DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45246#0014
PRIENE.
Antigonos, who bore the kingly title from b.c. 306
to b.c. 301, was certainly applied to by one of the
contending states, perhaps Samos. This is stated in
No. cccciii, lines 141 foil., but no other inscription
remains bearing upon that appeal. Antigonos re-
plied apparently that the apportionment of territory
should stand as it did at the time of Alexander’s ex-
pedition (No. cccciii, 145, 146).
The earliest of the extant documents concerning
the controversy is the letter of King Lysimachos to
the Samians, now at Oxford (C. I. 2254 ; see a more
careful copy in my Greek Historical Inscriptions,
No. 152). The latter portion of this curious letter
is broken off, so that we cannot certainly say whether
the award of Lysimachos was in favour of Samos or
Priene. We learn however that both parties had
appealed to him, the question at issue being the
right to a district named ή Βατινητις χώρα; this dis-
trict, and the appeal to Lysimachos concerning it,
are referred to more than once in No. cccciii. The
decree of divine honours to Lysimachos (No. cccci),
and his gracious reply (No. ccccn), will show that
he was at one time of his reign on very friendly
terms with Priene, and could hardly then have given
a decision against them. I shall endeavour to show
(on No. ccccn) that this correspondence with Lysi-
machos falls within the last period of his reign,
b.c. 287-281 ; and I incline to the belief that his
award concerning Batinetos was not altogether ad-
verse to Priene. It is even possible that the grati-
tude of the Prienians towards Lysimachos was
partly earned by a favourable decision.
The next document dealing with the dispute is
No. cccciii*, which occupied a large surface of the
wall of the pronaos; being inscribed on the right-
hand return of the anta which contained the dedica-
tion and decree of Alexander and the correspond-
ence with Lysimachos (Nos. cccxcix—ccccn). This
lengthy document is an award of the Rhodian
people, who had been invited to arbitrate (as e/c-
κλητος πόλι$·) between Samos and Priene touching the
possession of a fort named Κάριον and the land sur-
rounding it, ή περί τούτο χώρα. A Rhodian Commis-
sion was appointed, and delegates from Samos and
Priene appeared before them first at Rhodes itself,
in the temple of Dionysos: then the arbitrators
visited the disputed localities, and listened to the
claims of either party on the spot; and lastly, a final
hearing took place in the Artemision at Ephesos
(No. cccciii, lines 1-24). The position of Rhodes
in the third century b.c. was such as to well qualify
it to arbitrate in a controversy of this kind. Amid
the perpetual wars of the time, the Rhodians aimed
at maintaining an attitude of armed neutrality.
Their extensive commerce and great wealth made
them anxious for peace. They seldom interfered
in the wars around them, but, when they did, it was
with decisive effect. Demetrios ‘ the taker of cities’
had besieged them in vain for a year (b.c. 305-4),
and they had emerged from the conflict with in-
creased influence. Sixty years later (b.c. 246-239),
in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, they inflicted a
severe defeat at Ephesos upon the Egyptian fleet,
though it was commanded by the famous Athenian
Chremonides (Droysen, Hellenismus, iii, 1, p. 407;
and his citations from Polysenos, v, 18; Stobaeos,
Floril. xl, 8). We shall have occasion later, in deal-
ing with the decree from Iasos concerning Philip V
and the Rhodians, to note the unique position of
Rhodes among the other cities of the Levant.
The date of this Rhodian award can be deter-
mined within narrow limits. Mention is made in
line 132 of Antiochos (Theos) ‘son of Antiochos ’
(Soter), who reigned b.c. 261-246. In line 134
Priene is spoken of as involved in ό Λαοδίκει,ος πόλε-
μος ψ, and this can hardly be anything else than the
war waged by Ptolemy Euergetes against Laodike
and her son Seleukos II. During this war (b.c. 247-
243) nearly all the Ionic cities sided with Egypt.
And if (like Smyrna, see C. I. 3137, and Greek
Historical Inscriptions, No. 176) Priene shut her
gates against the generals of Euergetes, it is certain
the city must have suffered; especially as its rival,
Samos, was now an Egyptian naval station (see
Droysen, Hellenismus, iii, 1, p. 320). In No. cccciii,
line 153, we are told of a commander of Ptolemy
(Philadelphos) being stationed at Samos.
