The Attalid Kingdom: A Constitutional History

THE ATTALID KINGDOM A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D

THE ATTALID KINGDOM A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D

Oxford University Press,Walton Street' Oxford OX2 6DP London Glasgow New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo

*' ^ Dares,i:, Nairobi ;inf":r,,

and associsted comPanies in Beirut Berlin lbadon Mexico City Nicosio Published in the United States by Oxford IJniversity Press, New York O R. E. Allen 1983 Atl rights reserved. No parr of this publication may be reproduced' m,eans' -stored ia retrieval system, or tansmitted, in anyform or by any without ilectronic, ' mechanical, photocopying, ryc9rding, or otherwise' rhe prior peimission'of Oxford University Press

BritishLibrary Cataloguingin PublicationData Allen' R.E. TheAttalid Kingdom. I. Pergamon- History L Title 939'.21 DSt56.P4 ISBN 0-t9a14845-3 Typesetby Fotron SA., Athens, Greece Printed in Hong Kong

P R EF A C E There hasbeen a long-feltneedfor a new constitutionalhistory of the Attalid Kingdom, that can embrace the extensiveresearch done and reassessments made since Cardinali'sI/ Regno di pergamo, still the basic work on the subject,was publishedin 1906. The presentwork is an attempt to meet that need. I was further aware in the courseof my researchthat a great deal of important specialist work, above all that of Ohlemutz (1940)and Kähler (1948),had not been adequatelyabsorbedinto the more recent works on the Attalids now available,and I hope that my debt to theseand to otherswho have studiedthe Attalid Kingdom will be obvious.. This book beganits life as a doctoral thesisof the University of London, presentedin 1972.Since then I have benefitedgreatly from the advice of teachersand examiners,as well as from work publishedin the meantime.I owe a great debt of gratitudeto Mr P. M. Fraser,who first suggesteda study of the Attalids to me and has advisedand helpedme most generouslyin achievingit. I am glad to have this opportunity at last of thanking him. I am also indebted to ProfessorA. D. Momigliano, without whose initial support my researchcould not have been contemplated,and to ProfessorH. Bengtson,under whosedirectionI studiedfor a year as a guestof the Seminar(now Institut) für Alte Geschichteof the University of Munich in 1972-3;I greatly appreciatehis kindness and hospitality, as also the stimulating discussionafforded by membersof the Seminar,especiallyDr WolfgangOrth. Finally I must thank the managingcommittee of the British Schoolat Athens for admittingme as a Studentof the Schoolfrom 1968to 1970;the British Institute of Archaeologyat Ankara for facilitatingmy researchin Turkey, especiallyat Pergamonitself; Mme D. PeppaDelmousoufor enablingme to study the epigraphical materialrelatingto the Attalids in the EpigraphicalMuseumin Athens; and Miss E. Rohdefor admittingme to the archivesof the PergamonMuseum in Berlin in 1969.To all these I am most grateful. Oxford, 1979

R. E. ALLEN

C O N T EN T S ABBREVIATIONS

vlll

M APS

l. Western Asia Minor 2. Lycia and Pamphylia

x xi

I. THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE

I

2. PERGAMON UNDER PHILETAIROS AND EUMENES I

9

3. THE REIGN OF ATTALOS I (i) Attalos and Asia Minor, 241-216 (ii) Attalos and the Aegean, 215-197

27 28 65

4. THE ATTALID KINGDOM AFTER THE TREATY OF APAMEIA (i) The New Provinces (ü) The Greek Cities (iii) Festivalsof Athena (iv) Officials of the Royal Administration

85 98 l2l t29

5. THE GALATIANS

136

6. ROYAL CULTS

145

7. THE CITY OF PERGAMON

159

76

APPENDICES I.THE GENEALOGY OF THE ATTALIDS

l8l

II, THE GALATIAN WARS OF ATTALOS I AND HIS ASSUMPTION OF THE ROYAL TITLE

195

I I I .Q U E E N S T R A T O N I K E

2N

IV.SELECTED INSCRIPTIONS

207

S E L E C TB I B L I O G R A P H Y

228

INDEXOF INSCRIPTIONS

233

G E N E R A LI N D E X

240

Abbreviations

lx

OGIS

A B B R EV I A T I O N S

W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graect Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig, 1903) Ohlemttz, Kulte E. Ohlemutz,Die Kulte und Heiligtümerder Götter in Pergamon (194O)

ötn The following abbreviationsand short titles are used of works cited frequently.Others generallyfollow those listed in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (ed. 2, 1970).In somecasesfurther informationis given in the bibliography. Abhandlungender PreussischenAkademie der WisAbh. Berlin senschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl.

Abh Münche'

mieder wis' hen Akade !:::,"r':i;f: ?f;: t!#.' ;li.c

AM

Mitteilungen des Deutschen archöologischen Instit' uts : Athenische Abteilung

AvP

Altertümer von Pergamon

Bengtson, Strar.

H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, l-lll

J. and L. Robert, Bulletin öpigraphique(annuallyin REG) G. Cardinali,Il Regno di Pergamo (1906) Cardinali,AP Comptesrendues de l'Acadömie des inscriptionset CRAI belles-lettres Fouilles de Delphes F. Delphes F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischenHistoriker FGrHist (t923-) E. V. Hansen,TheAttalids of Pergamon(ed'2, 1972) Attalids Hansen, Holleaux, Etudes M. Holleaux,Etudes d'öpigraphieet d'histoire grecques, i-vi L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (2 vols., ISE Florence. 1965and 1976) O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesiaam Meander IvM (Berlin, 1900) Inschriften von Pergamon IvP F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene IvPr (Berlin, 1906) Kähler, Gr. Fries H. Kähler, Der grosseFries von Pergamon(Berlin, 1948) Magie, D. Magie,Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950\ Roman Rule F. von Fritze, Die Münzen von Pergamon(1910) MvP

RE REA REG Robert,Et. anat. Robert, Yil/es Rostovtzeff, SEHHW SB München SB Wien

Bull.

