【www.zhangdahai.com--其他范文】
Péter Kató
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
The dominance of elite families over the public life of post-classical Greek cities has always been a firmly established fact among ancient historians. There are, however, different opinions about the relationship of the local elites to other social groups, the changes in their composition, power and stability, and,most importantly, what their prominence means for the democracy that existed,at least nominally, all over Hellenistic Greece.2See, e.g., Quaß 1979; Gauthier 1993; Grieb 2008.It has also become clear that despite of the general trends encompassing the Hellenistic world, there were major differences both between the regions (like the Peloponnes, Crete, Asia Minor) and thepoleiswithin one region. Uncovering the extent, the reasons,and the consequences of these differences is a task for case studies on individual cities. This paper is intended as such a case study, based on the famous wartime subscription list of Kos.
This subscription list is the starting point of every study on the society of Hellenistic Kos. Facing attacks during the so-called 1st Cretan War,3For Hellenistic Kos, see the still fundamental synthesis of Sherwin-White 1978. For the evaluation of new epigraphic evidence, see Habicht 2007. Höghammar 2004 is an important collection of papers on aspects of culture and politics. On the history of the 1st Cretan War, see Chaniotis 1996, 38–41.the Koan assembly called upon the inhabitants of the island to contribute financially to defending the island. Hundreds of Koans followed the appeal and offered substantial amount of money and supplies for the army, which were obviously crucial for overcoming this severe military crisis. In order to commemorate this communal effort, the assembly decided to record the contributions on a stone.This subscription list is without doubt the most important Hellenistic inscription of Kos, which is proved by its sheer size and its simultaneous publication on three highly frequented points of the city (theater, agora, sanctuary of Asklepios).4IG XII 4, 1, 75–77. The inscription on the agora was to be placed next to the altar of Dionysos.Paul 2013, 125–127 argues that the monumental altar excavated in the southern part of the Agora was the mid-2nd century successor of a previous structure on the same spot. These places were clearly perceived as the ἐπιφανέστατoι τόπoι of Kos. On this concept, see Ma 2013, 107–117 and passim.
The great wartime subscription list has repeatedly been the object of high interest. Being one of the longest subscription inscriptions that contains not only the list of the contributions but also a decree about the background and the modalities of this public action, it is indispensable for the understanding of the institution of subscriptions (epidoseis) and was accordingly analysed by Léopold Migeotte more than once.5Migeotte 1992, 147–160 (no. 50); 2000.The list figures prominently also in more recent studies on the social and ritual dynamics of subscriptions and their epigraphic representation.6Chaniotis 2013; Ellis-Evans 2013.The Koan subscription has also been interpreted as a monument of patriotic spirit and therefore as a sign of the vitality of Kos and the Hellenisticpolisin general.7Baker 1991; Chaniotis 2005a, 38–39. Krob 1997 arrived at a similar conclusion through the analysis of the numerous oaths preserved in Koan inscriptions.However, because the amount of donated money shows us huge differences with donations ranging from 50 to 8,000 drachmas, the list can also be interpreted as a “monument of inequality,” demonstrating a general characteristic of the Hellenisticpolis.8Chaniotis 2005a, 39.The wartime subscription also plays an important role in the general assessment of the character of the Koanpolis. For instance, in the context of the analysis of the democratic constitution of Kos, Susan Sherwin-White emphasized the control of the assembly both over the subscription and the individual contributions.9Sherwin-White 1978, 175–223, esp. 180.
The most elaborated study of the wartime subscription list as a source of Koan social history can be found in Sherwin-White’s seminal study on ancient Kos. Based on the list, Sherwin-White reconstructed the social stratification of Koan society at the end of the 3rd century. Her analysis rests on the assumption(generally correct, but in some cases too optimistic, as argued below) that the contributions closely reflect the wealth of the contributors.10Ibid., 180.Sherwin-White came to the unsurprising conclusion that the distribution of wealth followed a pyramidal structure with a small group of rich contributors above 1,000 dr. on the top and a growing number of poorer people on the lower echelons of the society. She pointed out that the top contributors often held priesthoods and offices (archai) and therefore had a prominent position in public life. Drawing on prosopographical information from other inscriptions, Sherwin-White demonstrated that many families maintained their elite status throughout the Hellenistic period.11Ibid., 214–221. See also Wiemer 2003, 307.
This paper is an attempt to continue on elaborating on the topic, and to partly modify the results of Sherwin-White’s fundamental prosopographical study.Firstly, we shall see that the size of the contributions cannot be taken in every case as a clear indicator of a person’s wealth, and a more inclusive approach is necessary to identify the members of the elite in the epigraphic material. Then I present the relevant prosopographical information regarding the elite of Kos around 200, followed by a discussion of the sources of their wealth, career patterns, and fields of activity. In the final part of this paper, an attempt will be made to connect these findings with some recently debated topics in Hellenistic social history.
The reason for this endeavour is twofold. Since the publication of Sherwin-White’s monograph, new inscriptions have been published and are now readily accessible in theInscriptiones Graecae(IG XII 4). Especially important are the regulations (diagraphai) on the sale of priesthoods that contain various information about the active involvement of the local elite in religion.12IG XII 4, 1, 296–331. From the vast literature on this topic, see esp. Wiemer 2003, Dignas 2003,Buraselis 2008, and Paul 2013, 17, 85, and passim, as well as Kató 2013.More importantly, the study of Hellenistic political and social history has made considerable development in the last decades. The continuously widening gap between a wealthy upper class and the majority of city population is regarded as a hallmark of Hellenistic societies. Philippe Gauthier, in his seminal study on euergetism, argued that this process gained new momentum around the mid-2nd century, in the time of the Roman conquest, when rich local citizens took over the role of benefactors previously played by the kings.13Gauthier 1985, 53–75.Although the beginning and the reasons of this process are still debated, it is clear that the late Hellenism after ca. 150 was a period of aristocratization in the Greekpolis-societies.14See, e.g., the papers collected in Fröhlich and Müller 2005; Hamon 2007. Fabiani 2012, however,argued that at least in Iasos, this process began already in the mid-3rd century.
Despite of the richness of the epigraphic evidence, Kos and the top contributors of the wartime subscription and their families do not figure prominently in studies on the elites of Hellenistic cities. This is probably partly due to the peculiarities of the Koan epigraphic material. Whereas a number of long and informative honorary decrees are available for us from many cities, this group of documents are not so common in Hellenistic Kos.15Important examples are IG XII 4, 1, 98 and 99, the honorary decrees of the Koan deme Halasarna for Diokles and Theukles, apparently two prominent figures of Koan politics and contributors to the wartime subscription.The epigraphy of Hellenistic Kos is characterized instead by lists of different kinds of records like the names of hundreds of inhabitants of the island: lists of contributors to subscriptions,participants in deme cults, holders of privileges, winners of contests, etc.Although members of the local elite do appear in these documents, information about them is less abundant and less accessible than in cities like early Hellenistic Athens or late Hellenistic Priene where numerous and elaborate honorary decrees have been found.
Kos appears more prominently as one of the prime examples of a democraticpolis, since accountable magistrates, the sovereignty of the assembly in the decision-making process, and a strong popular participation in politics are amply attested throughout the whole Hellenistic period.16Grieb 2008, 137–198, especially important is his assessment of the political praxis: ibid., 166–177;Carlsson 2004 and 2010. See also the remarks of Hamon 2009.In Kos, as almost everywhere in Hellenistic Greece, the existence of a wealthy elite and its dominance over certain aspects of the public sphere stood in marked contrast with the idea of democracy. Especially studies on the sales of priesthoods and religious associations led by rich Koans have emphasized the prominence and power of the upper part of the local society.17See Wiemer 2003, esp. 309: “Gleichwohl war der Entschluß, Priestertümer auf Lebenszeit zu verkaufen, vom Standpunkt des demokratischen Bürgerstaates aus prinzipiell bedenklich… . Zugleich reservierte man diesen Familien eine prominente Rolle bei den Festen der Polis und tolerierte damit die Darstellung sozialer Überlegenheit bei Veranstaltungen der Bürgerschaft. Der Widerspruch zur politischen Ideologie des demokratischen Bürgerstaates ist manifest.” For the “charismatic” nature of associations founded and patronized by wealthy individuals and its connections with political power,see Maillot 2013, esp. 204–207.Recently, some scholars argued that the Hellenisticpoliswas much less democratic than it was thought before. Various concepts (oligarchy in democracy, the illusion of democracy, and oligarchic moments) have been proposed to tackle the coexistence of democratic political institutions and a staggering social inequality in the Hellenistic cities.18Ando 2018 (oligarchy in democracy); Chaniotis 2010 (the illusion of democracy); Müller 2011 and 2018 (oligarchic moments).