Antiochos Theos is the latest monarch, and ό Aao-
δίκεως πόλεμος the latest event, mentioned in the
award; and if my interpretation of this phrase is
correct, the date of the award is about 240 b.c., a
little later than the date suggested by Droysen
(iii, 1, 331). The character of the writing would
agree with this date.
The heading of the Rhodian award is happily
preserved, and is very explicit. After giving the
names of the five arbitrators, and of the delegates
from Samos and Priene respectively, and having
stated the circumstances under which the award was
delivered, the Rhodians proceed to affirm in brief
that they hold the claim of Priene to Karion and its
environs to be fully proved (lines 1-27). They add
that they have made two copies of the award (από-
φασις), and have delivered one to the authorities at
Samos and the other to the authorities at Priene
(lines 27-44). Then there followed a recital at
length of the arguments that had been employed on
either side (lines 45-154). Finally the arbitrators
sum up and pronounce judgment in favour of Priene
(lines 154-157). Appended was a specification of
* Waddington-Lebas, misled by the twice-repeated decision (No. cccciii, lines 26 foil, and 156 foil.), imagined that there were
two awards made by Rhodes recorded in two distinct documents,—an earlier one concerning Κάριον and Δρυοΰσσα, and a later
one concerning a certain φροόριον καϊ ή περϊ τούτο χώρα. It is however sufficiently clear that the φροόριον is identical with το Κάρων,
and that the land about it was named Δρυονσσα. A careful study of the marbles, together with MS. copies of the lost portions, has
convinced me that the whole of No. cccciii is one continuous document (see Plan); and I have not accepted Waddington-Lebas’
restoration of lines 99-100, where I was at first inclined to follow these scholars in finding a reference to a previous award of Rhodes.
+ Δαοδίκειος πόλεμος is formed after the analogy of Χρεμωνίδειος πόλεμος (Athen. vi, p. 250 F): Λαοδι,κηνός would be the adjective if
the reference had been to a city Laodikeia.
Antigonos, who bore the kingly title from b.c. 306
to b.c. 301, was certainly applied to by one of the
contending states, perhaps Samos. This is stated in
No. cccciii, lines 141 foil., but no other inscription
remains bearing upon that appeal. Antigonos re-
plied apparently that the apportionment of territory
should stand as it did at the time of Alexander’s ex-
pedition (No. cccciii, 145, 146).
The earliest of the extant documents concerning
the controversy is the letter of King Lysimachos to
the Samians, now at Oxford (C. I. 2254 ; see a more
careful copy in my Greek Historical Inscriptions,
No. 152). The latter portion of this curious letter
is broken off, so that we cannot certainly say whether
the award of Lysimachos was in favour of Samos or
Priene. We learn however that both parties had
appealed to him, the question at issue being the
right to a district named ή Βατινητις χώρα; this dis-
trict, and the appeal to Lysimachos concerning it,
are referred to more than once in No. cccciii. The
decree of divine honours to Lysimachos (No. cccci),
and his gracious reply (No. ccccn), will show that
he was at one time of his reign on very friendly
terms with Priene, and could hardly then have given
a decision against them. I shall endeavour to show
(on No. ccccn) that this correspondence with Lysi-
machos falls within the last period of his reign,
b.c. 287-281 ; and I incline to the belief that his
award concerning Batinetos was not altogether ad-
verse to Priene. It is even possible that the grati-
tude of the Prienians towards Lysimachos was
partly earned by a favourable decision.
The next document dealing with the dispute is
No. cccciii*, which occupied a large surface of the
wall of the pronaos; being inscribed on the right-
hand return of the anta which contained the dedica-
tion and decree of Alexander and the correspond-
ence with Lysimachos (Nos. cccxcix—ccccn). This
lengthy document is an award of the Rhodian
people, who had been invited to arbitrate (as e/c-
κλητος πόλι$·) between Samos and Priene touching the
possession of a fort named Κάριον and the land sur-
rounding it, ή περί τούτο χώρα. A Rhodian Commis-
sion was appointed, and delegates from Samos and
Priene appeared before them first at Rhodes itself,
in the temple of Dionysos: then the arbitrators
visited the disputed localities, and listened to the
claims of either party on the spot; and lastly, a final
hearing took place in the Artemision at Ephesos
(No. cccciii, lines 1-24). The position of Rhodes
in the third century b.c. was such as to well qualify
it to arbitrate in a controversy of this kind. Amid
the perpetual wars of the time, the Rhodians aimed
at maintaining an attitude of armed neutrality.
