpectthemto beginafterrather than before 413.

9. In 406/5, andprobablythatyear only, therewerejoint chorggoialso (schol. Ar. Ran. 404).

10. The questionof authenticityneednot be discussed here:I am prepared to believethat in 480 trierarchswere appointedby the generals. 11. The largest number of ships known to have been in commission simultaneouslyis slightly over 218, in 413 (Wealth 20-1 with n. 13). 12. Cf. A. Andrewesin Classicalcontributions.Studiesin honourof Malcolm Francis McGregor (1981) 1-3. 13. On trierarchs as commanderssee Jordan 134-7. In Wealth vi, Davies

showsa growingawareness of the importanceof the cavalry.A manenlisted in the cavalry remaineda memberuntil he declaredon oath that he was no longerableto serve(Ath. Pol. 49.3); but the cavalrywere notthe mostactive

16

P.J. RHODES

part of the Athenianforces, and a cavalrymancould volunteerto serve as a trierarch if he was not currently neededin the cavalry: cf. Plut. Cim. 5.2-3 (not mentioningthe trierarchy), Dem. 21 (Mid.) 160-7; also Lys. 16 (Mant.) 13 (cavalrymanservingin the infantry). 14. Cf. the referenceto diadikasiaifor chor•goi in [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.4 (a work which I date 431-424). 15. For tribal appointmentof chor•goi cf. also Dem. 39 (Boe. Nom.) 7. 16. It is interestingto noticethat in 355/4 Demosthenessuggestedthat the systemof symmories,recentlyadoptedfor the trierarchy, might be adopted for festivalliturgiestoo (20 (Lept.) 23). In the fourth century,but not in the fifth, chor•goi for boys' choruseshad to be over forty yearsold (Ath. Pol. 56.3, with P.J. Rhodes, Commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia (1981) 625-6). 17. Wealth16-7 ingeniously explainsthe400 trierarchsof [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.4 as 300 trierarchs+ 100 chor•goi;but the figure may be simplyan exaggeration (cf. n. 20, below). 18. V.L. Ehrenberg,The GreekState2 (1969) 31, giveshis own estimates and those of A.W.

Gomme.

19. Cf. MossY,La Fin de la d•mocratie ath•nienne (1962) 147-60. 20. The highest figures for ships simultaneouslyin commissionwhich

Daviesquotesfor the fourthcenturyare 120 in 356 and 170 in 322 (Wealth 21; for the fifth centuryseen. 11, above).However, Athensbuilt up a larger fleet in the fourthcenturythanin the fifth, with 283 shipsin 357/6 and a rise to 412 in 325/4(IG ii2 1611.3-9;1629.783-812,withN.G. Ashton,GRBS20 (1979) 237-42), while despitethe 400 trierarchsof [Xen.] Ath. Poh 3.4 (cf. n. 17, above)andthe over400 shipsof And. 3 (Pace)9 (codd.,defendedby

D.M. MacDowell,CR2 15 (1965)260:over300, Markland(cf. Aesch.2(FL 175)) it is not certain that in the fifth centuryshe ever possessed more than the 300 triremesof Thuc. 2.13.8. E. L•vy, Athdnesdevantla ddfaitede 404: Histoire d'une crise iddologique(BEFAR 22 (1976)) 274, thinksthe reserve of 100 triremesestablishedin 431 (Thuc. 2.24.2) additionalto the 300 already in existence,but that is not what Thucydidesseemsto be saying. 21. Ruschenbusch 280 withn. 18accepts theinferencethat40% of the 1,200 claimedexemption,but I think this may be an exaggeration. 22. Wealth 34-7. Cf. part II, below, on the size of the trierarchicand eisphora-payingclasses. 23. But Moss• 37 n. 15 thinksPeriander'slaw had requiredproportional

contribution andDemosthenes wasproposing to changeto equalcontribution. 24. F.A. Wolf, Demosthenis Oratioadversus Leptinem(1789) civ-cvi= ed. revisedby J.H. Bremi(1831)58-9; B6ckh•ii 59- 62 = 3i 609-12.The view of Thomsen,esp.85-96 (cf. Armgesetfiscalitgdansle mondeantique(Colloquesnationauxdu C.N.R.S. 936 (1977) 135-47)that a hundredsymmories for eisphorawerecreatedin the early fifth centuryandthatthe numberwas increasedto four hundredin 378/7, is sufficientlyansweredby Moss• 32-5.

Thomsen accepts theorthodox viewof theseparate trierarchic symmories (88-9).

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

17

25. The Athens of Demosthenes(1952) 9-10, and EcHR2 8 (1955/6) 147=Athenian Democracy(1957) 28 and 83-4. This cannotbe right: see õb, below.

26. E.g.G. Busolt, rev. H. Swoboda, GriechischeStaatskundeii (1926) 1203-4; Thomsen 234-6. Mossfi 41 discussesthe reform of 340 without men-

tioning this passage. 27. For Ruschenbusch's qualificationseeõe, below;Mossfi37 writes:"J'ai conscience d'aller

tr•s loin."

28. G.F. Schoemann, Antiquitates iurispubliciGraecorum(1838) 327-8 with n. 8; Ruschenbusch; Moss& Cf. M. Fr//nkelin B6ckh3ii 123' n. 834; F. Jacoby, FGrHist IIIb, Supp. i 58. 29. Ruschenbusch277; cf. Mossfi 37.

30. I agreewith L. Gernet(Budfied.) thatthesymmoriesof Dem. 39 (Boe. Nom.) 8 are trierarchicsymmories;but they have normally been taken to be eisphora-symmories. 31. The Three Hundredare discussed by Mossfi38-9. Sheis in error in citing IG ii 2 1611 and 1612 with Dem. 18: the "firsts",

"seconds" and "thirds"

in thoseinscriptionsare categoriesof ships. 32. K.J. Dover, Lysiasand the CorpusLysiacum(SatherClassicalLectures 39 (1968)) 33. This passageis cited by Mossfi37, who, like Ruschenbusch, concludesfrom it that the trierarchicandthe eisphora-paying classwere identical. For a text which contradictsthis see Dem. 20 (Lept.) 28 (cited and translatedp. 9). 33. Ruschenbusch 277-80, usingtheconclusions of Davies,APF xxiii-xxiv, that men were exemptfrom liturgiesif their propertywas worth lessthan 3 talentsbut were unlikely to escapeif it was worth more than 4 talents.I agree with Ruschenbusch againstDavies that 1,200 men, not 300 men, reachedthis level of wealth: cf. Section I, above.

34. As suggested in the discussions of thesemen in APF (Androtion,no. 913=915; Dicaeogenes,no. 3773; Timocrates,no. 13772; Phaenippus,no. 13978, discussedunder no. 14734).

35. Ruschenbusch 280-1, afterLipsius,JKP 24.1 = 117 (1878) 296. On the categoriesexemptedsee furtherpp. 9 f. 36. For the concernwith estateswhichare potentiallyliable ratherthanwith men who are immediatelyliable, cf. IG ii2 2492.24-7; 2496.25-8; and 2498. 7-9: leasesin which eisphorais regardedas a levy on propertiesratherthan on ownersof propertyto more thana certainvalue, and in which it is therefore stipulatedwho is to be liable for the payment of eisphora on the properties leased (in the case of 2496, a property valued at only 700 drachmae). 37. Mossfi 39; Ruschenbusch281-3.

38. Hesperia 37 (1968) 245 n. 4; 254 n. 22. 39. On propertiesownedin partnershipseeD.M. Lewis, Problbmesde la

terre en Grbceancienne,Civilisationset Soci6tfis(ed. M.I. Finley) (1973) 187-212, esp. 198-9.

