the status of the greek cities of asia minor after 190 b.c

The Status of the Greek Cities of Asia Minor after 190 B.C.Author(s): Donald W. BaronowskiSource: Hermes, Vol. 119, No. 4 (1991), pp. 450-463Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476840Accessed: 23/08/2010 10:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476840?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

THE STATUS OF THE GREEK CITIES OF ASIA MINOR AFTER 190 B. C. *

After defeating Antiochus III at the battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., the Ro- mans expelled the king from Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus Mountains1, and determined the status of the regions hitherto subject to him. Most of these were ceded to the Rhodians and to King Eumenes II of Pergamum, the major allies of Rome in the eastern Mediterranean2. The primary evidence for the Roman settlement of Asia Minor consists of three literary texts: (a) Polyb. 21.24.7-8 (on which Livy 37.55.54 depends) (7) iQ &? TOV O6XwOV wvTo' &XLapiov orT bEt TbOV ?L T&6? TOV TawQOV XcTOl-

XOVT(wV, OCFOL ?V Ve ' 'Av Tioov ? roVto, IOVIOV5 ER'Vi R o 0VaL TEXv

Auxdccv xcti KaQL'X Ta [?XQL TOV MatLvb6o' 3TotcCtjoi3, Tc'aTiCt & 'POb(wV 'Th6Q- x?LV, (8) TCO)V (?) rO6XewV TOW 'EXXivibov dovCl tEV 'ATTXP cpOQOV UTrTE'XouV,

* My earliest work on this subject appeared as an appendix to my doctoral thesis (University of Toronto 1982), supervised in turn by Peter Derow and Graham Sumner. I gratefully acknow- ledge financial support provided by the University of Saskatchewan and its College of Arts and Science, including a President's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grant. In general I follow the abbreviations of The Oxford Classical Dictionary2, Oxford 1970. The following special ones will be used: Bull. = J. and L. ROBERT, Bulletin epigraphique, REG 1938-1984; RDGE = R. K. SHERK, Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus, Baltimore 1969. In subsequent footnotes, reference to the following works will be made by author's name only or in an abbreviated form: R. BERNHARDT, Imperium und Eleutheria: Die romische Politik gegenuiber den freien Stadten des griechischen Ostens, Diss. Hamburg 1971; E. BICKERMANN, Notes sur Polybe, 1: Le statut des villes d'Asie apres la paix d'Apamee, REG 50, 1937, 217-239; J. BRISCOE, A Commentary on Livy, Books 34-37, Oxford 1981; D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton 1950; A. MASTROCINQUE, La Caria e la Ionia meridionale in epoca ellenistica (323-188 a. C.), Rome 1979; A. MASTROCINQUE, Citta sacre e 'asylia' alla fine della guerra tra Roma e Antioco III, in: I santuari e la guerra nel mondo classico, ed. M. SORDI, Milano 1984, 142-163; H. H. SCHMITr, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos' des GroBen und seine Zeit, Wiesbaden 1964; F. W. WALBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 3, Oxford 1979.

1 Polyb. 21.43.6; Livy 38.38.4, with WALBANK 157-158; A. GIOVANNINI, La clause territoriale de la paix d'Apamee, Athenaeum 60, 1982, 224-236. A controversial view about the boundary imposed on Antiochus is expressed by R. ADAM, Tite-Live, Histoire Romaine, Tome 28: Livre 38, Paris 1982, l-lvii.

2 On the possessions of Antiochus in Asia Minor until Magnesia see SCHMITrr 158-175, 262-295; also see below, note 4.

The Status of the Greek Cities of Asia Minor after 190 B.C. 451

ta Tag tOv actov Eu'EvECL TEXcEv, 6oUL 6' 'AvtL6ozp, ILOVOV TaTalgL ccpeLoalta Tov

cpoQov. (Teubner text of T. B1TNER-WOBST) (b) Livy 37.56.2-6 (from a Roman annalistic source) (2) Lycaoniam omnem et Phrygiam utramque et Mysiam regi as(signavit), Milyas et Lydiae Ioniaeque oppida extra ea quae libera fuissent quo die cum rege Antiocho pugnatum est, (3) et nominatim Magnesiam ad Sipylum et Cariam quae Hydrela appellatur agrumque Hydrelitanum ad Phrygiam vergentem, et castella vicosque ad Maeandrum amnem et oppida, (4) nisi quae libera ante bellum fuissent, Telmessum item nominatim et castra Telmessium, praeter agrum qui Ptolemaei Telmessii fuisset. Haec omnia quae supra sunt scripta regi Eumeni iussa dari. (5) Rhodiis Lycia data, extra eandem Telmessum et castra Telmessium et agrum qui Ptolemaei Tel- messii fuisset; hic et ab Eumene et Rhodiis exceptus. (6) Ea quoque iis pars Cariae data quae propior Rhodum insulam trans Maeandrum amnem est, oppida, vici, castella, agri qui ad Pisidiam vergunt, nisi quae eorum oppida in libertate fuissent pridie quam cum Antiocho rege in Asia pugnatum est. (Bude text of J.-M. ENGEL) (c) Polyb. 21.46.2-10 (on which Livy 38.39.7-17 depends) (2) oaL EvTOv avTov6Otv toXeOv rQO6TEQOV UtTeFXOvv 'AvT-OL(O cpOQOV, TOTE 6'

LelcPv'Xauav T'v nto' 'PQ)RaCov; ntLOTLV, tCLUTXga Fv ar Xvtjav T-Ov TOQWv oVa.L 6'

'ATT6Xq OIUVTCELV -TEXoiiv, TacvTaLg E'nrtacav TOv aor6v E1veL 8L 506vCL (pOQOV.