Schmitt, Untersuchungen

Jahresheftedes Österreichischenarchäologische n Instituts Real-Encyclopädieder klassischenAltertumswissenschaft,ed. A. Pauly,G. Wissowa,W. Kroll (1893-) Rövue des ötudesanciennes Rövuedes ötudesgrecques L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes(1937) L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure (ed.2, 1962) M. Rostovtzeff,TheSocial and EconomicHistory of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, l94l) Sitzungsberichteder BayerischenAkademieder Wissenschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl. Akademie in Sitzungsberichteder Österueichischen Wien, Phil.-Hist. Kl.

H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungenzur GeschichteAntiochos'desGrossenund SeinerZeit StV Die Staatsvertrögedes Altertums (ed. H. Bengtson): äi. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischenWelt von 338bis200vor Chr. (ed.H. H. Schmitt,Munich, 1969) W. Dittenberger,Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum Sy//.3 (ed. 3, Leipzig, 19l5) Walbank,Comm. F. W. Walbank,AHistorical Commentaryon Polybius (3 vols., Oxford, 1957,1967, and 1979) Welles.RC in the Hellenistic C. B. Welles,Royal Correspondence Period (New Haven. 1934)

2. Lycia and Pamphylia

l WesternAsia Minor

1 THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE The history of the Attalid dynasty falls in the third and second centuriesBC,the periodof Hellenistichistoryfor which the paucity of good literary source-materialis most acutelyfelt, and the modern historian's complaint with regard to evidenceabout the Attalids coincidesto someextent with that which may be expressed of the eventsand institutionsof the Hellenistickingdomsgenerally in theseyears.l There are, however, specialproblemsarisingin a study of the Attalids, as we shall see,and the inadequaciesof the literary sources in providing information that will contribute to their solution is only partly redeemedby the admittedly copious epigraphicalevidencethat is now at the disposalof the historianof the Attalids. When the literary tradition is fullest and most reliable - for the reignsof Attalos I and EumenesII - our understanding of the men and their reignsis correspondinglypenetrating;when it fails they become obscure and ambiguous.This state of affairs is strikingly illustrated by the contrast between our knowledgeof Attalos I and EumenesI[, who are figuresof substanceand true historical significance,and our knowledge of Attalos III, who continuesto elude a historicalperspectiveand understandingappropriate to his importance, althougha growing body of epigraphical and other evidence has thrown valuable new light on his character and achievementsas a corrective to the largely anecdotal literary tradition.2 We may begin by reviewing the literary evidenceon which we may hope to rely in this study of the Attalid dynasty. The only extant historical narrative written at a time more or less contemporary to the events is that provided by Polybios for the reigns of Eumenesll (197-159BC) and Attalos II (159-138Bc); it is not I See now C. Pr6aux, Monde hell. i. 88-9. 2 See the recent discussionofJ. Hopp, Untersuchungen, 107-20.

3

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

completely preserved and it becomes increasingly fragmentary and episodicin the courseof the later of thesereigns.The early booksof Polybios'Histories dealwith eventsthat occurredbefore his own lifetime and fall from our point of view in the reign of Attalos | (241-197 nc); becausethis part of his work is more completelypreservedthan the later parts we obtain a rblatively fuller narrative for these years than we would expect from the generallycontemporarytheme of Polybios' work as a whole. In providingsuchgood evidencefor theseimportantearly years,and despitethe shortcomingsof incompleteness,Polybios' Histories constitutean importantelementin the studyof Attalid Asia Minor. Comparablein importanceto the narrative evidenceof Polybios is that of a differentkind to be derivedfrom Strabo'sGeographia. Writing in the age of Augustus, Strabo refers to the Attalids at severalpoints in the part of his work that dealswith westernAsia Minor, and shows a precise knowledge and authority that are all the more impressivefor the support they often receive from independentevidence,chiefly epigraphical;a greatdealof importance will be attachedthroughoutthis book to the testimonyhe provides. It is evident that Strabo had a sound and detailed knowledge both of the history of Asia Minor in generaland of the Attalid dynasty in particular. Of specialimportance for our purposesis the summary account which Strabo inserts by way of historical background in his treatment of the city of Pergamon and its environs (xiii. 4. 6234); this account explores family relationships and individual dynasticachievements,as well as someof the more important eventsof eachreign: as will be seenin the next chapter,our knowledgeand understandingof the reignsof the dynasts Philetairos and EumenesI owes much to thesebrief but astuteremarks. and the value ofthe epigraphicalevidenceis greatly enhancedby the possibilityof interpretingit in the contextsthat they provide. The nature and scope of Strabo's remarks about the Attalids indicate that the sources at his disposal were sound, and it is probablethat they were in many casescontemporary to the events described. The account is based largely on biographical information: lengths of rule and other chronological details are given with great precision and accuracy; there is much personal detail and anecdotal material concerning individual dynasts, especially

