Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:43:43.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Two Rhodian Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

P. M. Fraser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recent publication of a fragmentary Oxyrhynchus papyrus containing a deed of sale of a slave effected through a Rhodian bank, in the years between A.D. 238 and 244, sheds new light on the Rhodian banking system, of which hitherto little has been known, and it is worth while considering the information provided on this topic. The papyrus, carefully published by J. F. Oates, consists of two major fragments which do not join; fragment (a) contains all that survives of col. i, to which four hands contributed, and also the lower part of col. ii, while the right end of the upper part of col. ii is on the second fragment, (b), being in the same hand as the upper part of col. i; the lower part of col. ii is in the same three hands as is the lower part of col. i. The different hands represent the depositions of different persons. There is no lacuna between the end of fragment (a) and the beginning of fragment (b). These details are clearly visible on the photograph reproduced here by the kindness of the Managing Committee of the Egypt Exploration Society, to which I am much indebted. The papyrus is difficult to read in places, where the ink has faded, and the portions relevant to Rhodian matters are not all wholly clear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 67 , November 1972 , pp. 113 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1972

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 Oates, J. F., JEA lv (1969) 191–210Google Scholar, ‘A Rhodian Auction Sale of a Slave Girl’ (hereafter Oates). The text has been improved in places, especially in col. ii, lines 17 ff., by Schwartz, J., Chr. d'Ég. xlv (1970) 172–4Google Scholar. Cf. also H. C. Youtie, cited below, n. 11.

2 Fig. 1.

3 Oates, 200–1, stresses that it is surprising to find these honorific titles used in a dating-formula along with the normal Imperial titulature. I know of no other instance of the practice. For Antoninus Pius honoured by the Rhodians as κτίστης καί σωτήρ see the dedication published by Carratelli, Pugliese, Studi Ciaceri (1940) 254–6Google Scholar: Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Τίτον Αἴλιον Ἁδριανὸν Ἀντωνῖνον Σεβαστὸν/Εὐσεβῆ, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κτίσταν τᾶς πόλεως,/ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Ῥοδίων τὸν εὐεργέταν. As Carratelli pointed out, the honours were probably awarded for the help given by Antoninus to Rhodes towards rebuilding the city after the earthquake of 155. Vespasian is σωτὴρ καί εὐεργέτας in IG xii. 1. 994Google Scholar. In Dio Chrys. xxxi. 61, ἢ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῖν κεκομισμένος ἢ τῶν οἰκιστῶν ὑπάρχηιτις, we should probably emend to ἢ τῶν κτιστῶν κ.τ.λ.

4 Ann. viii–ix (1925/1926) 321 no. 4.Google Scholar

5 Inscr. Lind. 494.

6 IG xii. 1. 837Google Scholar.

7 In the corresponding position in col. ii, line 6, where Oates read Ἀθαναγόρα ΔΗ(μητρίου) Schwartz read δύς (i.e. δίς), which seems to be palaeographically more satisfactory, and corresponds precisely with the β′ of the inscriptions referring to Athanagoras. It should probably also be supplied at the end of col. i, line 5, and, correspondingly, καθυ be supplied at the beginning of col. ii, line 7.

8 Schwartz, loc. cit. 174, needlessly doubts this expansion. In col. ii, line 26, the abbreviation καθ occurs, followed by χρυ (χρῃ Oates, but the hook of the upsilon seems clear), and in col. i, line 24, at the end of the full name of the same person Oates read χρη It is natural to expand καθ as καθ᾿ ὑοθεσίαν, the form of abbreviation which occurs in an inscription of Imperial date from Lissa, , TAM ii. 130Google Scholar, line 8. I do not think that this form occurs in Rhodian inscriptions in place of the normal ΚΑΥ, but it is impossible to be certain.

9 von Gaertringen, Hiller, JÖAI iv (1901) 162–3, no. 2.Google Scholar Cf. also IG xii. 1. 31, where δαμόσιος is written in full, with Hiller's note. There are several δαμόσιοι in the long subscription-list, Ann. N.S. 1–11 (1942) 168 ff., no. 21: A, col. iii, line 19, Ἑκαταῖος ἐγγενὴς ἐν Θήραις δαμόσιος; line 25, Στράτιππος ἐγγενὴς ἐν Ἁλικαρνασῶι γραμματεὺς δαμόσιος; B, col. i, line 29: [Σω]κλῆς ἐγγενὴς δαμόσιος.

