"tyranny" on which Antigonus Gonatas had based his Greek empire, are
betrayed in the institutions of the Achæans. The rule of a city by a
tyrant and membership in the league were regarded as incompatible
with one another. This was, doubtless, a requirement of the federal
laws, which, consisting of treaties negotiated between the original
cities in 275 B.C. and at the admission of new cities thereafter,
of oaths by which these treaties were sanctioned, and of general
enactments made from time to time by special legislative process,
bound the citizens of the individual cities no less than did the local
laws which they themselves passed. Otherwise the city-states were at
liberty to adopt whatever form of government they chose. The league
championed neither democracy nor oligarchy, though its working favored
the well-to-do classes. At most it compelled a certain uniformity in
local administration, its general attitude being admirably symbolized
by its monetary arrangements, wherein the standard was determined by
the federal authority while the coins were issued by the constituent
cities.[133]
* * * * *
The very constitutions of the Achæan and the Ætolian leagues disclose
the importance of the part which the Greek policy of Antigonus Gonatas
played in the creation of these dangerous adversaries of himself and
his country. It is true that his son, Demetrius II, fought them to a
standstill, wrested from Ætolia a large part of its acquisitions, and
might have dissolved both leagues by force, had not Epirus deserted him
and gone over to their side; had not the Illyrian pirates whom he let
loose on this new enemy provoked the Romans to cross the Adriatic; and
had not the Dardanians moved down on Macedon and defeated and killed
him in battle. Such "had nots" belonged, however, to the constant
possibilities, and complications of this sort were ever occurring in
the struggle of Macedon for the hegemony of Greece. On this occasion
their issue was so disastrous for Macedon that the hour of the two
leagues seemed come.
But what should have been their triumph proved to be their destruction.
For the frustration of their hopes Polybius,[134] who voices the
opinion of Aratus, held the Ætolians responsible, and it is likely that
he was in the main right. For just at this critical moment, when the
Achæans were face to face with the most serious problem which their
federal system presented, namely, the reluctance of states, like Sparta
and Athens, which were markedly stronger than the common run of the
Achæan cities, to accept mere equality with them, the Ætolians not only
left them in the lurch and made an advantageous peace for themselves
with Antigonus Doson, the new king of Macedon, but, by ceding to Sparta
their Arcadian cities (Tegea, Mantinea, Orchomenus, and Caphiæ), they
made it possible for Cleomenes, the young Spartan monarch, to rally
round himself all the Peloponnesian opposition to the Achæans, and to
make a brilliant effort to establish once again the Spartan hegemony
in the peninsula. Another view of the matter is that the downfall of
the Achæan league--which, to escape Cleomenes, threw itself into the
arms of Antigonus Doson--was due to the intervention of Ptolemy III,
who backed up Sparta, Athens, and Ætolia by his friendship and his
money,[135] and would have gladly seen Achæa eliminated in order that
Greece might present a united front to Antigonus Doson. In any case it
was Antigonus Doson who reaped the benefits, and it seems unlikely that
they were wholly an unearned increment. What he was capable of he had
already shown by joining heartily in the international guarantee of
the neutrality of Athens which had robbed Aratus of that choice prize.
He was clearly no common man, and had he not died an untimely death
shortly after the great victory he gained over Cleomenes at Sellasia
(222 B.C.), he would probably have been much better known in history.
His energetic and tactful conduct in this crisis contrasts sharply with
the nerveless backdown of Egypt, for which the only excuse was the
imminent demise of Euergetes and the threatening attitude of Antiochus
the Great. It cannot be denied that Antigonus Doson made a good use of
all his opportunities.
His settlement of Hellenic affairs was characterized by the revival of
the general synod established by the great Philip.[136] Representatives
of the Hellenic states met in formal assembly at Corinth (224 B.C.),
and chose the king of Macedon as their hegemon. Subsequently the synod
was to meet at a time and place to be designated by its head. A mere
enumeration of the states which took this action tells the story of
the constitutional development of Hellas in the Macedonian age. They
were Macedon, Thessaly, Epirus, Acarnania, Locris, Phocis, Boeotia,
Euboea, Achæa, and probably the Islanders. Of these the first was a
kingdom,[137] but all the others were leagues. The city-states, which
had been everything in Philip's synod, have disappeared, swallowed
up in the federations. Whether each of the units had now an equal
number of votes, or, as in the time of Philip, a number proportionate
to its size, we do not know, though the second alternative is the
more probable one. In both cases Macedonian deputies took part in the
meetings of the synod and served as heads of the Macedonian interest.