Philetairos,and their individual plansand achievementsare stressed.It is very likely that the authority for all this informationrests at least partly with the biographies of the Attalids that were compiled during the course of the dynasty, works' such as those of Lysimachos, a contemporary and admirer of a King Attalos; Neanthesof Kyzikos, a city with which the Attalids established early connections;and Leschides,a contemporaryof Eumenes II.3 We may alsoadducethe many scholarswho were attractedto Pergamon during its royal prosperity under Attalos I and more particularly at the invitation of EumenesII, whose enlightened aspirationsenvisagedPergamonas a famous centre of culture and learningin the Greekworld.a Someof thesescholarsare known to have researchedand written about local history and antiquities, nepqyqrriE,whoseactivity is notably Polemonof llion, ö xAry9eiE dated firmly to the reign of EumenesII, and who is known to have been concerned in his travels with antiquities and monuments rather than with considerations of geography in the usual sense. Demetriosof Skepsis,a contemporaryof Polemonwho explored and wrote at length on the antiquities of the Troad, is named by Straboas his sourceon a numberof occasions.sThesetwo names adequately represent the antiquarian research that was encouraged at Pergamonunder Attalid rule and which constitutesthe sound authority with which much of the evidence transmitted by Strabo may be associated. Before passing to consider the secondary literary evidence we should pauseto reflect on a danger that is inherent in the tradition so far discussed. and which arises from the fact that all the elements of this tradition are favourable to the Attalids and sympathetic to their aims and achievements.Polybioswas generally very well disposedto the dynasty and to the order it represented and was invariably hostile to its enemies,especially PrusiasI and II of Bithynia and Pharnakesof Pontos, these being also the

2

3FGrHist IIB, 170-2. h6aux, Monde hell. i. 86, laments the loss of these biographiesbut does not consider their status as sourcesof Strabo's information. a On what follows see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford,

t%8),zß-sr.

5 See for example the referencesin book xiii (which will mainly concern us) at 1.27,594; 1.43,602: 1.44,603(where an unnamedwork by Attalos I of Pergamonis cited, probably a geographicaltreatise).

4

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

enemiesof Rome as long as the SenatesupportedAttalid interests in Asia Minor.6 Even when the Senatebecamesuspicious,sometimes with apparent justification, of Eumenes II's ambitions, Polybioscontinuedto defendhim.7Thus the picture of Attalid rule we derive from Polybios is an entirely favourable one, and very little hostile opinion of the kind that we have, for example, pertaining to Rhodian rule in the subject Peraia has reached our literary sources.sWe must discountfrom this context the so-called RhodianpropagandadirectedagainstEumenesII at the time of the Roman settlement of 188Bc as urmountingto nothing more than a disagreementwith Eumenesover the future of the Greek cities of Asia Minor in that year.eOf greatersubstanceis the propaganda recordedby Polybios (especiallyat xxxii.lT) as beingdirected at EumenesII personally by a large part of the Roman Senatein the l60s with the intention of encouraginghis brother Attalos (later Attalos II) to usurp power in his place. Then there is the largely successfulattemptof Perseusof Macedonto discreditEumenesat Rome,evidenceof which can be discernedin survivingextractsof Appian's Makedonika (notably xviii.l). None of this however, interestingthough it is, has influencedthe literary tradition as we know it or constitutedany part of it; it is largely confinedto the reignof EumenesII and is simply the reportingof elementshostile to him, and as suchit comesfrom predictablequartersand causes no surprise. Of reasonedopposition to Attalid rule we find no traces in the literary sourceseven when opportunities may be thought to arise for its inclusion. This tendencyis sharedby the epigraphicalevidence,to be reviewedbelow, sincethis also ema-

natesfrom pro-Attalid sources,either pergamonitself or cities and regionsthat were well disposedto the kings. A second caveat needs to be entered with regard to the kind of evidenceso far discussed.We have already seenthat much of it lacks context and substance,especiallywhere eventsofthe later years ofthe dynasty are concerned.Thus, apart from the sketch of Attalid history that hasbeenmentioned,much of Strabo'sinformation is given in passing and with no attempt to offer a full backgroundto the statementsmade.StrabointheGeographiawas not writing history and cannot be expectedto answerthe kinds of historical questionsthat we are inclined to pose. In the caseof Polybiosthe trouble lies with the transmissionof the text. which is increasingly fragmentary from book vii onwards. There is also in this connectiona qualitativepoint to be made, that theseliterary sourcesdo not alwaysadequatelymeetour demandfor knowledge of constitutionalmachineryand procedure,which are a primary concern of this study. Polybios is notoriously confusingon the occasionswhen he pausesto describeadministrativeor constitutional organization,even when he is thoroughly familiar with them: we can thereforehardly expect him to transmit a clear and consistentpictureofthe institutionsof Attalid rule, which he knew less well and about which he was probably less concernedto inform his readers.Thesereaderscould be expectedfurthermore to be mostly Greeks, and therefore sufücientlyfamiliar with the connotationsof his terminologyas not to requirecarefulprecision or elaboration.r0These factors increaseour diffrcultiesin interpretingthe significanceof official titles and regionaldesignations, and (evenmore noticeably)of institutionsof taxationand financial administration. Despite these reservationsPolybios and Strabo stand as the most importantliterary sourcesat our disposal,and they arejoined by Livy when he is following lost or fragmentary sections of Polybios' account. When Livy is not following polybios we are faced with the usual problem of decidingwhat his sourceis at a particular point in the narrativeand what its worth is; we will be

6 Seethe comment on Pharnakesof Pontos(xxvii. 17, on which seealso Walbank, Comm. iii. 318), and, above all, the hostile assessmentof husias II of Bithynia (xxxvi. 15;Walbank,Comm. äi. 46). ; Polyb.xxxi. 6. 6; Holleaux,Etudes,ü. 170. EP. M. Fraserand G. E. Bean,TheRhodianPeraeaand Islands(Oxford, 1954), n8-22. eC. G. Starr, C. Phil. xxxiii (1938),63-8, arguesthat mutual hostility is a continuous factor in Rhodian-Pergamenerelations from early in the reign of Attalos I; but it was the issue of the Greek cities in 189 that first divided them, accordingto Polyb. xxi. 22.6. We shallseein chapter3 that Rhodesand pergamon were brought together during the reign of Attalos I by the common needto defend the south-eastAegeanagainstPhilip V of Macedon.

