Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:18:11.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and Tenos in the Early Hellenistic Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Gary Reger
Gary Reger
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some recent work on the history of Athens and Tenos in the third century B.c. has brought to light new evidence and new interpretations of old evidence for this notoriously shadowy period of Greek history. Reflection on this material has suggested to me solutions to a few minor puzzles (Sections IA, IB, III), a contribution to a long-standing problem in the history of Athens in the early third century (Section IB), and a new explanation for the entry of Rhodos into the war with Antiokhos (Section II).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 365 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 All of these issues spring also in part from a reading of Roland Etienne's new and interesting study. The following abbreviations are used throughout

Beloch iv2 2 = Julius, Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, iv 2 (Berlin–Leipzig, 1927).Google Scholar

Billows = Billows, Richard A., Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 4) (Berkeley, 1990).Google Scholar

‘Bull, ép.’ = ‘Bulletin épigraphique’.

Buraselis = Kostas, Buraselis, Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis. Forschungen zur I Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 73) (Munich, 1982).Google Scholar

Etienne = Roland, Etienne, Ténos II. Ténos el les Cyclades du milieu du IVe siècle avant J.-C. au milieu du IIIe siècle après J.-C. (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françhises d'Athènes et de Rome, 263 bis) (Paris, 1990).Google Scholar

Flacelière = Robert, Flacelière, Les Aitoliens à Delphes (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françhises d'Athènes et de Rome, 143) (Paris, 1937).Google Scholar

Garland = Robert, Garland, The Piraeus from the Fifth to the First Century B.c. (Ithaca, 1987).Google Scholar

Gauthier = Philippe, Gauthier, ‘La réunification d'Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias’, REG 92 (1979), 348–99.Google Scholar

Habicht = Christian, Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert ν. Chr. (Vestigia 30) (Munich, 1979).Google Scholar

Hammond–Walbank = Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W., A History of Macedonia, iii (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar

Heinen = Heinz Heinen, rev. of Habicht, , GGA 233 (1981), 175–207.Google Scholar

Knoepfler = Dénis, Knoepfier, La vie de Ménédème d'Erétrie de Diogène Laërce. Une contribution à l'histoire et à la critique du texte des Vies des philosophes (Schweizerische Beiträger zur Altertumswissenschaft, 21) (Basel, 1991).Google Scholar

Osborne = Osborne, Michael J., ‘Kallias, Phaidros and the Revolt of Athens in 287 B.c.’, ZPE 35 (1979), 181–94.Google Scholar

Picard = Olivier, Picard, Chalcis et la confédération eubéenne. Etude de numismatique et d'histoire (IVe – ler siècle) (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 234) (Paris, 1979).Google Scholar

Tarn = Tarn, W. W., Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford, 1913).Google Scholar

Wallace = Wallace, W. P., The Euboian League and its Coinage (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 134) (New York, 1956).Google Scholar

Will i2, ii2 = Edouard, Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.) i 2 (Nancy, 1979), ii2 (Nancy, 1982).Google Scholar

2 IG ii2.466.32–5, 5–18. Cf. Philippe, Gauthier, Symbola. Les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques (Annales de l'Est Mémoire, 42) (Nancy, 1972), pp. 101–2, 171Google Scholar. Although it is possible that the agreement antedated the inscription, in my view the wording of lines 32–5 virtually guarantees a new arrangement.

3 Buraselis, pp. 52–3 with n. 58. For the removal of the garrison, see IG xii.5.444.125–6; Diod. 20.46.1; Plut., Dem. 10.1; Philokhoros, , FGrHist 328 F 167.Google Scholar

4 IG ii2.456 and 470 (Kolophon), 573 (Parion; wrongly Paros in Billows 210–11), 703 with Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 5 (1936), 201–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Myrlea), 557 (unidentified city); IG ii2.1485–6. On Kolophon see Adolph, Wilhelm, ‘Athen und Kolophon’, in Anatolian Studies presented to William Hepburn Buckler, ed. Calder, W. M. and Josef, Keil (Manchester, 1939), pp. 345–68.Google Scholar