10 Inscr. Lind. 419, line 23: τοῦ δαμοσίου ἐπ̣[ιστά]ντο[ς].

11 Youtie, , Zeitschr. für Papyr. u. Epigr. vii (1971) 169Google Scholar.

12 See Miss Grace's remarks in Délos xxvii (1970) 316Google Scholar, on E43, where she refers to monogrammatic forms of Ἀγ(ριανίου), Ὑα(κινθίου) (Ǎ), Ἀρ(ταμιτίου), Δα(λίου) and Πα(νάμου) (Miss Grace gives the monograms as resolved into the nominative, but the months are naturally always recorded in the genitive case). In lapidary inscriptions of the Imperial period there are many similar abbreviations of months, e.g. (see the Index to IG xii. 1, p. 240Google Scholar), though does not seem to occur. I reproduce here (Plate 35f), with the permission of the Director of the French School at Athens, an example of the abbreviation on a jar-handle from Delos (475.43.TD 199); the photograph itself I owe to the kindness of Miss Grace.

13 See IG xii. I. 31, which is of interest as showing that the civic slaves formed a koinon of Διοσαταβυριασταί with their own priest of Zeus Atabyrios. The dedication is made [ύπὲρ τ]ῶν κυρίων Ῥοδίων.

14 Curtius, Monatsbl. Pr. Akad. 1874, 2 no. 1 (Hasluck, Cyzicus 276 no. 85; Imperial; the inscription is wrongly given by Oates (208) as CIL 3679, instead of CIG, but in any case the correct reading is due to Curtius) lines 2–3: Αὐξάνων, τραπεƷίτης τῆς πόλεως. It is to be noted that the τραπεƷίτης τῆς πόλεως here has no patronymic, and this confirms the view that the title τῆς πόλεως is usually employed for those of humble status. He is also γραμματεύς of a κοινόν: see Bogaert, op. cit. below (n. 21) 202. Compare also the tombstones of the οἰκονόμοι of Cos, of Imperial date, PH 308, Διονυ/σίου πό/λεως Κώ/ων οἰκο/νὁμου, and 310, Φιλήτου/οἰκονόμου τῆς Κώων/πόλεως/οἰκον[ο]μή/σαντος ἔτη/κγ/ἀμέμπ[τ]ως.

15 See Blinkenberg on Inscr. Lind. 295. It is worthy of note that at Rhodes itself the νεωκόρος was a foreigner, [Ἀ]πολλώνιος Ἀντιοχεύς: Cl. Rh. ii. 184 no. 9.

16 The date is in fact preceded by the word [---ἐ]νγαίου, perhaps [χρηματισμὸς (τᾶς) ἐ]νγαίου. It is not clear why the first column does not have a similar heading.

17 Oates 202–4.

18 Oates (198) duly noted that the use of Ῥόδιος here and in col. i, line 19, was slightly anomalous, since in Rhodes one would expect the demotic; but the deposition was made for international use by the non-Rhodian purchaser, and the civic ethnic was natural and correct usage in the circumstances. In the strictly Rhodian sections, i.e. in the date in col. i, lines 4 ff., col. ii, 5–6, in the statement of sale in col. i, lines 7 ff., and in the signature of the ἄρχων τραπεƷίτης himself (col. i, line 24, col. ii, line 26), neither demotics nor civic ethnics are used. There is no reason to connect the use of the civic ethnic here with the class of inferior citizens who lacked the demotic and were called Ῥόδιος (see IG xii. I, p. 299, s.v. ῾Ρόδιος; Hiller, RE, Suppbd. v, col. 766; Pugliese Carratelli, Arch. Stor. Calab. e Lucan. xvii (1947) 1 ff.).

19 See Oates 203–4, deriving from Pringsheim, Greek Law of Sale (Weimar, 1950), 103 ff.

20 See especially Rostovtzeff, SEHHW i. 677, apropos of Polybius' description of the Rhodian loan to Sinope in c. 220 B.C.: ‘It shows that in 200 B.C. Rhodes was the greatest centre of banking and credit in the Greek world, and carried on extensive financial operations; and this conclusion is supported by other fragments of evidence …’; ibid. 680, of the period after 188, ‘[Rhodes became] the most important centre of banking in the Hellenistic world’ (cf. also below, n. 22).

21 Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (Leiden, 1969).