Since the source material for the Koan society consists mostly of inscriptions,it will be necessary to take into consideration the advances made by scholarship on epigraphic habit and epigraphic cultures of the ancient world. It is a fact that inscriptions were not just records where information could be stored, but monuments in close interaction both with their spatial setting and the people who used these spaces and perceived the monuments.19From the vast literature on this topic, see, e.g., Oliver 2003; Lasagni and Tropea 2019 on Hellenistic Athens; on Priene, see Raeck 1995 and Bielfeldt 2012. For a good recent methodological overview, see Bolle, Machado and Witschel 2017, esp. 16–18. See also the papers in two recent collective volumes dedicated to the materiality of text: Berti et al. 2017 and Petrovic, Petrovic and Thomas 2019.It is also generally acknowledged that the Greek cities published only a selection of documents on stone, whereas the criteria for selection are not always easy to understand.20See, e.g., Chaniotis 2003 on the so-called archive wall of Aphrodisias (2003, 4–5): “Die in diesen Zeugnissen (sc. in inscriptions and coins) enthaltenen Informationen sind das Ergebnis von Auswahl,und Auswahl setzt Intentionen voraus – auch wenn wir in den allerwenigsten Fällen in der Lage sind,diese Intentionen mit bestimmten Personen oder Gruppen in Verbindung zu bringen.”This makes clear that inscriptions served as important media of self-representation by ancient communities and individuals alike.21Self-representation is closely connected with the concepts of identity and memory. For inscriptions as media of identity and memory, see, e.g., Herrmann 1984; Chaniotis 2014 and 2003 (case study on Aphrodisias).
These general insights about the ancient epigraphic habit should be taken into consideration when interpreting epigraphic evidence of the career and activities of the Koan elite. The most conspicuous feature of the Koan epigraphy is the large number of lists recording the names of several hundred Koans, with the great wartime subscription list being only one, albeit very important example.These lists, which were published on stone in the greatest number around the turn of the 3rd to 2nd centuries, created the picture of a community characterized by harmony, communal spirit, and patriotism.22See, in more detail, Berti and Katό 2017.On the other hand, as mentioned above, honorific decrees given by the community for its own prominent citizens which are the characteristics of the epigraphy of Hellenistic cities, have come down to us in a much smaller number. From around 200 onwards, there are only two examples emanating from a Koan political body: the decrees of thedemosof Halasarna to honour two wealthy and influential citizens, Diokles, son of Leodamas, and Theukles, son of Aglaos, for their services during the First Cretan War (205–201).23IG XII 4, 1, 98 (Diokles), 99 (Theukles).Besides these decrees which were emanating from ademosassembly, honorific decrees provided by the popular assembly of Kos for local citizens acknowledging euergetic services at home are very rare. Numerous are those decrees which were erected by foreignpoleishonouring Koans for services abroad (typically as doctors or judges), and Koan decrees for foreigners (mostly proxeny decrees). The typical field of euergetic activity, i.e., services of a wealthy individual for his own city, forms a blind spot of Koan epigraphy. Indications of honorific practices rather than the setting up of decrees suggest that this is more likely a peculiarity of local epigraphic habit than of general patterns in politics and society.24The fact that the epigraphic material does not directly reflect social and political practices was pointed out by Chaniotis 2004, a study on the connection between epigraphic habit and mentality on Hellenistic Crete. Although honorary decrees for Cretan only appear at the end of the Hellenistic period in Crete, Chaniotis emphasizes that other honorary practices, especially oral praise on festivals, in the syssitia and in military units were common. For indications of honorific practices in Kos, see, e.g., IG XII 4, 2, 457, a list of persons crowned by one of the Koan phylai (206/205).This slant of Koan epigraphy towards communal efforts possibly presents us a distorted picture of the local elite, leaving certain aspects of its activities unmentioned.25Grieb 2008, 139–198.
Contributions, wealth, and elite status: methodological remarks
Before the analysis of the prosopographical material some methodological remarks on the limits of our material are ought to be mentioned. Wealth is the central criterium of elite status in the Hellenistic world, and in most societies during other historical periods as well. The Koan epigraphic material in general,and the wartime subscription in particular, provides more clues about the wealth of a large number of individuals than any other sources from other Hellenistic cities. The subscription list where the defence-contributions are recorded – which we use as a hint for the wealth of ancient Koans – is in turn used to determine the social status of these persons. Although it is reasonable to assume that the correlation between these three elements is strong, this by no means applies to every case.
As for the relationship between contribution and wealth, it is clear that nobody could offer much more than what he could afford, but it was in theory possible to contribute less. The question is, of course, whether this really happened, and if yes, how often. On the one hand, Sherwin-White supposed a strict relation between the two factors.26Sherwin-White 1978, 180: “Although the subscription was voluntary, the damos evidently claimed the right to refuse donations obviously insufficient. Its competence in this respect was radical.” Migeotte 1992, 151–152 generally agrees with Sherwin-White, but remarks ibid., 152, n. 49 regarding the modest contribution by Theukles, son of Aglaos: “l’auteur (Sherwin-White) a utilisé les chiffres de la souscription pour évaluer de manière trop mécanique les différents niveaux de revenus à Kos.” Cf. Grieb 2008, 173: “Im Falle einer unzureichender Aufwendung besaß der δᾶμoς durchaus die Möglichkeit einer Abweisung, worauf im Inschriftentext durch die ἀπoχειρoτoνία von unzureichenden Summen hingewiesen wird.”Analysing the wartime subscription, Migeotte remarked that this correlation may not have been so strong in every case, on the other hand. One contributor who reminds us of this is Theukles, son of Aglaos,who seems to have contributed 500 dr. – a considerable amount, but by no means belonging to the top tier of the contributions.27IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 203. The stone reads Θεκλῆς Ἀγ〈λά〉oυ ΠH. Despite the two mistakes made by the mason, the reconstruction by Klaus Hallof as the famous Theukles lacks alternatives and is therefore to be accepted as sure.It is only through the honorary decree of thedemosHalasarna (discussed below) that we can identify him as one of the wealthiest and most influential members of the Koan community.His son Aglaos became even more prominent, and held the post of a financial administrator (dioiketes) in the court of Ptolemaios VI Philometor.28See the collection of sources regarding Aglaos by Habicht 2007, 146–148.The reason why he offered such a modest amount for the subscription remains unknown.
Another, even more striking example for the discrepancy between wealth and contribution is provided by Parmeniskos, the son of Hieron, listed in the wartime subscription with the modest amount of 100 dr.29IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 75–76.The same Parmeniskos appears as one of the dedicators of a family monument, honouring his wife Kallistrate,the daughter of Kleumachos. According to the inscription on the marble statue base, Kallistrate held the priesthoods of Asklepios, Hygieia, and Epione, of Apollon Dalios, of Leto, and of King Eumenes.30IG XII 4, 2, 978.Two of these priesthoods,that of Asklepios, Hygieia, and Epione, and of King Eumenes are known to have been sold at public auctions.31For Asklepios, see IG XII 4, 1, 311. The diagraphe, dated slightly later than Kallistrate’s life(170–150) clearly envisaged a male priest, see l. 60: τελ]έσει δὲ τὸ[ν ἱερῆ ἁ πόλις. It is not unknown,however, that a cult was served by both a male and a female priest, as proven by the diagraphe about the priesthood of Homonoia, IG XII 4, 1, 315, ll. 57–60: τὸ δὲ γενόμενoν ἀνάλωμα ἔς τε τὰν θυσίαν τὰν ἐπὶ τᾶ[ι πράσει τᾶς ἱερωσύν]ας̣ καὶ ἐς τὰν τελετὰν τoῦ ἱερέως καὶ τᾶς ἱερείας κ[αὶ τὰν στάλαν καὶτὰ]ν̣ ἀναγραφ[ὰ]ν τᾶς διαγραφᾶς καταβαλεῖ ὁ πρ[ιάμενoς τὰν ἱερωσύναν… / “Let the buyer of the priesthood pay the cost of the sacrifice after the sale of the priesthood, the inauguration of the priest and the priestess, the stele and the inscription of the diagraphe.” For the priesthood of Eumenes,created most probably in the aftermath of the Peace of Apameia (188), see IG XII 4, 1, 306. For the relations between Kos and Pergamon in the early 2nd century, see Habicht 2007, 144–146.Buying and serving these priesthoods required considerable financial resources – this makes the small contribution by Parmeniskos very remarkable.