5 For Peparethos we have no evidence besides the crown just mentioned.

6 Tarn, p. 418, Buraselis, p. 52, Etienne, pp. 176, 177–8.

7 On the League see most recently Billows, pp. 220–5.

8 Cf. the examples adduced by Mogens Herman, Hansen, Demography and Democracy. The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century B.c. (Herning, 1985), p. 90 n. 12.Google Scholar

9 Plut., Dem. 8–14.

10 Diod. 20.37.

11 Buraselis, pp. 45–6.

12 IG xi.4.1036 (= Durrbach, F., Choix d'inscriptions de Délos [Paris, 1921–1922], no. 13)Google Scholar; Buraselis, pp. 41–4; Billows, pp. 220–5, following Buraselis, pp. 41–3, 60–7, both with further references.

13 Cf. below p. 380.

14 T. Leslie, Shear Jr., Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.c. (Hesperia Suppl. 17) (Princeton, 1978), p. 20, line 20Google Scholar; Louis, Robert, ‘Sur un décret des Korésiens au Musée de Smyrne’, Hellenica 11–12 (1960), 132–76Google Scholar and Heinz, Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Historia Einzelschift 20) (Wiesbaden, 1972), pp. 149–50Google Scholar, cf. also Cherry, John F. and Davis, Jack L., ‘The Ptolemaic Base at Koressos on Keos’, BSA 86 (1991), 9–28Google Scholar; Paus. 1.1.1; Plut., Arat. 12.2–3. I hope to treat this issue in another context soon.

15 Cf. n. 8.

16 IG ii2, p. 261 indicates merely ‘post med. s. IV.’, presumably on the basis of the lettering.

17 For the date of the arkhon Ourias (line 25), see Meritt, B. D.. ‘Athenian Archons 347/6–48/7 B.c.’, Historia 26 (1977), 173.Google Scholar

18 I.Cret. ii Allaria 2.

19 Gauthier; for the date 392–3.

20 IG ii2.654 + Add. p. 662,655, 657 + Add. p. 662; Hesperia 1 (1938), 100 no. 18Google Scholar (= ISEl.14, SEG 25.89). Cf. also Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 30 (1961), 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar no. 6 (= SEG 21.358) with Habicht, p. 100.

21 Polyain. 5.17. Pausanias saw their tombs (1.29.10). Osborne associates the epitaph of Khairippos with event (193 n. 36).

22 Gauthier 392–393.

23 Xenoph. Hell. 2.4.25 (isoteleia); [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2 (citizenship); Plut. Mor. 835f–836a; IG ii2.10 (with both) = Tod, Marcus N., Greek Historical Inscriptions, ii (Oxford, 1948), pp. 8–13Google Scholar, no. 100, with Tod's commentary.

24 Garland, pp. 58–72.

25 A possible Tenian mercenary (?) at IG ii2.1957.9, beg. III B.c.

26 Habicht, pp. 96–107. Cf. also Heinen 175–207, J., and Robert, L., ‘Bull, ép.’, REG 94 (1981), 238, pp. 401–2Google Scholar. Garland, pp. 51–2 accepts Habicht and Osborne's position, without, however, adducing new evidence. Osborne's paper confined itself to showing that the garrison at the Peiraieus persisted beyond 287 B.c., and to suggesting that the unsuccessful attempt to regain it reported in Polyainos 5.17 occurred in 281 B.c. (Osborne 192–4).

27 Osborne, M. J., ‘The Archonship of Nikias Hysteros and the Secretary Cycles in the Third Century B.c.’, ZPE 58 (1985), 275–95Google Scholar, cf. Gauthier, P., ‘Bull, ép.’, REG 100 (1987), 251, pp. 320–1Google Scholar; Tréheux, J., ‘Bull, ép.’, REG 103 (1990), 399, pp. 511–12.Google Scholar

28 IG ii2.644, 645, Hesperia 11 (1942), 281 no. 54Google Scholar; cf. Gauthier 380–1.

29 Cf. Gauthier 378–9; I. Kirchener apud IG ii2.644, commentary; Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 11 (1942), 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The third Nikias, of 267/6 or 266/5, is irrelevant for our purposes.

