was to record its appreciation of services rendered to itself by erecting statues or other monuments of the Athenian officials 1). In this limited activity, however, it was unfettered by the legal disability of consulting the Athenians. It could, apparently, honor, or refuse to honor, its magistrates as it itself saw fit 2). The net result of this change was threefold. 1. The Athenian magistrates obtained a freer hand in administration through not being obliged to consult a local ekklesia. They could thus act more promptly and more vigorously. They were obliged, like the Roman proconsuls, to render an account only to a people among and over whom they did not serve 3). 2. The community of Delos in its entirety obtained more liberty of action through being emancipated from the constant interference of the ekklesia in Athens. It could act quickly in a crisis without waiting for the Athenian government to give the word, and without fear of legal consequences. 3. The public life of the island was strengthened through the destruction of the exclusive privileges of the small colony of Athenians. The widening of the quasi-citizenship extended in like measure interest and responsibility in the affairs of the island. In particular, the influence of the solid settlement of Italians was enhanced, and in time they came to act as open masters of Delos 1). " It is now necessary to ascertain the reasons for the dissolution of the kleruchy, and the formation of this hybrid body-politic. The ultimate cause was, of course, the enormous growth of the foreign population of Delos 5). This made it increasingly difficult for the handful of Athenians to maintain their position and prestige, especially since the outlanders “ were usually rich, or supported by wealthy corporations, or strong political interests. To this was added the chafing of the Athenian officialdom at the restraints of public control. Athens itself was becoming more and more aristocratic, and its rich men more and more contemptuous of democratic shibboleths. The pervasive influence of Roman opinion, moreover, was making for restrictions upon the power of the populace. Still, an occasion was necessary for the deposition of the kleruchs, entrenched as they were behind the breastworks of Athenian tradition. A successful 1) After 88 it conferred similar honors upon Romans. 2) For the procedure in case a club wished to erect a statue to an Athenian magistrate in Athens itself IG II 475 (112/1) is singularly instructive. In Delos after 131/0 clubs, priests, private persons erected statues of Athenian magistrates when they pleased. 3) That is to the Athenians upon their return. After 1032 they did not have even this ordeal to face, Klio IV pp. 4 ff. 4) Athens joined Mithradates in 88: Delos supported Rome against Athens at the same time. 5) 20000 are said to have been slain by the general of Mithradates; Appian. Mith. 28. attack must follow failure. Failure came in about 131/0 B. C. It was the time of the slave revolts. Sicily had been the scene of a ferocious struggle. In various parts of Italy, and even in Rome itself, an uprising had taken place. Andronikos, the bastard son of Eumenes II, sought to retain his father's kingdom by summoning the slaves to his standards. Apparently the whole of the vast under-population of the ancient world was seething with sedition and aspiring to liberty, and by means of ,, underground railroads" communications were carried on between one slave centre and another. It thus happened that a revolt broke out in Delos and in Athens simultaneously 1). In the latter place over a thousand men, probably in large part miners from Sunion, though all detailed information is lacking, tried to gain their freedom by force, and required the authorities to give their attention exclusively to the home danger. In Delos the slaves, we can well believe, were too many for the Athenian kleruchs to cope with unaided. The whole free population was forced to unite in suppressing the outbreak. To be sure, the slaves were quickly beaten in both places, and the Roman government was not obliged to go to the aid of the local authorities as in the case of Sicily. But the entire population had of necessity to act in common to crush the insurrection. What more natural than that the body politic, created in the face of the gravest conceivable danger, should be perpetuated to prevent 1) The time is not designated with any precision. Diodoros (XXXIV 2) simply mentions it while citing slave revolts contemporaneous with the first uprising in Sicily: οὗ διαβοηθέντος κατά τε Ρώμην δούλων ἀπόστασις ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα συνομο σάντων ἀνήπτετο, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ̓Αττικὴν ὑπὲρ χιλίων, ἔν τε Δήλῳ καὶ κατ' ἄλλους τόπους· οὓς τάχει τε τῆς βοηθείας καὶ τῇ σφοδρᾷ κολάσει τῆς τιμωρίας οἱ καθ ̓ ἕκαστον ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν κοινῶν θᾶττον ἠφάνισαν. σωφρονίσαντες καὶ τὸ ἄλλο ὅσον ἦν ἐπὶ ἀποorάoei μetéwgov. The outbreak of the servile troubles in Sicily he dates sixty years μetà từp Kagzydovíov zarákvów, i. e. after the fall of Syracuse? 