These examples, albeit scattered, should serve as a warning not to overestimate the readiness of the wealthy upper class to serve their homeland. Furthermore,it seems that the assembly was not consequent in rejecting unsatisfactory contributions. This confirms what studies on the social context of the subscriptions have already pointed out: the anecdotical figure of the rich man avoiding the subscriptions was real, and communities employed both social pressure and honours to motivate the wealthy to make contributions.32The discrepancy between wealth and contribution is recognized by Ellis-Evans 2013, 113: “They(i.e., the subscriptions) were a source of information about the relative wealth of others, but an unreliable one, tainted by the envy of the audience and the dissimulation of the donor.” Cf. Chaniotis 2013, 91–93.A similar function is attributed to the frequent hortatory formulas of honorary decrees which aimed at motivating potential benefactors to seek glory through services to the public.
The relationship between wealth and elite status has its own complexities as well. Firstly, the definition of the elite is a rather elusive, since it is possible to talk about political, social, economic, intellectual elites. In most societies, these groups may overlap each other, but are never completely identical. Furthermore,elites are often groups without formal membership, making it difficult to determine who belongs to them and who does not. In Greek cities, wealth was undoubtedly a very important precondition of elite status, but it was possible to gain prominence through various other means as well, like connections, active participation in politics, achievements in arts, philosophy, and sports.
Prosopographical evidence on the Koan elite
This section summarizes the prosopographical information of the Koans with elite status, based mostly on the invaluable commentaries of IG XII, 4. The first part contains those twelve contributors over 1,000 drachmas who are known also from other sources apart from the wartime subscription. These persons make up slightly less than the half of all contributors who gave 1,000 drachmas or more.The second part lists individuals who contributed less than 1,000 drachmas, but based on information found in other sources, they can be attributed to the elite.This part includes those people who held multiple priesthoods or purchased one,received honours, served as judges abroad or erected expensive monuments. The appendix contains the list of contributors who donated more than 1,000 drachmas but are not known from other sources.
Contributors of more than 1,000 drachmas known from other sources
Philippos, son of Autophon 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 75, ll. 119–120)one of his descendants dedicated a sundial(IG XII 4, 2, 533)in the early 2nd century, Kleumachos was member of the drafting committee of the diagraphai on Aphrodite Pandamos (IG XII 4, 1, 302, l. 4);his sister Lykaonis was at the end of the 3rd century priestess of Aphrodite (IG XII 4, 1. 301, l. 6);in 190/189, Kleumachos was priest of Asklepios, Phanomachos agonothetes (IG XII 4, 2, 454, ll. 107–109)Thessalos, son of Klenagoras,Kleumachos and Phanomachos,sons of Phanomachos 3,000 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 75, ll. 200–202)he or his grandfather contributed to the subscription for the Asklepieia ca. 242 (IG XII 4, 1, 70, l. 63);his son Klenagoras was twice the winner(186/185, 182/181) of the Asklepieia as a kithara player (IG XII 4, 2, 454, ll. 147 and 179)Thrasyandros, son of Nikostratos 1,050 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 75, ll. 183–185)1,000 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 77, ll. 57–58)appears among the dedicators (hieropoioi)of an offering for Aphrodite and Homonoia(IG XII 4, 2, 601, l. 7)Eutelistrate,daughter of Archelas 3,000 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 75, ll. 242–243)probably the sister of an unnamed child who contributed 3,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75,l. 221);contributed 10 dr. to a subscription in Kos,together with her sisters Nosso and [- - -]-strate (IG XII 4, 2, 431, ll. 5–6)
Other notable contributors to the subscription
Theukles, son of Aglaos 500 dr. (IG XII 4, 1,75. l. 203)after 200 honoured by Halasarna for his services in the 1st. Cretan War, including large payments (IG XII 4, 1, 99)Nikomachos, son of Parmeniskos,500 dr. (IG XII 4,1, 75, ll. 290–291)500 dr. (IG XII 4, 1,75, ll. 290–291)sculptor, made the honorary statue of T. Quinctius Flamininus (IG XII, 4, 2, 854)he (or his namesake) was sent as a judge to Telos, (IG XII 4, 1, 132, l. 9)Theudoros, son of Teleutias Charmippos, son of Charmylos 500 dr. (IG XII 4, 1,ll. 288–289)100 dr. (IG XII 4,75, l. 296)his grandson, Teleutias, son of Theudoros,was honoured by Iasos (IG XII 4, 1,172), drafted the diagraphe for Herakles Kallinikos (IG XII 4, 1, 305, l. 4) and Asklepios, Epiona, and Hygieia (IG XII 4, 1,311, l. 7)
Sources of Wealth
Due to the nature of the epigraphic material there is little evidence about the sources of wealth of prominent people. It is often, and no doubt, correctly assumed that high social status was based on landed property. Land had the highest esteem and guaranteed stable, albeit not very high, profits. This must have been frequently the case in Hellenistic Kos as well.33So Sherwin-White 1978, 215.
It is, however, possible that members of the elite were involved in commerce and trade. Although there is no prosopographical material to substantiate this claim, evidence from 4th century Athens and early imperial Asia Minor, as well as sporadic references in Koan inscriptions point to this direction. Both in Athens and in Asia Minor wealthy landowners are known to have been involved in credit affairs, both personally and through intermediaries. This made it possible for them to achieve higher yields than in agriculture without being directly involved in a branch of low-prestige economic activity.34Müller 2018, 42. One clear, albeit special example for an elite member involved in credit business comes from the nearby island of Rhodes. Archocrates, the member of a prominent Lindian family is known to have served as the long-time financial officer of sacred funds (hierotamias) of an association, the so-called diagonia (cultic association) of the Hagetoridai. According to his honorary decree, he lent out the funds of the association in a profitable way, and through this he provided a safe source of income for the association. See Clara Rhodos 2, 175, 4 with Gabrielsen 2001, 177.Although there is no direct evidence for this in Kos, it may well have been quite common. Both, the volume and significance of maritime trade and the existence of banks suggest this. The mention of individuals “appointed by the bankers or those who in any way sit at the money changing tables”35IG XII 4, 1, 325, ll. 17–19: τ·oὶ ἀπo[δε]ικνύμενoι πάντες ὑπὸ τ[ῶ]ν τρ[α]πεζειτᾶν ἢ ἄλλως πως καθίζoντες ἐπὶ τᾶν τραπεζᾶν.in thediagrapheof Adrasteia and Nemesis is also possibly a reflection of this field of economic activity. Due to the lack of prosopographical material it is impossible to tell whether there were merchants and shippers among the high contributors to the wartime subscription. On the basis of the high prices for sacrificial animals prescribed for these professional groups this possibility, however, cannot be dismissed.
The epigraphic evidence allows us to identify two further sources of wealth:medicine and crafts. In the light of the prominence of Koan medicine in the Greek world it is not surprising to find doctors or descendants of doctors among the highest contributors. Praxagoras, the grandfather of the initiator and the highest contributor, Diokles, was a famous doctor of the 4th century.36On Praxagoras, see Sherwin-White 1978, 102. The relationship between Diokles and Praxagoras is proven by IG XII 4, 1, 70, l. 91. On Diokles and his family in more detail, see Chaniotis 2013, 98;Sherwin-White 1978, 121–122.Another distinguished contributor, Philistos, son of Moschion, who gave 4,000 dr., was honoured by Delphi for outstanding medical achievements.37IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 81–82; the decree of Delphi: FD III, 4, 362 (Samama 2003, no. 124), see esp.ll. 15–19: [ἰατρ]εύων ἐν Δελφoῖς τὰς χρείας πα[ρέ]χεται κατὰ τὰν τέχναν ἀπρoφασίστως, ἐκτενῶς πᾶσι τoῖς παραγινoμένoις πoτὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀξίως τῶν Kώιων πόλιoς / “As a doctor working in Delphi,he provided the services of his profession to everybody who came to visit the god, unhesitatingly,readily and in a way worthy of the Koans.” The prices, on the other hand, of the services were so high that not many people could afford them, see lately Chaniotis 2017, 53.It is unknown,however, to what extent medical activity contributed to the wealth of these persons and families, since it is possible that these doctors already came from very rich families. Consequently, it would be false to assume that most doctors were as wealthy as these examples were. In the Koan epigraphic material there is one inscription, the decree of Halasarna for Onasandros, which allows to make some assumptions about the wealth of a “normal” doctor.38IG XII 4, 1, 109 (middle of the 2nd century), see also Samama 2003, no. 137.This decree tells us that Onasandros “took neither suffering nor costs in account,” and could afford to renounce the fees paid by the deme members.39IG XII 4, 1, 109, ll. 12–13: oὔτε κακoπαθίαν oὔτε δαπάναν oὐδεμίαν ὑφoρώμενoς / “taking neither the suffering nor the costs into consideration;” ll. 26–30: παρ᾿ oὐθενὸς τῶν δαμoτᾶν, ὅσoι πoτιδεδεήνται αὐτoῦ χάριν τᾶς κατὰ τὰν ἰατρικὰν τέχναν ἐμπειρίας oὔτε μισθὸν πέπρακται oὔτε σύνταξιν ὑπoμεμένεικεν λαμβάνειν καίτoι γ᾿ ἱκανὸν δυνάμενoς ἀπὸ τῶν τoιoύτων περιπoιήσασθαι διάφoρoν / “He did not accept a fee or a contribution from any members of the deme who needed him because of his experiences in the medical profession, although he could have demanded a large sum of money from them.”This suggests that Onasandros was relatively well-off, albeit he probably did not belong to the upper layer of the local society. Furthermore, it is important, regarding the social status of doctors in general, that the decree unmistakably states that a medical praxis in Kos could be a lucrative source of income.40For the wealth of doctors in the Hellenistic and imperial period, see Samama 2003, 59–79, esp. 62.