(3) eL 66 TLVEg &aMooTVdOal Tij; 'PwOia(wv pLXLCg 'AvtLoxq oi,vEnoXF,o,,v, TacTag Exkeuvav Eu[tEVEL 6L86vcL T 'AvOU 60 6tatetaEyvov q6OQOVg. (4) (Ko-

Xo(wwv(oig) 68E Toiv; TO NOTLov o0xoUVTag xacL Ku i[taov; XaL MXaoEt;g &Cpo-

QOXOyTTOVU aC'pixav, (5) Kkalo[EvCoL& 8xcil 6oQEaV n(QOoElhlXaV T' V AQ1,ioikF-

oav xaXo,E,vnv vIIoov, MLX1LOLg & TTIv LE?&v OQOaV CrToxaTEUTTOav, ij 6lt

TOil JTOXF' [ou QO6tEQOV EEX`Qdav. (6) XLoug 6?E xaL X vQvacoug, E'1 6' 'EQu-

'&QaOIlJ, EV TC TO!g catXXOt JtQOT'OV x XO)QaEV JtQoOEVFACCV, 8 EXJTOL XCLTE TO

7tCEQOV SEtFtS&ROlUV XCLL OqULOL Xa"XceLV veX&ktPCvov, EvTQuE6tiEvoL TT1V UVoLaV

xca wtouN6]v, T1v 7ayQEXvTo xaCtT TOv norXe[Lov a'Totg. (7) '7tar6oxav &' xai DoxaLEvuoL to nCETQLOV toXt(evL a xcd tiv Lav, fjv xci

I Q6Qov cixov. (8) jIt

TzOTWa 'Po&oLg EXQ7[tCElUaV, 86i6OV-TeAVxL'av xac KaQLag Ta >?XQ L MaLuvbQol

ntoTai,Oii nr'v TEXREaooo . (9) tQcL &t IOV fkaGoXEwg EV>Voug xaL T-ov &6eXqxiw ?V

l? TaCL 3TQo; 'AvTi;oxov (rnv{hUxal; 'I1V ?V6e?XOFVV 7tQOVOLaV EnOLTjGVTO Xal TOTE

Tfj ?v E`-VEQ@j acnVTI 3uQot O11xav X?QQO6voov xai( AAoL[tGaEXav xca Ta teQoo-

OQOlJVTCE T1TOLg ?EQU'Ta Xcd XdQav, 'g 'AvTioXoX 'nxQXEV (10) Tug 6' 'Ac(YCEg

DQVyCav?i1v &p' ̀EXXvrjtO6VTOU, FpvYLv aVT itV RyEtXiv, MVooi5;, oi)g (fnQoU0'a9)

QeQov ct'uoi, acQxPeaCaETo, AuxaovLav, MLXka'6a, Au6iav, TaxXXetL, 'EqPE-

Gov, TeXkReoao6v. (Teubner text of T. BUTrNER-WOBST) These passages have given rise to an astonishing variety of interpretations. Almost every detailed account of the settlement differs significantly from the others3. It is

3 T. MOMMSEN, Romische Geschichte 12, Berlin 1856, 720-721; B. NIESE, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea 2, Gotha 1899, 747-749,

452 DONALD W. BARONOWSKI

even more remarkable that this Protean display has eluded scholarly attention. The settlement deserves further study, even if this means coming to grasp with the Old Man of the Sea.

According to (a), in 189 the Roman senate granted to Rhodes and Pergamum certain regions of Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus Mountains hitherto subject to Antiochus III (cf. Polyb. 21.21.7). Lycia and Caria south of the Maean- der were ceded to the Rhodians, everything else to Eumenes.

The guidelines established by the senate in 189 (a) formed the basis for the rulings made by Cn. Manlius Vulso and the ten commissioners for Asia in 188 (c: Polyb. 21.46.8-10). From the latter passage we learn that (in broad outline) they assigned Hellespontine and Greater Phrygia to Pergamum along with Mysia, Lyca- onia, Milyas and Lydia; to the Rhodians were given Lycia together with Caria south of the Maeander4.

759-760; G. COLLIN, Rome et la Grece de 200 a 146 avant Jesus-Christ, Paris 1905, 190-194; G.

CARDINALI, Il regno di Pergamo, Rome 1906, 72-77; G. DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani 42 1,

Florence 1969 (1923), 219-220; E. MEYER, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien,

Zurich 1925, 145-156; M. HOLLEAUX, Rome and Antiochus, in: The Cambridge Ancient History

8, edd. S. A. COOK et al., Cambridge 1930, 230-233 and brockets (now see M. HOLLEAUX, Etudes

d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques 5, ed. L. ROBERT, Paris 1957, 421-424); BICKERMANN 217-239;

MAGIE 108-109; L. PARETI, Storia di Roma 2, Turin 1952, 727-728; F. CERUTI, I Greci d'Asia

nella politica Romana (Dai primi rapporti alla pace di Apamea), Epigraphica 17, 1955, 131-142;

H. H. SCHMITT, Rom und Rhodos, Munchen 1957, 84-92; R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy of

the Attalids of Pergamum, Urbana, Ill. 1964, 151-152; BERNHARDT 52-54; E. V. HANSEN, The

Attalids of Pergamum2, London 1971, 93-96; MASTROCINQUE, La Caria 194-205; WALBANK

164-174; E. WILL, Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J.-C.) 22, Nancy 1982,

224-238; E. S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley 1984, 547-549;