211 B.C. Holm (Gesch. Sic. III p. 519 ff.) puts the beginning of the revolt in 139 and its end in 132. Diodoros defines the incident in a general way again in XXXIV 4: τὸ παραπλήσιον δὲ γέγονε καὶ κατὰ τὴν ̓Ασίαν κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καιρούς, Αριστονίκου μὲν κτλ. The troubles with Aristonikos began in 133 and continued till 130. The last Delian decree extant belongs to the year 133/2, but it received the sanction without comment of the Athenian ekklesia in Febry. of 131. This is the terminus post quem. The first extant dedication made by the new assemblage of the Delians dates from 126/5, but there is decisive evidence of the change from 127/6; for in this year occurs the first instance (BCH VIII p. 131 n. 2) of a dedication made ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου τῶν ̓Αθηναίων καὶ τοῦ δήμου τῶν Ρωμαίων the two joint overlords of the island. From the fact that a temple was dedicated in the precinct of the foreign gods in 130/29, two in 128/7, and a fourth in 127/6, I am inclined to think of this building activity as subsequent to the slave revolt and a consequence of the dissolution of the kleruchy in 131/0. The absence of any reference to the kleruchy in the period 130/29 127/6, notwithstanding that it is richly represented by documents, confirms this opinion. The revolt probably took place immediately after the victory of Andronikos over Crassus in the spring of 130 (Niese, III p. 369). a recurrence of the peril? What more natural than that the leading men, both among the Romans and the Athenians, should think the moment opportune to suppress the local democracy? In Rome the senatorial reaction which followed the overthrow of the popular government of Tiberius Gracchus was at this time at its height. The military coefficient of political equality did not prevail for long. In 131/0 the foreigners without regard to race or language had united to force the slaves back into their pens and subterraneous lodging places. And until 118/7 the rot, all alike, found recognition in the assemblage of the islanders. Then a distinction was drawn in the formula by which the action of the gathering was expressed, and the word "Einres took the place of voi1). The facts doubtless corresponded, and from this time on the three participators in the meetings are Athenians, Romans, and Greeks. The official preamble discloses few secrets 2), but a metrical paraphrase of it is not equally discreet or reserved. Thus the following epigram), put upon a monument in honor of Aropos, governor-general of Delos in 94/3 B. C., lets us see how frankly the Romans were recognized as masters of the island: Καὶ προγόνων ἀρετῆς σε καὶ εὔκλεος εἵνεκα δόξας Ἑλλήνων πλῆθος τε καὶ ἄστεα μύρια Ρώμας" καὶ κλυτὸς ἀρχαίου δᾶμος Επιχθονίου. [Τ]ῶν μὲν γὰρ βιοτὴν αἰδοῦς μέτα, τῶν δ ̓ ἐφύλαξας The three elements could, perhaps, act severally: but no case is extant in which the Athenians alone met in assembly. They were probably merged in the political organization of Athens itself). If they substituted a koinon for a polity, all evidence to this effect is lacking. The Romans on the other hand, like the various groups of Greeks and foreigners, had their own national union and a splendid club room besides. This was the scene of a busy communal life; for the associations in Delos had, of course, freedom of meeting under the Athenian law promulgated in the first instance by Solon and finally tested in the case of the Peripatetic 1) See above p. 237 n. 1. 2) In 104/3, when three Cretan cities concluded to deposit at Delos a copy of a treaty negotiated between them, they made all their arrangements with the epimeletes (BCH III p. 293 ll. 15 ff.). The committee sent to the island to have the document inscribed on stone had nothing to do with a local nóng (Ibid. p. 294 11. 43 f.). 3) BCH XVI p. 150. 4) Nothing betrays more clearly the consciousness of the Athenians that Delos was not theirs, but Rome's, than the frequency with which they designated themselves '49raio, instead of by the demotika, on the Delian monuments. Perhaps, too, Athenians born on the island, who reached their 18th year after 131/0, did not always take pains to have themselves registered in their paternal demes. 