Together with the deputies from Thessaly and other subservient states
they probably formed a majority in the synod. In both Philip II and
Antigonus Doson, Macedon had, accordingly, at once hegemons and kings.
We hear of nothing in the revived Hellenic league comparable with the
Committee of Public Safety of the old one; but nothing similar was
now required, since the generals of the constituent leagues were the
natural representatives of these bodies when the synod was not in
session. They had thus a place provided for them in the scheme of
Antigonus Doson.
The republican reaction against the policy of Antigonus Gonatas had
by no means spent its force. This is shown in the seriousness with
which it was now reckoned with by Antigonus Doson. He could not ignore
the well established practice of the league assemblies to decide all
important questions of foreign policy. Hence his synod differs from
that of Philip II particularly in this important respect, that its
action in declaring war, concluding peace, and other like matters was
taken subject to ratification by the league authorities, and was,
seemingly, binding only on such of them as ratified it.[138] His synod,
in other words, stood to the league assemblies as the Achæan synod
stood to the Achæan _syncletus_. Naturally, the confederates could not
withdraw from the hegemony at pleasure, much less join its enemies;
so that the refusal of a league to accept a decision of the synod to
declare war meant only that it assumed a position of neutrality. In
Philip's time each city had had to pay per day a fine of thirty drachmæ
for every horseman, twenty drachmæ for every hoplite, ten drachmæ
for every light-armed soldier, and seven or eight drachmæ for every
sailor who was absent from a duly authorized expedition.[139] Now the
leagues could refuse to coöperate without suffering any penalty. They
surrendered their liberty to fight one another, and their right to
contract alliances with outside states; but they did not surrender
their diplomacy entirely to the hegemon, though they agreed to enter
into no negotiations with any outside king.[140] They gave their
hegemon no right whatever to interfere in their local concerns.[141]
Such were the generous concessions to local sentiment by means of which
Antigonus Doson sought to place the hegemony of the kings of Macedon
in Hellas on a secure basis. Never before in the history of the people
had a conqueror made so noble a use of his power. Antigonus Doson went
in fact so far in conciliating the Greek states that had he withdrawn
Macedonian troops from Demetrias, Chalcis, and Corinth,--the three
shackles of Hellas,--added new conquests like Orchomenus, Sparta,
and Messene to the constituent leagues instead of to the central
organization, and possessed less personal prestige, it is difficult
to imagine how the Hellenic league could ever have been brought into
action. Probably all that he cared to be absolutely sure of was the
neutrality of the confederates who did not support him in the field.
In any case that was all that his successor Philip V was able to
accomplish, when, in 220 B.C., he had the Hellenic synod accept the
repeated challenge of war offered to him by the Ætolians, who, taking
advantage of the accession of a young and untried king to the throne
of Macedon, assailed his hegemony in Greece while it was still
precarious. Had Doson lived to wage the Social War (220-217 B.C.),
he might have crushed the Ætolians by sheer weight of numbers, and
have completed the unification of Hellas. Philip V fought bravely and
skillfully and won the respect of both his friends and his foes; but
before any definite issue of the struggle had arrived, the campaign
between Hannibal and the Romans had reached such a point that the
hegemon of Hellas dared not neglect it any longer.