5

r0 F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Sather ClassicalLectures, 42, 197D. l-6. The institutions that Polybios explains are generally those that would be unfamiliar to Creek readers:see Walbank,loc. cit.. 4. n.19.

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

particularly aware of this problem for instance when we come to consider Livy's evidence for the institution of the cistophoric coinage in the Attalid Kingdom. Also to be gonsideredas an element of the extant literary tradition is the anecdotal material about the Attatid kings, usually fanciful stories that represent a kind of elaboration or variation of known historical circumstances and must be regardedas sensationaland untrustworthy. These have survivedin the accountsof later historians(includingJustin) and in works such as the Deipnosophistai of Athenaios and the Moralia of Plutarch, whose nature and purpose provided suitable contextsfor the retailingand preservationof suchmaterial.tn this categorybelongsmuch ofthe evidenceon the parentageand reign of Attalos [II:11 since in a number of significant instancesthis evidencewill be seento be contradictedby sounderelementsin the tradition its value is correspondinglydiminished;it needsto be carefully distinguished from the more reliable biographical material preservedin Strabo's writing and certainly to be treated with a greater degree of caution than is often the case in modern ac-

which is probably the most important and certainly the most discussed single item of evidence relating to Attalid procedures of regionaladministrationafter 188nc. Another significantgenreof documentsthat may be mentioned here is that of the royal letters written to cities of varying status;theseare particularly valuablein that they are more usually datedthan are other kinds of inscription, and by their nature frequently include referencesto and explanations of royal policy such as we would not expectto find in other sources. Of equal importance in other ways are the texts from cities and regionsnot subjectto the Attalids but enjoyingfriendly relations with them. Most notableare the recordsof Attalid benefactions, beginningat an early stagein the history of the dynasty,at Athens, at Delphi, and in Boiotia. Suchevidencedocumentsthe history of the Attalids' external relations and in somecasesfurther illustrates constitutional procedures and institutions, since ambassadors, members of the royal family, and other officials and representatives are occasionallydesignatedand described.Even more important is the evidencerelating to the institution of royal cults in citieswhich were the objectofthe Attalids'beneficence;worthy of special mention in this regard is the material now accumulated from Teos and Miletos. Numismatic evidence is of less importance to constitutional mattersin the caseof the Attalids, but it contributessignificantlyto our knowledgeof the dynasty's standing,both before 188nc (the dynasticcoinage)r2and after that date,when (aswill be argued)the cistophoriccoinagebecamean institution of Attalid fiscal control throughout the newly acquiredkingdom. Finally we must considerwhat may be termed the monumental evidence.Of all the Hellenisticroyal capitalsPergamonhas provided the richest yield of monumentaland architecturalremains, enablingus to reconstructwith a high degreeof precisionnot only the growth and developmentof the city in materialterms, but also the nature and purpose of many royal and religious buildings, and the relative importance of the institutions and cults (whether royal

6

counts. Enough hasbeen saidto familiarize the readerwith the problems to be expectedof the literary evidencethat will be adducedin this study. We turn now to considerbriefly the natureof the evidence provided by inscriptions. What we know of the institutions of Attalid rule, as distinct from the historical background of their implementation, is derived very largely from epigraphical evidence, both the copious body of texts from Pergamonitself, augmented over the years since the original publications of Inschriften von Pergamon, and that from other parts of the Greek world in Asia Minor and on the Greek mainland. Of great importance is the material, consistingchiefly of honorary decreesin favour of membersof the royal family or their ofücials, from cities that were in some way subject or tributary to the Attalids, since these frequently record the names and titles of offrcials and at times attest,explicitly or otherwise,proceduresand evenpolicies of the royal administration; in this category should be mentioneda decree from Bursa honouring the Attalid strategos Korrhagos, rr SeeAppendix i; Hopp, IJntersuchungen,16-26' esp' lE-19'

7

12See in general the remarks of Rostovtzefr, SEHHW ii. 1288-96; h,6aux, Monde hell. i. 106-10,and the referencesgiven below, 24n. 51.

8

The Nature of the Evidence

or divine) that they represent.Although it will not be a part of our purpose to consider the material and artistic developmentof Pergamon, certain features of it will be noticed as they attest or contribute to our knowledgeof the Attalids' power and standingin the Greek world. Thus the early years of the reign of Attalos I, and in particular the significance of his numerous military victories over Galatiansand other enemiesin westernAsia Minor, can only be fully comprehendedin relation to the seriesof monumentsthat he dedicatedto Athena on the citadel of Pergamon;and the value of theseas historical evidenceis in many casesfurther enhanced by the presenceof dedicatory inscriptions which attest both the purposefor which they were erectedand the eventswhich they were intendedto celebrate.This kind of evidenceis lessprominent for the early years of the dynasty, but is of great importance to an of the reignsand achievementsof Attalos' successors, assessment especiallyEumenesII, for whom the Pergamenemonumentsare a true mirror of the expansionand strengtheningof royal authority in Asia Minor after the Roman settlementof 188sc.r3 13An excellent historical account of the monumentsof Pergamonis given by Kähler, Gr. Fries, 131-49(with detailednotes)'

