Death to Tyrants! (35 page)

It is important to note—and this is the second point—that there is no evidence to suggest that the oligarchy established after the battle of Ipsos fell before circa 280. As already noted, an oligarchic regime appears to have been firmly in control during those years. Thus, if the statue of Philites was desecrated sometime after 300 (as argued in the previous section), the earliest opportunity pro-democrats had to repair it was circa 280.

The third (admittedly indirect) point is that, after circa 280, the democrats of Erythrai apparently started to worship Dēmos. There are eight inscriptions that document this practice: each records that someone or some group of people made a dedication “to Dēmos.”
⁵¹
Although none of the inscriptions are definitively dated, several points suggest, as noted, that the practice began shortly after the battle of Kouroupedion. First, the earliest extant inscription that refers to the practice (
I. Erythrai
32) is roughly dated to the early third century (
I. Erythrai
= “Erstes Drittel des 3. Jahrh. v. Chr.”;
IEryth
Mc-Cabe = “IIIb”). Second, there is no reason to believe that the practice began before circa 280—as noted above, oligarchs controlled the polis during the first two decades of the third century. Third, as was also demonstrated above, democracy was refounded in Erythrai in circa 280: that gives a possible motive for beginning the practice (see below). Fourth, 280 is within the “Erstes Drittel des 3. Jahrh. v. Chr.” and “IIIb.” Fifth, there are two extant decrees of the
dēmos
praising their generals that date to the early 270s or 260s (
I. Erythrai
24, 29), and the Erythraian generals are the first individuals known to have made offerings to Dēmos (
I. Erythrai
32).

But how does the apparent fact that the people of Erythrai started worshiping Dēmos circa 280 suggest (indirectly) a circa 280 date for the restoration of the statue of Philites? The answer is simple: a date of circa 280 for both events would suggest that the people of Erythrai began to use religious ritual to honor both Dēmos and the democracy after the battle of Kouroupedion. We do not know for certain why they began such a practice. But one should note that the Erythraian
dēmos
was severely threatened in the years immediately following 280: their democracy was just recently reinstated—certainly to the displeasure of the anti-democrats—and the Celts were attacking Erythraian lands with great success. One inscription indicates (
I. Erythrai
24 lines 13–15), for example, that the Erythraians were forced to pay tribute to the Celts. Another (
I. Erythrai
28 lines 14–18) refers to both Erythraian hostages given to the Celts and Erythraian captives taken by the Celts. And yet another (
I. Erythrai
29 lines 7–8) refers to “war surrounding the polis.” Given such a situation, it makes sense that the Erythraians would start worshiping Dēmos in order to somehow protect their polis and new
regime.
⁵²
If that were the initial rationale for worshiping Dēmos, it would also make sense to start “worshiping” (the statue of) Philites at that time too: he was instrumental for the foundation of democracy and embodied the ideology necessary to defend the refounded democracy. His statue might have served as a sacred object in a new cult of democracy.

A fourth point is that 281 is an acceptable “inscribing date” for the Philites stele. Wilhelm, as noted above, concluded that the letterforms date to the first decades of the third century. Heisserer concluded (perhaps led by a conviction that the Philites stele is a commemorative text) that the letterforms could be dated between circa 275 and 200. And Lund noted that both the letterforms and the pronounced apices find parallels in early-third-century texts; she sees no reason to date it to the later third century.
⁵³
There is nothing that would exclude an early-third-century date.
⁵⁴

Based on the information just provided, one might construct the following scenario. The democrats were very upset by the fact that they had been overthrown after the battle of Ipsos and desired to secure the post-Alexander (democratic) status quo.
⁵⁵
They got their chance and succeeded after the battle of Kouroupedion. But they knew that, because they were out of power for so long, a lack of confidence would hinder their capability to defend their regime: they likely were effectively atomized (or estranged) as a result
of roughly twenty years of the oligarchs' intimidation and disinformation policies.
⁵⁶
Thus the democrats went to considerable lengths to ensure that they would generate and maintain common knowledge of widespread credible commitment to defend the democracy: they had the statue of their tyrant-killing hero repaired and crowned at the beginning of every month and at all festivals.