Their extensive commerce and great wealth made
them anxious for peace. They seldom interfered
in the wars around them, but, when they did, it was
with decisive effect. Demetrios ‘ the taker of cities’
had besieged them in vain for a year (b.c. 305-4),
and they had emerged from the conflict with in-
creased influence. Sixty years later (b.c. 246-239),
in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, they inflicted a
severe defeat at Ephesos upon the Egyptian fleet,
though it was commanded by the famous Athenian
Chremonides (Droysen, Hellenismus, iii, 1, p. 407;
and his citations from Polysenos, v, 18; Stobaeos,
Floril. xl, 8). We shall have occasion later, in deal-
ing with the decree from Iasos concerning Philip V
and the Rhodians, to note the unique position of
Rhodes among the other cities of the Levant.
The date of this Rhodian award can be deter-
mined within narrow limits. Mention is made in
line 132 of Antiochos (Theos) ‘son of Antiochos ’
(Soter), who reigned b.c. 261-246. In line 134
Priene is spoken of as involved in ό Λαοδίκει,ος πόλε-
μος ψ, and this can hardly be anything else than the
war waged by Ptolemy Euergetes against Laodike
and her son Seleukos II. During this war (b.c. 247-
243) nearly all the Ionic cities sided with Egypt.
And if (like Smyrna, see C. I. 3137, and Greek
Historical Inscriptions, No. 176) Priene shut her
gates against the generals of Euergetes, it is certain
the city must have suffered; especially as its rival,
Samos, was now an Egyptian naval station (see
Droysen, Hellenismus, iii, 1, p. 320). In No. cccciii,
line 153, we are told of a commander of Ptolemy
(Philadelphos) being stationed at Samos.
Antiochos Theos is the latest monarch, and ό Aao-
δίκεως πόλεμος the latest event, mentioned in the
award; and if my interpretation of this phrase is
correct, the date of the award is about 240 b.c., a
little later than the date suggested by Droysen
(iii, 1, 331). The character of the writing would
agree with this date.
The heading of the Rhodian award is happily
preserved, and is very explicit. After giving the
names of the five arbitrators, and of the delegates
from Samos and Priene respectively, and having
stated the circumstances under which the award was
delivered, the Rhodians proceed to affirm in brief
that they hold the claim of Priene to Karion and its
environs to be fully proved (lines 1-27). They add
that they have made two copies of the award (από-
φασις), and have delivered one to the authorities at
Samos and the other to the authorities at Priene
(lines 27-44). Then there followed a recital at
length of the arguments that had been employed on
either side (lines 45-154). Finally the arbitrators
sum up and pronounce judgment in favour of Priene
(lines 154-157). Appended was a specification of
* Waddington-Lebas, misled by the twice-repeated decision (No. cccciii, lines 26 foil, and 156 foil.), imagined that there were
two awards made by Rhodes recorded in two distinct documents,—an earlier one concerning Κάριον and Δρυοΰσσα, and a later
one concerning a certain φροόριον καϊ ή περϊ τούτο χώρα. It is however sufficiently clear that the φροόριον is identical with το Κάρων,
and that the land about it was named Δρυονσσα. A careful study of the marbles, together with MS. copies of the lost portions, has
convinced me that the whole of No. cccciii is one continuous document (see Plan); and I have not accepted Waddington-Lebas’
restoration of lines 99-100, where I was at first inclined to follow these scholars in finding a reference to a previous award of Rhodes.
+ Δαοδίκειος πόλεμος is formed after the analogy of Χρεμωνίδειος πόλεμος (Athen. vi, p. 250 F): Λαοδι,κηνός would be the adjective if
the reference had been to a city Laodikeia.