2 P E R G A M O NU N D E R P H I L E T A I R O SA N D E U M E N E S I Under Philetairos and Eumenes I the Attalids achieved the statusof a dynasty; it is the purposeof this chapterto examinethe process.lPhiletairos'position at Pergamondatesfrom about 302, or shortly before the battle at Ipsos,2but for the twenty years' period of his allegianceto Lysimachos we have only a few literary notices, usually in late writers, and no certainly pertinent documentaryevidence.3We do not even know the exact title or nature of the office entrusted to Philetairosby Lysimachos, althoughit was almost certainlya purely financialone.aThe offrcial foundationof the Attalid dynasty, however,was put sometwenty yearslater in 283,when Philetairosplacedhimself,and the wealth he administered,at the disposalof Seleukos,whom he correctly assessedas the more likely winner in the imminent conflict with Lysimachos.This date, 283,can be reachedwith someprecision from the chronologyof the reignsof the Attalids given by Strabo I For the early growth of Pergamon,see Cardinali, Rp 4-16; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW i. 553-66;Bengtson,Srrar. ii. 195-8;Magie,RomanRale i. l-33, with the well-documented notes,ii. 725-81.The secondeditionof Hansen'sÄtra/idsshows only superficialrevisionand is as uncriticalasthe first, which waswell reviewedby A. Aymard,REÄ xlix (1947),33945. The thesisof R.B. Mcshane,Foreignpolicy (Illinois, 1964),that the Attalids worked from a panhellenicideal and on a legalistic federalbasisin their relationswith Greekcities,doesonly occasionaljusticito the evidence,and is hardly realistic. 2 According to Diodoros xx. 107. .t-5, Dokimos, strategos of Antigonos at synnada,took up the causeof Lysimachosin 302,and philetairoswas frobably given the chargeof the strongholdat pergamonat the sametime. cf. cardinali, Ri 6-7; Bengtson,Stat. i.199-201. I For the relevance to this period of the pergamene treaty of ioono).neia with Temnos(Sry iii. 555),seebelow, l6-17. a He wasprobably simplyTc(o gülal, thatis,keeper ofthe treasuryat pergamon (cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä. 195),but there is no direct evidenceto this effec1.His positionwas certainly not a military one; cf. Cardinali,Rp 7, n. 2.

l0

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

(xiii. 4. l-2, 6234), supplementedby other information. Strabo gives the length of each reign in yearsas follows: Philetairos,20; EumenesI,22; Attzlos I, 43; Eumenesll, 49:.Attalos II, 2l; and Attalos III, 5. This chronologyis mistakenat two points, but each mistake is fortunately easy to account for. Firstly, the 49 years assignedto EumenesII is evidently a slip for 39; this lower figure then fits with the rest of Strabo's dates,and an error of l0 is not difficult to explain in simple arithmeticalterms.s Strabo meant, then, to say 39, but eventhis figure is not quite accurate:the death of Attalos I can be placedfrom the narrative of Livy (xxxiii. 2. l-3:. 2l.l) in the late summer or autumn of 197,6and we know from Delphian documents recording Pergamenedonations of the year 160/59,that EumenesII died in the autumnof 159.7Thus Eumenes II ruled for a little over 38 years,which were evidentlyrounded upwards in Strabo's source to 39. Now Polybios, followed by Livy, assigns44yearsto Attalos I, and not 43;8it is therefore clear what happened to the chronology followed by Strabo: Attalos I ruled for 43llzyears(: 43 in Strabo,44in Polybios),and 5 K. Meischke,Symbolae,l2-13; Magie,RomanRule, ü.771-2, n.75. 5The account of Attalos' death is missingfrom the fragmentsof Polyb. xviii. All we have is Polybios'own eulogy(xviii. 4l). Livy's narrative,at this point drawn from Polybios, enables us to date the event to late summer or autumn 191; cf . Holleaux,Etudes, v. I 14,n. l . An inscriptionfrom Delphi (Appendixiv, no. 4), records the presenceat Delphi, in connection with a manumission,of Dameas,d napä toü 6aoü,6aE'Atrdlou ö Eni töv Epyav rritv 6aotlmöv, in August-Sep tember 197.On this evidenceMeischke concluded(Symäolae, 2l)that Attaloswas still alive in September 197,but since Dameas' titulature will probably not have changedimmediately after Attalos' death, such an exact chronologicalinferenceis hardly valid. ?The chronology of the death of EumenesII was establishedby G. Daux, BCH lix (1935),220-30;seealso hisDe/phes, 502-9,on the basisofDelphian documents (Syll.3671,now to be consultedin the edition inF. Delphes,iii. 3. 238-9,with the additional corrections and suggestions of Ad. Wilhelm, Griech. Inschriften rechtlichenInhalts, 5l-5; Sy/t.3672, : Daux, Delphes,ß2-98, C), which record donationsof EumenesII in the ninth month of the archonshipof Amphistratos (160 / 59),andof AttalosII, calledKing, in the sixth monthof the sameyear.Thesetexts show, as Daux demonstrated,that Eumeneswas alive in March-April 159,and that Attalos lI was associatedin the kingship some months before Eumenes' death, which must be placed towards the end of the year 159. The establishingof the co-regencyis probably referred to in an Athenian decree,also of 160/59(Appendix iv. no.lE). 8 Polyb.xviii. 41. 8; Livy xxxiii. 21. l.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

11

EumenesII ruled for 38t/z years (: 39 in Strabo).eIn absolute terms,then, the accessionof Attalos I shouldbe dated241,and not 240,which means,in turn, that the official beginningof Philetairos' rule was in 283,and not 282,althoughit remainsa possibility,but an unlikely one, that the 20 yearsassignedto Philetairosby Strabo was a round figure, and that the beginningof Philetairos'rule was not exactly dated.ro It seems safer, however, to leave the chronology of the reignsof the Attalids as follows: PHILETAIROS 283_263 EUMENESII EUMENESI 263_24I ATTALOSII ATTALOSI 241_197 ATTALOSIII

197_159 I59_I38 I38_I33.