The comments presented above argued that the creation and subsequent manipulation of the statue of Philites took place during a fifty-year period following Alexander's conquest of western Asia Minor. And it will be recalled that this chapter's first section demonstrated that both oligarchs and democrats considered the successful manipulation of the statue of Philites—that is, control of its message—to play an important role in determining whether or not there would be democracy in Erythrai. Thus one might conclude that both oligarchs and democrats believed that the successful manipulation of the statue of Philites played an important role in determining whether or not the democracy originally established in the wake of Alexander's conquest would control the polis. It is thus now important to determine whether or not the democracy reestablished in circa 280 persisted for a significant period of time.

The Postmanipulation Political Status Quo

Given the current state of the evidence, it is not possible to determine conclusively how long the democracy reestablished in Erythrai in circa 280 remained in power. The literary sources refer to Erythrai infrequently and, when they do, do not mention internal matters. And Erythrai's epigraphic record is not as informative as one might like. Nevertheless, the following comments defend this thesis: after the democrats repaired and provided for the regular crowning of the statue of Philites, democracy remained Erythrai's “normal” regime type for several generations. I substantiate that thesis by dividing the available evidence into three separate chronological periods: 280–246, 246–201, early second century.

280–246

Two complementary points strongly suggest that Erythrai was a democracy from 280 until 246 (i.e., during the reigns of Antiochos I and Antiochos II). First, the public inscriptions that date to this period strongly suggest that the
dēmos
controlled the polis. There are several such inscriptions dated to the
reign of Antiochos I:
I. Erythrai
24,
⁵⁷
25, 27, 28, 29 (perhaps—see note 59), 30 (quite likely: 270–260), 31,
⁵⁸
32, and 503 (the Philites stele),
IEryth
Mc-Cabe 19. And there are a couple such inscriptions that might date to the reign of Antiochos II:
I. Erythrai
30 (possible: 270–260), 29,
⁵⁹
31 (possible, see note 58).

The second point is that it was (at least early) Seleukid policy to support democracies in Ionian cities.
⁶⁰
Several inscriptions support this point. The first is
OGIS
222, a decree (dated 268–262) of the Ionian League informing Antiochos I that the league has instituted a Birthday Festival in his honor. In lines 16–17, the decree orders the ambassadors to urge the king to maintain the Ionian cities as “free and democratic”; by doing so, it says, he will be following the policy of his ancestors (this could include Antigonos and maybe even Alexander, who is, in fact, mentioned in the decree). The second inscription is
OGIS
226, a list of priestesses of Apollo Didymeios. In lines 5–6 it refers to Antiochos II's role (through the agent of Hippomachos, the son of Athenaios) in restoring (
katagein
) “freedom and democracy” to Miletos in 259/8; and that is after he drove out the tyrant Timarchos, a deed for which he was called “God” even in this inscription.
⁶¹
A third inscription is
OGIS
229. It contains three decrees relating to a reconciliation (dated to 242) between Magnesia-by-Sipylos and Smyrna. (They had fought each other while Seleukos II—during the Third Syrian War—was in an area
known as Seleukis.) Lines 10–11 of the first decree state that Seleukos II “confirmed” (
ebebaiōsen
) Smyrna's “autonomy and democracy.”
⁶²

246–CIRCA 200

The second half of the third century, which saw the collapse of Seleukid control in western Asia Minor, is a very complicated period. And the political history of Erythrai during this period is virtually unknown. The following list provides the names, presented chronologically, of the powers that might have laid claim to the Erythraian peninsula during the half century following the death of Antiochos II.

Seleukos II
(from 246 until setbacks in the Third Syrian War)

•  Seleukos II tried to secure the allegiance of Ionian cities before he marched against Ptolemy II in Syria (summer of 246), after having lost Ephesos and parts of Thrace. (He left his fourteen-year-old brother Antiochos Heirax in charge of Asia Minor.) We see evidence of this attempt, first, in his relation with Miletos:
RC
22 records the king's proposal to augment the city's privileges, the substance of which is unfortunately lost. And we see it, too, in his relationship with Smyrna: (1)
OGIS
228, a decree from Delphi, grants Seleukos II's request that Smyrna and her temple to Aphrodite Stratonike should be “holy and inviolable” (
ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος
) and notes (line 7) that the king decreed that Smyrna should be “free and pay no tribute”; (2)
OGIS
229, a decree from Smyrna, both notes that Seleukos II confirmed that Smyrna shall have autonomy and democracy and even requests “the kings, dynasts, cities, and
ethnē
” to recognize the inviolability of the temple and the city (lines 10–12).
⁶³