22 Op. cit. 214, n. 435: ‘Rostovtzeff dit (SEHHW i. 173): “The city, it appears, had important reserves of money (a rare occurrence in the history of Greek cities!) stored in the treasury on deposit in private or public banks in the town or elsewhere.” Signalons qu'il n'y a pas de traces de dépôts de fonds publics auprès de banques privées et que les banques publiques ne sont pas attestées explicitement à Rhodes; l'éminent savant semble avoir surestimé l'importance des banques rhodiennes.’

23 See Rostovtzeff (op. cit. iii. 1485 n. 95), who gives the evidence (Durrbach, Choix 50; cf. ibid. 69). On Durrbach, 50, the decree of Histiaea exposed at Delos in honour of Athanodorus of Rhodes, see also Robert, Étud. de num. grec. 214, and also the reserves of Bogaert as to the precise role (banker or merchant) of Athanodorus, who carries no descriptive title in the inscription; he is said to have lent money free of interest to Histiaean sitonai at Delos. Durrbach no. 69 is a dedication by a Rhodian, Charmylus son of Nicarchus, in honour of King Masannasa of Numidia; Charmylus had been a member of a board appointed to distribute some grain presented to the Delians by the king: see Durrbach ad loc.

24 Ann. N.S. i–ii (1942) 156 ff. no. 18 (republication of Ann. iv–v (1921–2) 223 ff. = SEG iii. 674,) B, line 15: ε̣ἰς τ̣ὰ̣ν̣ τιμὰν (δραχμὰς) Α´ ἐκ τοῦ̣̣ [λ]όγου ἁμῶν ποτιδιαγράφει. The stone is very worn at this point, but from τιμὰν onwards the reading is certain. Cf. also Bogaert 215.

25 IG xii. I, 937, lines 10–11: καὶ ἄλλε̣ς ἐπανγιλαμένου ἰς τὰ/οἰκητήρια δ (ραχμὰς) ρ´ καὶ ἄλλας ἐπανγιλαμένου εἰς ἐνθήματα (ἐ)γδό/σιος τοῦ τόπου δ(ραχμὰς) ρ´, κ.τ.λ. The reading of the stone in line 10, fin., is ΟΠΛΟ or ΟΓΔΟ, which has been variously emended (see Newton, BMI 358, note and loc.); Hiller's (ἐ)γδό/σιος is closest to the stone, but the meaning is not clear. Hiller does not explain it. Bogaert (216) says: ‘en vue de l'adjudication de travaux (ἔγδοσις) à effectuer aux bâtiments de l'association’. ἔκδοσις may mean ‘a contract of lease’, as in OGIS 484, lines 48–9, [ὅπ]ως περιεῖχεν ἡ ἔκδοσις (cf. Bogaert, 231 n. 28), but the simple genitive is hard to explain. ἐνθημα itself, otherwise unattested, is taken, no doubt correctly, to be a variant of, or error for, ἔνθεμα, used in a similar context in the Ilian inscription, Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l'Asie mineure 9, lines 12–4: τοὺς δὲ/τραπε[Ʒ]ίτας, ἐπεὶ διαγεγραμμέ/[να ἐστὶ τά δ]ιάφορα, ἔχειν ἔνθεμα καὶ φέρ[ειν] τόκον αὐτῶν δέκατον καὶ παραδοῦναι τ[ό]/τε κεφαλαῖον] τοῖς μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς τραπεƷίταις καὶ τόκον διμήνου δέκατον· τοὺς δὲ/[παραλαβόντας ἔ]χειν ἔνθεμα τὰς μυρίας καὶ πεντακισχιλίας Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ/[τὸν δίμηνον τό]κον κ.τ.λ.

26 Ann. N.S. i–ii 154 no. 14.

27 Lines 7 ff.

28 Lines 13–15: [καὶ τ]ραπεƷειτεύσαντα καἰ πο[ι]ησάμε̣[νον ἐπιδόσε/ις κ]αὶ προεισφορὰς μειƷόνων κεφαλα̣[ίων καὶ τειμα/θέντα]ὑπὸ πολίων Ἑλ[λ]ανίδων. There is no indication of date in the document other than the reference to the Σεβαστοί. The lettering indicates an early Imperial date. In Inscr. Dél. 1728, Λεύκι[ον] Αὐφίδιον/Λευκίο[υ υἱ]ὸν Ῥωμαῖον, / τραπεƷ[ιτε]ύσαντα ἐν Δήλωι, κτλ., the aorist participle refers to private activity as a banker (for Lucius Aufidius see Bogaert 190), the public office of ὁ ἐπὶ τὴν δημοσίαν τράπεƷαν (see Bogaert 191) being confined to Athenian citizens.