This chronology leavesus with the year 283 as most probably that of the foundation of the Attalid dynasty. Unfortunately no chronologicalprecision,corroborativeor otherwise,canbe gained from the available accounts of the events leading to the battle fought between the armies of Lysimachos and Seleukos at Corupedion,sincetheseaccountsappearin the highly dramatized narrativesof later writers, but they do havesomevaluein throwing light on the position taken by Philetairos.The two principal accounts,those of Justin and Pausanias,deal with the eventswhich made up the final downfall of the houseof Lysimachos:the conspiracy against,and murder of, his son Agathokles,widespread revolt from Lysimachos (including Philetairos' change of allegiance),and the battle at Corupedion.t t [n the narrativeof Justin (xvii. l) thesedisastersare relatedto the portent ofan earthquake which hit Lysimacheiain 28716;rzthus chronologicalprecisionis sacrificed to the making of a dramatic point: Per idem fermetempusHellespontiet Chersonesi regionibus terrae motusfuit, maximetamenLysimachiaurbs,anteduoset XX annosa Lysimachoregecondita,eversaest. Quodportentumdira Lysimacho stirpiqueeiusac regniruinamcum cladevexatarumregionumportendeCf. Cardinali,RP 8, n. 3. rolt was K. J. Beloch's view (Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2.207) that the twenty years assignedto Philetairosis a round number, but the exact figuresgiven for the other reigns count against it. ftFor these events, see B. Niese, Geschichteder griechischenund MakedonischenStaaten, i. 4024; Beloch,Gr. Gesch. iv.2 l. 242-5. t2 Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l. 243,n. l.

12

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

ebat. Nec ostentisfides defuit, nam brevi post temporeAgathoclem, per quemmulta regniordinaverat, filium suum,quemin successionem bella prosperegesserat,non solum ultra patrium, verum etiam ultra humanummoremperosusministraArsinoönovercavenenointerfecit. ruinaefuit. Nam Haec illi prima mali labes,hoc initium inpendentis parricidiumprincipumsecutae caedessuntluentiumsupplicia,quodocet ii, qui superfuerant, cisumiuvenemdolebant.Itaqueet ii, qui caedibus exercitibuspraeerant,certatimad Seleucumdeficiunteumquepronum gloriaebellumLysimachoinferreconpellunt. iam ex aemulatione The chronology is also certainly compressedpost eventum by Pausanias,who errs further in making Lysimachosthe aggressor againstSeleukos(i. 10. 3-5): xai @ü'&aqoE äpa, fi d Tpqpara 'Aya0oil.6oug rc).ewr1yaAendtg öneürpanro Auoqtäyou, rfi re xara).apcptpanxai rd. nagä tfiE'Apowöqg ünonra fyyoüpevoE 66ver. Il1pyalrov rfiv önbp Katxou, nöptpaE öi xrjpuxa rd re yprjpara xai aöröv ööiöouZü"eüxE. The battleat Corupedionwas fought early in 281,most probablyin February,r3but the deathof Agathoklescannot be dated exactly betweenthe years 28716and 283,andthe implicationin the highly dramatizedlatetradition,that Lysimachos and Seleukoscame to blows immediatelyafter the desertionsfrom Lysimachos,is not a cogentobjectionto the (at the most) two years interval requiredby the chronologyarguedhere. ThesepassagesofJustin and Pausanias,iftheir relation ofcauses and effects can be trusted, imply that Philetairos distrusted Lysimachosand took the first opportunity to betray him. This is probably again a highly dramatizedand personalizedaccount of more soberrealities;namely,that Philetairossaw Seleukosas the strongerman in the coming struggle.According to Justin, Philetairos was not alone in this opinion: ii, qui exercitibuspraeerant is doubtlessterminologicallyinexactor may be an interpretation of the term strategoi; it was probably intendedto include Philetairos,who is not specificallymentionedin the narrative. It is then importantto rememberthat Philetairoswasnot alonein desertingLysimachos, and that the dynasty he founded was in origin only one of a number of such dynastiesin Asia Minor, althoughnone of the others sharedthe Attalids' spectacularsuc1 3B e n g t s o n ,/ / l s t o r i a , i v ( 1 9 5 3 ) , I l 3 ; H . H e i n e n , I J n t e r s u c h .z u r h e l l e n i s t i s c h e n Geschichte des 3. Jhdt. v. Chr. (Historia, Einzelschr. 20, 1972),2O4.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

13

cess. They owed their positions later to the partially tentative natureof Seleukidrule in Asia Minor,ra and soughtindependence and an increase of authority when this power began its slow but continuousdeclineafter the deathof SeleukosI. An exampleis the dynasty of Lysias and Philomelos, whose position we will be examining later in this chapter.r5 Similarly, it is likely that Philetairos' own brother Eumenes was dynast for a time at the Paphlagoniancity of Amastris, although his tenure was evidently brief, and he did not establisha dynasty there.l6It is likely that theseother dynasts played an important part in the issuebetween Seleukosand Lysimachos,whereasPhiletairosheld an especially important position in view of the great wealth he controlled at Pergamon. How Philetairos' position was changedby his transferenceof allegianceto Seleukosin 283 is not cleat, since the nature of his rule in the service of Lysimachosis, as we have seen,so poorly attested.We may safely reckon, however, that he becamesomething more than the simple treasurer or finance-officer he had been.It is almostcertain,moreover,that he gaineda goodmeasure of freedom, althoughnot completeindependence.Strabo,whose ta On theöuvdorcr as an elementin the SeleukidKingdom, in Asia Minor as well as in the East, see,in additionto the studiesof Wilhelmand Holleaux,citedbelow, n. 39, Bengtson,Stat. ii. 3-8; A. H, M. Jones,Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces(ed.2, Oxford, l97l),4f-9. yote especiallythe decreeofSmyrna (treaty of oupnd'neta with Magnesia ad Sipylum), passed probably in 243 or shortly thereafter (OGIS 229, = SrV iii. 492: on the date, W. Otto, Beitr. z Seleukidengesch. des3. Jahrhundertsv. Chr. (Abh. München, !4, l92B),70;Chr. Habicht,Gottmenschentum, 100:'wohlvom Frühjahr242'),lines l0-ll: ö6e6aiooty titt öriptttt d1v aöltovopi,au xai ö1poxpatlav, öyparpu öö xai npöE rcüg 6aoü"cig xai rcüg öuvdotaE xai rdg nüteq xai td. E0v4d.fulboaEd.noötfao\ar ü re iegöv rfiE ZtgatovrxtöoE,'Aqpoöit4Edoulov elvar xü,. tr Cf. below, n. 39. t6 We know from a passageof Memnon (FGrHist 434,ch.9) that a dynast named Eumenes held Amastris in 279 (roü xaüTovrog aötlv Eöp6voug), and that he surrenderedthe city to the rulers of Pontos in this year. The identification of this Eumenes with the brother of Philetairos (on whom see below, Appendix i), first proposedby Droysen (Geich. des Hellenismus(ed. 2, 1877)iii. 255),but with a preferencefor an identificationwith the son ofthis Eumenes,i.e. the futuredynast (cf. Niese, ii. 75, n. 7; Cardinali,RP 10, n. 4), is strengthenedby the fact that Philetairos'native city of Tios took part in the synoikismof Amastrisin c.300sc althoughit later withdrew (Straboxii. 3.10, 544; cf. Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen 109-10;L. Robert,Et. anat.262-3\.