"Let Greece," said Agelaus of Naupactus at the peace conference which
followed,[142] "be united; let no Greek state make war upon any other;
let them thank the Gods if they can all live in peace and agreement,
if, as men in crossing rivers grasp one another's hands, so they can
hold together and save themselves and their cities from barbarian
inroads. If it is too much to hope that it should be so always, let
it at least be so just now; let Greeks, now at least, unite and keep
on their guard, when they behold the vastness of the armies and the
greatness of the struggle going on in the West. No man who looks at
the state of things with common care can doubt what is coming. Whether
Rome conquers Carthage or Carthage conquers Rome, the victor will not
be content with the dominion of the Greeks of Italy and Sicily; he will
extend his plans and his warfare much further than suits us or our
welfare. Let all Greece be on its guard, and Philip above all. Your
truest defense, O King," he continued, "will be found in the character
of the chief and protector of the Greeks. Leave off destroying Greek
cities; leave off weakening them till they become a prey to every
invader. Rather watch over Greece, as you watch over your own body;
guard the interests of all her members as you guard the interest of
what is your own. If you follow such a course as this, you will win
the good will of Greece; you will have every Greek bound to you as
a friend and as a sure supporter in all your undertakings; foreign
powers will see the confidence which the whole nation reposes in you,
and will fear to attack either you or them. If you wish for conquest
and military glory, another field invites you. Cast your eyes to the
West; look at the war raging in Italy; of that war you may easily, by
a skilful policy, make yourself the arbiter; a blow dealt in time may
make you master of both the contending powers. If you cherish such
hopes, no time bids fairer than the present for their accomplishment.
But as for disputes and wars with Greeks, put them aside till some
season of leisure; let it be your main object to keep in your own hands
the power of making war and peace with them when you will. If once the
clouds which are gathering in the West should advance and spread over
Greece and the neighboring lands, there will be danger indeed that
all our truces and wars, all the child's play with which we now amuse
ourselves, will be suddenly cut short. We may then pray in vain to the
Gods for the power of making war and peace with one another, and indeed
of dealing independently with any of the questions which may arise
among us."
The speaker was right, and Philip took his advice. But when he became
embroiled with Rome, it was the speaker's own countrymen, the Ætolians,
who, by attacking Macedon in the rear, contributed most to the dreaded
sequel: that never after 212 B.C. did the Greeks have an opportunity
of dealing independently with any of the questions which arose among
them. At the time of the Social War Macedon missed its last chance of
establishing a single state in European Hellas.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Droysen, J.G. _Geschichte des Hellenismus_,^2 III: _Geschichte der
Epigonen_ (1877).
2. Freeman, E. _History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy_^2
(1893). Ed. by J.B. Bury.
3. Niese, B. _Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten._
Especially vol. II (1899).
4. Beloch, J. _Griechische Geschichte_, III (1904).
5. Kärst, J. _Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters_, II, I (1909).
6. Ferguson, W.S. _Hellenistic Athens_ (1911).
7. Pozzi, Emilio. _Le Battaglie di Cos e di Andro e la Politica
marittima di Antigono Gonata._ In _Memorie della Reale Accademia delle
Scienze di Torino_: serie II, tom. LXIII (1912).
8. Tarn, W.W. _Antigonus Gonatas_ (1913).
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 116: Tarn, W.W., _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XXIX (1909),
pp. 269 _f._; Beloch, _Griechische Geschichte_, III, 1, pp. 386 _f._;
_Hellenistic Athens_, p. 190.]
[Footnote 117: Mahaffy, _The Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's
Empire_ (1905), p. 32.]
[Footnote 118: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von, _Staat und
Gesellschaft der Griechen: D. Die makedonischen Königreiche_, pp. 139
_ff._]
[Footnote 119: For their revival of the Hellenic league, in which
Macedon formed simply one unit, see Klotzsch, _Epirotische Geschichte_,
p. 130, n. 1, and _Hellenistic Athens_, pp. 121 _f._]
[Footnote 120: For the date see Mayer, _Philologus_, LXXI (1912), p.
227.]
[Footnote 121: _Hellenistic Athens_, p. 148.]
[Footnote 122: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Antigonos von Karystos_, p.
218; Kärst, _Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters_, II, 1, pp.
121, 125. Tarn (_Antigonus Gonatas_, pp. 276 _ff._) bases Antigonus's
system of tyrants on expediency, not on philosophy.]
[Footnote 123: For the peace between Egypt and Macedon made in 261 B.C.
see _Inscriptiones Græcæ_, XI, 2, 114.]
