Death to Tyrants! (38 page)

46
Magie (1950: 924n18) asserts that the failure of the ambassadors to mention Lysimachos's name does not support the conclusion that the Erythraians did not enjoy Lysimachos's rule. Magie suggests that the Erythraians did not mention Lysimachos because he was an enemy of Seleukos, Antiochos I's father: mentioning Lysimachos's good deeds might thus offend Antiochos. This need not stand; one might conclude that—if Lysimachos had supported democracy at Erythrai—the Erythraians would be inclined to tell that to Antiochos (“even Lysimachos did”).

47
See Lund (1992: 122–23) for the arguments for and against. On Hiero, see note 27. Heisserer (1979: 293) notes that Douris likely established his tyranny in Samos in the early years of the third century and that there might have been tyrants in both Chios and Teos at that time.

48
It is also possible that the Erythraians supported Demetrios during his 287/86 campaign in Asia Minor. If they did, Lysimachos likely would have punished them like he punished the people of Miletos (the only city securely known to have supported Demetrios—but we know that other Ionian cities did too: Plut.
Demetr
. 46. 2–5). See Magie (1950: 92, 922–23nn14–15).

49
For information on post-Kouroupedion Asia Minor, see Magie (1950: 93–94, 924–26 nn19–20).

50
The Erythraians appear to have celebrated the new political order with the inauguration of the Seleukeia. The editors for
I. Erythrai
35 assert that Erythrai's first such festival began after Kouroupedion and before Seleukos's death. Note, too, that the people of Erythrai added a stanza to a hymn to Asklepios: Seleukos is hailed as the son of Apollo. See Magie (1950: 924n19) for the evidence.

51
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets,
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not: 77 [32] (IIIb), 73 [33] (III), 82 [102] (II/I), 75 [217] (ca. I), 76 [103] (I), 74 [104] (late Hellenistic), 76.5 [not in
I. Erythrai
] (Hellenistic), 68.5 [not in
I. Erythrai
] (no date).

52
One should note here that, in worshiping Dēmos, the Erythraians were following, to some extent, Athenian practice. For the Athenian practice, see Raubitschek (1962: 240–41). A few inscriptions are worth noting here. First,
IG
II
²
1496 lines 131–32, 140–41 records that the Athenian generals sacrificed to
dēmokratia
in 332/1 and 331/0. As noted above, it was generals who made the first known dedication to Dēmos in Erythrai. Second, both
IG
II
²
4676 and
IG
II
²
5029a refer to a priest of Dēmos in Athens. Both of those inscriptions date to the third century. The Erythraians could have been inspired by contemporary Athenian practice.

53
Lund (1992: 239n73). Lund cites
RC
(pp. li–liii) and Sherwin-White (1985: 73). Note, too, Heisserer's comments (1979: 291n32) about the decree's linguistic characteristics: the consonant assimilations before palatal mutes (lines 11, 14, 27) suggest an inscribing date before Koine became too influential; the
spiritus asper
in an uncompounded form (lines 24–25) suggests early influence of Koine. Thus the linguistic characteristics are consistent with an early Hellenistic date.

54
An additional, and admittedly very suppositious, point in support of a 280 date involves the statue's verdigris (i.e., its
ἰός
). If the statue was shiny (
λαμπρός
) when the democrats lost control of the polis after the battle of Ipsos, and if the verdigris was not in its very earliest stage of development when the Philites stele was promulgated, and if the Philites stele was promulgated shortly after the democrats regained control of the city, all previous attempts at dating are undermined: they suggest that the oligarchs were in power for too short of a period (i.e., not long enough for verdigris to develop). We would thus be compelled to devise a different chronology, one fundamentally different from those offered heretofore.

55
It is likely that the democracy established in circa 280 was configured as a return to the democracy established in the wake of Alexander's conquest of western Asia Minor. Philites is the founder of the Erythraian democracy: he committed the foundational act of tyrannicide. One might thus note that the
dēmos
decreed (
I. Erythrai
30 lines 22–23) that they would announce honors for king Antiochos (I or II) in the festival of Alexander; the early-third-century democracy was a return to the post-Alexander, fourth-century democracy.

56
This is the obvious goal of all minority regimes, tyrannical or oligarchic. Note, in this regard, [Aristotle's] assertion (
Ath
.
Pol
. 16.3) that Peisistratos explicitly pursued policies that encouraged farmers to refrain from engaging in public affairs; cf. also Aristotle's remarks at
Pol.
1311a13–15.

