Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T05:36:24.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Neutrality of Delos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Walther Kolbe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of the neutrality of Delos has been the subject of a searching investigation by W. W. Tarn published recently in this Journal. The argument turns mainly on a purely epigraphical question, namely, the interpretation of the formula for the setting-up of a stele in the decrees of the Island League. Its historical importance is great, because, if Tarn is right, we should be justified in utilising the Delian Royal festivals for the reconstruction of the political history of the third century, which has rightly been styled the darkest period of Hellenism. As in the fourth Excursus of his large work Antigonus Gonatas, the distinguished scholar maintains the thesis that Delos became a member of the Island League, and that the varying history of this League is reflected in the establishment of festivals in turn by the Ptolemies, by the Seleucids, and by the Antigonids. The evidence for his theory he finds in the argument that the Islanders, if they wished to set up an inscribed stele in Delos, were not obliged to address a petition to the Commune of Delos, requesting the grant of a site in the sanctuary; the Islanders therefore controlled the site and ground of Delos, which implies that Delos belonged to the League. Although I raised objections to Tarn's thesis, as did Roussel at an earlier date, I would gladly be the first to agree with him, had he succeeded in bringing forward convincing proof of this theory. As this has not been the case, in view of the wide significance of the problem I think it advisable to break silence and to expose my objections to the criticism of experts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , November 1930 , pp. 20 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1930

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 J.H.S. 1924, p. 141 f.

2 G.G.A. 1917, p. 453.

3 B.C.H. 1911, p. 447.

4 Cf. the decree of Olbia, , Sylloge, 730Google Scholar, where a site was granted

5 1914, p. 174, No. 234.

6 Compare I. v. Priene, 8 54 ff., 63 30 ff.:

7 I do not cite in this connexion I.G. vii. 4130 (decree of Akraiphia in honour of judges from Larissa), because the document only expresses the wish The marked difference between this example and 4131 is enough to show that in the latter a request for a particular site is meant.

8 The fundamental difference between a request for a particular site and for a general site is clearly shown by a comparison between our examples and the following decrees; cited above on pp. 22–3; decree of Priene, , I. v. Priene, 8Google Scholar; of Parion, , I. v. Priene, 63Google Scholar; of Bargylia, , I. v. Priene, 47Google Scholar; of Gonnoi, , Ἐφ. Ἀρχ, 1914, p. 174Google Scholar, No. 230; of lasos, I. v. Priene, 53; and of Thessalonica, , I.G. xi. 4Google Scholar, 1052; in all these the grant of a τόπος is asked for nearly in general terms.

9 I restore the phrase παρὰ τὴν Ἀρτέμιδα by comparison with 1. 45.

10 or or similarly; cf. I.G. xi. 4, 1036 ff.

11 Antigonus Gonatas, p. 431.

12 As I.G. iv. 1036, ἀναγράψαι δἐ τοὺς συνέδρους (Island League; cf. 1038–1041); xii. 5, 817 τ.τ.ψ. τὸν ταμίαν (Island League); I. v. Magnesia, 32 36 f., ἐπιμεληθῆναι δπως γράψη κρίσωνα τὸν στρατηγόν (Epirote League); Sylloge3, No. 729, τὸν γραμματέα ἀναγράψαι (Amphictyonic League); and unusually plainly in the decrees of Gonnoi, , Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1914, 174, 234Google Scholar; 177, 237, προνοηθῆναι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐνάρχους ταγοἐς πρὸς τὴν πόλιν τ τῶν Κιεριέων γράψαι οπως τεθῆι, κ.τ.λ.; and 180, 240, πολεμάψαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς … ταγοὺς, κ.τ.λ. and of Akraiphia, , I.G. vii. 4130Google Scholar, γράψαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς πολεμάρχους … καὶ οἴεσθαι δεīν αὐτὴν τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα ἀναγράψαι καὶ ἀναθεῖναι.

13 As in O.G.I. 222, (Ionic League); and I.G ix. 2, 1103, (Magnesian League).

14 I.G. ix. 2, 1103.

15 xii. 7, 388.

16 To the examples cited may be added xi. 4, 1052. This is the decree of Syros, already adduced by me in G.G.A., 1917Google Scholar, which concludes with the words It is impossible that this is a request in the sense meant by Tarn, p. 153. The numerous analogies show that it is an ‘Order to the local officials.’ The decree of Syros therefore has its value for our problem in being an example of a demand for a particular site.

17 I.G. xi. 4, 1023.

18 I.G. xi. 4, 559.

19 The passage is to be read thus; not, with Roussel,

20 Cf. my remarks, Zeitschrift d. SavignyStift. f. Rechtsgesch. 49 (Röm., Abt., 1, 1929, 141Google Scholar).

21 Cf. p. 141, ‘But I have borne in mind Professor Kolbe's argument for Delian neutrality in his drastic reconstruction of this period, a reconstruction which is ingenious, but which is unfortunately based on other unsound hypotheses besides the Delian.’

22 My greatest thanks are due to Mr. F. N. Pryce for translating my paper into English, and to Mr. W. W. Tarn for his kindness in replying to my argument. The point at issue between us must be left to the criticism of experts.