MASTROCINQUE, Citta sacre 142-163; J.-L. FERRARY, Philhellenisme et imperialisme: Aspects

ideologiques de la conquete romaine du monde hellenistique de la seconde guerre de Macedoine a

la guerre contre Mithridate, Rome 1988, 150-158; R. M. ERRINGTON, Rome against Philip and

Antiochus, in: The Cambridge Ancient History 82, edd. A. E. ASTIN et al., Cambridge 1989,

287-289. I know of F. CERUTI, Lo status delle citta greche nel trattato di pace di Apamea (188), Annuario del Ginnasio Liceo A. Volta di Como, 1974-1984, 165-183, only from Annee Philologi-

que 55, 1984, no. 10166. The best discussions are those of NIESE, CERUTI (I Greci d'Asia) and WILL. An account of the status of individual cities after 188 may be found in BICKERMANN

235-239; MAGIE 950 n. 60, 952 n. 61, 958 n. 75; SCHMITr 278-285; BERNHARDT 54-71; MASTROCIN- QUE, La Caria 201-205; WALBANK 106, 167; MASTROCINQUE, Citta sacred 148-150.

4 E. SCHWERTHEIM, Studien zur historischen Geographie Mysiens, Epigraphica Anatolica 11, 1988, 65-77 argues that Mysia, at issue in Livy 37.56.2, Polyb. 21.46.10 and Livy 38.39.15, is not equivalent to Phrygia Epictetus (another name for Hellespontine Phrygia); after changing hands several times in the period 218-209, Mysia belonged to Antiochus III until 190. For earlier views on the status of Mysia in this period see SCHMITr 262-278; WALBANK 171-172; BRISCOE 350, 386. I

take exception with SCHWERTHEIM on two points. First, his view that Eumenes received only a

portion of Mysia depends in part on the extraction of >royal forests of Mysia? from the corrupt text of Livy 37.56.2: on this passage now see the Bude edition (below, note 6). Second, I think that the traditional text of Polyb. 21.46.10, according to which Prusias (restored) took Mysia from Eume- nes, and the traditional interpretation of Livy 38.39.15, according to which King Prusias (Prusia


Polybius (a) provides only the briefest summary of the senatorial decree of 189. A much more detailed version of the same senatus consultum is reported by Livy (b), who derived his information from a Roman annalistic source5. Livy's version of the senatorial decree (b), although more detailed than Polybius' account of the rulings made by the ten commissioners (c: Polyb. 21.46.8-10), agrees sub- stantially with the latter on the question of the regions assigned to Rhodes and Pergamum6.

Livy (b) makes a point that is consistent with Polybius (a). The Achaean histo- rian (a) states that the Rhodian and Pergamene grants consisted of peoples who had been subject to Antiochus. Conversely, Livy (b) notes that certain towns were excluded from the grants. The oppida thus exempted had been free (libera, in libertate) before the battle of Magnesia7. In this context ?freedom< must imply independence from Antiochus, exclusion from his kingdom8. Accordingly, all cities subject to the king immediately before the battle were handed over to Rhodes and Pergamum, while those independent of him were excluded from the grants.

This interpretation of (a) and (b) is consistent with Polyb. 21.18-23, in which are reported the conflicting requests made of the senate in 189 by Eumenes II and

rex) took Mysia from Eumenes (understood), are correct. But this is another question, and in any case, both the traditional doctrine and the proposals of SCHWERTHEIM leave Antiochus as master of Mysia immediately before the battle of Magnesia. SCHWERTHEIM restores Antiochus as the abstractor of Mysia in Polyb. 21.46.10, and he argues that in Livy 38.39.15, Antiochus (rex) took Mysia from Prusias (Prusia, dative case). Prusias' seizure of Mysia, indicated by the texts, can be identified with an earlier stage in the historical sequence established by SCHWERTHEIM. Polybius (followed by Livy) wished to evidence the historical claim of Pergamum to possession of Mysia.

5 WALBANK 117-118; BRISCOE 384-385. 6 On the text of Livy 37.56.2-6 now see the Budd edition by JEAN-MARIE ENGEL, Tite-Live,

Histoire Romaine, Tome 27: Livre 37, Paris 1983, with JEAN-MARIE ENGEL, A propos de Tite- Live, 37,56,1-4: Les difficultes de l'etablissement d'un texte antique, in: Recherches sur les >Artes<< a Rome, ed. J. M. ANDRE, Paris 1978, 77-85. Livy 37.56.2 (b) refers to Lydiae Ioniaeque oppida, whereas Polyb. 21.46.10 (c) (cf. Livy 38.39.16) mentions only Lydia. I would suggest that Livy (b) provides more detail rather than introduces an additional region. In Polyb. 21.46.10 and Livy 38.39.16, >>Lydia<< probably includes the ancient Hellenic foundations of Ionia and Aeolis. From the time of Alexander the Great until probably the early third century B. C., the Ionian and Aeolian Leagues each formed a separate satrapy under a oTQa?r1yog. After that time, however, they came under the supervision of the Seleucid viceroy based at Sardis, who was also 0TQacT1yo6g of Lydia. See H. BENGTSON, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit 1, Munchen 1964 (1937), 215-223; 2, Munchen 1964 (1944), 12-15, 90-115; L. ROBERT, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes 1, Paris 1964, 11-14.

7 Livy uses three expressions of time: quo die cum Antiocho pugnatum est; ante bellum; pridie quam cum Antiocho rege in Asia pugnatum est. BRISCOE 386-387 believes that the provisions must have been the same in all cases, and that the day before the battle is correct (cf. WALBANK 168).