40. B6ckh•ii 83 = 3i 631; cf. thetranslations of thewordby C.R. Kennedy

18

P.J. RHODES

(Bohn), A.W. Pickard-Cambridge(The public orations of Demosthenes(2 vols., 1912)) with note, M. Croiset (BudS). J.H. Vince (Loeb) does not face the question. 41. Ruschenbusch279 n. 17, 282 at n. 23, 284.

42. Jordan(76) eccentrically appliesthisfragmentto theaftermathof Demosthenes14 and supposesthat eighty "small symmories"of fifteen men each were

43.

created.

Mossfi 37 n. 12.

44. The origin of the trierarchyin commandingas well as financinga ship (n. 13 and text, above) was never forgotten,even after the introductionof trierarchicsymmories(õc and pp. 9 f., above), when it would have been possibleto abolishthe exemptionof thoseunableto servein person,and to imposethe burdenas a tax on all sufficientlywealthyestates.Mossfiendsher

article(pp. 41-2) by remarkin. g on the transformation of the trierarchyfroma liturgy into a tax; but in fact the transformationwas not completed. 45. Wolf (n. 24, above) xcviii n. 77 = rev. ed. 54 n. 3; Davies, Wealth 19 n. 9.

46. G.L. Cawkwell,JHS 83 (1963) 48 with n. 9. For otherviews, dating thespeechbetween352 andDidymus'349/8, seeD.F. Jackson andG.O. Rowe, Lustrum 14 (1969) 56-9. 47. Cf. n. 30, above.

48. I do not think any enlightenmenton the symmoriescan be derivedfrom schol. Dem. 2 (Ol. 2) 29 (viii 108-10 Dindorf).

49. We shouldthendistinguish,asMoss• 38-9 doesnot, the officialsof the different kinds of symmory. The eisphora-symmories had diagrapheis,who were responsiblefor the diagramma,the scheduleshowingwhat proportion of eachlevy shouldbe contributedby eachmember(Harp. 6t•typ0ttxtxet, citing Hyp. frs. 119, 179 Sauppe--102, 152 Jensen/Kenyon),and symmoriarchai (Poll. 3.53, citingHyp. fr. 175= 148); thetrierarchicsymmories hadepimelgtai

([Dem.]47 (Ev. et Mnes.)21-4), withwhomtheTwentyof IG ii2 1623.153-9 are probablyto be identified. 50. Discussedby Davies, Wealth 133-50. 51. The beginningof the notequotesa mentionof the Twelve Hundredby Isaeus(fr. 74 Sauppe--18 Thalheim). 52.

Wealth

140-1.

53. IG ii2 1928-32;Hesperia 7 (1938)277-8no. 12 and306no. 29; 15 (1946) 160-5 no. 17. No. 29 was identifiedas a memberof this seriesby

D.M. Lewis,BSA49 (1954)37. IG ii2 1932is arranged by demes,andso, Davies argues,is the left-hand column of 1928 (Wealth 136-7); but the other fragmentsare not. 55. Cf. Lewis (n. 53, above). 56. Part I, õõb-c, above. 57.

Wealth 133-8.

58. But Ath. Pol. 8.3, cited Wealth147, probablyrefersto "revenue" and expendituregenerally, not to eisphora:see Rhodes(n. 16, above) 153.

ATHENIAN

EISPHORA

19

59. The levyingofproeisphorathroughthedemesin 362 ([Dem.] 50 (Poly.) 8-9) Daviesregardsasa deliberatereversionon thisoccasion to an oldersystem, resortedto becausethe samethree hundredmen (he believes)were at that time liablefor the trierarchyandfor proeisphora,andmanyof themwere claiming exemption from one burden or the other (Wealth 143-6, 149-50). 60.

Sanctuaries:

Wealth

137-9.

61. PartII, õc, andpp. 9 f., above. 62.

Wealth

140-2.

63. Cf. part I, õõb-c, above.

64. I acceptthe date of 355/4 from Dion. Hal. 724. Amm. 4 for Dem. 20

(Lept.), andinfer from õ144thatthe law wasenactedin the previousyear. 65. Cf. G.L. Cawkwell, Mnemosyne 4 15 (1962) 377-8 (not specifically discussingLept.). 66. Wealth 17-19, after G.E.M. de Ste Croix, C&M 14 (1953) 56-62. 67.

Wealth 143-6.

68. This pointis madeby Thomsen210, againstearlierarguments thatthe established systemwasabandoned in the crisisof 362. I assumethattheremust havebeendecisions thatproeisphora, andthetrierarchy after357, thoughthey couldbe calledliturgies,werenotsubjectto theexemptions mentioned at (a) in the first sentence of Part I of this article.

69. Part II, esp. p. 11, above. 70. On the dateseeL. Gernet,Bud6ed. of Dem.' s Plaidoyerscivilsii. 76-7. Davies, Wealth19, 24 n. 21, claimsto seeallusionsto thetrierarchy,perhaps in the generals'functioningas the eisagousaarch• for antidoseis(õ5).

I shouldlike to thankDr. D.M. Lewis for readinga draft of this article, and the University of Durham for a grant from its ResearchFund.

BEYOND

THE

FRONTIER

IN PUNIC

SARDINIA

F. Barreca has identified a series of Punic fortifications in Sardinia which

seemsto have served, or at least to have been intended to serve, as an

interior defenseline against, and as a means of control over, the indigenousnuragicpeoples(fig. 1). • Althoughsomeof the fortifications are known only as namesin his list and still lack excavationor detailedpublication,it may not be prematureto begin a discussionof someof the implicationsof this frontier system.It may turn out that thereareadditionalfortifications notyetidentifiedor thattheonesknown sofar werenotall coeval;neitherchangeshouldradicallyaltertheobservations here presented. The interiordefenseline beginswith a fortressat Padria, andextends to Ballao in the southeast,with an averagedistanceof about 15 km betweenfortifications(fig. 1). From Padria, the logicalextensionto the coastis to Bosa near the mouth of the Temo (althoughit could have goneto the northwest,towardsAlghero); and from Ballao it is to the severalfortifiedareasaroundthemouthof theFlumendosa andtheStagno di Colostrai,with, perhaps,an appendage directlysouthward to S. Nicolo Gerrei and S. AndreaFrius. The line thusruns:Bosa(?)-Padria-BonorvaMacomer2-Bolotana-Sedilo-Fordongianus-Asuni-Genoni-Ovile BaraciOrroli-Goni-Ballao-Muravera.

At the summitof the acropolisof Padria was preservedfor about 65 m the remainsof a hugewall of basaltblocksdatableto the 5th century BC(RFP 74). The fortressin thelocalityS. Simeone,Bonorva,is situatedon the summitof a plateau,extendingabout 160 m in an eastwestdirection;it too was built in the 5th century,andunderwentsome alterationsin the 4th (Barreca 1978, 123). What remainsof the fort at Mularza Noa di BaddeSalighes,Bolotana,is somewhatsmaller, about 60 by 30 m; it is locatedon the northernslopeof the Marghine and wasprobablyconstructed in the 5th century(Barreca1978, 123-4). The fort at Monte SantuAntini, Genoni, is about 175 by 50 m, situatedon thesummitof thehill, andis alsodatedto the5th century(Barreca1978, 122). At the mouth of the Flumendosa,the fort at S. Giusta di Monte Nai, Muravera, was built in the 5th centuryon a small hill at the foot 2O

ß ß

'adrla

ß

Macomer Seddo

'dot

Asunl ß

G

ß

S. Andrea

Fig. 1 Punic Fortifications

Key to Fig. 2 20.

Neoneli

2.

1. Villanova Thiesi

Monteleone

21.

Teti Gavoi

3.

Cheremule

22.

4.

Bonnanaro

23. Orgosolo

5.

Mores

24.

Allai

6. Ozieri

25. Samugheo

7. Budduso

26.

8. Pozzomaggiore

27.