29 See the Tenian lists, IG xii. 5. 880 ff., probably of the first century B.C., in which the τραπεƷείτης appears regularly (880, line 11: τραπεƷείτης, Σάτυρος Φιλοκλέους; 881, line 9: τραπεƷείτης, Ζήνων [Ζήνωνος], line 25: τραπεƷείτης, Ξενόφαντος ---; 882, lines 10–11: τραπεƷείτης, Σουνιάδης Φιλίνου; 883, line 13: τραπεƷείτης, Ξενόφιλος Σίμου; 885, lines 18–19: τραπεƷείτης, Φιλῖνος Ξενοφίλου). These documents are dated by the semestrial calendar derived from the Rhodian period; cf. in general Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea 165 ff. Bogaert (p. 196) regards the public bank at Delos as having provided the model for Tenos. I regard this as much less likely.

30 Oates 208.

31 See above, n. 24.

32 A, lines 3 ff.: ὅπως οἱ ἀμφουριασμοὶ/τῶν ἐγγαίων τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τῷ κοινῷ καὶ τᾶν ταφιᾶν ἐνφανεῖς ὑπάρχωντι ὡς ἐν δυνατῷ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐρανισταῖς.

33 The normal term for a public bank is, of course, δημοσία τράπεƷα: see Bogaert 88–91.

34 Oates 204–5.

35 See especially Hanell, RE s.v. Neokoros, cols. 2422–3, and Beurlier, DS s.v. Neocorus, pp. 55 ff.

36 See Beurlier, loc. cit. Note that Xenophon deposited his share of the booty from the sale of prisoners which belonged to the Ephesian Artemis with the neokoros, with full responsibility for making a suitable dedication if he did not return: Xen. Anab. v. 3. 6–7.

37 See Homolle, BCH xiv (1890) 485–7; Laidlaw, Delos 74; cf. BCH viii (1884) 284 (Michel, 570; Tod, GHI i. 85 (not in Meiggs–Lewis's revised edition)): traditio of 410–9, lines 10 ff.: ἀργύριον παρελάβομεν παρ᾿ Ἀμφικτυόν/ων Θεαγγέλου Φηγα[έ]ως καὶ σ/υναρχόντων καὶ νεωκόρων / Δηλίων [Σ]κ[ύ]λ[ακ]ος καὶ συνα/ρχόντων ἐν τ[ῶι ἱερ]ῶι καὶ τ/ῶι Ἀρτεμισίωι. It is worth noting that on a late tombstone from Termessus, TAM ii. 680 (before A.D. 212 (?)), the deceased, Ὅμηρος δίς, is described as νεωκόρος Λητοῦς καὶ Ἀσ/κληπιοῦ, γρα(μματεὺς) χρ̣ε(ωφυλάκων); there may be a connection between the two offices, but they are not specifically linked.

38 Op. cit. 279–81.

39 Oates 202.

40 xxx. 5.6. I need not enter here into the history of the interpretation of this famous phrase: see Schmitt, H., ‘Rom u. Rhodos’ Münch. Beitr. xl (1957) 3 ff.Google Scholar, for a full discussion.

41 Fr. 97 Wimmer (Stob. iv. 2. 20 (vol. ii. 127 ff. Hense); Arangio-Ruiz, and Olivieri, , Inscr. graec. Sicil. et inf. Ital. ad ius pert. (Milan, 1925) 240 ff.Google Scholar, with commentary): οἱ μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ κήρυκος κελεύουσι πωλεῖν καὶ προκηρύττειν ἐκ πλειόνων ἡμερῶν, οἱ δὲ παρ᾿ ἀρχῆι τινι, καθάπερ καὶ Πιττακὸς παρὰ βασιλεῦσι καὶ πρυτάνει. ἔνιοι δὲ προγράφειν παρὰ τῆι ἀρχῆι πρὸ ἡμερῶν μὴ ἔλαττον ἢ ἑξήκοντα, καθάπερ Ἀθήνησι…παρὰ δέ τισι προκηρύττειν κελεύουσι πρὸ τοῦ κατακυρωθῆναι πένθ᾿ ἡμέρας συνεχῶς εἴ τις ἐνίσταται ἤ ἀντιποιεῖται τοῦ κτήματος ἢ τῆς οἰκίας· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑποθέσεων, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Κυӡικηνοῖς. There follows the passage regarding the method of announcing the sale to a neighbour, practised by the Thurians. On the whole passage see the commentary of Pringsheim, Greek Law of Sale 134 ff.; Partsch, Festschrift Lenel 77–203, passim. In the passage quoted above the parallels given in the next note indicate that κήρυκα might be preferable to κήρυκος, but Dem. li. 22 has μόνον οὐχ ὑπὸ κήρυκος πωλοῦσι τὰ κοινά.

