Vergöttlichungstendenzen und Herrscherkult im Römischen Reich (German Edition)

Gott spricht Kastilisch - Nation und Religion im Spanien des Siglo de Oro

---

Innerhalb einer solchen Gesellschaftsordnung kam der Person Hauptseminar Nationenbildung in China und Europa. An investigation into the language of Robinson Crusoe as compared with that of other 18th century works by Lannert and 4 more Free See similar titles. An investigation into the language of Robinson Crusoe as compared with that of other 18th century works by Lannert and 1 more Free See similar titles. Not safe for work! You are currently in the: Choose your country so we can show books available in your region.

Aeschylus' Persae represented the classic contrast between Hellenic liberty and Persian despotism. Sparta might have her kings, but they were hedged about by a host of competing institutions that defined them more as magistrates than as monarchs. Most other Greek states scorned and rejected the concept.

Download e-book for kindle: Monica: An Ordinary Saint (Women in Antiquity) by Gillian Clark

And even the Spartan Demaratus, as portrayed by Herodotus, advised the Persian king that his fellow citizens were free men obedient only to law, not subjects of an autocrat. The conquests of Alexander, however, burst the confines of that limited world. The expansion of Hellas opened vast realms that had not been envisioned by the polis and could not be governed by its institutions. Monarchy emerged as indispensable, no longer an alien principle but a Macedonian instrument. Alexander brought it from the homeland and sought to blend it with the traditions of the East.

His successors, hesitant at first for reasons of politics and diplomacy, eventually embraced it, adopting the title as well as the prerogatives of king. They did not construe their domains in geographical terms. The diadochoi represented themselves as heirs of Alexander, claimants to the throne of a limitless empire—however restricted their holdings may have been in fact.

Neither image nor ideology corresponded to reality. But they exercised compelling force in themselves. Justification for monarchy did not await the Hellenistic age. Plato propounded its virtues and even endeavored to inculcate them in Sicily. Xenophon and Isocrates produced treatises in praise of kings. Aristotle speculated about the advantages of the good ruler, and Theophrastus composed a volume on kingship. Pamphlets then proliferated in the.

The monarch's hold on power received legitimation not merely by right of conquest or hereditary succession but through generosity, protection, administration of justice, and maintenance of stability. Such, at least, were the formulations of intellectuals. How far the kings paid attention and how far such standards of virtue were assumed and expected by the bulk of their subjects remain doubtful. None will doubt, however, that the Antigonids, Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Attalids recognized the value of projecting a posture and promoting allegiance.

The subject of Hellenistic kingship inaugurated our conference—and properly so. The institution marked out this era as distinct from its predecessors, constituted its principal organizational feature, and exemplified the tensions generated by grafting the new world onto the old. Contributions to the conference wisely ignored the speculations of ancient political theorists on the ideals and abstract principles of monarchy. They directed attention instead to the interrelationships of kings and subjects and the mutual manipulation of images and ideology.

Two basic problems confronted Greek kings: The first presented a challenge to their control of non-Hellenic peoples, the second complicated their relations with Hellenic traditions. These ambiguous and entangled matters go to the heart of Hellenistic history, the association of East and West and the combination of old and new. The papers of Professors Bringmann, Koenen, and Walbank bring important and illuminating perspectives on precisely those issues. Proud traditions of liberty and autonomy permeated the self-definition of the Greek polis.

Those traditions not only remained vital in the communities of mainland Greece and the old cities of Asia Minor, they also formed a fundamental ingredient in the new foundations established by the kings in Asia. The monarchs exhibited sensitivity to the conventions; they regularly pronounced adherence to the autonomy of individual poleis, according privileges like inviolability , freedom from taxation , exemption from garrisoning, or the right to self-government. The award of such prerogatives has generally been interpreted either as a sincere guarantee of constitutional powers or more commonly as a sham and meaningless facade screening the real authority of the king and the dependence of the polis.