Meana

9. Bultei

28.

Aritzo

Tonara

Sardo

10.

Bolotana

29.

Gadoni

11.

Illorai

30.

Nureci

12.

Oniferi

31.

Laconi

13.

Nuoro

32. Nuragus

14. Oliena

33.

15.

34.

Lanusei

16. Norbello

35.

Ierzu

17. Ghilarza

36. Perdasdefogu

18. Tadasuni

37.

19.

Abbasanta

Serri

Ballao

Busachi

Abbasanta Allai

15

Neoneli

20

Norbello

24

Aritzo

28

Ballao

37

Nuoro

16 13

Nuragus 32

Bolotana

10

Bonnanaro

4

Nureci

30

Oliena

14

Budduso 7

Oniferi

Bultei 9

Orgosolo23

Busachi

19

Cheremule Gadoni Gavoi

29 22

Ghilarza Ierzu

Ozieri 3

17

6

Perdasdefogu36 Pozzomaggiore8 Samugheo25 Serri 33 Tadasuni

35

Illorai

11

Teti 21

Laconi

31

Thiesi

Lanusei

12

34

Meana

Sardo 27

Mores

5

18

2

Tonara Villanova

26 Monteleone

1

23a

e28

©Othoca

e34

e31 e30

llari eM.

S.Antloco t

Sirai

eSantadl

Fig. 2 Interior and Exterior Sites

24

ROBERT J. ROWLAND, JR.

of M. Nai and coversan area of about 120 by 60 m (Barreca 1978, 119-20). Some 7 km to the south, at Torre delle Saline, was another

extensivefortifiedarea, datedto the sameperiodon the basisof building techniques(Barreca1978, 126; RFP 41). Of the othersitesin Barreca's list we can say very little. The strategicimportanceand post-nuragic re-utilizationof the nuragheCasteddu'Ecciu near Fordongianushave longbeenrecognized(NSc 1903, 491-2), althoughBarrecais (apparently) the first to call it Punic (1974, 227; 1978, 125); and the Ovile Baraci, betweenIsili andNurri, is presumablythe samelocationwhichformed the nucleusof the later Romanand Byzantinemilitary baseof Biora excavatedby Lilliu (Barreca 1978, 125; $S 7, 29-104). For the rest, we can say nothingat presentsavethat they are all in dominantpositions and that we have no reason to doubt Barreca's them as Punic.

identification

of

Thus,a lineof fortifiedareasformsanincipientfrontiersystem,segregating the mountainousinteriorfrom the coastalexterior, controlling theprincipallinesof communication betweenthetwoworlds,thelargely (but not exclusively)pastoralworld of the interior,eastof the line, the agriculturaland maritimeworld of the exterior,to the westand south. Althoughthesefortsmay havebeenusedas basesfrom whichto make foraysagainstthe natives,thereis no evidenceat presentthattheywere so used. Rather, they servedas centersof control and as points of contact between the two civilizations; and, because some of them had

beencapturedby the Carthaginians,they were not completelyimpregnable. Moreover, given the size of thoseforts whosesize is known, the numberof troopsstationedtherewould have beenunableto withstand a massed, full-scale attack. Control, not domination, was the

Carthaginian'sgoal;and thisrequiredboth sufficientforceand mutual advantage.An imaginaryline connectingthe fortsessentiallyintersects the major transhumance routes, thosewhich terminatein La Nurra, Arborea, the Campidano,and Sulcis;the southeastern transhumance

routesareall in contact withthefortifiedareasalongthecoast.3 It is essentialfor the shepherdsto have accessto the lowland, and to the

coastalsources of salt;4 it is usefulfor thelowlandagriculturalists to allow the pastoralists access,but essentialto controltheir movements,

particularly thetimingof thosemovements.5

There is a fundamental difference between the Punic materials found

on the two sidesof the frontier (fig. 2); in the interior or in the im-

PUNIC SARDINIA

25

mediateproximity of the imaginary (probablynot straight)line of the frontier,thefindsarealmostexclusively of coins,frequentlylargehoards, or of coinsandjewelry and/or objectsof trade. Only coinshave been foundat VillanovaMonteleone(RFP 112), Pozzomaggiore (RFP 82, ca. 3,000 coins),Bonnanaro(RFP 31), Bultei (RFP 33,292 coins),Norbello (RFP 68), Ghilarza (RFP 47), Tadasuni(RFP 98, ca. 500 coins), Gavoi (RFP 46, ca. 200 bronze coins), Orgosolo(RFP 73), Mores (RFP 59), Meana Sardo (RFP 50), Gadoni (RFP 46, 1 coin), Artizo (RFP 24, ca. 400 coins), Lanusei(RFP 48), Perdasdefogu (RFP 76); at Bolotana (RFP 31) and Ballao (RFP 25), other than the forts (not listed in RFP), theonly findsareof coins.From Cheremulecamea silverear-ring(RFP 39); beadsof glasspastewere foundat thenuragheIsalle, Buddus6(RFP 33), anda very few Punicsherdscamefrom the nuragheFronteMola, Thiesi, with some coins found elsewhere in the zone (RFP 108; RSP

16, 278). Some Punic pottery was found at the nuragheSu Monzu, Ozieri, and coinscame from elsewherein the territory (RFP 73; RSP 16, 278 f.). Around Abbasanta there were two coin hoards of about 300 coinseach, as well as Punic pottery in nuragiccontexts(RFP 19; Lilliu 1962, 101-3). There is a brief noticeof the discoveryof a coin hoardand of 'reperti vari' in two different localitiesin the territory of Ierzu (SS 24, 748), and a tantalizinglybrief notice whetsour appetite for moreinformationaboutthe 'vastoed interessante insediamento punico e romano'at the nuragicvillage of Ruinas,Oliena (NTASCO 129-31). From Abini-Teti camevariouspiecesof jewelry (a bracelet,a fibula, beadsof rock crystaland of glasspaste,and amber)(RFP 19-20); at Allai, a single tomb containeda Punic coin and an incisedcarnelian (RFP 21). A tomb at Neoneli containeda Punic oinochoe(45 cm tall) andtwo piecesof silver, probablyear-ringsof a typecommonlyfound at Tharros(RFP 60). Various(undefined)objectsandPuniccoinshave beenfoundaroundBusachi(NSc 1923, 114-5). From a nuragicburial at SamugheocamePunicbeadsof enamelledglass(RFP 83). Near the nuraghePerdasLobadas,Tonara, were sometombs'of the CarthaginianandRomanperiod' consistingof cavernscarvedinto the rock, but lackingany reportof culturalobjects,exceptfor a Romancoin found on the surfacenearby(RFP 108). SomePunicmaterialhasbeenidentified at the nuragheNoddule,Nuoro (Barreca1974, 68,259), andbeads of glasspasteof the 'epocafenicio-punica'were foundat SasConcas, Oniferi (RSP 27, 475). At S. Lussurgiu,on the road betweenNureci andLaconi,sometombscontainedbronzeandsilverear-ringsthathave beencalledbothPunicandRoman(RFP 48); beadsof glasspasteand coinshavebeenfoundin differentregionsin the territory of Nuragus

26

ROBERT J. ROWLAND,

JR.