30 Osborne, M. J., ZPE 58 (1985), 275–95Google Scholar, has argued on the basis of a reexamination of IG ii2.644 that Nikias ὕστερος here could only be Nikias (I), but his case, which depends on notoriously difficult arguments about the tribal cycle, is not decisive: cf. Gauthier, P., ‘Bull, ép.’, REG 100 (1987), 251, pp. 320–1.Google Scholar

31 Tréheux, J., ‘Bull, ép.’, REG 103 (1990), 399, pp. 511–12.Google Scholar

32 In Hesperia 11 (1942), 281 no. 54Google Scholar, line 1, Meritt restored Ἐπ⋯ N[ικ⋯ου ἅρχοντος το⋯ ὑστέρον ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ς], assuming a stoichedon line of 33 letters. Meritt remarked on the presence here of το⋯ and suggested some other possibilities in his n. 15.

33 Hesperia 7 (1938), 100 no. 18Google Scholar, lines 28–30 ( = SEG 25.89, ISE 1.14).

34 Gauthier 349–66, 371–4; cf. J., and Robert, L., ‘Bull. ép.’ REG 94 (1981), 239, p. 403Google Scholar: ‘the decree for Euthios attests to advanced negotiations’ for the recovery of the Peiraieus, but adding (following Habicht) that these negotiations were ultimately abortive.

35 Paus. 1.26.3. Cf. Habicht, pp. 102–7.

36 Cf. e.g. T. Leslie, Shear Jr., Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.c. (Hesperia Suppl. 17) (Princeton 1978), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

37 Umberto, Bultrighini, ‘Pausania 1, 26, 3 e la liberazione del Pireo’, RFIC 112 (1984), 54–62.Google Scholar

38 Carlo, Diano, Lettere di Epicuro e dei suoi nuovamente o per la prima volta edite (Florence, 1946), pp. 19–20Google Scholar, no. 14; Diog. Laer. 2.127; Paus. 3.6.6, Apollodoros, , FGrHist 244 F 44Google Scholar. Cf. Habicht, pp. 99–100.

39 de Sanctis, Gaetano, ‘II dominio macedonico nel Pireo’, RFIC 55 (1927), 480–500Google Scholar at 491–500. Habicht, p. 99 with n. 28.

40 Plut., Mor. 1097b and 1126e; Diog. Laer. 10.23 (death).

41 Gauthier 374–8, cf. Heinen 200.

42 The ‘Hierokles the Karian’ of Polyain. 5.17 who engineered the annihilation of an Athenian force that tried to retake the Mounykhia (certainly 287–281) has often been identified with the later Hierokles whom I treat here; cf. von Fritz, K., RE 15 (1932)Google Scholar Menedemos 9, 789–90; Osborne 193. For the relevance of Diogenes Laertios' biography of Arkesilaos to Hierokles' date, see the Appendix.

43 Diog. Laer. 2.127. The text is now to be consulted in the new edition of Knoepfler. There has been some debate on the interpretation of the expression I have paraphrased as ‘a plan to capture Eretria’, Ἱεροκλ⋯ους δ⋯ [το⋯] ⋯π⋯ το⋯ Πειραι⋯ς συνανακ⋯μπτοντος αὐτῷ (sc. Μενεδ⋯μῳ) ⋯ν Ἀμφιαρ⋯ον κα⋯ πολλ⋯ λ⋯γοντος περ⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯λώσεως τ⋯ς Ἐρετρ⋯ας. Tarn, p. 287 with n. 30 there interpreted it as ‘an account of how Antigonos had taken the town’ (cf. also Wallace, p. 34 n. 71); I follow instead Knoepfler, p. 175 n. 15, Habicht, pp. 99–100, de Sanctis, G., RFIC 55 (1927), 495Google Scholar, and Beloch, , RFIC 54 (1926), 334–335.Google Scholar

44 Diog. Laer. 2.142.

45 Beloch iv2 2.464, 608, cf. RFIC 54 (1926), 334–5Google Scholar. de Sanctis, G., ‘Il dominio macedonico nel Pireo’, RFIC 55 (1927), 495Google Scholar; Flacelière, p. 193; Wallace, pp. 31–2; Picard, pp. 269–70; Habicht, pp. 99–100; Walbank in Hammond–Wallbank, pp. 270–1.