42 Syll 3. B, lines 130–1: καὶ εὐθὺς ἐνέγκας εἰς τὴν ἐκλησίαν χρυσοῦς / πεντακοσίους εἰς τοὺς ἀρραβῶνας, ἀπέδοτο πάν/τα τὰ ἔργα ὑπὸ κήρυκα. Cf. also Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecs (1969) no. 85 (IG ix. 2,1110), lines 3–4: τὰς δὲ τούτων δορὰς πωλεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ [νῦν χρόνου]/δε[ῖ κα]τ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν ὑπὸ κήρυκα. Partsch, op. cit. 102, says that this procedure is known only from Theophrastus, evidently having failed to notice these inscriptions. Dio Chrys. vii. 123, refers to κήρυκες ὠνίων, auctioneers; cf. Weiss, Gr. Privatrecht i. 55, especially n. 4.

43 Mor. 242D; the section contains two or three similar stories, without reference to the herald.

44 Nuov. Sill. 20, a dedication by a prytanis and his συνάρξαντες, ending (line 13) κᾶρυξ βουλᾶι καὶ δάμωι (Maiuri wrongly printed a comma after κᾶρυξ, as Wilhelm (AM li (1926) 4) pointed out).

45 Hell. Ox. 10. 2: καὶ Δωρίμαχος [μ]ὲν αὐτῶν ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον οὗπερ εἰώθει κη[ρύ]ττειν ὁ κῆρυξ, ἀνακράγων, κτλ. At Athens there was a particular λίθος (one of several identified by specific names) on which the herald stood when holding auction, ὁ πρατὴρ λίθος: Poll. iii. 78 (cf. 126): δοῦλα σώματα πρὸς ἀργύριον ἀντικατηλλαγμένα, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρατῆρος λίθου, ἀπὸ τοῦ πωλητηρίου, παρὰ τῶν λαφυροπωλῶν, παρὰ τῶν ἀνδραποδοκαπήλων. The κᾶρυξ also occurs at Lindos (see Inscr. Lind. 378, line 75, with Blinkenberg's note).

46 Fraser, and Bean, , Rhodian Peraea (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar 5 no. 5 (SEG xiv. 681), lines 2, 5. In Inscr. Lind. 419, line 147, the abbreviation is Νεττ.

47 The Athenian pinakia known at that time were published in IG ii/iii2. 1835–1923, where there is a good summary of the problems raised by them. They have recently been re-studied in great detail by Dow, Sterling, BCH lxxxvii (1963) 653–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, along with the few pieces known from Thasos, and the one from Sinope. I have profited much from Dow's article.

48 See Ath. Pol. 63. 4: ἔχει δ᾿ ἕκαστος δικαστὴς τὸ πινάκιον πύξινον, ἐπιγεγραμμένον τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πατρόθεν καὶ τοῦ δήμου καὶ γράμμα ἓν τῶν στοιχείων μέχρι τοῦ κ´; cf. Dow, loc. cit. 657–8, who shows that there was no subsequent return to the bronze pinakia.

49 For the Thasian examples see Dow 676 ff., three examples. A fourth is published in BCH xcii (1968) 1087, and 1088 fig. 8.

50 See Dow 658–9. For the kleroteria themselves see Dow's fundamental study of the fragments from the Agora excavations, Hesperia Suppl. i (1937) 198–215; id., Harv. Stud. 1 (1939), 3–34, ‘Aristotle, the Kleroteria and the Courts’, an essential analysis of the text of Aristotle. See also the simplified account in M. Lang, The Athenian Citizen (Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book no. 4, 1960), text to figs. 21–4.