(RFP 69), and Punicpotterywas foundat a prehistorichabitationsite at Molia, Illorai (RSP 32,362). Potteryand coinshave beenfoundat the nuragicsanctuaryof S. Vittoria, Serri (RSP 18,326-7). Therefore, unless we consider tombs to be evidence of Punic settlements--and

there

are preciousfew tombs--there is not as yet a singleidentifiableCarthaginiansettlementin the zone in the interior of the frontier. All of the Carthaginiansettlements thusfar identifiedare in the exterior zone, viz., the coastalcitiesof Cagliari, Nora, Bithia, S. Antioco(with its own frontier fortifications at M. Sirai and Santadi (Barreca 1978, 120-2)), Tharros,Othoca,6Comus,Bosa,and(a later foundation,isolated in the northeast)Olbia. But how muchterritory thesecitiescontrolled, settled,andcultivatedis still opento question.For Moscati,7thenumber of coin hoards found in the hinterland of Olbia testified to the amount

of territorycontrolledby thatcity; to me, it testifiestojust theopposite. There are six hoardsknown, three of them in the all too ubiquitous '1ocalithimprecisata',andoneof the othersis a Romanhoardwith three Puniccoins.Of the othertwo, onewasfoundat the nuragheNuragadena about10 km from the city, the othercamefrom a field betweenS. Maria di Terranova and Putzolu, thereforeless than 10 km away.8 III

A goodtestcaseis thehinterlandof Cagliari,whichhasmore,butstill very little, material(fig. 3): a singlecoin at Sestu(RFP 91), archaic ceramicsin a nuragiccontextat SettimoS. Pietro(RFP43), andPunicoRomanstatues of thegodBesfoundat a sanctuary nearMaracalagonis (RFP49-50).Proceeding northalongtheFluminiMannu,thereis nothing reportedfromElmasor Assemini,andonlya silverringfromUta (RFP 111). A cemeterywith Punicjewelry and coinsat Decimo(RFP 43) allowsus to acceptthe likelihoodof a Carthaginiansettlementthere, as doesthe evenmore extensivematerialfoundaroundS. Sperate(RFP 87-8), about18 km fromtheportof Cagliari.However,thereis nothing from MonastirandUssana,andonly a singletomb, perhapsof the 5th

century,at Serdiana (RFP90). To thewest,Decimoputzu hasprovided a coinhoard(of perhapsasmanyas 1,000coins)(RFP43), butnothing else, and at Vallermosathere is only a Punico-Romanvotive deposit (RFP 111) and a possiblePunicelementin Latin onomastics. 9 If the Carthaginians settledextensively anywhere in Sardinia,we wouldexpect to find themin the alluvialvalleyof the Fl. MannuaroundSerramanna and the adjacent(now agriculturallyimportant)territory around Nuraminis,roughlythetriangleformedby a line Villasor-Nuraminis-

PUNIC

27

SARDINIA

©Usellus

eNuragus

ßBaressa

©Serri

Barumini

ß

ß Siddi

Lasplassas ß

Guamaggiore ß

©Furtei

Ortacesus

ß

ß

,Samassi Nurami ni

t.ENI

Serdiana©

Decimoputzu© ©Settimo Utae

Maracalagonis©

Fig. 3 Hinterlandof Cagliari Sanluri-Villasor,an areathatwasdenselysettledandclearlyimportant in theRomanandmedievalperiods(seebelow,p. 32). The factis that no Punicmaterialshaveup to noweverbeenreportedin theterritories

28

ROBERT J. ROWLAND, JR.

of the modernvillagesof Villasor, Nuraminis, Serrenti, Samassi,or Sanluri.Only at Serramanna (fig. 6) do we find reportsof Punicremains: tombsat the (nuragic)site of the churchof S. Maria di Monserrato, near the confluence of the Fl. Mannu and the Leni, and some vessels

'of Carthaginianshape'at Baude saFigu (RFP 90). Althoughtheyattest to nothingfor the Carthaginianperiod, mentionshouldalso be made of numerousPunico-Romantombsat Villagreca(RFP 112), i.e., tombs of the Romanperiod with marked tracesof Punic material culture. It is some16 km alongthe Mannubeforewe find anotherPunicsite, a recently identified archaic fort at Furtei (Barreca 1978, 124), and another 14 km to the nuragheSu Nuraxi, Barumini, where there can be no questionthat the Carthaginians,in the late 6th or early 5th century, defeatedthe native inhabitantsand partially rebuilt the village, usingtheirown construction techniques (Lilliu 1962, 124). Surely,the fort at Furtei servedin the 6th centuryas the point of controlalong the main north-southline of communication,the river valley, andwas abandoned after the frontier was advanced to Barumini.

It would seem

to be a reasonablehypothesisthat the nuragheat Baruminicontinued to be used, at least seasonally,by Carthaginiantroopsexercisingthe samesort of controlalong the river that their counterpartsexercised along the interior frontier. •o There is no evidenceeither at Furtei or at Baruminithat the Carthaginiansset aboutthe task of creatingsettlements,establishing villages,or developingthe agriculturalpotential of the region;for aroundBaruminiwe find only a few coins(at three sites),a Punico-Romanhabitation,and a late 3rd-centurytomb (RFP 26). In the adjacent,now grain-richTrexenta,TMonly Senorbihasprovided Punic remains--one tomb with pottery and jewelry, perhaps Punico-Roman, andothertombswith coinsandobjectssaidto be similar to onesfoundat Tharros(RFP 91). The nearbyvillagesof Guasila, Guamaggiore, Selegas,andOrtacesus (betweenSenorbiandFurtei)have providednothingof the Punicperiod. Furthermore,in the now importantagriculturalzoneof the Marmilla•2westof Barumini,a Romantomb at Baressacontaineda Puniclamp and a black-glazedplate with Punic letters scratchedon it (RFP 25); a hoard of Roman coinsat Siddi containedtwo Punicones(RFP 91), and a nuragictomb at UselluscontainedPunic ear-rings,glasspaste, and amber (RFP 110-11). IV

Similarly, inthenorth(fig.4), inLogudoro andAnglona, scholars persist inbelieving, oratleastsuggesting (andhoping.9, thattheRoman name

o

• o

o 'õ ß

0

30

ROBERT J. ROWLAND, JR.

of Porto Torres (Turris Libyssonis)owessomethingto Punic influence (RFP 81);•3 extensiveexcavationhasthusfar producednothingearlier than the late Republicanperiod (RRS 103). The underwaterdiscovery of a steleof Punic inspiration(RFP 81) is irrelevant, for it couldhave beenin transitfrom anywhereto anywhere;nor shouldwe be led astray (as many have been) by the undoubtedPunic influenceon the funeral stelae found in several areas of Anglona: at Castelsardo(RFP 39), Codaruina(RFP 40), Viddalba (RFP 111), and Tergu (RFP 99), for the tombswhich the stelaemarkedat Castelsardo(RRS35), Tergu (RRS 134-5), and Viddalba (RRS 147) are securelyRoman. Indeed, one of the stelaeat Viddalbabore a fragmentaryLatin inscription(---gianus). Elsewhere,Laerm hasprovidedonlycoins(RFP 49), andPunicmaterial hasbeenfoundat a nuragicsacredwell nearPerfugas(RFP 76). •4Crude funeral stelaesimilar to thosenoted above (but lacking grave goods) have also been found at Sorso, whence came some Punic coins and,

in a nuragiccontext, someother coinswith a jasper scarab(RFP 93). In thevicinityof Sassari,Punico-Roman materialsandPuniccoinshave been found at two different sites, and part of a vesselwas found at a third (RFP 89; RSP 21,437). At Florinas, other than a Punico-Roman cemetery,thereare somecoinsand a Cypriotevesselof the 5th or 4th century(RFP 45). The Punicmaterialsreportedascomingfrom Ploaghe are all from Roman contexts and are therefore to be considered Punico-

Roman(RFP 78; RRS 100-1), while thosefrom the valley of the Cuga, Uri, are from nuragiccontests(RFP 110; RSP 33,447). Similarly, in the northwesterncorner of the island, La Nurra, we have an important site at Porto Conte, Alghero, which seemsto be Punico-Roman(RRS 12), figuredstelaefrom Lazzarettodatingto the 8th century,Punicand Rhodianpotteryat the nuraghePalmavera(RFP 20-1; Lilliu 1962, 89). Lago di Baratz, where somelate Punic funeral stelaehave beenfound (RFP 68), •5 is about 7 km north of Porto Conte, and both placesare some 20 to 25 km from Uri. And that is all, unless one wants to add

somebeadsof glasspasteof the7th or 6th centuryfoundat thenuraghe Albucciu, Arzachena, the only Punic remainsin all of Gallura apart from Olbia (RSP 17, 200-1). V