14

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

source was in all probability ultimately a biography of Philetairos, whetheror not usedat first hand,rTrefersto his positionand to his policy;hecallshim (xii. 3. 8,543)ddqyrly&1Etoütöv'Arra)'möv 6aoü.6av y|vouE, and of his administrationsays (xiii 4- 1,623) örcr|Leoe yoüv örq e\xoot xtigtoE öv roü Epoupiou xai röv 4pr1pätotv.Thus he was not simply an ofücial in the service of the Seleukids,as he had been in the serviceof Lysimachos: he was xüpnE of Pergamonand of its wealth, althoughevidently of no more.rEThe measureof his independenceis shownalsoby the fact that his coinagebore his own name,but continuedto bearthe head of Seleukosevenafter the accessionof AntiochosI, indicatingthat he owed a nominal allegianceto Seleukospersonally,and not a continuingone to the Seleukiddynastyasa whole. His returningto Antiochosof the ashesof Seleukos,attestedby Appian, is a further indicationin this direction; it need not signify, as is usually inferred, a recognitionin turn of the overlordshipof Antiochos.le In saying that Philetairoswas xüpng of Pergamonand of its wealth, Strabo clearly implies a good measureof financial independence,and this positionis confirmedby other evidence. Strabo himselfadds (xiii. 4. l, 623):örcy|veroptvotv Enircü öpiparcg ö eövoüyoE xai noAneuöpwog ör"önooyQoeovxai u75 üJ'r1E IepaneiaE d.ü npög röv iogüovra xai ByyüEnapövra. This befriending of neighbourson the part of Philetairos most often took the form of financial generosity, as is amply attestedby epigraphical evidence. Kyzikos, a city whose friendship the Attalids retainedandtreasuredthroughouttheir history, receivedthis kind of from Philetairosduringthe troubledyearsof the 270s'to assistance alleviate the difficulties it faced during the war of Antiochos I with r?Seeabove, 2-3. tt Cardinali.RP 10.n. 5. I q F. Imhoof-Blumer,Die M ünzen ; cf . U. Westermark,Das Bildnis 20-1' For the return of Seleukos'ashes,see Appian, Syr. 63. I cannot agree with the view, expressedfor example by Cardinali, RP 9-10, and P. Zancan,Il Monarcato ellenisticonei suoi elementifederalivi(Padua,l9t4),95, that this act was n€cessarily meant as a token of recognition of Antiochos' suzerainty; it was surely in essencea gestureof respectto Philetairos'deceasedpatron. Thus the positionis perhapsbetter expressedby Meyer, Die Grenzen,97: 'wie Philetairosim Anfang sich den Seleukiden gegenüber sehr loyal verhielt.' McShane wites (Foreign Policy, 3!) 'Philetaerusc{rried favour with Antiochus', which is fantasy.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