8 On the constituent parts of the Seleucid kingdom see D. KIENAST, Entstehung und Aufbau des romischen Reiches, ZSav 85, 1968, 345-347. The practical meaning of subjection to Antiochus is suggested in Polyb. 21.41.1-2; cf. 36.17.13. See WALBANK 153.


the Rhodians. The Pergamene distinctly asked Rome to give him the regions that had formerly been subject to Antiochus and had fought for the Seleucid in the recent war (Polyb. 21.21.7-11); he was particularly eager to obtain control of the Greek cities. The Rhodians wanted Rome to grant freedom (E?XV-

i&'a, auTovoia) to the Greek cities (of "'EXXqvF;), but Eumenes wished to annex them (Polyb. 21.19.5-12; 21.22.7-8; 21.23). To the Rhodian proposal the king reacted with vehement alarm. If the Greek cities were declared free, insisted Eumenes, those already subject to him would revolt (Polyb. 21.19.8-10). The Rhodians suggested that the Romans confine the Pergamene grant to regions that contained no autonomous cities (acUTovo0Ro0[t6vat r6XoLg), that is, no Greek cities, the object of Rhodian solicitation (Polyb.

21.22.9-15). Clearly the Rhodians wanted the Romans to exclude the Greek cities from the Pergamene grant, and to make them effectively independent; Eumenes wanted these cities to become subject to himself. As the king referred to the Greek cities as enemies of Rome, they were Seleucid communities that had supported Antiochus until the battle of Magnesia (Polyb. 21.19. 11-12; cf. 21.21.10-11).

In their decree of 189 (a), the senate decided not to make the Greek cities effectively independent. On the other hand, they elected not to assign them to Eumenes alone, but to share them between their Pergamene confederate and the Rhodians. The Greek cities of (a), the n'otXEL 'EXX1vi6Eg, formed part of the Rhodian and Pergamene grants. These awards included all cities, formerly Seleucid, that had supported Antiochus until the battle of Magnesia (cf. Livy 37.44.4; 37.45.1-3). The cities independent of the king at that time were now excluded from the Rhodian and Pergamene grants.

It is significant that in (a) nothing is said about the freedom of the Greek cities (;t6XcL; 'EXXiv(&Eg); only liability to tribute is at issue. These communities must fall under the general heading of peoples who had been subject to Antiochus until the battle of Magnesia.

The foregoing conclusions are consistent with Polyb. 21.41.1-2, in which the proconsul Cn. Manlius Vulso, at the beginning of 188 B.C., received the visit of ambassadors from Greek cities ('EXXrvLi&; 3t6eLX) and other communities; all of these had, upon the defeat of Antiochus, been released from subjection to the king. Evidently these cities had been loyal to the Seleucid until the battle of Magnesia. As they made special representations to Vulso in 188, they must have felt particular anxiety, and this must stem from the senatorial decree of 189 (a) (b), by which these communities had been awarded to Rhodes and Pergamum. These cities now awaited the detailed rulings to be made by Vulso and the ten commissioners.

The liability of the Greek cities to tribute after 189 depended upon their fiscal history (a). Cities that had (once) paid tribute to Attalus I (and later possibly to Antiochus until 190) would remit the same amount to Eumenes; those which had


(until 190) paid tribute to Antiochus (but never previously to Attalus I) would be exempted from this obligation9.

Thus the Roman dispensation of 189 represented a compromise between the rival demands of Rhodes and Pergamum. The two powers shared certain districts formerly subject to Antiochus, including Greek cities that had remained loyal to their former suzerain until the battle of Magnesia. This arrangement largely fulfil- led Eumenes' request, though he had not expected to share the spoils with the Rhodians. The latter had wanted the Greek cities to be made effectively independent. As a concession to Rhodes, the Romans bestowed upon some Greek cities the attenuated favour of exemption from tribute.

In (a) no explicit mention occurs of non-Greek cities that had remained loyal to Antiochus. Probably they became stipendiary to Rhodes and Pergamum without distinction.

The Greek cities that had formerly paid tribute to Attalus (and later possibly to Antiochus) were required to pay the same amount to Eumenes (a). This arrangement may be associated with a statement made by Eumenes to the senate in 189. Before the outbreak of war between Rome and Antiochus, the Seleucid (declared Eumenes) had wanted to establish close relations with Pergamum. Therefore he had offered to restore to Eumenes the cities that he had previously alienated from him (Polyb. 21.20.8). These cities, once subject to Attalus, had passed under the control of Eumenes, who lost them to Antiochus. However, the Seleucid may also have taken some cities from Attalus himself10.

9 In Polyb. 21.24.8 (a), I suggest that the comma be placed after 6ovov rather than 'AvTL6'. Hence we should have: 6oal 6' 'AvTLO6Xq Iovov (sc. (p6Qov '7teT'Xovv), >>the cities that had paid tribute only to Antiochus.<< Editors of Polybius place the comma after 'AvTLOXO (see the editions of SCHWEIGHAUSER, HULTSCH and BUTrNER-WOBST).