Clearly, somethingis wrong. We can believewith Barrecathat there were 'insediamentiagricoli' in the Campidanoandin Logudoro(1974, 66), even thoughwe can rarely point with confidenceto a particular locale;•6 and certainlya list of placeswhere little or nothing,or less

PUNIC

SARDINIA

31

than one would have expected,hasbeenfoundis merely a demonstration ex silentio. It is the cumulative weight of the silencesand bare whispersthat counts. The lack of Punic remains around Barumini is particularlytelling, for that is the birthplaceof GiovanniLilliu andhas beenextensivelyexploredby that indefatigablescholar.A comparison of Lilliu's map•7demonstrating theterritorialexpansionof the Carthaginianswith Cecchini'smap(RFP figs. 1,2) of the PhoenicianandPunic findspotswill showhow muchmorebecameknownin a quarter-century, particularlyin the southwestern portionof the islandwhereLilliu has only onelocale (otherthanthe coastalcities)southof the Cixerri river. It is certainly quite possiblethat more extensiveexploration and excavationin the Campidanoandelsewherewill modifythe hypothesis here presented.

Nonetheless, let two examples raisea caution.Carefulexploration in the summerof 1955 by Attilio Diana,•8 and in the summerof 1981

by thepresentwriter, in the Campidano(Decimoputzu,Samassi,Serramanna,Serrenti,Villasor: Diana) and in a subsetof that region (Samassi,Serramanna,Villasor: Rowland)•9 failedto reveala single additionalPunicsherd.To counterthe incredulitythat suchan observationis boundto engender,considerthe following.Betweenthe S. Micheleculturesiteof Su Cungiaude Marcu, Decimoputzu,andthe one at CuccuruGibindia, Serramanna,a distanceof about 12 km, there

are no other known S. Michele sitesalongthe Fl. Mannu (fig. 5);2ø CuccuruGibindia is adjacentto the river, and there are two other S.

Michelesitesat Serramanna, oneat CuccuruPontis,overlookingthe Riu Estius less than 500 m from its confluencewith the Mannu, the other at Cuccuru Ambudu (or Imbudu), about 2 km from the river. 2• Next, there are two Monte Claro sitesin the zone, one at CuccuruAm-

budu,anotherat Palazzu,Samassi,about1 km eastof theriver.22Along the Mannu there are no further S. Michele or Monte Claro sites until

Isili, 23about35 km further to the north; and to the west, it is another 35 km or so from Serramannato the next nearestS. Michele site, in theterritoryof Iglesias(fig. 5).24In the regionI surveyedin 1981(fig.

6), therearetenknownnuraghi;oneof them,overlooking theUgariver (eastof Mori Pontis),hadrecentlyhadwhatremainedof its surviving

lowercourserepeatedly (it seemed) runoverby a tractor,apparently to makeroomslightlyto expandthe adjacentvineyard,an operation whichrevealed a considerable numberof potteryfragments, all nuragic; Romanmaterialat thesite(potteryandbricks)wasall 100or moremeters away on the westernslope, or alongthe river bank below. With the solitaryexceptions of the otherwiseanomalous nuragheat Is Tanasand

32

ROBERT J. ROWLAND,

JR.

VHlac•dro ß

Dec•moputzue

Fig. 5 Zone of Serramanna

the alreadymentionedS. Maria di Monserrato,all the restof the nuraghi in the zone have Roman, but not Punic, material at or near them, and

thereare an additional41 siteswith Romanmaterialandnothingprior. The broad fields of grain, the numerousvineyards,artichokeplantations and other signs of a thriving agriculture may have misled archa•logistsandhistorians intomisreading theancientterrain;2S without pollenanalysisandother studies,we cannotbe certainwhat the ancient environmentand land use were, but they may turn out to have been considerablyand surprisinglydifferentfrom what one finds today.26 In the late medievalperiod, althoughmany Romansiteswere no longer in usearoundSerramanna,every medievalsite continuedor reutilized a Roman one; and in both the Roman and medieval periodsthere is nothingwestof S. Pietro--in TerrosuAsole'smapof medievalsites,27 thereis a completevoid for about7 km betweenS. Pietro, Serramanna, andS. Pietro, Villacidro. The factis thatthe alluvialplainof the Mannu is extremelynarrow, about300 m wide; to the east, the land falls into Pietracaprina'sclassII type ('suoli buoniconancorascarselimitazioni d'uso. A volte l'irrigazioneb impossibilitataallo statonaturale');to the

PUNIC

33

SARDINIA

ß TOMBS

[] TILES,BRICKS

bali]

ß

barbal•

is g,ba,8 L

[] TILES, BRICKS, POTTERY ß POTTERY ß NURAGIC

s luxerla

-

L!?rap•.•nu ,

sa •rdla

perdJ•er•a

,•iali

Fig. 6 Serramanna:Detail

west,it isclass III ('suolimediocri conlimitazioni d'usochepossono anche raggiungere notevoli percentuali ... in genere adattiallecolture

arboree'). 28Whatweseenowasfields ofgrainandirrigated farms may wellhavebeenwoodland and,lacking mechanical means ofirrigation, pasture, withsomesmallplotsforgardens. 29Mechanical pumps now supplythe waterfor irrigatingthe vineyards of CuccuruPontisand

SaUga,forexample. All of theRoman sitesarein close proximity to watersources, including somethatcanbeexpected to bedryduring mostsummers (e.g.,Santus Angius). In addition, theisland undoubtedly

34

ROBERT J. ROWLAND,

JR.

contained manymoremarshes andswampsin antiquitythanit does now. 30

Our secondcautionaryexampleis theterritoryof Ozieri (fig. 7), where a local amateur,Father FrancescoAmadu, hasspentsometwentyyears exploring the countryside,acquiringboth a collectionof some 10,000 objectsand a detailedknowledgeof the sitesand terrain.3• Neither he in his many years, in all seasons,nor I in the summerof 1981, was ableto adda singlePunicfindto thelitfiethathadpreviouslybeenknown; here, too, thereis a vastarchaeological void (fig. 7), a strip 3 or more km wide alongboth sidesof the Riu Su Rizzolu and its tributariesfor a distanceof some 10 km, classII land that is now highly productive, becauseit is irrigated. It happensto be the lowest terrain in the territory of Ozieri, but is still over 200 m abovesealevel, so the fact that it is relatively low-lying can of itself have little or nothingto do with its nonutilizationin antiquityandin the middleages(at Ozieri also,some Roman sites were medieval and all medieval sites had been Roman). Importantalsoare the factsthatthe otherland in the territoryof Ozieri is classIII or IV ('suolipovericonseverelimitazionicheli classificano, in generale,fra i non coltivabili')32and that muchof the territory of Ozieri was (again?)marshy in the nineteenthcentury.33 VI

Thus, one differencebetweenthe Carthaginiancontrolof Sardiniaand the Roman is the organizationof space;the terrain was no more, and perhapsnotless,woodedandintractable in thelateRepublican andearly