[Footnote 124: The enmity of Rhodes and Philadelphia is proved by
Blinkenberg's _La chronique du temple Lindien_. It is, accordingly,
probable that the defeat of Chremonides by Agathostratus at Ephesus
belongs to this struggle, though something may still be said, I think,
for 242 B.C. See _Hellenistic Athens_, p. 197, n. 2.]
[Footnote 125: For this peace see _Inscriptiones Græcæ_, XI, 2, 116.
Its effect is perceptible in Athens (_Hellenistic Athens_, p. 191) and
in Achæa (_Ibid._, n. 1).]
[Footnote 126: Tarn (_Antigonus Gonatas_, pp. 321 _ff._, 449 _ff._)
has Demetrius slain in 258 B.C., and Berenice married to Euergetes, in
247-246 B.C. This position, which Beloch challenged (_Griech. Gesch._,
III, 2, pp. 133 _ff._), leaves unexplained the extraordinary delay
in the marriage of the young couple and in the reunion of the two
kingdoms.]
[Footnote 127: De Sanctis, _Contributi alla Storia dell' Impero
Seleucidico_ (_Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino_,
XLVII, pp. 11 _ff._).]
[Footnote 128: The account given in the text differs from that given in
_Hellenistic Athens_ mainly because (led by Dürrbach, _Inscriptiones
Græcæ_, XI, 2, pp. vi _f._ and Pozzi, _op. cit._ in Select Bibliography
at the end of the chapter) I now return to Homolle's Delian chronology.
It differs only in a few details from that given by Pozzi. Tarn's
masterly biography (_Antigonus Gonatas_) reached me only when this
chapter was already in type. The complete data which it contains agree
well, I believe, with the construction given above.]
[Footnote 129: Swoboda, _Die ätolische Komenverfassung_ (_Wiener
Studien_, XXXIV, 1912, pp. 37 _ff._).]
[Footnote 130: Above, chapter I.]
[Footnote 131: De Sanctis, _Rivista di Filol._ XXXVI (1908), pp. 252
_ff._]
[Footnote 132: Swoboda, _Studien zu den griechischen Bünden_, I
(_Klio_, XI, 1911, pp. 456 _ff._).]
[Footnote 133: Swoboda, _Studien zu den griechischen Bünden_, II. _Die
Städte im achäischen Bünde_ (_Klio_, XII, 1912, pp. 17 _ff._).]
[Footnote 134: II, 45.]
[Footnote 135: _Hellenistic Athens_, pp. 240 _f._]
[Footnote 136: Freeman, _History of Federal Government_, pp. 379 _ff._]
[Footnote 137: And in all probability, a league as well. Tarn,
_Antigonus Gonatas_, p. 54. n. 36.]
[Footnote 138: Polybius, IV, 26.]
[Footnote 139: Wilhelm, _Attische Urkunden_, I, p. 36.]
[Footnote 140: Plut., _Aratus_, 45.]
[Footnote 141: Polybius, IV, 24.]
[Footnote 142: Polybius, V. 104. (Translated by Freeman, _History of
Federal Government_, pp. 435 _f._)]
THE END
INDEX
INDEX
Absolutism, creation of, 135;
legalized in Greece, 147 _f._
Acarnania, 234.
Achæa. _See_ League.
Ætolia. _See_ League.
Agelaus of Naupactus, speech of, 246.
_Agon_, in Athens, 58 _ff._
Alexander of Corinth, rebellion of, 230;
death of, 232.
Alexander the Great, 4;
deification of, 36;
accession of, to throne, 116, 123 _f._;
character of, 119;
training of, 119 _ff._;
and Aristotle, 119 _ff._;
love of symbolism of, 123, 128, 139;
destroys Thebes, 123 _f._;
spares Pindar's house, 124;
visits Troy, 124 _f._;
cuts Gordian knot, 125 _f._;
plan of Persian campaign of, 126 _f._;
son of Zeus, 128, 133, 162 _f._;
in Persepolis, 129;
dissolves Hellenic league, 129 _f._;
ceases to be hegemon of Hellas, 130;
ceases to be king of Macedon, 130 _f._;
marries Roxane, 130;
adopts Persian costume, 130;
tries to establish Hellenism in Asia, 133 _f._;
founds city-states, 134 _f._;
plans conquest of West, 134;
and absolute monarchy, 135;
changes opinion as to Iranians, 135 _f._;
tries to fuse dominant peoples of Europe and Asia, 136 _ff._;
marries Persian princesses, 137;
plans of, 144,
rejected by the Macedonians, 150;
demands recognition as a god, 146;
departs from the life among men, 149.