Ptolemy III (after Seleukid setbacks in the Third Syrian War [246–242])

•  In
OGIS
54 (line 14), Ptolemy III boasts of taking Ionia. Polybios (5.34.7) suggests that Ptolmaic control extended up the costal islands up to the Hellespont. Cities near Erythrai known to have been taken by Ptolemy III: Miletos, Ephesos, Samos, Magnesia on Maeander, Priene, Kolophon, Lebedos (renamed Ptolemais), and maybe Teos.
⁶⁴
Magie (1950: 99), however, notes that there is no solid evidence for Ptolemaic control on the mainland north of Lebedos. (Erythrai is north of Lebedos.)

Antiochos Heirax, the younger brother of Seleukos II (from the march of Seleukos II eastward in the Third Syrian War [246] until being driven out of Asia Minor by Attalos I circa 228)

•  Heirax held the Troad, where he minted coins in several cities (Magie [1950: 937n32]). And his coinage is found at Sardeis (Ma [2000: 45n67]). He appears to have held the territory north of Lebedos.
⁶⁵

Attalos I. (after defeating Heirax circa 228 and until 222)
⁶⁶

•  Polybios notes (5.77–8) that Attalos I, in his later campaign against Achaios in 218, acquired several cities: Kyme, Myrina (Smyrna in the manuscripts), Phokaia, Aigai, Temnos, Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion. With respect to Teos and Kolophon (both Ionian cities), Polybios wrote (5.77.6) that he secured their adherence “on the same terms as before” (
ἐπὶ ταῖς συνθήκαις αἷς καὶ τὸ πρότερον
). With respect to Smyrna (an Ionian city), Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion, the historian wrote (5.78.6) that those cities “preserved their loyalty to him” (
διὰ τὸ τετηρηκέναι τούτους τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν πίστιν
). Thus Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion had already adhered to Attalos before 218, likely beginning circa 228. And it is possible that Kyme, Mryina, Phokaia (an Ionian city), Aigai, and Temnos did too.
⁶⁷

Achaios, likely the cousin of Antiochos III (from 223/2 to 218)

•  He was appointed governor of cis-Tauric Asia Minor by Antiochos III. According to Polybios (4.48.10) he “recovered the whole of the country this side of the Taurus.” Based on the passage from Polybios mentioned above (5.77–8) it is clear that Kyme, Myrina (Smyrna in the manuscripts), Phokaia, Aigai, and Temnos, Teos, and Kolophon adhered to Achaios. He minted coins in Sardeis.
⁶⁸
A usurper from 220, he drove Attalos I back into Pergamum while still loyal to Antiochos III (Polyb. 4.48.2, 4.48.11). He was eventually besieged in Sardeis for two years by forces from both Attalos I and Antiochos III and executed (Polyb. 7.15–18; 8.15–21).

Attalos I (from 218—the date of his successful campaign against Achaios)

•  Cities known—again from Polybios (5.77–78)—to have adhered to Attalos include Kyme, Phokaia, Aigai, Temnos, Teos, Kolophon, Smyrna, Lampsakos, Alexandreia Troas, Ilion. And we know that Erythrai was allied with Attalos I in 201, at the battle of Chios (Polyb. 16.6.5). It is thus likely that Erythrai became part of the symmachia formed by Attalos I in 218.
⁶⁹

There are several reasons to suspect that the
dēmos
controlled Erythrai at least most of the time during the chaotic years 246–200. The first reason is that the Attalids, who perhaps were the dominant power in the Erythraian peninsula for eighteen of those years, were friendly to Ionian states. We have, for example, a letter from Eumenes II to the Ionian League dated to the winter of 167/6 (
RC
52) wherein he states (line 16) that he maintains his father's (Attalos I) policy in showing favor to the league. In addition, Polybios wrote a eulogy for Attalos I in which he stresses (18.41.9) that the king died fighting for the “freedom of the Greeks.” And finally, modern scholars have argued that Attalos I upheld the freedom of the Greeks in his alliance. Magie wrote (1950: 102), “There is every reason to suppose that Attalos' allies maintained their position as free and independent states. McShane (1964: 67) wrote, “[T]he only consistent defender of the Greek cities from northern Ionia to Byzantium was the Attalid dynasty.” And the same scholar wrote (1964: 86) that there likely were no garrisons in the Greek coastal cities in the Attalid alliance.
⁷⁰