46 Corpus Inscr. de Delphes ii. 124.3 (274 B.c.) for Menedemos as hieromnemon; FD iii.2.205, line 5 ( = SIG 3 416), SEG 32.856 for Aiskhylos (273 B.c.). Beloch, , RFIC 54 (1926), 334–5Google Scholar. Tarn, pp. 286–7. On Aiskhylos son of Antandrides, see Knoepfler, D., Gnomon 60 (1988), 234Google Scholar; cf. Knoepfler, p. 197 n. 72.

47 In all this I have been greatly helped by the new edition of Diogenes' life of Menedemos by Dénis, Knoepfler, La vie de Ménédème d'Erétrie de Diogène Laërce. Une contribution à l'histoire et à la critique du texte des Vies des philosophes (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 21) (Basel, 1991)Google Scholar. I had arrived at my views before I saw Knoepfler's book, and was gratified to find that we generally agree (though he does not usually present his arguments for his views here).

48 For Aiskhylos, see IG xii.9.192, line 2, IG Suppl.xii.550, line 1 and 555, line 54, Arch. Delt. 17 (1961–1962) Mel., pp. 211–14Google Scholar, recently republished, cf. SEG 32.856, FD iii.2.205, lines 4–5; cf. Maurice, Holleaux, Etudes d'histoire et de philologie grecques, i (Paris, 1968), pp. 44–6Google Scholar, and the studies of Knoepfler cited at n. 46. For Menedemos, Diog. Laer. 2.140–1.

49 Picard, pp. 270–1.

50 Maurice, Holleaux, Etudes d'histoire et de philologie grecques, i (Paris, 1968), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

51 On Eperastos, see below n. 55.

52 Picard, pp. 222–3.

53 That Ἐκτορ⋯[δου] and not Ἐκτου is the correct reading for FD iii.1.475.3 can no longer be doubted; cf. Picard, p. 223 n. 2. R. Flaceliére's date for this inscription, autumn 267 B.c., is mistaken (p. 391 no. 12).

54 Suggested by Beloch iv2 2.463 on the basis of IG xii.9.249B32 and the arguments of Pomtow, H., Klio 14 (1915), 294CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 17 (1921), 202. The other inscription is IG xii.9.245A159; see LGPN i (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar, s.v. Ἑκτορ⋯δης. Since the name appears in one case as H. son of Hippostratos and in the other H. father of Mnesias, these two Hektoridai may themselves be one man.

55 Flacelière, p. 193 n. 2 pronounced Beloch's view ‘peu probable’, but it is certainly no less ‘probable’ than the identification of the Eperastos called only Εὐβοι⋯ων in FD iii. 1.298, line 4, 473, line 6; 3.185, line 3, and 203, line 4 with the Eperastos son of Amphias Ἐρετριε⋯ς of FD 5.93 1.16, which Flacelière accepts without demur. LGPN i (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar, s.v. Ἑπ⋯ραστος. Wallace, p. 30 n. 65 tried to argue this away as a ‘mistake’, but this is not convincing.

56 Picard, p. 223. For autumn of the same year there was no Euboian representative at all.

57 Georges, Daux, Chronologie Delphique (Paris, 1943), p. 35, G10Google Scholar; Flacelière, p. 415; Bousquet, J., ‘Nouvelles inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 62 (1938), 358–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Apud Picard, p. 223 n. 1.

59 Corpus Inscr. de Delphes ii. 129B3. Bousquet, J., ‘L'inscription sténographique de Delphes’, BCH 80 (1956), 25 n. 2Google Scholar. This inscription had appeared already in 1920 as Pomtow, H., Klio 17 (1921), 190 no. 79aCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Theokritos, FD iii. 1.8, line 4 (= SIG 3 406).

60 Bousquet, J., ‘L'inscription sténographique de Delphes’, BCH 80 (1956), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Picard, pp. 174–5, 270; Walbank in Hammond–Walbank, pp. 267–76, esp. 270–2 on Euboia; generally, Will i2.209–19.

62 Beloch iv2 2.463–4; Wallace, pp. 22–4.

63 Walbank in Hammond–Walbank, pp. 270–1.

64 Picard, pp. 267–9, cf. 221–5.

65 In the second century the Khalkidians sued before the Amphiktyonia for the right to fill the Euboian seat during Pythian years, cf. Picard, p. 224.