51 See BCH loc. cit. 658–9.

52 See Ath. Pol., quoted in n. 48, and Dow's discussion in Harv. Stud. 1 (1939) 23 ff.

53 See Dem. xxxix. 10, referring to the confusions caused by homonymity : φέρε, εἰ δὲ κριτὴς καλοῖτο Μαντίθεος Μαντίου Θορίκιος, τί ἂν ποιοῖμεν; ἢ βαδίӡοιμεν ἂν ἄμφω; τῶι γὰρ ἔσται δῆλον πότερον σὲ κέκληκεν ἢ ἐμέ; πρὸς Διός, ἂν δ᾿ ἀρχὴν ἡντινοῦν ἡ πόλις κληροῖ, οἷον βουλῆς, θεσμοθέτου, τῶν ἄλλων, τῶι δῆλος ἡμῶν ὁ λαχὼν ἔσται; πλὴν εἰ σημεῖον, ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλωι τινί τῶι χαλκίωι προσέσται· καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦθ᾿ ὁποτέρου ἐστὶν οἱ πολλοὶ γνώσονται; (cf. § 12).

54 See Dow, BCH loc. cit. 680–1. The letters ΘΥΡ are absent from nos. 2 and 3 in Dow's publication, but occur in no. 1, while on the piece published in 1968 (see n. 48) the letters are ΘΕ, perhaps Θ(ύρα) Ε.

55 Dow, ibid. 676; the name and patronymic are preceded by the letter Δ.

56 We do not know what other civil offices were elected by lot at Rhodes, but the excerpt of a Rhodian decree of c. 100 B.C., Syll.3 723, makes it clear that at that time, and no doubt long previously, all priesthoods were so elected. The decree enacts that the annual sequence of all priesthoods is to be publicly inscribed in a specific manner (lines 6ff.): οἱ μὲν ἰερεῖς / γραφόντω τὰ ὀν[ό]/μα[τ]α τὰ αὐτῶ[ν καὶ / ἰε]ρατείαν καὶ δᾶμ[ον]/καὶ τὸν ἰε[ρ]ῆ τοῦ Ἁλίο[υ]/ἐφ᾿ οὗ ἔλαχε. As Hiller saw (AM xxi (1896) 55), this clearly applies to all Rhodian priesthoods. The use of the lot is expressly attested of the ‘suffect’ eponym, ὁ ἐπιλαχὼν ἰερεὺς Ἁλίου: see IG xii. I. 833; Inscr. Lind. 312 (64 B.C.), 315 (ditto); Supp. Rod. p. 256, no. 5 (c. 65 B.C.). (All these inscriptions probably refer to one and the same person, Ζηνόδοτος διοφάντου τοῦ Ζηνοδότου Λινδοπολίτας καὶ ἐπιλαχὼν ἰερεύς; see Blinkenberg, , ‘Deux Documents chronol. rhod.’, Lindiaka viii (1938) 11 ff.)Google Scholar. The priest of Helios himself is never referred to as λαχών but it is clear from Syll.3 723, quoted above, that all priests were elected in this way.

57 See Dow, BCH loc. cit. 657–8, 679.

58 See Wycherley, Athenian Agora iii. Testimonia (1957) 145; Dow, loc. cit. 657, says that the dikasteria functioned down to the time of the Herulian invasion.

59 Nuov. Sill. 18, line 7 (I B.C.): (τὸν δεῖνα) [καὶ κ]λαρωτὰν δικαστᾶν γενόμενον; IG xii. I. 55 , line 3 (I B.C.): [Κλεύ]τιμον Ἀλεξιμένευσ/καθ᾿ ὑοθεσίαν δὲ Λίνδωνοσ/κλαρωτὰν γενόμενον/τῶν δικαστᾶν (line I restored by Blinkenberg, Inscr. Lind. i. 28); Ann. N.s. i–ii 151 no. 7, line 8 (I B.C.): Πλούταρχον Ἡλιοδώρου/τὸ κοινὸν τὸ Ἀφροδισιαστᾶν Σωτηριαστᾶν ἐτίμασε…; (line 8) κλαρωτὰν τῶν δικαστᾶν γενόμενον. In each instance the κλαρωτάς is described as γενόμενος, not e.g. αἱρεθείς, and, for instance in the long list of offices in Nuov. Sill. 18, other appointments are so described (γενόμενον ἁγεμόνα ἄμισθον… καὶ γραμματῆ βουλῆς γενόμενον); it is not clear why this, rather than a participle indicating the method of appointment, is used.