57
Note that Dittenberger (
Syll
.
³
410) restores, in line 17,
τοῖς Πτολε
]
μαικοῖς
and thus supposes that Ptolemy II took Erythrai in the First Syrian War. This restoration is accepted by neither Magie (1950: 928n23) nor Englemann and Merkelbach (
I. Erythrai
24). One need not conclude that Ptolemy II controlled Erythrai during the First Syrian War.

58
This letter is dated by many (e.g.,
OGIS
223) to Antiochos I. Welles (
RC
15) argues for Antiochos II. Magie (1950: 928n23) offers a sound rebuttal to Welles.

59
Dittenburger (
Syll
.
³
442) dates this inscription to 261–248. This is accepted by Magie (1950: 928n23). That would give a context of the Second Syrian War. Englemann and Merkelbach (
I. Erythrai
29), however, date the decree circa 270–260.

60
Ptolemy II's control of western Asia Minor was, in general, limited to Samos and south of Samos (i.e., Egyptian power did not then extend into the Erythraian peninsula). Samos and Miletos held by Ptolemy II: Magie (1950: 95, 926n21). It is possible that Ptolemy II held the Ionian city of Lebedos; it depends on whether or not the image on a coin is Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III: Magie (1950: 930n25). And for a brief time around the death of Antiochos I, Ptolemy II's son Ptolemy Epigonos rebelled from his father and held Ephesos (until the fall of Timarchos in Miletos). But by the peace of circa 253 (ending the Second Syrian War), all of Ionia was lost to Egypt: in
OGIS
54, lines 5–8, Ptolemy III asserts that he inherited from his father (Ptolemy II) the kingdom of Egypt, Libya, Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Lycia, Karia, and the Cyclades—i.e., not Ionia. On the gains of Antiochos II in the Second Syrian War, see McShane (1964: 45). McShane (1964: 33–35) states that Antiochos I allowed local autonomy in western coastal Asia Minor under his nominal control because he was busy elsewhere and he wanted to prevent Ptolemy II from making inroads in the region.

61
See too: App.
Syr
. 65. Grainger (2010: 121) suggests that this liberation started the Second Syrian War.

62
Note that in the oath taken by the Magnesian soldiers, they swear (line 65—second text in the dossier) to join in guarding (
sundiatērein
) Smyrna's “autonomy and democracy.”

63
See Magie (1950: 736n22, 934n29). Ma (2000: 44) also notes that Seleukos II sought the goodwill of Mylasa (a city south of Ionia).

64
For the evidence of Asia Minor cities taken by Ptolemy III, see Ma (2000: 44–45n65) and Magie (1950: 99, 936–37n31). Ma (2000: 45 with n. 66) also notes the possibility that Ptolemy III held Priapos, a town in the Troad.

65
Heirax was likely co-ruler of Asia Minor. He subsequently fought a war against his brother, Seleukos II—the so-called Brothers' War. In that war, Hierax defeated Seleukos in a battle near Ankyra. As a result of that battle, Hierax ruled as an independent king in Asia Minor. The dates for the Brothers' War are contested. See Ma (2000: 46 with n. 68) and Magie (1950: 736–37n23).

66
For the inscriptions on Atallos's victories, see
OGIS
273–79. See Magie (1950: 737–39n24).

67
See Ma (2000: 46n70) and Magie (1950: 939n36). Magie (1950: 739n26) notes that the cities of southern Ionia and Karia were controlled by Egypt at this time.

68
Ma (2000: 55) citing Mørkholm (1969: 15).

69
On the Attalid symmachy, see McShane (1964: 65–91). Egypt still controlled Samos, Ephesos, and the cities on the coast of Karia: Magie (1950: 102). Magie (1950: 11) concluded that Attalos “gained the support of the cities of the coast of Aeolis and northern Ionia as far south as Ephesus, which was probably held by a force of Egyptians.” Note that a decree from Teos concerning Antiochos III (
Austin
151) possibly dates to circa 203. Thus Antiochos III would have been in Ionia before his campaigns of 197 and 196. See Ma (2000: 260–65) for the arguments concerning the date of the Teian decree. Ma also suggests (2000: 72) that Antiochos III also took Kolophon and Lebedos (both Ionian cities). And it might be important to note the success of Philip V. He took Samos, Miletos, Magnesia on Maeander (Ionian cities). He besieged Chios (an Ionian city), but was defeated. And Philip made substantial gains in southwest Asia Minor. He does not appear to have taken Ionian territory north of Magnesia in these campaigns. For Philip's campaigns in 201–200: Magie (1950: 103–4, 747–50nn39–44), Ma (2000: 76–77).