Nikomachos, the son of Parmeniskos, who contributed 500 drachmas, is another member of the relatively wealthy stratum of Koan society, whose source of income can be identified: he was a sculptor known as the creator of the politically highly important statue of the Roman general T. Quinctius Flamininus.41IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 290–291; Flamininus’ statue: IG XII 4, 2, 854; see Habicht 2007, 143–144.That sculptors could be wealthy is well attested in the neighbouring island of Rhodes.42See Maillot 2009 and 2015, 156; Gabrielsen 2001, 173.From Kos comparable evidence is not available, but a late Hellenisticdiagrapheon the sale of the priesthood of Adrasteia and Nemesis makes clear that craftsmen were employed by the Koanpolisor its sanctuaries(ἐργoλαβεῦντες τὸ ἱερὸν ἢ δαμόσιoν ἔργoν), which envisages that craftsmen may earned more than 5,000 drachmas. In this case they were ordered to sacrifice a victim worth at least 50 drachmas – a monetary value surpassed only by sacrifices performed at special festive occasions.43IG XII 4, 1, 325, ll. 9–16.Although most craftsmen working at construction sites were definitely not rich, some of them, especially the sculptors could clearly accumulate considerable fortunes.44Feyel 2006, 411–416.
Intergenerational continuity
The formation and gradual consolidation of hereditary elites is seen as one of the most important trends in the social history of post-classical cities. However,bequeathing the elite status to one’s offspring was full with difficulties due to political (purges, civil wars, expatriation) and demographic factors. As Arjan Zuiderhoek pointed out, the upper classes of ancient Greek cities had quite unstable position because of high mortality that threatened rich families – just like the poor ones – with extinction. For this reason, upper classes were also open to welcome newcomers from lower ranges of society.45Zuiderhoek 2011. The instability of the elite is also emphasized by Hamon 2007, 82, and regarding the role of the Koan elite as founders and protectors of religious associations by Maillot 2012, 206–207.
The Koan epigraphic material makes it possible to grasp the intention of the local elite to bequeath their prominent status to their offspring. Hans-Ulrich Wiemer has convincingly explained the astonishingly low age limits in the documents on the sale of priesthoods (8–14 years) as an effort made by elite families to provide high status for their children already in an early age. This is attested by the fact that Koan elite members are seen as winners of musical and gymnastic contests for young boys. Education and military training for young boys organized, supervised, and funded by thepolisare highly visible in Kos and was probably accessible for broad layers of the local population. In order to be successful at contests, it was in all probability necessary to receive training and education from private teachers. This was seen by the elite families as an investment into the later political career of their children from the classical period onwards.46See, e.g., Perikles in Plut. Per. 4–6; Plutarch’s biographies on Aratos and Philopoimen also illustrate that gymnastics and the participation on contests was an essential part of elite young men’s training, see Plut. Arat. 3.1–2; Philop. 3.2–3. For the role of education (paideia) in the preparation of noble young men for a public career, see, e.g., Azoulay 2010, 21–22.
The prosopographical data on the highest contributors of the subscription confirm not only the efforts to maintain the elite status over generations, but also the limits of these efforts. We can observe members of the same family in prominent status over various decades, but this continuity rarely exceeds three generations. This point is well illustrated in case of the family of the already mentioned Diokles, the initiator of the wartime subscription. Both the grandfather and the father of Diokles are known to have been wealthy and famous, and Diokles himself was clearly one of the wealthiest and most influential citizens of Kos. He had a son, Xenotimos, with whom he wanted to share the glory of the family, as the wording of his contribution suggests.47IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 38: καὶ ὑπὲρ τoῦ υἱoῦ Ξενoτίμoυ / “also on behalf of Xenotimos.”However, Xenotimos never appears in the epigraphic record again. This can be explained in various ways:it may occurs due to the loss of all inscriptions mentioning his name, to the fact that he refrained from public activities, or to his early death.
The family of Zmendron, son of Diomedon, a contributor of the wartime subscription, whose gift is not preserved on the stones – as reconstructed by Habicht – can serve as a further instructive example.48IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 265–266; 76, ll. 49–50. For his family, see Habicht 2006; 2007, 148.The prominence of Zmendron’s family is already visible in the middle of the 3rd century, when two of his predecessors, Aristolochos and Hippokritos, acted as leaders of sacred assemblies (architheoroi), asking for the acknowledgement of the inviolability of the sanctuary and the newly enlarged international festival of Asklepios.49Knäpper 2018, 18–21.Zmendron himself, the winner of the Koan Dionysia asepimeletes ton komodonof the phyle Hylleis, clearly belonged to the liturgical class of the local society.50IG XII 4, 1, 452, ll. 60–63.Continuing the family traditions, both of his sons, Diomedon and Hippokritos,are known to have acted as sacred ambassadors to Delos.51I. Delos 442 B, l. 109.Polybios mentions them among the most conspicuous or noble (ἐπιφανέστατoι) supporters of King Perseus during the 3rd Macedonian War.52Pol. 30.7.10.Although Polybios says nothing about the further fate of the family, the context in which he mentions them suggest that they had to pay dearly, possibly with their lives, for choosing the wrong side in the conflict between Rome and Macedon.53Habicht 2006, 148.
The sources about this family not only demonstrate the perseverance of prominence over some generations, but also the connection between forms of elite behaviour which modern scholars conceptualize as cultic and political engagement respectively. After intense but politically insignificant cultic activity throughout generations, Zmendron’s family suddenly appears as being involved in international politics at a crucial juncture of Mediterranean history. This should not be seen as a change in the public behaviour of this family, but rather as a sign that the family probably played an active role in Koan politics throughout the century from which we have information about, but this is not always visible in our epigraphic sources. Furthermore, politics and religion did not constitute distinct spheres of life. Building on Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus-field concept, Katharina Knäpper recently emphasized – in connection with theasylia-treaties of Hellenistic city-states – that there was a strong connection between religious and political activity, and prestige earned in one field could be used in the other as well.54Knäpper 2018, 18–21.
Political and military offices
Top contributors to the wartime subscription and their close relatives do not appear often as holders of political offices, such asprostataiorstrategoi. Only somemonarchoiare known to us.55On the Koan monarchia, see Sherwin-White 1978, 189–199.This can have two possible explanations that do not contradict each other. Firstly, the officials who appear in the inscriptions form only a small part of all the people who held offices. Secondly, in the Greek cities, especially in the Hellenistic Age, because of their wealthy status, citizens could have a strong impact on the politics of their cities outside of the framework of offices (ἀρχαί).
This is illustrated in honorary decrees of Halasarna for two influential figures of Koan politics, Diokles, the initiator of the wartimeepidosis, and Theukles.56IG XII 4, 1, 98 (decree for Diokles); 99 (decree for Theukles).Although they are very detailed, the narratives of these decrees provide very little evidence about any offices held by the honorands. Patrick Baker argued convincingly that both, Diokles and Theukles, acted as influential private individuals and not asstrategoi, generals of the Koan citizen militia.57Baker 2001, 189–190.However,there is some evidence for their office-holding activity. Diokles was elected a fortress commander (τόπ̣[αρχo]ς̣ ἑλόμενoς) during the war.58IG XII 4, 1, 98, l. 17.The office Theukles held is not named in this decree, but the fact that he was able to create an ordinance (πoτίταγμα) to the officers in charge of the defence of thedemosis a clear indication of a military position of high rank.59IG XII 4, 1, 99, ll. 26–29: ἐμβoλᾶν τε γινoμενᾶν ἐς τὰν χώραν συνγράφων περὶ πρoφυλακᾶςἱππέων τε καὶ πέζων πρoενoιήθη καὶ τᾶς Ἁλασαρνιτᾶν ἀσφαλείας, πoτίταγμα δoὺς τoῖς ἐπὶ τoύτων τεταγμένoις συνδιατηρῆσαι τὸς τόπoς / “When the countryside was under attack, he composed a regulation about the outposts of horsemen and foot soldiers with this, he took care of the security of the Halasarnitans and ordered their officials to defend these places.”Despite of the sporadic evidence for office-holding during the war, it remains clear that both, Diokles and Theukles, influenced the political decision-making outside the framework of political offices, using their authority, wealth, and experience. This is, as Baker pointed out, in line with the general character of Hellenistic city politics, as attested by a number of honorary decrees for benefactions by prominent citizens,both in times of war and peace.