66 Diog. Laer. 2.142; Knoepfler, p. 199 n. 79.

67 Walbank in Hammond–Walbank, pp. 272–6.

68 Karl, Reber, Antike Kunst 33 (1990), 113–14Google Scholar; Knoepfler, p. 203 n. 90, cf. 175 n. 15.

69 Picard, p. 270 declares it impossible to associate an Eretrian revolt with the war; but he refers for this to Heinz, Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Historia Einzelschrift 20) (Wiesbaden, 1972), p. 132 n. 161Google Scholar, who in turns refers to Flacelière, p. 193, who bases his argument on the date of Menedemos' exile!

70 Paus. 3.6.6; Apollodoros, , FGrHist 244 F 44. Habicht, p. 100.Google Scholar

71 Habicht's view (pp. 108–12) that the Khremonidean War was caused in part by the Athenians' desire to recover the Peiraieus depends on his argument that Antigonos held it: continuously from 281 to 267 (see also Garland, pp. 51–2). That Patroklos, the Ptolemaic admiral, operated from bases near Sounion instead of the Peiraieus may have resulted from the fact that the Athenian port was in hostile hands when he arrived (cf. already Tarn, p. 298), but hardly proves that the Peiraieus had been continually under Makedonian control before the war. Cf. also the views of de Sanctis, G., RFIC 55 (1927), 497–8Google Scholar, who thinks that other considerations may have decided Patroklos to use bases outside Athens.

72 Cf. the review by Heinen 198–205 of Gauthier's whole case.

73 On the uncertainties of the identification, see Heinen 178–80, 200. Gauthier considered a compromise view that ‘au minimum, le commandant du Pirée accepte de se replier à. Mounychie; plus probablement, lui et ses troupes conviennent d'évacuer complètement le Pirée’ (392). This compromise – that the Athenians recovered the Peiraieus but the Mounykhia remained under ‘friendly’ control of the Makedonian garrison – is possible, but there is no evidence to decide one way or the other.

74 Diano (above, n. 38), pp. 19–20, no. 19, lines 8, 9–10. Cf. de Sanctis, G., RFIC 55 (1927), 493Google Scholar; Gauthier 377.

75 One argument of Osborne's (189–90) also points toward the recovery of the Peiraieus in 281. He notes the frequent honours for importers of grain in the 280s, and suggests that grain import had been rendered difficult by hostile control of the Peiraieus (cf. also Gauthier 370). But these problems vanish after c. 280: does that not imply that the cause of the troubles was over?

Osborne's main conclusion (194) is that the failed attempt to retake the Peiraieus fell in 281 B.c. But his evidence for this view is all negative, and some very unpersuasive. He is troubled, for instance, that no decrees of the Athenians or for Athens by foreigners mention the disaster (193–4,194 n. 41). But who would want to remind Athenians of a recent and shameful disaster?

76 IG xii.5.824. For the plague, see Orlandos, A. K., ‘Δ⋯νειον τ⋯ς П⋯ρον ⋯κ Κρ⋯της κατ⋯ τοὺς ⋯λληνιστικοὺς χρ⋯νους’, in Пεπραγμ⋯να το⋯ Δι⋯θνους Κρντολογικοὺ Συνεδρ⋯ου (Athens, 1973), i. 199–205Google Scholar at 204–5 and Spyridakis, S. V., ‘Paros, Allaria and the Cretan Koinon’, Ariadne 1 (1982), 9–26Google Scholar at 18–19. The notion that the Parian loans which Orlandos publishs were occasioned by the ‘great plague’ has been rightly questioned by Léopold, Migeotte, L'Emprunt public dans les cites grecques (Québec–Paris, 1984), pp. 215–18Google Scholar no. 62, at 218. On public doctors, see still Louis, Cohn-Haft, The Public Physicians of Ancient Greece (Smith College Studies in History, 42) (Northampton, Mass., 1956).Google Scholar

77 Etienne, pp. 120–3.

78 Etienne, pp. 122–3 and ‘La date du prêtre éponyme de Rhodes, Autocratès’, in Recherches sur les amphores grecques, ed. Empereur, J.-Y. and Yvon, Garlan (BCH Suppl. xiii) (Paris, 1986), pp. 45–7.Google Scholar

79 Christian, Habicht, ‘Der rhodische Eponym Autokrates (IG xii.5, 824)’, Chiron 19 (1989), 273–7.Google Scholar

80 For the necessary textual correction to ‘Tenum’ (Tenedum: MSS.), cf. John, Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV–XXXVII (Oxford, 1981), p. 251Google Scholar. No mention of Tenos in App. Syr. 20.