10 Ilium, an Attalid city after 218 B.C. (Polyb. 5.78.6), became subject to Antiochus probably by the fall of 197 (ScHMITr 284), and it was still a Seleucid city in 192 (Livy 35.43.3). Attalus I died in the summer or autumn of 197 (Polyb. 18.41; Livy 33.21.1-5; cf. Polyb. 18.17.6; Livy 33.2.1-3, with HANSEN [above, note 3] 67 n. 173). It is therefore unclear whether Antiochus captured Ilium from Attalus or from Eumenes. The city of Teos, Attalid in 218 (Polyb. 5.77.5), was exempted from Pergamene tribute in 204/3 through the intervention of Antiochus III (P. HERRMANN, Antiochos der GroBe und Teos, Anadolu 9, 1965, 29-159; see chiefly Document 1). According to HERRMANN, Teos now became a Seleucid city (cf. Bull. 1969, no. 495), but A. GIOVANNINI, Tdos, Antiochos III et Attale ler, MH 40, 1983, 178-184 argues that Document 1, a decree of Teos issued in 204/3, demonstrates the continuing alliance of the city with Attalus I (this view is rejected in Bull. 1984, no. 365). In 193 Antiochus obtained recognition of Teian asylia by Rome (RDGE 34), but this action does not prove that the city was Seleucid, for a king might promote the asylia of a city that did not belong to him (see references in GIOVANNINI 178 n. 4). Teos was definitely Seleucid in 190 (Livy 37.27.3; 37.27.9-28.3; 37.28.9). Although I find persuasive GIOVANNINI'S argument based strictly on Document 1, I believe that more weight must be accorded >la lecture de l'ensemble<< (Bull. 1984, no. 365). The provisions for a royal cult in Documents 1 and 2 point to an imminent change of allegiance (a recent survey of Hellenistic ruler cult appears in D. FISHWICK, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Leiden 1987, 6-45). The change is clearly marked in


The Greek cities of (a) can be more narrowly defined. In 193, when T. Quinc- tius Flamininus threatened to invoke Rome's susceptum patrocinium libertatis Graecorum against Antiochus, he was thinking particularly of the ancient Hellenic foundations of Aeolis and Ionia (Livy 34.58.8-13). Of special importance are his words, neque enim in Aeolidem Ioniamque coloniae in servitutem regiam missae sunt.... (Livy 34.58.13; cf. Diod. 28.15; App. Syr. 6). Later in 193, the Seleucid courtier Minnio exposed the insincerity of Rome's professions about the cause of freedom. He drew special attention to the cases of Smyrna and Lampsacus as well as the cities of Ionia and Aeolis generally, for these figured prominently in the Roman argument (Livy 35.16-17). Smyrna and Lampsacus had been under attack by Antiochus since 197/6 (Livy 33.38.1-7; cf. Polyb. 8.52), and both cities, along with Alexandria Troas, continued to hold out in 192 (Livy 35.42.1-2); they were never taken by the king. In 190, after suffering three major naval defeats, Anti- ochus attempted to negotiate with P. and L. Cornelius Scipio, who had reached the Hellespont. The Seleucid offered to resign his claims to Lampsacus, Smyrna and Alexandria Troas, as well as the cities of Aeolis and Ionia that had sided with Rome during the war (Polyb. 21.13.3-4; 21.14.2). The Romans, however, insisted that he not only free the cities of Aeolis and Ionia (as a whole), but also withdraw from Asia Minor beyond the Taurus range (Polyb. 21.14.8).

Evidently the Greek cities receiving special mention in (a) were ancient coastal foundations located primarily in Aeolis, Ionia and the Hellespont"1. These communities had remained loyal subjects of Antiochus until the battle of Magnesia. Consequently they were assigned to Rhodes and Pergamum in 189, though some were exempted from tribute.

To sum up, in 189 the senate gave Rhodes and Pergamum certain regions formerly subject to Antiochus III. All cities within these regions that had been subject to the king and had supported him until the battle of Magnesia were ceded to Rhodes and Pergamum. These communities included Greek cities, >>Greek<< in the narrow sense just defined.

In 189, the ten commissioners were instructed by the senate to settle the affairs of Asia in accordance with basic guidelines announced in a senatorial decree (a)

HERRMANN'S Addendum no. 1 (two fragmentary letters of Antiochus to Teos), showing that the king guaranteed the democratic constitution and the freedom of the city (lines 9 and 18). These letters belong to the period 204/3 to 190; they demonstrate that Teos became Seleucid (cf. HERR- MANN 143; GIOVANNINI 180); I would suggest that this happened in 204/3 or soon afterwards. At any rate, whether Antiochus took Teos from Attalus or Eumenes, the city had once paid tribute to Attalus, but supported Antiochus until the end of the Roman-Seleucid war. There is no evidence that Teos paid tribute to Antiochus, and RDGE 34, lines 19-21, confirming the status of Teos as

apoQoXoy'qog, suggests that it did not. On other towns that Antiochus may have taken from Attalus and from Eumenes see WALBANK 113 (on Polyb. 21.20.8).

11 Cf. NIESE (above, note 3) 749; L. and J. ROBERT, La Carie: Histoire et G6ographie Histori- que 2, Paris 1954, 300. On the cities of Aeolis and Ionia see Hdt. 1.142; 1.149.


0) o ( 60 00

0)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-40 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

.0~~~~~~~~~~ "0c

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~0)

0) CZ-

0

CZ ~~~~~~~ U 0) 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .0 00

.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,: 0o

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V

0 CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~04 0) Z 0

0 ~~~~~~~ CO

oCZ,

- 0

0~~~~~~"

0 0~~~~~~~~~~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

0~~~~~~~ 0 "0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0)

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~

.00o CZ


(b). This the commissioners proceeded to do, in concert with the proconsul Cn. Manlius Vulso (c). In their assignment of districts to Rhodes and Pergamum in 188 (c: Polyb. 21.46.8-10), essentially they followed the senate's outline (a) (b). How- ever, they had also been empowered to make special rulings about points of detail. The senate charged them with responsibility for settling disputes among the Asiatic cities, and for deciding individual questions about the Rhodian and Pergamene grants (Polyb. 21.24.5-6). Hence the commissioners made special decisions about nine cities, resolving territorial issues and pronouncing on the question of Rhodian and Pergamene tribute (c: Polyb. 21.46.4-7). Their general regulations about the treatment of aUTVO[LOL 3T0oXEL (c: Polyb. 21.46.2-3) belonged as well to the class of discretionary rulings, not to the category of decisions closely following the senatorial outline (c: Polyb. 21.46.8-10).