Regarding the political activities of the elite, it is important to consider that much work in public life was done outside the framework of formal political offices and decision-making bodies. An example for this is provided by thediagraphaion the sale of priesthoods, which were drafted by ad hoc commissions.60Wiemer 2003, 272–275.Wealthy contributors to the subscription appear among the members of these commissions. This shows that they were ready to participate actively in public affairs if they directly affected them.
Interstate connections
As Kos is being an island with a geographical position along highly frequented trade routes, with considerable economic and cultural potential, but with very limited military resources, peaceful connections to the outer world and good reputation, a kind of soft power, were of primary importance for Kos. Numerous aspects of this are observed in the Hellenistic inscriptions. Kos is the first known Greekpolisthat established a festival to commemorate the victory of the allied Greeks over the Celts at Delphi in 279. At the same time, Koans also instructed its sacred ambassadors travelling to Delphi to perform a spectacular sacrifice and a prayer to demonstrate their commitment to the common cause of the Greeks and the ideals of democracy and concord.61IG XII 4, 1, 68. For an analysis of the epigraphic material related to this battle, see Champion 1995. For the sacrifice in Delphi, see Grieb 2008, 185The island also maintained a broad network ofproxenoi, richly documented in a long series of honorary decrees.62IG XII 4, 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 13–17, 20–25, 27, 29, 34–36, 39–40, 43, and 50, dated to the late 4th–3rd century. On the significance of the proxeny for ancient politics and economy, see now Terpstra 2019, esp. 54–57.Kos was the firstpolisin the Hellenistic period to have initiated the recognition of the inviolability (asylia) of a sanctuary and a great international festival.63For the international connections of Kos and the asylia of the Asklepieion, see lately Bosnakis 2014.Koan laws, judges, doctors, and scholars enjoyed a good reputation and were often employed all over the Hellenistic world, but especially in the Aegean and in Ptolemaic Egypt.64Sherwin-White 1978, 102–104. The good reputation of the Koan law is proved by a letter of Antigonos Monophthalmos about the synoikismos of Teos and Lebedos, according to which both cities wanted to use the laws of Kos until a new law code is finished; see Syll3 344, ll. 59–60:συνo[μoλoγησάντων δὲ ἀ]μφoτέρων ὥστε τoῖς Kώιων νόμoις χρῆσθαι / “Both parties agreed upon using the laws of the Koans.”
The inscriptions manifest the strong involvement of the Koan elite in the creation and maintenance of these connections. One of the contributors to the wartime subscription was sent to Telos as a judge. A descendant of atheoroswho participated in the recognition of theasyliaattested as a contributor, too. We can also find a doctor who collected foreign honours among the top contributors.The most ambitious members of the local elite could embark on a career in the administration of a monarchy or became intermediaries between Kos and a king,as witnessed by the prosopographical evidence on some of the wealthiest families in Kos.
On the basis of the prosopographical evidence it is possible to identify the elite of the island as one of the driving forces behind the creation of these networks.Connections and success outside of the island was obviously a source of prestige,and, potentially, of power within the island. This is especially, but surely not exclusively true for the connections to the Hellenistic monarchies.65For the significance of the Hellenistic empires for the dominance of local elites over their cities,see now Ando 2018, 12: “The dominance of poliadic elites over the wider Mediterranean was not possible on the scale they achieved apart from the existence of superordinate political structures wielding macro-regional power. In short, without kingdoms and empires to backstop their claims to sovereignty, Hellenistic cities would have been vastly smaller and less wealthy. Empire was the foundation of the historical stability of the oligarchic form that we call the Hellenistic polis.”
Religion
The Koan epigraphic material shows a strong engagement of the local elite in the sphere of religion and festivals, as priests and officials responsible for the organization of contests (agonothetai). The importance of this field for elite activity is suggested by a number of sources. The most prominent among them are the regulations (diagraphai) on the sale of priesthoods. Although the dating of these documents can often only be based on the letter forms, it seems clear that priesthoods were already sold at public auctions as early as the beginning of the 3rd century. Most inscriptions are dated between the late 3rd and the early 1st century, which was the period of the largest epigraphic output in general.There is, of course, no reason to suppose that a priesthood was not offered for sale until a preserved inscription was set up about the conditions of purchase.The significant growth in the number of the documents after the late 3rd century,however, may be interpreted as a sign of the sales becoming more frequent and the increased interest in these transactions. However, one needs to be careful with the interpretation of these data. In the late 3rd century, a general rise in the number of inscriptions occurred, and the larger number of the sale of priesthoods is perhaps the only consequence of their increased visibility. Furthermore, the priesthoods offered for sale always formed a minority among all priesthoods, and this allowed less wealthy Koans to gain prominence in the field of religion.
The appearance of elite members asagonothetaiis again not surprising: as witnessed by many honorific decrees, rich citizens often overtook this office and underwrote much of the costs of theatrical performances and contests.66Quaß 1993, 275–285.However,as Zinon Papakonstantinou argued lately, the impression that these decrees create may be misleading, because the Hellenistic cities generally provided sufficient funds for the festivals, and even if wealthy citizens contributed financially to a festival, most of these contributions were not very high. As often, honorific decrees highlight the exceptions rather than the routine.67Papakonstantinou 2016.
The Koan epigraphic material does not allow us detailed insights into the working system of theagonothetai. Presumably, thepolisin most cases provided the funds that were necessary for the arrangement of the festivals and the contests. Koan documents mention three ways of financing the sacrifices that different magistrates had to perform on contests and other important occasions:the treasurers could give (διδόναι) or transfer (διαγράφειν) money for the animal to the sacrificing magistrate. A magistrate could also have funds earmarked for the organisation of contests. The basic financing of these rituals did not preclude that magistrates contribute to the sacrifices from their own property. A recurring formula of these prescriptions is that the sacrifice “should not cost less than 30 drachmas,” suggests that it could be more expensive, if the magistrate was willing to top up the amount given to them by the treasurers. Given the accurateness of the regulations on the financing of these minor rituals, it appears improbable that thepolisdid not take similar care about the funding of the great festivals. This does not mean, however, that the means were always sufficient. In such cases the organization of a subscription or a donation by a wealthy individual were two alternative ways.
The significance of religion and the festivals is also attested by the fact that Kos was the first city-state in the Hellenistic world to establish a new international festival, the Great Asklepieia in 242, combined with the declaration of the inviolability of the sanctuary.68The documents on the recognition of the asylia, see now IG XII 4, 1, 207–245, with Rigsby 1996,106–153 and Knäpper 2018, 87–103.This ambitious trend-setting move which required the mobilisation of great financial resources was hardly possible without the consent, and perhaps the initiative, of the local elite. This is suggested by the involvement of two sons of a certain Zmendron, Aristolochos and Hippokritos,as leaders of the sacred embassies for the acknowledgment of theasyliaand the reorganized Asklepios festival. The rareness of the name Zmendron made it possible to connect them with Diomedon, the son of Zmendron, a contributor to theepidosisand his sons Hippokritos and Zmendron, the main supporters of the Macedonian king Perseus at the dawn of the 3rd Macedonian War. As Paschalis Paschidis plausibly supposed, Aristolochos’ visit in Thessalian and Macedonian cities as an envoy asking for the recognition of theasyliain 242 may have marked the beginning of the strong connection between his family and the Macedonian court. This connection must have remained strong also in the following decades when Kos was an ally of Rhodes and the Ptolemies. The case of Zmendron’s family also demonstrates the linkage between engagement in religion and politics.69Zmendron, son of Diomedon: IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 265–266, the contribution is not preserved on the stone; Hippokritos and Zmendron, supporters of Perseus: Pol. 30.7.10, see Habicht 2007, 148;Paschidis 2008, 368–370 and 373–376.