81 Will ii2.207 (date of departure); Theophil, Sauciuc, Andros. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte I und Topographie der Insel (Sonderschrift des österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien, 8) (Wien, 1914), pp. 84–7.Google Scholar

82 Cf. most recently Etienne, pp. 101–24, 116 for the inscriptions.

83 For some accounts, cf. Berthold, Richard M., Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca–London, 1984), pp. 150–1Google Scholar; Ager, Sheila L., ‘Rhodes: the Rise and Fall of a Neutral Diplomat’, Historia 40 (1991), 25–6Google Scholar. Despite Antiokhos' negotiations, Hatto Schmitt dismisses the possibility that the Rhodians might have supported him in the war; Rom und Rhodos (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 40) (Munich, 1957), pp. 74–80.Google Scholar

84 These other islands would be neighbouring Cyclades, members of the League, which lay on Antiokhos' path: perhaps Syros, across the channel from Tenos, or Mykonos. Another possibility is Keos. If Antiokhos sailed down the Euripos from Khalkis, he might have tried to put in at Koresia (Arsinoe) at the northwestern corner of the island. A Keian inscription of about the same date honours a public doctor at Ioulis (IG xii.5.600). A recent re-examination of this document, which is unfortunately very abraded, suggests that the published text is not entirely correct. I hope to treat this soon in another context.

85 Maurice, Holleaux, Etudes d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques, v (Paris, 1957), pp. 407–8.Google Scholar

86 Schmitt, Hatto H., Rom und Rhodos, p. 79Google Scholar, with however the qualification that there was never any doubt the Rhodians would choose Rome. Rawlings, Hunter R. III, ‘Antiochus the Great and Rhodes, 197–191 B.c.’, AJAH I (1976), 21Google Scholar: ‘It was not until the summer of 191 that Rhodes joined the Roman side… [a]fter Antiochus' ignominious defeat at Thermopylae and a naval defeat in Asia.’ Berthold 151 (with further references at n. 12): ‘It must now have seemed to Rhodes inevitable that the Romans would ultimately win, and rather than cling to a profitless neutrality, it determined to reap the various rewards available to a victorious participant.’ Gruen, Erich S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, 1984), ii.545–6Google Scholar: ‘Rhodes…beneficiary of the modus vivendi with Antiochus…would not automatically reckon him an enemy…Only after the battle of Thermopylae, when Antiochus retreated ignominiously from Greece, only after a Roman navy sailed into the Aegean, indeed after a victory at sea by Pergamene and Roman ships, did vessels sent by Rhodes join the allied forces against Antiochus.’ Peter, Green, Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 1) (Berkeley, 1990), p. 420Google Scholar and Ager, Sheila L., ‘Rhodes: the Rise and Fall of a Neutral Diplomat’, Historia 40 (1991), 25–6 sidestep the issue.Google Scholar

87 This result also refutes Roland Etienne's contention (p. 119) that the Rhodians failed to respond to an attack on the islands; in fact, they acted with resolve and dispatch. The text of the decree of the Nesiotic League requires some correction. After a section praising Apollonios' skill and dedication (lines 34–6), it passes on to his activities during the war (lines 38–41). These activities are described in some detail in the following lines (lines 41–5). Everything from line 38 to line 45 refers to his behaviour during the war. The restorations at lines 44–5, which derive from Apollonios' treatment of the sick on Tenos, are not appropriate; instead, we should restore τεθερ⋯πευκε πο[λλοὺς τραυματ⋯ας] at line 44 and περ⋯ πλ⋯ονος ποιο⋯μενος τ⋯ν [τ⋯ν τραυατι⋯ν σωτηρ⋯αν το⋯ ἰδ⋯ου συμφ⋯ροντο]ς at line 45, expressions which are common in V inscriptions honouring doctors for their services in war; cf. AM 72 (1957), 233, no. 64Google Scholar, lines 7–8, 29 (Samos); I. Cret. i Knosos 7.9, 16 (= J. Pouilloux, , Choix d'inscriptions grecques [Paris, 1960] no. 14, 16).Google Scholar