What is meant by the term ccVTovootL nt6XeL; in (c)? Passages (a) and (b) suggest that they should be identified as cities independent of Antiochus at the time of the battle of Magnesia.

This conclusion is corroborated by Polybius' use of the term ;t6XELg alTOVOROL in related portions of his narrative. During the negotiations held between Anti- ochus and the Romans in 196, the latter warned the king to abstain from attacking the no6XcEL cVT0vo0ot of Asia, which he obviously did not control. This first group of cities is contrasted with a second group, consisting of towns already captured by the Seleucid; from these he was ordered to withdraw. The cities of this second group are described as former subjects (ntdXELg TCCTToopcvVCL) of the Ptolemaic and Macedonian kings, but no royal allegiance is attributed to the 3o0XEL; al'vTo'VOL. It therefore appears that in the Polybian texts describing the early stages of the Roman-Seleucid dispute (18.47.1-2; 18.50.5-7; 18.51.9) the term o6XftL avo'- TOVOROL denotes cities independent of Antiochus and enjoying substantive free- dom12

Smyrna, although Attalid in 218 (Polyb. 5.77.6), asserted its effective independence and successfully defended it against Antiochus from 197/6 until the end of the Roman-Seleucid war (Livy 33.38.1-7; 35.42.1-2; Polyb. 21.13.3-4; 21.14.2). It was certainly one of the nrXEL; aco'T6voRo that the Romans forbade the Seleucid to attack in 196 (Polyb. 18.47.1-2; 18.50.7; 18.51.9; 18.52). In 189 the representatives of Smyrna addressed the senate. On this occasion Polybius described the people of this city as iTovxTwv EXTEVEOUCLTOL Trv ML Trg 'AoLa; cv-

Tovo[ovURvov (21.22.4). Evidently the term cctOVO"ovuVOL is equivalent to r6XE1; CCUTOvojioL, and Smyrna fits the general definition of >>autonomous city<< in

the context of the Roman-Seleucid dispute. When Rhodian ambassadors addressed the senate in 189, they asked that the

Greek cities formerly subject to Antiochus, and loyal to him until Magnesia, be left

12 Cf. E. BICKERMANN, Bellum Antiochicum, Hermes 67, 1932, 48-50.


effectively independent of Pergamum (Polyb. 21.19.5-10; 21.22.7-23.12). In those passages, the words ~Xe&,?QLa AXlElQwoLg, E?XVe,uQOw, acn,tovoLa describe the status desired by the Rhodians for the Greek cities. In a transport of sanguine audacity they called these communities Ta'St 0EUTovoIio1i[vag 7o6XEL;, for they expected to secure effective independence on their behalf (Polyb. 21.22.10).

In the passages analyzed above, autonomy implies independence of a king; in the context of the Roman settlement of Asia Minor, the point of reference must be Antiochus. The au'T6voRoL nT6XeLg of (c) must be cities independent of the king at the time of Magnesia.

The autonomous cities of (c), moreover, belonged to a specific group. Formerly subject to Antiochus, they had revolted from the king during the Roman-Seleucid war and supported Rome against him.

The autonomous cities are divided into two major classes. The first class had (once) paid tribute to Attalus (and later possibly to Antiochus), but revolted from the Seleucid during the war, and joined the Romans. The second class had earlier paid tribute to Antiochus (though never to Attalus), but revolted from their sovereign during the war, and joined the Romans. Some communities of this second class remained faithful to their new alliance, while others betrayed it by fighting on the side of Antiochus.

In (a), the cities formerly tributary to Attalus and Antiochus belonged to a single category: they had all remained loyal to Antiochus until Magnesia. Similar- ly, the cities of (c) belonged to a single group: they were all former subjects of Antiochus that had revolted from him during the Roman-Seleucid war and had espoused the Roman cause, with constancy or infirmity of purpose.

What status was granted to these communities? In 189, all cities independent of Antiochus had been excluded from the Rhodian and Pergamene grants (a) (b). In (c) it is not independence but liability to tribute that is at issue. Therefore the

3t6X?Lg a'T&voRoL of (c) were added to the Rhodian and Pergamene grants. As in (a), liability to tribute in (c) depended on fiscal history. Cities that had

(once) paid tribute to Attalus (and later possibly to Antiochus) would remit the same amount to Eumenes. Cities that had formerly paid to Antiochus (but not previously to Attalus) were exempted from tribute if they had remained loyal to Rome, but they had to pay the same amount to Eumenes if they had defected from their Roman alliance.

In 189, all cities independent of Antiochus had been excluded from the Rho- dian and Pergamene grants (a) (b). Some of them had achieved effective independence through timely defection from Antiochus and adherence to the Roman cause. Their change of allegiance, whether counseled by prudence or conviction, diminished the prizes of war claimed by Eunemes (cf. Polyb. 21.21.9). Their narrow escape of 189 was cancelled by the ten commissioners in the following year.

According to (a), all cities loyal to their Seleucid overlord until Magnesia were assigned to Rhodes and Pergamum, and special rules governed the payment of


tribute by the Greek cities of this category. Similarly, passage (c) implies (though it does not categorically state) that all autonomous cities (>>autonomous<< in the special sense) were granted to Rhodes and Pergamum. But the autonomous cities to which explicit reference is made in (c) were Greek towns (>>Greek? in the special sense), for which special rules were devised to govern the payment of tribute.