Contributors to the wartime subscription also appear as sacrificial officials(hieropoioi) who dedicated votives. In a dedication to Aphrodite and Homonoia erected by themonarchosand thehieropoioi, we find two dedicators who offered 1,000 dr. for the subscription, and three with subscriptions ranging from 100 to 300 dr.70The dedication: IG XII 4, 1, 601. Dedicators known from the wartime subscription: Thrasyandros,son of Nikostratos, 1,000 dr., IG XII 4, 1, 77, ll. 57–58; Eudamos, son of Pythagoras, 1,000 dr., 75,ll. 85–86; Nikokles, son of Nikagoras, 300 dr., 75, l. 90; Platon, son of Hekatodoros, 200 dr., 75,ll. 193–194; Alexandros, son of Anaxippos, 100 dr. 75, ll. 167–169.Among thehieropoioi, or their close relatives, who with the priest of Apollon in Halasarna set up dedications to Hekate Strateia together at the beginning of the 2nd century, we can also find contributors of little to medium sized subscriptions.71IG XII 4, 1, 624, l. 7.: Lykaithos, son of Leukippos, 500 dr., 75, ll. 76–77; ll. 7–8: Charmylos,son of Theutimidas, grandson of Damokritos, 300 dr., 75, ll. 105–106; ll. 15–16: Aristomenes, son of Aristonymos, 500 dr., 75, ll. 212–213; l. 6: Aristos, son of Theugenes, 100 dr., 75, l. 281; 627,l. 4: Hieron, son of Stratippos, 50 dr., 75, ll. 196–197; 627, l. 7: Phainippos, son of Onasikles, his father, Onasikles, son of Phainippos, 100 dr., 75, l. 97; 628: Hekataios, son of Hekatodoros, his son,Hekataios, son of Hekataios, grandson of Hekatodoros, 50 dr., 75, l. 185.It is therefore clear that cultic activity never became the privilege of the wealthiest layer of the society: less well-off Koans were also able to engage in cultic service by sharing their resources for collective dedications to commemorate their pious service.
The examination of the prosopographical material related to the most prominent contributors of the war-timeepidosisleads to some important conclusions. First,the connection between wealth and contribution is less direct than it is widely believed. This means that the control of thepolisover the behaviour of its most prominent members was not absolute: wealthy citizens decided individually how to contribute for the defence of the city. In the prosopographical evidence,religion stands out as the most amply documented field of activity. Members of the Koan elite are also visible in other roles: as doctors, judges, diplomats, among others. What united these fields of activity is that they implied some sort of interaction with other polities, and in some cases with kings outside the island. In the final part of this paper, I am going to discuss what this means for the general assessment of the Koanpolisin the middle Hellenistic period.
One of the key topics of the discussions on Hellenistic social history is“Honoratiorenregime,” the dominance of public life by a small, wealthy elite that in the course of the Hellenistic and Roman imperial period developed into a de facto hereditary nobility. Despite of the undoubtable dominance of these city-elites, democratic institutions based on wide popular participation remained in place and made sure that even the most prominent citizens had to compete for offices on a regular basis and people were never completely deprived of the possibility to influence important political decisions.72Habicht 1995.More recently, however,the democratic character of Hellenistic city-politics has been questioned, and more importance has being attributed to the wealthy elite. Especially important are those recent studies that do not consider democracy and oligarchy as opposites but argue for a combination of both that make it possible for wealthy persons to bring the cities under their control within the framework of democratic institutions (“oligarchic situations”).73Chaniotis conceptualizes Hellenistic democracy as an illusion. Further recent studies emphasize the prominence of elite-members and benefactors over the cities: Ando 2018; Müller 2011 and 2018.
As already mentioned in the introduction, the discussion on “Honoratiorenregime” is centred on cities with a large number of honorary decrees (Priene,Kolophon, post-Attalid Pergamon), but due to the almost complete lack of this epigraphic genre Kos does not figure prominently in these studies. Rather, Kos is presented in significant studies as an example of post-classical democracy.74Grieb 2008; Carlsson 2010.Based on the sources from the late 3rd to early 2nd century, scholars emphasize the communal spirit of the populace rather than the dominance of a narrow elite.
The results of this study may enrich this picture. The statements about the democratic nature of Koan politics usually concentrate on the functioning of the democratic political institutions throughout the Hellenistic period (regular popular assemblies, scrutiny of magistrates before and after their terms of office)and the independence the island could maintain from the Hellenistic monarchies and Rome. It is, however, possible to connect the rich but not yet considered data about the cultic engagement of the Koan elite with the question of the political and social character of the community, and to demonstrate that Hellenistic Kos was more aristocratic than it is usually thought.
Firstly, it is important to recall that in spite of the abundance of inscriptions from Kos, certain aspects of public life remain almost completely hidden for us.Especially decrees of the popular assembly concerning matters of inner politics that could enlighten the political activity of the elite are conspicuously rare.However, a large number of lists, calendars, and sregulations on religious matters have been preserved. Following the results of the research on ancient epigraphic habits and the use of inscriptions as media of self-representation, it is possible to interpret the prominence of lists in the Koan epigraphic material as a means to create a picture of the Koan community characterized by communal efforts rather than individual excellence and dominance.
Secondly, the undeniably strong religious engagement of the elite should be taken into consideration when characterizing Koan politics and society. The sales of priesthoods are especially relevant in this aspect. Comparing Kos with a number of cities along the Western coast of Asia Minor, thepolisbelongs to the cities where priesthoods were most often sold at auctions, and where importantpoliscults (e.g., the cults of Asklepios, Hermes Enagonios, and Homonoia)were administered by members of the wealthy elite. More importantly, these priesthoods, as well as the symbolic and financial privileges connected to them,were held not for a limited period, as in classical Athens, but for the entire lifetime of the priests.
What this means in terms of social standing, power, and democracy, is a question where opinions diverge. Volker Grieb, in his detailed study on democratic city-states in the Hellenistic Age, argued that members of the elite could not gain any political influence through religious offices and that there is no evidence for the dominance of the elite in Koan politics.75Grieb 2008, 175–176. See esp. 175: “Für diese Einschätzung (sc. that the purchase of life-long priesthoods is not compatible with democratic principles and reflects the overwhelming power of the elite) bedarf es allerdings einer Differenzierung der kultischen und politischen Zuständigkeiten der Priester, indem zu beachten ist, daß sie trotz ihrer angesehenen Tätigkeit weder politische Entscheidungskompetenzen noch einen erkennbaren direkten Einfluß auf politische Entscheidungen besaßen.” For the strong connection between political power and religious authority, see the paper of Woolf 2008, who emphasizes the similarities between Mediterranean city states and Near Eastern monarchies in this regard.This view is based on a strict distinction between religious and political offices, and between religion and politics in general, which should only be applied with great caution to ancient states. More convincing are those studies that interpret the religious engagement of the elite as an expression of their high social standing and political influence.The sales of priesthoods are usually explained in this manner.76Parker and Obbink 2000; Wiemer 2003, 309; see also Paul 2013, 17, 83–90 and passim.Regarding the numerous Koan religious associations (κoινά) which in the late Hellenistic period were founded, led, supported by, and often named after members of the local elite, Stéphanie Maillot emphasized the same connection between religious engagement and political power. According to Maillot, wealthy individuals played a charismatic role in the associations that served, among various other functions, as an instrument of elite power.77Maillot 2013, 202–210.The prosopographical material,especially the case of Zmendron’s family discussed above, also suggests that the strict distinction between religious and political offices is not consistent with the ways ancient politics worked.
It is important in this regard that after some isolated early examples the regulations (diagraphai) on the sale of priesthood appear in the epigraphic material in significant number from the 3rd century onwards.78The diagraphai are dated either on the basis of prosopographical evidence or of the hands of the stone cutters. For the latter, see, in more detail, Crowther 2004. There are three diagraphai dated to the period before the end of the 3rd century: IG XII 4, 1, 296 (unknown priesthood) around 295–280;297 (unknown priesthood) around the middle of the 3rd century; 298 (Hermes Enagonios), 2nd half of the 3rd century. This stands in marked contrast to the thirteen documents dated between the end of the 3rd to the middle of the 2nd century: 299 (Korybantes), late 3rd century; 300 (unknown priesthood), 250–150; 302 (Aphrodite Pandamos) after 198; 303 (Aphrodite in Halasarna), 3rd/2nd century; 304 (Dionysos Thyllophoros), first half of the 2nd century; 305 (Herakles Kallinikos), first half of the 2nd century; 306 (Eumenes II.), first half of the 2nd century; 307 (unknown priesthood),first half of the 2nd century; 309 (Eumenes II.), around 180; 310 (Symmachidai), around 170; 311(Asklepios, Hygieia and Epiona), around 170–150; 312 (unknown priesthood), before the middle of the 2nd century; 313 (unknown priesthood), around the middle of the 2nd century. The remaining eighteen documents on the sales of Koan priesthoods (IG XII 4, 1, 313–331) are dated to the late Hellenistic period (mid-2nd century to 1st century).Of course, it cannot be taken for granted that a priesthood was offered for sale for the first time when it is first attested on a preserved inscription, but the increase in the numbers of sales from the turn of the 3rd to 2nd century most probably reflects an increase in the frequency of this praxis. It is possible that the wealthy elite of the island, which was previously active within the framework of fixed termpolispriesthoods and other cult related activities, transformed priesthoods into lifelong positions sold at auctions in order to further improve their social position. The occasion for that may have originally been given by a financial disruption or crisis related to the military crisis around the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd century,but it would be definitely false to relate every sale of priesthood to a military and financial crisis.