Alexandria, 155, 157, 163, 213;
new Athens, 158;
trade of, 161 _f._;
imperial cult of Ptolemies in, 164 _ff._;
_vs._ Memphis, 170;
laws of, 177;
classes of population in, 181.
Ammon, god of Cyrene, 126 _ff._;
visited by Alexander, 139.
_Ancient City_, of Fustel de Coulanges, criticized, 7.
Andros, battle of, 159, 233.
Antigonids, constitutional government of, 216;
wars of, with Rome, 217 _f._;
alliance of, with Seleucids, 223.
Antigonus I, Monophthalmus, 183;
tries to take Alexander's place and fails, 184 _f._;
policy of, 218 _f._;
monarchy of, 220 _f._
Antigonus II, Gonatas, victories of, at Cos and Andros, 159;
rightful heir of Macedonian crown, 220;
suzerain of Greece, 220;
king of Macedon, 220, 223;
education of, 222 _f._;
reign of, 223-233;
peace of, with Egypt, 223;
hostility of, with Epirus, 224;
protects Greece from barbarians, 224;
tyrants of, in Greece, 224 _ff._;
relation of, to Stoa, 225 _f._;
refuses deification, 225 _f._;
struggle of, with Ptolemy Philadelphus, 226, 229;
renews alliance with Seleucids, 229;
deserted by Antiochus II, 230;
recovers Ægean, 232;
treaty of, with Ætolians, 232;
empire of, 233;
death of, 233;
failure of, in Greece, 235.
Antigonus III, Doson, Hellenic league of, 34;
makes peace with Ætolians, 241;
hegemon of Hellas, 243.
Antiochus I, Soter, 185.
Antiochus II, Theos, 185;
deserts Macedon, 230.
Antiochus III, the Great, 187 _ff._;
wrests Palestine from Egypt, 188;
and Hannibal, 189;
peace of, with Rome, 190.
Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, policy of, 212;
and the Jews, 212 _f._;
invades Egypt, 213.
Antiochus Hierax, 187.
Antipater, house of, 219.
Antipater II, 220.
Antony, and Cleopatra, 153;
as Ammon, 162.
Apama, wife of Seleucus, 195.
Aratus, of Sicyon, 236;
seizes Sicyon, 230;
seizes Corinth, 232.
Areus I, correspondence of, with Jews, 79.
Aristocracy, supported by Sparta, 20;
defined, 20 _f._;
destroyed in Sparta, 83;
championed by Sparta, 94.
Aristophanes, view of, as to extending Athenian citizenship, 31.
Aristotle, 26, 36;
on equality of states, 33;
training of, 108;
a poor historian, 108 _f._;
theory of progress of, 109;
empiricism of, 110 _f._;
compared with Machiavelli, 110 _ff._;
neglects the acquisition of power, 111;
makes city-state the ultimate political unit, 112 _ff._;
aversion of, for imperialism, 113;
"strength" in the political system of, 113 _f._;
and conquest of Asia, 114;
defect in politics of, 114;
and Alexander, 119 _ff._;
teacher of poetry, 119,
of politics, 120 _f._;
view of, as to Asiatics, 122;
and deification of rulers, 135, 147.
Armenia, 188;
conquers Syria, 192.
Arsinoë Philadelphus, 157;
death of, 160;
deified, 164;
imperial policy of, 227.
Art, in Athens, 59.
Artemis, temple of, in Sardis, 202.
Asia Minor, priestly communities in, 197 _f._
Astral religion, 143.
Atargatis, temple of, 197.