Imperialperiods,whenthenumberof settlements increased enormously, thanit hadbeenfrom the 5th to the 3rd centuriesBC,andit is perhaps the Romans' most spectacularachievementhere that it was they who were responsiblefor clearingand drainingvast tractsof land and for spreadingsettledagricultureand villagesover all of the suitable,and even some unsuitable terrain. However, there is another difference be-

tweenthe Carthaginiansandthe Romanswhich is muchlessto the latter'scredit;theRomans'brutalwarsof conquest in theinterior,including Gallura, and their Sardi venales,34standin sharpcontrastwith the Car-

thaginians' morelimitedconquest andmorepeadeful meansof control adoptedafter the undoubtedlysanguinaryimperialismof the sixthand fifth centuries.35There are any numberof reasonswhy so many coins wereavailableto be assembled intohoardsin theinterior:giftsto native chiefs, I suggest,were the primary source,a substitutefor conquest; alsopayandbootybroughthomeby mercenaries; perhapsbootybrought

NURAGHE

ß

NURAGHE

ß

ROMAN SITE

[]

ROMAN

L• [• ß

•LZU

Fig. 7 Ozieri

36

ROBERT J. ROWLAND, JR.

backby nativeraidsintotheexterior;andtheaccumulated capitalderiving from the sale of goodsfrom the interiorto the exterior (including, possibly,slavesacquiredin inter-tribalwarfare).36What seemsclear is thatthe Carthaginians, in searchof a stablefrontier,were willing to useand showforce, but foundthat largesseand tradeprovidedas muchor more securityat a lesserprice than all-out war.37 University of Missouri/ University of Maryland

Robert J. Rowland, Jr.

NOTES

1. F. Barreca, La Sardegnafenicia e punica (1974) 47-48; "Le fortificazioni fenicio-punichein Sardegna",Atti del 1ø convegnoitaliano sul Vicino Oriente antico, Orientis Antiqui Collectio 13 (1978) 115-27: these will henceforthbe citedasBarreca1974and 1978respectively.Otherabbreviated citations

are:

Lilliu 1962 NSc NTASCO

G. Lilliu, I nuraghi: torri preistorichedella Sardegna (1962) Notizie degli scavi F. Nicosia, ed., Nuove testimonianze ar-

RSP

cheologichedella Sardegnacentro-orientale dal neoliticoalla fine del mondoantico (1978) S.M. Cecchini, I ritrovamentifenici e punici in Sardegna (Studi Semitici 32 (1969)) R.J. Rowland, Jr., I ritrovamentiromani in Sardegna(Studia Archeologica28 (1981)) Rivista di scienzepreistoriche

SS

Studi Sardi

RFP

RRS

For thenuraghi(thelargestonetowersinhabited by theindigenous Sardinians from the late third millennium),see(in additionto Lilliu 1962) G. Lilliu, La civiltfinuragica(1982),withamplebibliography, to whichaddM.S. Balmuth, "The nuraghitowersof Sardinia",Archaeology 34 (1981) 35-43, andR.J. Rowland,Jr., "A Sardinianbronzetto in Sicily", LCM 7 (1982)78-81 (especially for thedating).D. Ridgwaygivesa valuablesurveyof recentdiscoveries: "Archaeology in SardiniaandEtruria",Archaeological Reports for 1979-80, 58- 62.

I am gratefulto two anonymous refereesfor thisJournalandto Professor Badianfor suggesting improvements in the text and maps. 2. The line may (or need) not have includedMacomer, where the Punic remainsare of two greenjasperscarabs,some"Punic-stylestelae" (at least one of which is Roman), somecoinsin a Romancontext(RFP 49; RRS 59-60), and a hoard of more than 300 coins (SS 1,75).

PUNIC SARDINIA

37

3. For the transhumance routes,seeA. Mori, Sardegna(Le regionid'Italia 18 (1966)) 415.

4. Cf. A. La Marmora, Itinerario dell'isola di Sardegna,translatedfrom the French by G. Spano(1868) 341-3. 5. Cf. C.R. Whittaker, "Land andlabourin North Africa", Klio 60 (1978) 331- 62.

6. For Othoca, seenow R. Zucca, "II centrofenicio-punicodi Othoca", RSF 9 (1981) 99-113.

7. S. Moscati, "La penetrazionefeniciae punicain Sardegna",MAL8 12 (1966) 215-50, at p. 245. 8. D. Panedda,L 'agrodi Olbia nel periodopreistorico,punicoe romano (Forma Italiae: Sardinia (1954)) 24-5. 9. R.J. Rowland, Jr., "Aspetti di continuithculturale nella Sardegna romana", Latomus 36 (1977) 460-70, at p. 465. 10. Findsof sea-shells in archaeological contextsseemto implytheexistence of a trade, transhumance, or migrationroute alongthe Mannu, for they are

reportedat Nuraminis,Villagreca,Lasplassas, Barumini,Nuragus,andSerri: for documentation,seeR.J. Rowland, Jr., "The faunal remainsof prehistoric Sardinia", forthcoming.

11. For theproductivityof TrexentaseeMori (above,n. 3) 568-71; but cf. La Marmora (above, n. 4) 179: "II bacino della Trexenta, malgrado la sua

rinnomatafertilithin cereali,colpisceil viaggiatoreper la nudithcagionatadal difettodell'acqua,ed anchel'acquapotabilevi manca;quellachesi beve• poca e salmastra."SeealsoJ. Day, "La Trexentadal xiii al xix secolo",Quaderni Sardi di Storia 1 (1980) 43-62. 12. See Mori (above, n. 3) 566-8; but cf. La Marmora (above, n. 4) 255:

"Essapartecipacomel'altra (i.e., Trexenta)alla mancanzaquasitotaledegli alberie quelchepeggiola penuriae la cattivaqualithdell'acquapotabile.... Comegli abitantidell'altrobacino,questidellaMarmilla sonocondannatisino al presente(mid 1800s)a beverl'acquapiovanaraccoltanei tetti, o infiltrata a traversodei depositisaliferid'originemarina,che la rendonosalmastra." 13. Cf. the remarksof S. Moscati, Fenici e Cartaginesiin Sardegna(1968) 67.

14. For nuragicsacredwells, seeG. Lilliu, "Nuovi templi a pozzodella Sardegnanuragica", SS 14/15 (1955/7) 197-288, with tavoleI-XIX. 15. G. Tore, "Su alcune stele funerarie sarde di eth punico-romana", Latomus 34 (1975) 293-318.

16. Miriam S. Balmuth'sexcavations at the nuragheOrtu Comidu,Sardara, some26 km from Neapolis, allow us to point with confidenceto that locale asbeingwell within the Puniceconomicsphere;cf. M.S. Balmuth, "Ortu Comidu: a contributionto Sardinianarchaeology", AJA 86 (1982) 253. A full report, with an appendixon the Punicphaseby SamuelWolff, is forthcoming in NSc.

17. G. Lilliu, "Rapporti tra la civilth nuragicae la civilth fenicio-punica in Sardegna", SE 18 (1944) 323-70, at p. 325.

38

ROBERT J. ROWLAND,

JR.

18. A. Diana, ' 'Esplorazione archeologica nel Campidano",SS 16 (1958/9) 316-49.

19. My trip to Sardiniain 1981 was supportedby the AmericanCouncil of Learned Societiesand the ResearchCouncil of the University of Missouri, to bothof whichI expressmy gratitude.I shouldalsolike to expressmy gratitude for assistance kindlyofferedon thattrip to Professor Barreca,Sig. PieroCarlotti of the Municipio of Serramanna,FatherAmadu and, for warm hospitalityat Ozieri, the Gherafamily. For a brief reporton thatsurvey,seeR.J. Rowland, Jr., "Surfacesurveysat SerramannaandOzieri, Sardinia", AJA 86 (1982) 282. 20. For the San Michele (or Ozieri) culture, see G. Lilliu, La civilta dei Sardi dal neoliticoall•ta dei nuraghi2 (1972) 41-77; R. Loria and D. Trump, Le scopertea "Sa 'Ucca de su Tintirriolu" e il neoliticosardo (Monumenti Antichi 49 (1978)) 135-96, 200-9; Ridgway (above, n. 1) 56-8. 21. E. Atzeni, "Gli insediamenti prenuragici",AtlantedellaSardegna(1980)

fig. 35, nos. 79, 82, 83, 92. 22. For the Monte Claro facies of nuragiccivilization, see Lilliu (above, n. 20) 394, s.v. "Monte Claro, culturadi"; Ridgway(above,n. 1) 57-8. For the location, see Atzeni, fig. 35, no. 83. 23. Atzeni, fig. 35, no. 61. 24.