The comparison of the findings from Kos with other Hellenistic cities could be the object of further research that cannot be pursued in this study. A brief comparison with the results of the instructive study of Roberta Fabiani on the social and political structures of Iasos should suffice here in order to suggest that in spite of the general similarity of democratic political institutions the political activities of the elite and the extent of their control of the decision-making processes could be different from city to city. Fabiani proved the existence of a rich upper class of citizens in Iasos, who from the mid-3rd century onwards turned the democratic political system of the city into a more aristocratic one. They limited access to certain offices to the upper class, made motions by ordinary citizens subject to the approval by the board of the prytanes, and increasingly employed foreign judges to arbitrate legal disputes within the citizenry.79Fabiani 2012, esp. 160–165. On the relationship between the employment of foreign judges and democracy in Hellenistic cities, see Crowther 1992.As Fabiani emphasized, the process of “aristocratization” in Iasos began ca. hundred years before the mid-2nd century, which is generally thought to have constituted the beginning of the late Hellenistic period, highlighted by the widening of the gap between the elite and the majority of the populations as well as a new form of euergetism. Similar changes in the political system are not attested in Kos.However, members of the wealthiest layer of the society played a decisive role at important junctures (the foundation of the Great Asklepieia, the defence of the island around 200, the attempt to side with Perseus before the 3rd Macedonian War), and they acquired prominent religious positions that brought them high reputation and influence in society.
To conclude, the prosopographical evidence from Kos around 200 shows a narrow, wealthy elite eager to increase its power and prestige. There was probably also a strong intra-elite competition for prestige and power, although this is not well attested in our sources. The means of this competition were not directly political, but rather belonged to the sphere of “soft power:” priesthoods,success in contests, and networks encompassing foreign polities. However, the ambitions of the elite seem to have been countered by a levelling tendency in the Koan society that is manifested in the already mentioned peculiarities of the local epigraphic habit, which emphasized the collective efforts of the citizenship and valued every contribution for common purposes, no matter how modest they were.
Appendix: Contributors of 1,000 dr. or more to the wartime subscription not known from other sources
Dardanos, son of Herakleitos, 3,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 40)
Hekataios, son of Zoilos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 43)
Damokritos and Diogenes, sons of Teisias, Damokritos and Tisias, sons of Diogenes, 3,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 46–48)
Dardanos, son of Orthagoras, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 85–86)
Zopyrion’s children (παιδία), whose guardians are Simos and Hermonax(probably brothers), 8,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 59–60)
NN, son of [- - -]on, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 70)
Protophanes, son of Chairephanes, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 83–85).
Onymandros, son of Charmophantes, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 100–102)
Kleitias and Euximbrotos, sons of Theudoros, including the price of wine, at least 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 115–116: X[.])
Pythias, son of Philinos, at least 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 122: X[.])
Pompis, daughter of Zopyros, 1,400 dr. for wine (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 132–133)
NN, son of Charminos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 135)
Hieron, son of Phokas, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 137)
Xenodikos’ children, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 146)
Archon, son of Archedamas, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 151–152)
Boidas, son of Philostratos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 166–167)
Nikoteles, son of Nikeratos, 1,000 dr (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 167)
Nikanor, son of Euteridas, 1,400 dr. for the wine (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 178–181)
Diagoras, son of Herakleitos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 192)
Nikagoras, son of Pythokles, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 204)
Nannakos, son of Pythokles (almost certainly the brother of Nikagoras), 1,000 dr.(IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 204–205)
Aristopolis, son of Boethos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 220–221)
Archelas’ child, 3,000 dr., probably the brother of Eutelistrate, daughter,mentioned in ll. 242–243 (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 221)
Kleumachos, son of Kallianax, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 237)
NN, son of [- - -]-ion, 3,500 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, l. 246)
T[- - -], son of Didymarchos, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 304–306)
NN, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 76, l. 8)
NN, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 77, l. 27)
Nannakos and Nikagoras, sons of Pythokles, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 77, l. 44).This contribution was proposed also in the name of their father.
The same Nannakos and Pythokles gave each 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 75, ll. 204–205)
Timoxenos, son of Satyros, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 77, ll. 49–50)
Drakon, son of Satyros, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 77, ll. 50–51). The brother of Timoxenos, son of Satyros, see above
NN, son of Philonidas, 1,000 dr. (IG XII 4, 1, 77, l. 53)
Ando, C. 2018.
“The Political Economy of the Hellenistic Polis: Comparative and Modern Perspectives.” In: N. Luraghi and H. Börm (eds.),The Polis in the Hellenistic Period. Stuttgart: Steiner, 9–26.
Azoulay, V. 2010.
Pericles of Athens. Trans. by J. Lloyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baker, P. 1991.
Cos et Calymna 205–200 a. C. Esprit civique et défence nationale. Québec:Éditions du Sphinx.—— 2001.
“Remarques sur la défense à Cos à l’époque hellénistique.”Revue des Études Anciennes103: 183–195.
Berti, I. et al. (eds.). 2017.
Writing Matters. Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Berti, I. and Kató, P. 2017.
“Listen im öffentlichen Raum hellenistischer Städte.” In: Berti et al. 2017, 79–116.
Bielfeldt, R. 2012.
“Polis Made Manifest: The Physiognomy of the Public in the Hellenistic City with a Case Study on the Agora in Priene.” In: C. Kuhn (ed.),Politische Kommunikation und öffentliche Meinung in der antiken Welt. Stuttgart: Steiner,87–122.
Bolle, K., Machado, C. and Witschel, C. 2017.
“Introduction: Defining the Field – the Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity.”In: eid. (eds.),The Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity. Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 60. Stuttgart: Steiner, 15–30.
Bosnakis, D. 2014.
“Aσκληπιείo και Iατρoί: ένα πρoνoμιακό διπλωματικό «εργαλείo» της Kω.” In:N. C. Stampolidis and G. Tasulas (eds.),Ιασις, Yγεíα, vóσoς, θεραπεíα απó τovμηρo στov Γαληvó. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art, 60–75.
Bosnakis, D. and Hallof, K. 2005.
“Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos II.”Chiron35: 219–273.
Buraselis, K. 2008.
“Priesthoods for Sale. Comments in Ideological and Financial Aspects of the Sale of Priesthoods in the Greek Cities of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” In:A. H. Rasmussen and S. W. Rasmussen (eds.),Religion and Society: Rituals,Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The Bomos-Conferences 2002–2005. Rome: Quasar, 125–132.
Carlsson, S. 2004.
“Koan Democracy in Context.” In: K. Höghammar (ed.),The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture. Proceedings of an International Seminar Organized by the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History (Uppsala 2000).Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 109–118.—— 2010.
Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in Some East Greek City-States.Stuttgart: Steiner.
Champion, C. 1995.
“The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record.”American Journal of Philology116: 213–220.
Chaniotis, A. 1996.
Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit.Stuttgart:Steiner.—— 2003.
“Vom Erlebnis zum Mythos: Identitätskonstruktionen im kaiserzeitlichen Aphrodisias.” In: E. Schwertheim and E. Winter (eds.),Stadt und Stadtentwicklung in Kleinasien.Asia Minor Studien 50. Bonn: Habelt, 69–84.—— 2004.
“From Communal Spirit to Individuality: The Epigraphic Habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete.” In:Creta Romana e Protobizantina. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000. Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo,75–87.—— 2005a.
War in the Hellenistic World. A Social and Cultural History.Oxford: Blackwell.—— 2005b.
“Griechische Rituale der Statusänderung und ihre Dynamik.” In: M. Steinicke and S. Weinfurter (eds.),Investitur-und Krönungsrituale. Herrschaftseinsetzungen im kulturellen Vergleich.Cologne, Weimar & Vienna: Böhlau, 43–61.—— 2010.
“Illusions of Democracy in the Hellenistic World.”Athens DialoguesNovember 2010, accessed under: http://athensdialogues.chs.harvard.edu/cgibin/WebObjects/athensdialogues.woa/wa/dist?dis=43 (31.03.2021).—— 2013.