15

NikomedesI of Bithynia and the so-calledNorthern League,during the Galatiancrisis which followed this war, and later.2oIn the decreeof Kyzikos from which this informationcomes,Philetairos is honoured as an independentbenefactor.2tSimilarly independent were his benefactionsat Delphi, where Philetairosand his family were honouredasnpol6vor.;22and at Thespiaiinscriptions attest his dedicationof land to the Helikonian Muses.23 Of equal interest is Philetairos'activity in areascloseto Pergamon which remainedunder Seleukidauthority. Again Philetairos usedhis wealth to befriend,and perhapsinfluence,his neighbours, but here it emergesmore clearly that, in spite of his considerable financial independence,he was concedednothing in terms of direct authority, beyond his position at Pergamon,by his Seleukid suzerain, Antiochos L There are, however, two aspectsto be consideredin relation to Philetairos'policy in this area. One, as alreadysuggested,is his relationshipto Seleukidcitiesarisingfrom his own relationshipto the Seleukids,that is, at the time, Antiochos I; to this aspectwe will return later. A secondconsideration, however, stemsfrom the fact that Philetairos'activity can alsobe relatedto an alreadyexistingesteemenjoyedby the city of Pergamon. Although the history of the city before the Attalid period is, in terms of literary evidence,almost unknown,2aarchaeologicaland other evidencemakesit clearthat the city was then far from insignificant. One item of evidence is especially noteworthy. The temple erected for the worship of Meter at 20OGIS 748.The recordeddonationsdatefrom 280/79to27615, accordingto the chronology convincingly establishedby Dittenberger(ad loc., n. 7), and confirmed by M. Launey,REÄ xlvi (1944),217-36;seefurther below, ch. 5. The fact that in 27918Philetairosconcededto Kyzikos (lines 8-12) dt4Tenv tiE l"cias lxai töv l"omöv 6w d.neoxujaoav lxai6oot 6t äyopdoavteElix qE aittoü Ey4ytiyovto isa furtherindicationof his financialindependence.The.b*etalqeamentionedin a list of names from the gymnasium at Kyzikos (ClG 3660)are most probably to be associatedwith Philetairos'donations:cf. L. Robert,Et. anat. 199-201. 2r Lines l-2: niöe töanev ,oööiv ä)Jo napä ndwa röv 6[ov oül einev ünonroy oüre önotqoev,ä)"Adxai tü.euritv ixefuE ü1v yuvaixa xai ü1v 6aot).ei,au dnöAr.nev.äv0' dtv Exeivog oüööv öl 6awo6 ttxvov ä1perpe,nü)öv yevopivau, cilLd. rtit Eöpfvoug uiE rilv daotletav ht ldtv övfl,ixrp yevop€vEnap6öaxe.Ibid. 489F:"Aua)'og oöv ö nprc6ütarcg aöro6 töv äöe)'cpöu,ävlp önrcLx)1E xai negi üv Eöpfv1 nävuttrt äqrmoE, oö pövov daoÄeüg äv4yope604 önöqo6.pevoE,aL).d xo,i d1v yuvaixa ü.öeAqoü Zrgarcv[x4v äyqpexai ouvfiL9ev. (The samestory then follows.)zf orlu ixtr,vog (Attalos); äno9avöwog aüroü (EumenesII) naLö[ou oüöö Ev rj067r1ouix rfiE yuvaLxöEdve76o0at,texoüoqE noL[dxLE, äAAd röv öxe(vounaröa 1qdEaExai ävöqcitoaEht löv ön6.0qxeü öü.ör1paxo,i 6aoü"6a ngooqyöpeuoev. Cf. Livy, Epit. lviri: Attalos, rex Pergami, Eumenisfilius,' Florus i.35.2: Attalus rex Pergamenorum,regisEumenis filius. 27.IvP 246, : OGIS 332. Decree, probably of Pergamon,honouring Attalos III, who is called (lines 2l-2, 24-5, 44-5) 6aoÄeüE"Ana7og xatd taird. öi xai \dv Ma)'Aaior 1pefuv öi61 oweE ouvpd)((aEn€vnont ngöE 6aoÄ"At[r-l "Ana)"ov, änone776ta 6aoÄeüE 6a xai aToEävöpag rpnxooiouE fiyepövalgl IiW' aöIr6lv, idv öä pl öxnoQr ö nLfiqoEtoütxatpoüE,öoouEäv ivö6y4ra4 ölol örd ttväE 'Apxd'IepanuwiouE fi llgnvoiouE i) ldlv prt in' öag napxaTöow' oirot öi önef,aqrjo9av önö 6aor)"6oE'Aud.)"ou.roig öö nevnopfvotg "AuaAoE xnogeta pöv napey{rut 6aoÄeüE ai rd ötlttitvtaxai tä ö6owa iv rö(t) n[ööt. ötav öö napayfvovtat npöE Mü'Laioug, rfp-l {El&aoav rilv ouvpaytav aöroi, nag{llo-l oweg rfiE it epas öxäorar &vögi öpaTpdv aiywaiav, ubv ö' flyepövatvöxdotat öQoxltäs ööo xai xatd oCopayofuma furlLxlfiv, ßdvpi1 Bv no)'epfut öow, oö öotat oirov 1ap6ävelv. fiae(rpevtrooav öö oi änoout76vteE örbgäv MaTTaior Xpetav öXotot.fuav öi "AdnotrtjaoLv rououvpäyoEnpög 6aoL7öa 2YNA ftfta).ov rä nopeta öötaoav aüroi B td-l p] ei napa6-l lpol).6y4p[ev lalivowaE öpoToyifau, iiuo ö16)'4Ete xail navdtlqE xai aü1rö1Efxai yuvrj xai #xv-l a xai narpig xai of 6aotl76o4 cpiTouöd-l

210

Appendix IV

35 v öi xai övp|vovrt iv rfo)ig [ritpoAoy4p*vorl [g], elvat xai 6by eiöatpova laörtu xail yuvami xai r|xvotE xai natqiör xai roiE lE-l "'Olpxjos 'Aträ7ou. il'oQ)E. 6aoü.6ag öpvüa lital .HAr,ov, 'A04vf4v, Ilooetöö, Afipqqa, Apq, "Aper,av 40 dv xai ü1v Taupond).ov xai rcü(E) äATouE9eoüEndwaE xai näoaE' ivp6vew Ev tfiL cpLltatxai rfit. ouvpaylat xai r foi)g 6pü,oy4pivo6 npög Mü,Latoug eiE röv nd.wa yq6vov xai npög aörcüE xai r 4s oüg öyyövougxai oö9öv napadrjoeo0at röv öpoToyqp|votv. eüopxoüvrt pfv pot eö e'i1,Eqrcupxoüuttöä rävaw[a.

Appendix IV

,

6-7pfi tllonjoalvnDaux,Rev.hist.dedroitfrangais et ötranger,xlix (1971),374 ( N l- - - N I 1 e d s . ) 4 Wescher and Foucart, Inscr. de Delphes, 336; Sy//. 447; SGDI 2ffi1; Syll.2846 (not reproducedin Sy//.3)(Delphi). Attalos I. ZtgarayfovtoE