Ibid.

no. 112.

25. E.g., P. Phillips, Theprehistoryof Europe (1980) 218: "San Michele potteryis foundwidespreadfrom this goodagriculturalland of north-western Sardiniathroughthe rich plains of the Campidano." 26. At the FourthInternational Colloquiumon SardinianArchaeology (Tufts University,November1982),I suggested an alternativehypothesis of prehistoric land use in Sardinia ("Where did all the nuraghigo? Observationson the distributionof nuragic bronze"); an expandedand revised version is in preparation. 27. A. TerrosuAsole, Le sedi umanemedioevalinella Curatoria di Gippi (Sardegnasud-occidentale)(1975), fig. 2. 28. A. Pietracaprina,"Limitazioned'usodei suoli", Atlantedella Sardegna (1971), fig. 6. 29. In the summerof 1982, while riding on the Cagliari-Sassaritrain, I observedaboutsix personsirrigatinga vegetablegardenby carryingbuckets of water from a springto the crop, which seemedabout0.5 ha in size; the locationwas the plain of Campedanorth of Macomer. 30. A. La Marmora, l/iaggio in Sardegna(1926: Italian translationof the second French edition of 1839) 116-7.

31. F. Amadu,Ozierie il suoterritoriodal neoliticoall'eta romana(1978); in the summerof 1981 FatherAmadumostgraciouslygrantedme two interviews, one of some four hours' duration, and allowed me to examine his collection.

32. Pietracaprina(above, n. 28). 33. La Marmora (above, n. 30) 117. 34. P. Meloni, La Sardegna romana (1974) 39-78; R.J. Rowland, Jr.,

PUNIC

SARDINIA

39

"Numismaticsand the military history of Sardinia", Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (1978) 87-117. 35. The existence of the fortifications and the destruction levels at some

nuraghi(e.g., Lilliu 1962, 103, 107) datingto the 6th/5thcenturyrequirea reconsideration of C.R. Whittaker'sdenialof Carthaginian imperialismin Sardinia("Carthaginianimperialismin thefifth andfourthcenturies",Imperialism in the ancientworld, ed. P.D. Garnseyand C.R. Whittaker(1978) 59-90). 36. Cf. M.H. Crawford, "Republicandenariiin Romania:the suppression of piracy and the slave trade", JRS 67 (1977) 116-24.

37. Cf. T.F. Carney,Theeconomies of antiquity.Controls,girlsand trade (1973) 91.

WHO

IS JUNIA?

I shallnot resteasyuntil I have apologizedto the shadesof MiJnzer for a misjudgment,or at leastan inadequatepresentation,in my notes on Cic. Att. 12.22.2, Fam. 15.7, and Fam. 12.2.2. The last is a letter to C. Cassius, in which Cicero writes of his fellowconsulars

in 44:

tuus enim necessarius adfinitate nova delectatur ... adfinis novis commentariis Caesaris delenitus est.

alter item

Cassius' necessariushas been shown to be L. Aemilius Paullus, cos.

50, whosenephewhad recently been betrothedto a daughterof Mark Antony.l His sister-in-lawJunia,wife of the futureTriumvir Lepidus, was sisterto Cassius'wife JuniaTertulla, both daughtersof D. Junius Silanus,cos. 62; alter adfinis is C. ClaudiusMarcellus,2 also cos. 50, and the relationshipcould be either with Antony or with Cassius.As statedin my note ad loc., the only traceablemarriageconnectionbetween Marcellus and Antony is extremely remote: the former's wife Octavia, whosegrandmotherwas Divus Julius' sister, was a distant relative (perhapssecondcousin)of Antony's motherJulia. Although adfinis in ordinary parlanceis an elasticterm, this link can surelybe dismissed.

We happento know from a letter to Marcellus' father (Fam. 15.8) that the mother of the cos. 50 was a Junia, on whom I wrote (on Fam. 15.7): "She is likely to have beena sisterof D. JuniusSilanus,Consul in 62, rather than of D. JuniusBrutus, Consul in 77 (as MiJnzer, ROm. Adelsparteien,406 f., cf. RE s.v. Junius 191)." Drumann had been

inclinedto think so, thoughhe offered no evidencebut compatibility of dates. 3 MiJnzer's view was based on Att.

12.22.2:

(scribes) ... et num Clodia D. Bruto consulari filio suo mortuo

vixerit. id de Marcello aut certe de Postumiasciri potest. This Clodia was the wife of D. Junius Brutus Callaicus, cos. 138, and 40

WHO

IS JUNIA?

41

the sonwhom shemay or may nothaveoutlivedwas D. JuniusBrutus,

cos.77. Her grandson Albinusnotbeingavailable for questioning, Cicero suggests the latter'sauntby adoption,Postumia,as a likely sourceof information.The othersuggested source,C. Marcellus,mustlikewise havebeenconnectedwith the family. Mtinzer opinedthat his mother Juniamay have been sisterto the consulof 77, so that Clodia was C.

Marcellus'grandmother. In thatcase,of course,Juniacannotbecalled in to explain alter adfinis in Fam. 12.2.2.

Thereis an alternativetheory.If Clodiawasa ClaudiaMarcella,she couldhavebeenrelatedto Marcellusthroughhis father--mostlikely as sisterto his grandfather,an obscureM. Marcellus. So I assumed in my note on Att. 12.22.2. However, on reconsideration,I find it difficult to dissociatealter item

adfinis from adfinitatenova. If the relationshiphad been between MarcellusandCassius,wouldnotCicerohavewrittenalter (item)adfinis tuus? Therefore

I now incline

to follow

Miinzer's

view

in ROm.

Adelsparteien.But if Marcellus' link was with Antony, its naturecan-

notbe determined.It might,for instance,haveinvolvedAntony'swife Fulvia, but we have no pointers. D.R. ShackletonBailey

Harvard University NOTES

1. Mommsen, Hermes 28 (1892) 915 if. 2. Mommsen, ibid. 3. Drumann-Groebe IV 55; cf. Miinzer, RE s.v. Junius 191.

APOLLONIUS, SON OF MENESTHEUS: WHOSE

AMBASSADOR?

Polybius(XXXI 13.3) mentionsan Apolloniuswho wasan important

figurein thereignof Seleucus IV andwhosesonsincluded a Menestheus; II Maccabees4.4 mentionsan Apollonius,sonof Menestheus,•who wasgovernorof Coele-SyriaandPhoenicia onbehalfof thatsameKing; virtuallyall scholars,referringto thesimilarityof namesandfunctions as well as to the apparentpapponymy,quitereasonably infer that the two were one and the same man. 2

A problem,however,haslongbeennoticed.While Polybius(ibid.) asserts thatApolloniusremovedto Miletusuponthe accession of AntiochusIV, 3 II Macc. 4.21 makesthe following statement(text according to Hanhart (see n. 1)):

What is meantby Philometor'sprbtoklgsiais a matter of debate,but we neednoteonlythatmostscholars, in accordance withtheframework

supplied by II Macc.4, dateit between174and172;5in anycase,both text and contextclearlydateApollonius'missionto the reignof AntiochusIV. Now sincescholars,apparentlyunanimously,havetaken II Macc. 4.21 to meanthatApolloniusvisitedEgyptas Antiochus'ambassador andreportedbackto himregarding Philometor's hostility,they have had to deal with the contradictioncreatedby Polybius' statement. If one is not willing to infer that Polybius'Apolloniuswas not, after all, identical with II Maccabees' son of Menestheus,6 then one must settle for one of the other two obvious solutions. However,

a review

of these solutions,and their variants, will show, I believe, that neither is very satisfactory.