240 William Scott Ferguson, Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents. I. School in 307/6 B. C. But, as has been remarked already, no resolutions couched in the familiar terms of the Greek psephismata, like that of the Tyrian synod in 153/2 or of the synod of the melanephoroi? of about the same time, are extant for the period after 131/0 B. C. The irresponsibility of the Athenian officials for the twelve months of their service on Delos bore its fruit in a recalcitrant attitude towards the strict control to which the magistracy was subjected at home, and, as I have pointed out in another connection 1), it was from the circles officially connected with the administration of Delos that the oligarchic revolution of Athens in 103/2 B. C. issued. And doubtless in full consciousness of the precedent established, they chose the occasion of the slave revolt in Attica, when the miners at Laurium broke away from their guards, seized the fort at Sunion, and ravaged the country round about), to effect a coup d'état similar in its general effect upon the institutions of Athens to that which put an end to the Delian kleruchy in 131/0. The revolution in Athens was accompanied by changes in the administration of Delos to which reference will be made in another place. It did not affect in any way the composition of the assembly of the Delians. This remained the same in form, though in substance it was far from unfluctuating, till the agony of the civil war in Rome. Then in place of the composite formula there appears at the head of dedications simply ὁ δῆμος Αθηναίων καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν νῆσον3). The old scheme appears for the last dated occasion in the archonship of Zenon. (54/3 B. C.): the new one is first dated sharply in the time of Augustus, but it probably originated in some change of the status of Delos made by Pompey, Caesar, or Antony. 1) Klio IV pp. 10 ff. 2) Poseidonios in Athenaeus VI 272 e and f. The connection between the second slave revolt and the oligarchic revolution noted by me in Klio IV p. 12, was already surmised by S. Reinach in his work on Mithradates Eupator pp. 137 f. 3) BCH III p. 159 No. 7; cf. BCH VIII p. 154 (c. 44 B.C.?); BCH III p. 159 No. 8; cf. BCH VIII p. 154 (same time?); BCH VIII p. 154 (?); BCH XXVIII p. 148 (?); CIG II 2282 (43-27 B.C.); CIG II 2283b (27 B.C.-14 A.D.); BCH II p. 399 No. 7 (27 B.C.-12 B.C. Pammenes priest of Apollo for life); BCH VIII p. 156 (same time); BCH III p. 162 (12 B.C.-14 A.D.); CIG II 2283 d (after 27 B.C.); BCH III p. 156 = Rh. Mus. XLII p. 148 (Zenon, son of Pammenes, priest); BCH III p. 365 (4 B.C.—38 A.D.); BCH II p. 400 and III p. 161 (Claudius Emperor: Tib. Klaudios Novios priest). Die ptolemäische Staatspost. Von Friedrich Preisigke. Der Hibch-Papyrus 110, den Grenfell und Hunt kürzlich veröffentlicht haben), bringt uns den ersten sicheren Beweis für das Vorhandensein einer staatlich geregelten Posteinrichtung im hellenistischen Aegypten. Eine Datierung trägt die postalische Urkunde nicht. Wiederholt werden jedoch unter den Postsendungen Briefschaften genannt, die an den diozηris (Finanzminister) Apollonios gerichtet sind; da dieser Apollonios in anderen Quellen 2) für die Jahre 27 bis 32 des Philadelphos bezeugt ist (259 bis 253 v. Chr.), so haben wir die Posturkunde in die nämliche Zeit zu setzen. Diese Urkunde steht auf der Rückseite (Verso) eines Papyrusblattes. Die Vorderseite (Recto) enthält die Aufzeichnungen des Buchhalters eines grösseren Gutes über Einnahmen und Ausgaben an Weizen, Gerste und Bargeld. Diese Aufzeichnungen nennen die Jahre 12, 13 und 14; da sie auf dem Recto stehen und demnach älter sind als die postalische Urkunde, so beziehen sich die drei Jahre nicht auf den Nachfolger des Philadelphos, sondern ebenfalls auf Philadelphos (der erste Ptolemäer kommt wohl nicht in Betracht), und zwischen den beiderseitigen Beschreibungen liegt ein Zeitraum von rund 15 Jahren. Der Papyrus ist nicht vollständig erhalten, vielmehr bildet er das mittlere Stück einer grösseren Aktenrolle, deren Vorderseite im Bureau des Gutes, deren Rückseite später im Postbureau beschrieben worden ist. Auf der Vorderseite stehen zwei vollständige Kolumnen, von einer voraufgehenden dritten Kolumne sind wenige Reste erhalten; die Rückseite trägt zwei Kolumnen. Der Papyrus stammt aus einem in Hibeh gefundenen Mumienpappstück (Mumienkartonnage). Die postalischen Aufzeichnungen auf der Rückseite rühren von der Hand eines und desselben Beamten her. Dieselbe Hand hat auf der Vorderseite, am Schlusse der Kolumne III, noch drei Zeilen postalischen Inhalts niedergeschrieben (Z. 51-53), sei es als nachträglichen Zusatz zu 1) The Hibeh Papyri. Part I, London 1906. 2) Rer. Laws col. 38, (Jahr 27); Pap. Amherst II 33, 28 (Jahr 27); Pap. Hibeh I 95, 10′′ (Jahr 29): Pap. Petrie III 42 C (8), 10 = II 13 (3), 10 (Jahr 30); Pap. Petrie III 42 C (12), 3 = II 13 (1), 3 (Jahr 30); Pap. Hibeh 1 44. 3 (Jahr 32). Klio, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte VII 2. 16 |