Some of the autonomous Greek cities had betrayed their Roman alliance by fighting on the side of Antiochus (c). It might be supposed that the Romans would classify such towns among the loyal subjects of the king if they were on his side at the end of the war (a), and for this reason their inclusion in the category of autonomous cities may seem illogical (c). Such classification, however, would have been absurd. A former Seleucid town that had previously paid tribute to Antiochus (though never to Attalus), revolted from its sovereign, joined the Romans, and finally reverted to the royal colours would, if treated according to the rules of (a), be exempted from payment of tribute. Hence the implausible result that the Ro- mans bestowed upon compulsive tergiversators the same immunity from tribute that they awarded to former Seleucid towns that had defected from the king, joined Rome and remained faithful to their newly acquired Roman alliance.

The solution to this apparent difficulty, I suggest, is that when a Seleucid city joined the Romans through deditio before the battle of Magnesia, Rome guaranteed its autonomy. The clearest example is Phocaea. Attalid after 218 B.C. (Polyb. 5.77.4), the city had been captured by Antiochus before the autumn of 191 (Livy 36.43.8). It joined the Romans at this time, when it came under the protection of C. Livius Salinator, commander of the Roman fleet (Livy 36.43.11-12; App. Syr. 22; Livy 36.45.7-8; 37.8.5). Antiochus recaptured Phocaea in the spring of 190 (Polyb. 21.6.1-6; Livy 37.9.1-4; 37.11.15; 37.12.5-6; App. Syr. 25; FGrHist 260 F47). The Romans, compelled to abandon their first siege of Phocaea (Livy 37.21.7-9), received the surrender of the city in the fall of 190 (Livy 37.31.7-32.14). During the final siege, L. Aemilius Regillus, the successor of Livius, indicated to the Phocaeans that potestatem iis dari eadem condicione, qua prius C. Livii in fidem venissent, se tradendi (Livy 37.32.9). After the surrender of Phocaea Aemilius, though unable (says Livy) to control his rapacious soldiery, guaranteed the status of the city: urbem agrosque et suas leges iis restituit (Livy 37.32.14). In 188, Vulso and the ten commissioners did in fact restore the ancestral constitution and the territory of Phocaea (Polyb. 21.46.7). This formula (land and laws) points to the standard grant of freedom13, which in the case of Phocaea may be traced back to

13 The guarantee of a city's territory and laws is often associated with the recognition of its freedom. The most apposite parallel for the case of Phocaea is that of Heraclea by Latmus. This city became subject to Antiochus III in 191/0 or perhaps a little earlier (see W. AMELING, Antio- chos III., Herakleia am Latmos und Rom, Epigraphica Anatolica 10, 1987, 19-40). The freedom (EXeuvepWa) of Heraclea was guaranteed by the Scipios when it surrendered to them (RDGE 35, lines 10-12). The deditio of Heraclea occurred before the battle of Magnesia (fought in December


the original deditio of 191. Although Phocaea actually surrendered twice to the Romans before Magnesia, the first deditio was the decisive one, setting it in the category of autonomous cities (c).

Upon the defeat of Antiochus, the Romans continued to regard as autonomous (i.e., effectively independent) all cities that had defected from the king during the war. In 189, these autonomous cities were excluded from the Rhodian and Per- gamene grants. Some of them had betrayed their Roman alliance by reverting to Antiochus. Their addiction to things Seleucid was chastised in 188 by subjection to Rhodes and Pergamum, the fate now decreed for all the autonomous cities (i.e., all cities that had defected from Antiochus during the Roman-Seleucid war).

Two points remain to be noted. First, passage (c) appears to indicate that the communities that had defected from Antiochus and reverted to him were located only in the regions ceded to Eumenes. Second, for the cities that had revolted from Antiochus to join the Romans, autonomy initially meant effective independence under Roman protection. After 188 the draught of freedom, decanted from the golden goblet to the modest tumbler, signified local independence under the supervision of Rhodes and Pergamum. This circumscribed variety of freedom was a common feature in the Hellenistic world. Kings granted freedom to cities forming part of their realms (e.g., Livy 33.38.5-6; Polyb. 15.24.4; 18.51.9). But it is significant that the Romans failed to issue a declaration of freedom for any of the cities forming part of the Rhodian and Pergamene grants.

The Romans, I think, deliberately avoided so invidious an action. In 188, after they had awarded Lycia to Rhodes, those two parties formed profoundly divergent views about the nature of the transaction. While the Rhodians hastened to issue orders to the Lycians, the latter, claiming freedom, asked Rhodes for an alliance and refused to obey Rhodian orders. Clearly the Lycian concept of freedom dif-

of 190), for the letter of the Scipios distinctly implies that only some Seleucid cities had surrendered (contrast Livy 37.45.1-3, on the general surrender of the Seleucid towns after the decisive battle). FERRARY (above, note 3) 154-155 adopts the same chronology, but I do not accept his arguments against a date after the battle, for a grant of freedom made by the Scipios after Magnesia could have been given a more specific - and attenuated - interpretation by the senate in 189; and the existence of a treaty (o[vaXia) between Heraclea and Rhodes after 180 B. C. (SIG3 633, lines 34-36) does not rule out subordination of Heraclea to Rhodes after 189 (cf. L. and J. ROBERT [above, note 11] 303-312, no. 167, according to which the citizens of Carian Apollonia, although subject to Rhodes after 188, made some sort of treaty [oYvvxaL] with their overlords [see lines 13-14]). Both of these criticisms, as will be seen, are important for my own argument. On several other occasions the restitution of liberty, land and laws follows defeat by Rome or deditio, actual or contemplated: Livy 25.23.4; 29.21.7; 31.31.7; 33.30.2 (Polyb. 18.44.2); 33.32.5 (Polyb. 18.46.5); 37.54.26; 38.44.4; 45.29.4; Polyb. 36.4.4. In each case, the result or the intention of the Roman proclamation was to guarantee a community's independence, subject to some degree of Roman tutelage. On the restitution of freedom by Rome to defeated or surrendered peoples see W. DAHLHEIM, Struktur und Entwicklung des romischen Volkerrechts im dritten und zweiten Jahrhundert v. Chr., Munchen 1968, 69-98.