The first option,popularin formergenerations, wastherejectionof thetestimonyof II Macc. 4.21, eithersimplyasan error7 or asa result confusionwith Apollonius,sonof Thraseas(ibid. 3.5), who, accor45

46

DANIEL

R. SCHWARTZ

ding to this suggestion,was not the predecessor of the governor(and ambassador)of II Macc. 4 but rather identical with him. 8 However,

II Maccabeeshas cometo be quite generallyrecognizedas reliable in mattersreferringto the Seleucidbureaucracyand administration,when it mentions them, 9 and the fact that II Macc. 4 twice mentions the

patronym(verses4, 21) impliesthat the authorknew whom he meant, and intended to distinguishthis Apollonius from a homonymous predecessor.•0 The secondoption has been the more popular one in recent years: scholars have attempted to evade Polybius' clear statement that Apolloniusquit the royal serviceupon Antiochus' accession.This is achievedby wishful thinking,• or by assumingthat Antiochuslater recalledApollonius,•2or by acceptingPolybius'plain meaningbut sug-

gesting heerred.•3Theseareall counsels of despair.Moreover,Polybius' personalinvolvementwith Apollonius'sons,at the time of Demetrius I's flight from Rome, shouldmake us hesitateto reject his testimony about them and their father. •4

Furthermore,it may be notedthatotherinformationaboutApollonius' family supportsPolybius' statementthat he left Seleucidroyal service uponthe accessionof AntiochusIV. Polybius(XXXI 13.2) assertsthat Apollonius' three sonswere confidantsof DemetriusI, one of them (Apollonius)being the prince's syntrophos; •5 they helped him in his escapefrom Rome (ibid.); andan epitaphfrom Miletus recallsthatthey wereamongDemetrius'"greatcommanders". •6Onetendsto infer that, just as they supportedDemetriusin his struggleagainstAntiochusV, sotootheir fatherdid notseefit to supportAntiochusIV afterthe murder of Demetrius'father, Seleucus.This, indeed,appearsto be the relevance which led Polybius,in the contextof his accountof Demetrius' flight from Rome, to recallApollonius'moveto Miletusof morethana decade earlier. •? We are thus still left with the contradiction

between II Maccabees

and Polybius.However, it appearsto me that a closereadingof the formermaypointthewayto harmonizing thetwodataandalso,perhaps, to filling out our pictureof the relationsbetweenSyria and Egyptin this period. One mustfirst recallthatII Maccabeesis an abridgement of a much larger work (seethe abridger'spreface,2.19-32). While it is always hazardous to guesswhathasbeenomittedfromJasonof Cyrene'soriginal composition,onemay assumethat the abridger,focussingon Judaean history, has omitted (inter alia) suchdetailsof Seleucidand Ptolemaic

historyasdid not relatedirectlyto Judaeanaffairs.Thus,for example,

APOLLONIUS

SON

OF MENESTHEUS

47

while Heliodorusplaysthe major role in chapter3's accountof his attemptto rob the Templeof Jerusalem,Heliodorus'murderof Seleucus IV is alludedto only by the vaguephrase,"when Seleucusdeparted thislife" (4.7). Or again,onlyAntiochus'"second"campaign to Egypt is mentioned(5.1), andthatbecausethiscampaign,accordingto II Maccabees,providedthebackground for a revoltin Jerusalem andAntiochus' punishment of thecity.•8Similarly,Apollonius'missionto Egyptis mentionedin 4.21 only in orderto explainAntiochus'subsequent visit to Judaea (4.2 lb-22).

This beingthe case,it is legitimateto emphasizewhat II Macc. 4.21 doesnot say. It doesnot saythatAntiochussentApolloniusto Egypt; it merelystatesthatApolloniuswassent.Similarly, it doesnot saythat Apollonius returned to Antiochusand reported to him regarding Philometor'shostility;it statesonlythatAntiochuslearnedof it. While the usualinterpretationof the verseis perhapsthe naturalone, the fact that it involvesa contradictionwith Polybius,and the fact that we are dealingwith anabridgement, openthedoorfor anothersuggestion. This is particularlyso in the light of the fact that the useof participleshas beenshownto be a characteristic sign of the abridger'swork,•9 and both of the crucial verbs here (inoom3.•wog, •mm3.afitbv)are participles. Finally, we should note here that II Maccabees uses •mm3.a•tfi6vto sevenmoretimes, in eachcasereferring, ashere, to one antagonist's"learning" of the plansor movementsof the other, and in no caseare we told who it was who gave the informationor how it was obtained.2øThat is, in all other casesII Maccabeesapparently usesthis verb to refer to knowledgegainedcircuitously,suchas via spies,informants,fugitivesandthe like, and in any caseit neveruses it of the reportsof official ambassadors or of any namedcharacteror medium at all. It would be surprisingif 4.21 were exceptional. But if notAntiochus,whocouldhavesentApollonius?My candidate is Demetriusor, moreprobably,theyoungprince'sadvisors.As events later showed,Demetriusdid not give up hopesfor his father'scrown,

andit isquiteprobable thatPhilometor's regents, aspartof theirschemes againstAntiochus, 2• wouldsupportDemetrius'claimsin orderto weaken their enemy. Porphyry, probablyfollowing Polybius,indeedreports thatAntiochusIV, beforesuccessfully gainingthe throne,hadto overcomeopposition from Ptolemy'spartisans in Syria;TMthese,presumably, supportedDemetrius'claimsto his father'sthrone(what othercandidate wasthere?),23andso, it follows,did Ptolemy(i.e., hisregents)aswell. Again, in 164/3, whenPhilometorwas forcedto seekRomansupport in his strugglewith his brother, it was Demetriuswho offered him a

48

DANIEL

R. SCHWARTZ

royal reception at Rome (Diodorus Siculus XXXI

18), and shortly

thereafterit waswith the connivance of Philometor'sagent,Menyllus, thatDemetriusobtaineda shipfor hisescapefromRome(PolybiusXXXI 12.8 ff.).24All of thisevidencefor cooperation betweenDemetriusand PtolemyPhilometor,25beforethe former's return to Syria and accession to the throne,26makesit likely that yet anotheritem, the notice in II Macc. 4.21, is to be interpretedsimilarly. I suggest,therefore, thatit wason behalfof DemetriusthatApolloniusattendedPhilometor's festivities;whenAntiochusheardof this, he perceivedthe threatening specterof Ptolemaicexploitationof legitimistoppositionto hiscrown-suchasthatwhichis clearlyin evidencefor the succeeding decades. 27 Actingontheperceived threat,Antiochus "tookcarefor hisownsafety". A certainmeasureof doubtnecessarilyattachesto this suggestion, basedas it is uponthe expansionof an abridgedsourceregardingone event(Apollonius'mission)with theaid of othersources regardingother, albeit similar, events.Nevertheless,pendingthe discoveryof further data, it appearsto me that this suggestion,which eliminatesthe need to rejecteitherof our two witnessesbut rathercombinesthem, bestfits what we know of Apollonius,of the relationsbetweenthe two branchesof theSeleucidline, andof theirrelationswith PtolemyPhilometor.28 Daniel

The Hebrew University

R. Schwartz

NOTES

1. So virtually all editorsand commentators,following the Latin version insteadof the corruptGreek. For the textualevidence,seeMaccabaeorumliber II (ed. W. Kappler-R.Hanhart(19762))60, 62 (on II Macc. 4.4, 21). 2. For some exceptions,see n. 6 below. 3 .... •o0 gt•¾d)•qv gt•v•6