70
McShane (1964: 70–72) argues that Attalos I had “treaties” (
synthēkai
) with the cities listed in Polyb. 5.77–78. The important cities around Pergamum were independent allies (
symmachiai
) of Attalos. The small cities (Elaia, Temnos, Atarneos, and Pitane—all close to Pergamum) paid taxes.

71
Rebuilt Smyrna was a member of the Ionian koinon in 289/8; there were thus thirteen members. On the Ionian league, see Magie (1950: 65–66, 868n50). Smyrna was destroyed in the Archaic period by the Lydians and turned into a few villages. It became a city and Ionian likely under Antigonos.

72
Ma (2000: 44 with n. 61) cites
OGIS
229 (Smyrna) and
RC
22 (Miletos) in order to demonstrate the power of cities at this time.

73
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not in brackets,
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets: 73 [33], 95 [26], 117 [87], 119 [53], 13 [114], 268 [192], [35], [36], [431] (the last three are not included in
IEryth
McCabe.

74
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not in brackets,
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets: 73 [33], 95 [26], 119 [53].

75
I. Erythrai
35 and 36 (neither is in
IEryth
McCabe).

76
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not in brackets,
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets: 5 [117], 10 [120], 9 [121], 8 [122], [88]. The latter is not in
IEryth
McCabe. An inscription that suggests the
dēmos
controlled Erythrai, 117 [87], might also date to the early years of the second century: it is dated III/II. And
I. Erythrai
112 (not in
IEryth
McCabe) should be mentioned too: it dates to the first half of the second century and was clearly promulgated when the
dēmos
was in control of the city (line 18).

77
Ma (2000: 89) wrote, “Miletos (perhaps), Priene, Ephesos, and most or all of the coast up to the Erythrai peninsula.” See also Magie (1950: 17–20, 755–64nn50–56; 105–7, 946–48 nn49–55).

78
One might draw a parallel with Athens: for fifty-eight years after the revolt of 287, the Athenians controlled the
asty
, but the Macedonians controlled the Piraeus. See Habicht (1997: 124). For the Athenian revolt, see Shear (1978).

79
Livy 37.8.5 (Roman forces at Erythrai trying to encourage other cities to join them); Livy 37.11.14 (Erythraian ships set sail to assist the Rhodian fleet—but it had been badly defeated); Livy 37.12.10 (after the Rhodian disaster, the Romans and Eumenes first sailed to Erythrai and then took the promontory of Korykos).

80
The terms of the peace of Apameia are not easy to determine precisely due to Polybios's imprecise account (21.45). Livy (38.39.7–17) essentially copies Polybios but does add one important phrase (38.39.10) about settlements granted by Rome to Ilion. And Livy also includes (37.56.2) a provision whereby Eumenes was to receive “the Milyae, and Lydia, and Ionia with the exception of those cities which had been free on the day when the battle [i.e., Magnesia] with King Antiochos had been fought.” For this peace, see Magie (1950: 108–9, 950–51n60), Walbank (1979: 164–75), McShane (1964: 149–52). Note that Polybios also records (21.24.6–9 [= Livy 37.55.4–7]) the general instructions given by the Roman senate to the commissioners before the meeting at Apameia.

81
Walbank (1979: 167) concluded that Erythrai fell into the category of “autonomous, but paid tribute to Antiochos, but helped Rome.” The apparent basis of that conclusion, found on page 106, is Livy 36.43.10 (that Antiochos's fleet sailed to Kissos, a harbor of Erythrai). But, as suggested above in the text, that passage does not necessarily demonstrate that Antiochos controlled the
asty
.

82
For the beneficial situation of Rome's “friends” in Asia Minor during the half century following the peace of Apameia, see Magie (1950: 112–16). Note
Syll
.
³
591 (lines 33–35): Flamininus apparently made it known to the people of Lampsakos (196–195) that, “should he conclude friendship or alliance with anyone … he would protect the democracy, autonomy, and peace [of that city].” Lampsakos, like Smyrna in Ionia, played an important role in resisting Antiochos III in 196. See Livy 33.38.3.