Athena Alcis, in China, 193 _f._
Athenians, democratic imperialists, 39;
self-confidence of, 40 _f._;
political capacity of, 56 _f._;
capacity of, in art and literature, 59 _f._;
demands upon time of, 63 _f._;
blame Sophists for decay of democracy, 77.
Athens, life in, 11 _f._;
empire of, a despotism, 23 _f._;
relation of, to allies, 24 _f._;
relation of, to cleruchies, 30;
inability of, to grant citizenship to allies, 30 _f._;
refuses to enter Achæan league, 32;
size of, 42;
size of empire of, 42;
sphere of interests of, 43;
empire of, compared with British empire, 43;
funeral customs of, 43 _f._;
institutions of, 49 _ff._;
judicial system, 50 _f._;
competition of citizens in, 58;
failure of, in foreign politics, 58, 61;
slavery in, 61;
absence of leisure in, 61;
grain supply of, 62;
raw materials of, imported, 62;
nation of noblemen, 65;
obligations of wealth in, 65;
the "school of Hellas," 65;
sea-power of, 66 _f._;
cost of sea-power of, 68 _ff._,
in lives, 70;
allies of, grievances of, 70 _ff._;
imperial litigation of, 72;
land policy of, 72 _f._;
promotes mediocrity, 73 _f._;
reputation of, 221;
neutrality of, 242.
Augustus, in Egypt, 154;
becomes Pharaoh, 154.
Autocracy, incompleteness of, 4.
Autonomy, urban in Greece, 96.
Bactria, Greek kingdoms in, 188, 193.
Bambyce, church at, 197.
Berenice, of Cyrene, 231.
Berenice, of Egypt, becomes wife of Antiochus II, 186, 230;
murdered 187.
Boeotarchs, 27.
Boeotia. _See_ League.
Branchidæ, Apollo of, 128.
Buildings, funds for, at Athens, 71.
Cæsarion, 153.
Callimachus, court poet, 160.
Capitalistic régime, in Plato, 106.
Carthage, 155.
Cassander, 219.
Charlemagne, 5.
China, contact of, with Hellenism, 192 _f._
Chremonidean War, 227.
Cinadon, conspiracy of, 91 _ff._
Cities, and freedom, 7 _ff._;
and culture, 7 _ff._;
in modern sense, 10;
contrast of, with country, 11 _ff._
City-states, relation of, to ethne, 6;
described, 9;
agrarian character of, 9;
commerce and industry of, 10;
family character of, 13 _f._;
care of, for dead, 14 _ff._;
laws of, 16 _f._;
biographies of, 17;
subordinated to districts, 29;
combined in territorial states, 33;
reconciled with imperialism, 36;
ultimate political units of Aristotle, 112;
Aristotle's view of, 121 _f._;
founded by Alexander, 133 _f._;
founded by Seleucus, 196,
by his successors, 196, 199, 205;
in Egypt, 171;
made out of priestly communities, 200;
racial fusion in, in Asia, 206;
at once nations and municipalities, 209;
loss of leadership of, 227 _f._;
as federal units, 237 _f._;
eclipse of, 243.
Civil administration, at Athens, 54 _ff._
Cleomenes, career of, 241 _f._
Cleon, on empire of Athens, 23 _f._
Cleopatra, the Great, 152;
and Antony, 153 _f._
Cleruchies, 30.
Cleruchs, in Egypt, 173 _ff._;
position of, 175 _f._;
Egyptianized, 180 _f._;
in Seleucid empire, 201.
Clisthenes, 51.
Comana, in Cappadocia, sacred city of Ma at, 197 _f._,
in Pontus, 198.
Commerce, in Athens, 12.
Committee of Public Safety, 28, 30.
Competition, in Athens, 58 _f._
Constantine, the Great, and deification of rulers, 36.
Constitutions, ancestral, 96 _f._
Cos, battle of, 159, 229.
Council of the Five Hundred, constitution and powers of, 51 _ff._
Crown lands, in Seleucid realm, how disposed of, 204.
Culture, origin of, in cities, 7 _ff._
Cyclades, lost to Egypt, 160.
_See_ League.
Cynocephalæ, battle of, 188.
Cyrene, 229, 231.