60 Poll. ix. 44: λογιστήριον, ἵνα [οἱ] λογισταὶ συνεκάθιӡον, κληρωτήριον, ἵνα οἱ κληρωταί; cf. Dow, Harv. Stud. 1 (1939) 12. For the role of the θεσμοθέτης see Ath. Pol. 64. I: ἐπειδὰν δ᾿ ἐμβάλωσιν οἱ δικασταὶ τὰ πινάκια εἰς τὸ κιβώτιον, ἐφ᾿ οὗ ἂν ἦι ἐπιγεγραμμένον τὸ γράμμα τὸ αὐτὸ ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶι πινακίωι ἐστιν αὐτῶι τῶν στοιχείω[ν, τ]ότε σείσαντος τοῦ ὑπηρέτου ἕλκει ὁ θεσμοθέτης ἐξ ἑκάστου τοῦ κιβωτίου πινάκιον ἕν. The archon had the further responsibility of putting the dice (κύβοι) in the machine; ibid. § 3: ὅταν δὲ ἐμβάληι τοὺς κύβους ὁ ἄρχων, τὴν φυλὴν κληρ[οῖ κατὰ κ]ληρωτήριον. Cf. Dow, op. cit. 28–9.

61 Supp. Rod. 25, line 5: [--- κλαρωθ]εὶς δικαστάς; 25a (a very similar text), line 2: [---δ]ικαστάς. The two small fragments are evidently all that remains of the texts of two decrees in honour of individuals who, among other functions, honourably performed the duties of heliast.

62 BCH, loc. cit. 676, 684.

63 For the complex events of this period see especially Hell. Ox. ch. 10, and the slightly different narrative of Diod. xv. 79. 6. There is a problem as to the extent to which an anti-Spartan movement had already occurred before the democratic revolution, which has been discussed by Bruce, CQ lv lv (1961) 166 ff. Whatever the actual course of previous events, there can be no doubt that the decisive pro-Athenian revolution occurred in 395, as recorded in Hell. Ox. 10. 3: οἱ δὲ τὴν σφαγὴν ἐξεργασάμενοι καταλύσαντες τὴν παροῦσαν πολιτείαν κατέστησαν δημοκρατίαν, καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τινας ὀλίγους φυγάδας ἐποίησαν. ἡ μὲν οὗν ἐπανάστασις ἡ περὶ τὴν Ῥόδον τοῦτο τὸ τέλος ἔλαβεν.

64 For the summoning of the ecclesia see Hell. Ox. ibid. 2: διαπραξά[μ]ενοι δὲ ταῦτα συνῆγον τὸ πλῆθος τὸ τῶν Ῥοδίων [εἰ]ς ἐκκλησίαν. Decrees etc. of the Rhodian period are rare at all periods, and none survives from the fourth century. For the assembly at the time of the Third Macedonian War see especially Polyb. xxvii. 7; xxviii. 16–17; xxix. 10; xxx. 4.

65 The events from 395 to 378, as recorded by Xen. Hell. and Diod. are at variance at some points (particularly with regard to what happened in 391), but it is clear that there was a state of active stasis between oligarchical supporters (backed by Sparta) and democrats (backed by Athens) in the period 391–389, as a result of which Rhodes was in the Spartan camp at the time of the Peace of Antalcidas in 386. Subsequently we have no certain information until 378, when Rhodes appears in the list of the members of the Second Athenian Confederacy: see next note. The Heracles-type coins struck by Rhodes and other cities early in the fourth century, some of which bear the legend ΣΥΝ, have recently been the subject of much discussion. They probably belong to the period after the battle of Cnidus in 394: see Cawkwell, Num. Chron. 1956, 69–76; Cook, J. M., JHS lxxxi (1961) 66–72Google Scholar; Cawkwell, Num. Chron. lxxxii (1963) 152–4; and Barron, , Silver Coins of Samos (London, 1966) 117–19Google Scholar.

66 See IG 2 ii. 43 (Tod, GHI ii. 123) of 377 B.C. The Rhodians appear among those states (lines 79 ff.) whose names are inscribed in the same hand as that of the decree itself; see Tod's commentary, p. 66.

67 See Diod. xvi. 7. 3: οἱ δ᾿ Ἀθηναῖοι Χίων καὶ Ῥοδίων καὶ Κωίων, ἔτι δὲ Βυӡαντίων ἀποστάντων, ἐνέπεσον εἰς πόλεμον τὸν ὀνομασθέντα συμμαχικόν, ὃς διέμεινεν ἔτη τρία; cf. Beloch, GG 2 iii. 2. 259.