fered radically from the status intended for Lycia by Rhodes (Polyb. 22.5). Similar- ly, the Rhodians had attempted to win effective independence for the Greek cities formerly subject to Antiochus, exempting them from Pergamene rule. It is true that, in 178, the Romans published a more generous interpretation of the Lycian relationship with Rhodes, but this happened ten years later, when the Romans were displeased with the Rhodians (Polyb. 25.4.1-6.1; Livy 41.6.8-12)14. In 188, the Romans approved the general line taken by Rhodes in Lycia. The definition of Lycian freedom would be written by the Rhodians, not by the Lycians, and the Rhodian formula would accommodate the rigours of an authoritarian regime15. That the Romans in 189-188 omitted to advertise liberty in chains shows their mute acknowledgement of a forsaken ideal (Livy 34.58.8-13) and their reluctance to practise utter cynicism (Polyb. 22.5).

To sum up, the Roman settlement of Asia Minor was completed in two stages. In 189, the loyal subjects of Antiochus (including Greek cities in the special sense of the term) were ceded to Rhodes and Pergamum. When Vulso and the ten commissioners made their detailed rulings in the following year, they adopted this general principle. But they added to the territorial awards all cities that had abandoned Antiochus for Rome during the Roman-Seleucid war, including Greek cities (>>Greek? in the special sense of the term). At both stages, some Greek cities were exempted from tribute. Such was the issue of susceptum patrocinium libertatis Graecorum.

This, it seems, is what I have heard from ancient Proteus. But I grappled with the Old Man without the ambrosial protection of Cyrene's ointment, the seals were barking, and their nauseating stench distracted my attention. As I left for Tempe, the occupant of the Pallenean cave smiled sardonically16.

Appendix

The derivative accounts of the settlement, based directly or indirectly on Poly- bius, misrepresent him to a greater or a lesser degree. The following comparisons indicate the major divergences of the derivative accounts. 1. Polyb. 21.24.7-8 and Livy 37.55.5-6:

In Polybius' account, Greek cities are included among the former subjects of

14 Cf. WALBANK 277-281. 15 On the Rhodian administration of the subject Peraea see R. M. BERTHOLD, Rhodes in the

Hellenistic Age, Ithaca, N.Y. 1984, 85-89, 167-171. 16 This article sketches the basic principles of the settlement, as I understand them. The large

task remains of collecting and studying the diverse and copious literary, epigraphic and numisma- tic evidence bearing on the subject, and of relating it to basic principles. A project of this magni- tude and complexity should be undertaken by someone who enjoys continuous and extensive access to the specialized publications.


Antiochus awarded to Rhodes and Pergamum, but Livy thought they formed a separate category, for he referred to them as ceterae civitates Asiae17; he omitted to point out that they were Greek. While Polybius relates only that cities formerly tributary to Antiochus would be exempted from tribute, Livy says they were declared liberae atque immunes.

2. Polyb. 21.24.7-8 and App. Syr. 44: Appian excludes Greek cities from the Rhodian and Pergamene grants. In general his account of the rules concerning tribute corresponds to that of Poly- bius, but he adds that cities formerly paying tribute to Antiochus were made autonomous (acTvxo,volto).

3. Polyb. 21.24.7-8 and Diod. 29.11: Diodorus fails to note that the Rhodian and Pergamene grants consisted of former subjects of Antiochus. He includes cities in the grants, but omits to indicate that they were Greek. According to Diodorus, the cities that had paid tribute to Eumenes (an error for Attalus) were made subject to Eumenes (true, but Polybius actually says that they were made tributary to the king).

4. Polyb. 21.46.2-3 and Livy 38.39.7-8: Livy omits to indicate at the outset that the cities under discussion had become independent of Antiochus (Polybius calls them a'xvloWotot no6eLt). He states correctly that cities formerly tributary to Antiochus that had (subsequently) supported Rome (faithfully) were exempted from tribute. However, he mis- leadingly reports that the cities that had supported Antiochus became tributary to Eumenes (Polybius implies that certain towns, having once paid tribute to Antiochus, revolted and joined the Romans, but abandoned their new alliance by supporting the king; these cities were made tributary to Eumenes).

5. Polyb. 21.24.7-8 and 21.46.2-3; and App. Mith. 62: In Appian's account, Sulla tells the Asiatic Greeks that, after their victory over Antiochus, the Romans left the Greeks free except for certain cities given to Eumenes and the Rhodians. This tendentious statement displays at least a greater tincture of truth than the (future) Dictator's claim that the cities assigned to Rhodes and Pergamum were not made tributary to those powers, but were (merely) placed under their guardianship. Although tutelary subordination was indeed Rome's intention (cf. Polyb. 22.5; 25.4-5), some of these wards had to pay tribute (a) (c).

University of Saskatchewan, DONALD W. BARONOWSKI

Saskatoon, Canada

17 Cf. BRISCOE 385.