88 Etienne, pp. 182–3.

89 IG xii.5.820, 825–6. Cf. Etienne, p. 179. The proxeny for Kharinos son of Kharinos (IG xii.5.821) can belong to the first half of the second century only on very specific conditions. Kharinos is explicitly called Χαρῖνον Χαρ⋯νου Μινω⋯την (line 3). But Minoa was taken over by the Samians in the late third century; they controlled it down into the second century: cf. Georges Rougement, ‘Amorgos colonie de Samos?’, in Les Cyclades. Maté riaux pour une étude de géographie historique. Table ronde réunie à l'Université de Dijon les 11, 12 et 13 mars 1982, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche scientifique (Paris, 1983), pp. 131–4, 236–9, with further references, and Louis, Robert, ‘Les Asklepieis de I'Archipel’, REG 46 (1933), 423–42Google Scholar at 437–42 (= Op.Min.Sel. i.549–68). The Naxians seem to have come to Arkesine in the second century, cf. IG xii.7.50. Thus if the decree really belongs to the second century, as the letter forms seems to suggest, then the Tenians are honouring an exile.

90 IG xi.4.693, cf. Etienne, pp. 179, 182.

91 Etienne, p. 182.

92 Theophil, Sauciuc, Andros. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Topographie der Insel (Sonderschrift des österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien, 8) (Wien, 1914), pp. 84–8Google Scholar. Etienne notes this (p. 113) but fails to make the connection.

93 I would like to thank the anonymous referee for this journal, whose comments materially improved this paper. Responsibility for any errors remaining rests of course with me.

94 Cf. Diog. Laer. 4.39, Пολλ⋯ν δ⋯ κα⋯ τ⋯ν Ἀντ⋯γονον θεραπευ⋯ντων κα⋯ ⋯π⋯τε (note especially) ἥκοι ⋯παντώντων αὐτ⋯ς (sc. Arkesilaos) ⋯σ⋯χαζε, μ⋯ βουλ⋯μενος προεμπ⋯πτειν εἰς λν⋯σιν and κα⋯ δ⋯ κα⋯ πολλ⋯ ⋯κε⋯νου (sc. Hierakles) συμπε⋯θοντος ὥστ' ⋯σπ⋯σαθαι τ⋯ν Ἀντ⋯γονον, οὐκ ⋯πε⋯σθη, ⋯λλ' ἕως πυλ⋯ν ⋯λθὡν ⋯ν⋯στρεψε.

95 Diog. Laer. 4.45 (FGrHist 244 F 16 with Jacoby's comm.), 4.44; study with Theophrastos, Diog. Laer. 4.29. Cf. von Arnim, H., RE 2 (1896)Google Scholar, s.v. Arkesilaos (19), 1164.

96 Diog. Laer. 4.39.

97 Cf. most recently Buraselis, pp. 119–51 for full discussion, sources, and earlier bibliography.

98 Buraselis, pp. 149–51.

99 Cf. Reger, G., ‘The Date of the Battle of Kos’, AJAH, forthcoming.Google Scholar

100 Cf. Denis, Knoepfler, ‘Tétradrachmes attiques et argent ‘alexandrin’ chez Diogène Laërce’, Mus. Hel. 44 (1987), 241–2 n. 36Google Scholar, contra Habicht, p. 72. Arkesilaos incorporated Antigonos' naval victory into his lectures on mixtures (Plut. Mor. 1078c): εἰ γ⋯ρ εἰσιν αἱκρ⋯σεις δι' ⋯λων, τἰ κωλ⋯ει, το⋯ σκ⋯λους ⋯ποκοπ⋯ντος και κατασαπ⋯ντος και ῥιφ⋯ντος εἰς τ⋯νθ⋯λατταν και διαχντος, οὐ τ⋯ν Ἀντιγ⋯νου μ⋯νου ατ⋯λον διεκπλεῖν, ὡς ἔλεγεν Ἀρκεσ⋯λαος etc.