“Public Subscriptions and Loans as Social Capital in the Hellenistic City: Reciprocity, Performance, Commemoration.” In: P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas(eds.),Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis, Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89–106.—— 2014.
“Mnemopoetik: Die epigraphische Konstruktion von Erinnerung in den griechischen Poleis.” In: O. Dally et al. (eds.),Medien der Geschichte – Antikes Griechenland und Rom.Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, 132–169.—— 2017.
“The Historical Significance of the Dodona’s Tablets.” In: K. Soueref (ed.),Dodona: The Omen’s Questions. New Approaches in the Oracular Tablets.Ioannina: Ephorate of Antiquities of Ioannina, 51–65.
Crowther, C. 1992.
“The Decline of Greek Democracy?”Journal of Ancient Civilizations7: 13–48.—— 2004.
“The Dating of Koan Hellenistic Inscriptions.” In: K. Höghammar (ed.),The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture. Proceedings of an International Seminar Organized by the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History (Uppsala 2000). Uppsala: Uppsala University Library, 21–60.
Dignas, B. 2003.
“‚Auf seine Kosten kommen‘” – ein Kriterium für Priester? Zum Verkauf von Priestertümern im hellenistischen Kleinasien.” In: H. Heedemann and E. Winter(eds.),Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens, E. Schwertheim zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. Asia Minor Studien 49. Bonn: Habelt, 27–40.
Ellis-Evans, A. 2013.
“The Ideology of Public Subscriptions.” In: P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas(eds.),Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis, Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–122.
Fabiani, R. 2012.
“Dedochthai tei boulei kai toi demoi: protagonisti e prassi della procedura deliberaitiva a Iasos.” In: C. Mann and P. Scholz (eds.),„Demokratie“im Hellenismus. Von der Herrschaft des Volkes zur Herrschaft der Honoratioren?Mainz: Verlag Antike, 109–165.
Feyel, C. 2006.
Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique, à travers la documentation financière en Grèce.Athens: École Française d’Athènes.Fröhlich, P. and Müller, C. (eds.). 2005.
Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique. Actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris BNF. Geneva: Librairie Droz.
Gabrielsen, V. 2001.
“The Rhodian Associations and Economic Activity.” In: Z. H. Archibald et al.(eds.),Hellenistic Economies.London & New York: Routledge, 163–184.
Gauthier, P. 1985.
Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.). Contribution à l’histoire des institutions.Paris: Boccard 1985.—— 1993.
“Les Cités hellénistiques.” In: M. H. Hansen (ed.),The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July, 1–4 1992. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 211–231.
Grieb, V. 2008.
Hellenistische Demokratie: Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen.Historia-Einzelschriften 199.Stuttgart: Steiner.
Habicht, C. 1995.
“Ist ein «Honoratiorenregime» das Kennzeichen der Stadt im späteren Hellenismus?” In: M. Wörrle and P. Zanker (eds.),Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Munich: C. H. Beck, 87–92.—— 2006.
“Supporters of King Perseus in Kos.” In: id. (ed.),The Hellenistic Monarchies.Selected Papers.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 148–152.—— 2007.
“Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos.”Chiron37: 123–152.
Hamon, P. 2007.
“Élites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique.” In:H.-L. Fernoux and C. Stein (eds.),Aristocratie antique: modèles et exemplarité sociale. Actes de la Journée d’étude de Dijon, 25 novembre 2005.Dijon: Ed.Universitaires de Dijon, 77–98.—— 2009.
“Démocraties grecques après Alexandre. À propos de trois ouvrages récents.”Topoi16/2: 347–382.
Hermann, P. 1984.
“Die Selbstdarstellung der hellenistischen Stadt in den Inschriften: Ideal und Wirklichkeit.” In:Πρακτικὰ τoῦ H’ Διεθvoῦς Συvεδρíoυ Ἑλληvικῆς καὶ ΛατιvικῆςἘπιγραφικῆς (Athen 1982)I. Athens: Epigraphical Museum, 108–119.
Kató, P. 2013.
“Elite und Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos.” In: M. Horster and A. Klöckner(eds.),Cities and Priests: Cult Personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial Period. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, 279–302.
Knäpper, K. 2018.
Hieros kai asylos. Territoriale Asylie im Hellenismus in ihrem historischen Kontext. Historia-Einzelschriften 250. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Krob, E. 1997.
“Serments et institutions civiques à Cos à l’époque hellénistique.”Revue des Études Grecques110: 434–453.
Lasagni, C. and Tropea, S. 2019.
“Il paesaggio epigrafico di Atene: iscrizioni pubbliche a spazio urbano nell’Atene ellenistica.”Axon3/2: 149–176.
Ma, J. 2013.
Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maillot, S. 2009.
“Une association de sculpteurs à Rhodes au IIesiècle av. J.-C.: Un cercle d’intégration à la societé rhodienne.” In: L. Bodiou et al. (eds.),Chemin faisant:Mythes, cultes et société en Grèce ancienne. Mélanges en l`honneur de P. Brulé.Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 39–57.—— 2013.
“Les associations à Cos.” In: P. Fröhlich and P. Hamon (eds.),Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr. J.-C.).Actes de la table ronde de Paris, INHA, 19–20 juin 2009. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 199–226.—— 2015.
“Foreigners’ Associations and the Rhodian State.” In: V. Gabrielsen and C. A. Thomsen (eds.),Private Associations and the Public Sphere. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010.Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,136–182.
Migeotte, L. 1992.
Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Geneva & Québec: Librairie Droz.—— 2000.
“Retour à la grande souscription publique de Cos des annés 205–201 av. J.-C.”In: I. Velissaropoulou-Karakosta (ed.),Tιμαí Iωάvvoυ Tριαvταφυλλoπoύλoυ.Komotini: Eκδόσεις A.N. Σάκκoυλα, 159–172.
Müller, C. 2011.
“Autopsy of a Crisis: Wealth, Protogenes, and the City of Olbia in c. 200 BC.”In: Z. H. Archibald, J. K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen (eds.),The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 324–344.—— 2018.
“Oligarchy and the Hellenistic City.” In: N. Luraghi and H. Börm (eds.),Rethinking the Polis in the Hellenistic Period. Stuttgart: Steiner, 27–52.
Oliver, G. J. 2003.
“(Re-)locating Athenian Decrees in the Agora IG II2448.” In: D. Jordan (ed.),Lettered Attica: A Day of Attic Epigraphy. Proceedings of the Athens Symposium 8 March 2000, with a Memoir by J. Kirchner. Toronto: Athenians Research Project, Victoria University, 95–110.
Papakonstantinou, Z. 2016.
“The Hellenistic Agonothesia: Financies, Ideologies, Identities.” In: C. Mann,S. Remijsen and S. Scharff (eds.),Athletics in the Hellenistic World. Stuttgart:Steiner, 95–112.
Parker, R. and Obbink, D. 2000.
“Aus der Arbeit der «Inscriptiones Graecae» VI. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I.”Chiron30: 415–449.
Paul, S. 2013.
Cultes et sanctuaires de l’île de Cos.Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège.
Paschidis, P. 2008.
Between City and King. Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–190 BC). Athens: Diffusion de Boccard.
Petrovic, A., Petrovic, I. and Thomas, E. (eds.). 2019.
The Materiality of Text – Placement, Perception, and Presence of Inscribed Texts in Classical Antiquity.Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Rigsby, K. J. 1996.
Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley, Los Angeles& London: University of California Press.
Quaß, F. 1979.
“Zur Verfassung der griechischen Städte im Hellenismus.”Chiron9: 37–52.—— 1993.
Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart: Steiner 1993.
Raeck, W. 1995.
“Der mehrfache Apollodoros: Zur Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen Stadtbild am Beispiel von Priene.” In: M. Wörrle and P. Zanker (eds.),Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus.Munich: C. H. Beck, 231–240.
Samama, É. 2003.
Les médecins dans le monde grec: sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical.Geneva: Librairie Droz.
Sherwin-White, S. 1978.
Ancient Cos: A Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Terpstra, T. 2019.
Trade in the Ancient Mediterranean. Private Order and Public Institutions.Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Wiemer, H.-U. 2003.
“Käufliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Kos.”Chiron33: 263–310.
Woolf, G. 2008.
“Divinity and Power in Ancient Rome.” In: N. Brisch (ed.),Religion and Power.Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 235–251.
Zuiderhoek, A. 2011.
“Oligarchs and Benefactors. Elite Demography and Euergetism in the Greek East of the Roman Empire.” In: O. M. van Nijf, R. Alston and C. G. Williamson(eds.),Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Leuven, Paris& Walpole, MA: Peeters, 185–195.
本文来源：http://www.zhangdahai.com/shiyongfanwen/qitafanwen/2023/0426/589927.html