68 The problem of the exact degree of Hecatomnid control over Rhodes in these years is in need of reexamination, though the evidence is very scanty: see provisionally van Gelder, Gesch. d. alt. Rhod. 92–3, and Hiller von Gaertringen, RE Suppbd. v, s.v. Rhodos, col. 775. It is clear from our main source, Demosthenes' speech xv, On the Freedom of the Rhodians, delivered in 351, that Maussollus himself imposed an oligarchic government of his choosing on the city, after the end of the Social War: : 14: οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾿ ἂν εἰ δι᾿ αὑτῶν εἶχον τὴν πόλιν οἱ νῦν ὄντες ἐν αὐτῆι Ῥόδιοι, παρήινεσ᾿ ἄν ὑμῖν τούτους ὲλέσθαι, οὐδ᾿ εἰ πάνθ᾿ ὑπισχνοῦνθ᾿ ὑμῖν ποιήσειν. ὁρῶ γὰρ αὐτοὺς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον, ὅπως καταλύσωαι τὸν δῆμον, προσλαβόντας τινὰς τῶν πολιτῶν, ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῦτ᾿ ἔπραξαν πάλιν ἐκβαλόντας τούτους. The imposition of the garrison is explicitly stated in § 15: τοῦ κομίσασθαι γὰρ τὰ ὑμέτερ᾿ ὑμῖν φθονήσαντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐλευθερίαν ἀπολωλέκασι, καὶ παρὸν αὐτοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ βελτίοσιν αὐτῶν, ὑμῖν ἐξ ἴσου συμμαχεῖν, βαρβάρους καὶ δούλους, οὓς εἰς τὰς ἀκροπόλεις παρεῖνται, δουλεύουσιν. Artemisia is recorded by Vitruv. ii. 8. 14–5, to have destroyed the Rhodian fleet in 351 in Halicarnassus harbour, and to have carried out a purge of unfriendly elements in the city, but the historicity of this event is very open to doubt. In any case, the Carian garrison was already in Rhodes at that time.

69 See my discussion of this in Parola del Passato vii (1952) 192–206, ‘Alexander and the Rhodian Constitution’.

70 See below, n. 72.

71 Ed. Kurfess, , Append. Sall. (Teubner, 1962)Google Scholar. I may be excused from discussing the authorship of this tract, which can hardly be by Sallust. A full bibliography will be found in A. D. Leeman, A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust (1879–1964) (Mnemosyne Supp. iv, 1965), nos. 608–75B. If it is by Sallust, my argument is not altered. If it is as late as the Antonine date proposed by Syme in Mus. Helv. xv (1958) 46–55 (see also id. Sallust (1964), 318 ff.), the reference to the Rhodian heliaia as contemporary becomes even more striking. Such a date would be quite compatible with the letter-forms of (d).

72 Cic. De Rep. iii. 48: (Scip. loq.)…‘Quid? tibi tandem, Spuri, Rhodiorum, apud quos nuper fuimus una, nullane videtur esse res publica? (Mumm. loq.): Mihi vero videtur, et minime quidem vituperanda. (Scip.): Recte dicis; sed, si meministi, omnes erant iidem turn de plebe, tum senatores vicissitudinesque habebant, quibus mensibus populari munere fungerentur, quibus senatorio; utrobique autem conventicium accipiebant, et in theatro et in curia res capitalis et reliquas omnis iudicabant iidem; tantum poterat tantique erat, quanti multitudo, senatus …’ (the rest of the book is lost). I cannot discuss this passage in detail here (see van Gelder, Gesch. d. alt. Rhod. 243–4), but briefly it may be noted (a) that Cicero seems to be referring rather loosely and inaccurately to the semestrial constitution of Rhodes, by which the Boule was elected every six months; (b) that the system of conventicia (ἐκκλησιαστικά and θεωρικά) is also attested for Rhodes by Dio Chryst. op. cit. § 102, who refers to the past and present system of payment for public services, including jury-service and service in the Boule: τότε μὲν γὰρ εἰς πάνθ᾿ ὅσα καὶ νῦν ἀνηλίσκετο, πανηγύρεις, πομπάς, ἱερουργίας, εἰς τὰ τείχη, τοῖς δικάӡουσι, τῆι βουλῆι; and (c) that both the reference to the judicial function of the citizen-body (res capitalis) and the whole tendency of the passage bear a close resemblance to the passage of Pseudo-Sallust.

73 Or. xxxi, 4: δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τούτου χάριν σύνιτε βουλευόμενοι καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, καὶ οὐ καθάπερ ἄλλοι δυσκόλως καὶ διὰ χρόνον καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων τινὲς εἶναι δοκούντων, ὅπως ὑμῖν ἦι σχολὴ περὶ πάντων ἀκούειν καὶ μηδὲν ἀνεξέταστον παραλίπητε.