Neither approach recognizes the true meaning of the institution. Professor Bringmann does not deal with sloganeering or empty gestures. His paper explores concrete benefactions bestowed by rulers upon cities within their sphere of influence: And, more importantly, he poses the pointed question of what advantage the kings themselves derived from these gifts. The advertisement of generosity. As for the cities, tangible benefits do not account entirely for their motivation. Benefactors depended in turn on beneficiaries, and a relationship of mutual respect, whatever the realities of power, held high significance both for the self-image of the cities and for the reputation of the king.

No less delicate were the relations developed between the Hellenic monarchs and the native populations of Asia. The Greeks had not come to Hellenize the barbarian nor to assimilate the races. A Greco-Macedonian ruling class installed itself in the new capitals of the East, occupying positions of authority in the court, the army, and the bureaucracy. Greek was the language of government and of law, and the means of communication in the world of business. Natives had little access to status or prestige.

Get When Rome Ruled Palestine PDF - Promyshliennyi Books

The king's power rested on a Hellenic elite. Such is the general consensus—and fundamentally accurate. Yet it does not tell the whole story. The ruler needed assent and collaboration from the ruled. Indigenous traditions could be acknowledged and incorporated in the new system, thereby allowing a broader sense of community. The Egyptian evidence supplies our fullest testimony, deftly exploited by Professor Koenen. The king provided a focal point for two cultures in that land. Imagery as conveyed by the coinage combined Greek symbolism with Egyptian tradition.

Religion supplied a means whereby Hellenes and natives could express allegiance, each in their own ways, through familiar institutions. The Ptolemies claimed descent from Dionysus and Heracles, with Zeus as ultimate progenitor, a concept comfortable for Egyptians who reckoned their ruler as son of Amon-Re. Queens as well as kings served the purpose. Brother-sister marriages derived from Egyptian conventions but could claim Hellenic precedent as allusions to Zeus and Hera.

More titles to consider

Even "Sorer" and "Euergetes," the quintessentially Greek cult names, had native equivalents and spoke to Egyptian sensibilities. And the court poet Callimachus, while directing his verses to the Greek population of Alexandria, may also reflect Egyptian royal ideology. Ptolemaic rule expropriated rather than repressed native observances. The symbolism of ritual and the finding of a place for the Egyptian elite, notably in the priesthood, helped to solidify that rule.

The comments of Professor Walbank on both papers add valuable dimensions. He proposes a further agenda for the study of relations between monarchs and cities, benefactors and beneficiaries; that is, to extend the investigation both to the ideological roots before the Hellenistic age and to subsequent developments at the hands of the Romans. Such an inquiry will likely turn up some striking continuities. Equally fruitful is Walbank's suggestion of investigating the patronage associa-. Stimulus provided by the papers leads him to point out a path of future research.

The intertwining of royal authority with polis traditions on the one hand and native expectations on the other represents a central characteristic of the age. It needs to be taken seriously not as mere exercise of power or manipulation of attitudes, but as an effort to reconcile diverse traditions and an appeal to the sensibilities of diverse peoples.

Benefactions are the origin of monarchy, and, as Aristotle put it, it was on the benefactors of cities and nations that the honor of kingship was bestowed. Under the rule of kings, men were organized in a commonwealth based on justice. Thus, men owed to monarchy not only their survival, but good order in their lives.

Other books

It was kingship which represented the principle of just rule, insofar as the aim of rule according to justice is to the benefit of the ruled. Therefore, people were willing to accept the leadership of their benefactors. This was the political theory derived from speculation on the origin of social and political order. However, this theory reveals the underlying standards of behavior to which a king had to adhere in Hellenistic times. For instance, when rebuking King Philip V for violence, the historian Polybius said: For the Hellenistic concept of ideal monarchy, cf. Walbank in CAH 7.

Schubart are still indispensable: On Polybius' concept of ideal monarchy, cf. But what kind of benefactions did Greek cities expect from Hellenistic kings? Greeks no longer lived in that remote age when the foundations of human civilization and political government were established. Without Homer even the memory of heroic kingdoms would have faded away. And above all, Hellenistic monarchy had its roots not in Greece, but in Macedonia and Asia. Greeks lived in city-states and enjoyed self-government. There was no scope for monarchic rule at all. But once monarchy came, the Greeks had to deal with the new situation.

Isocrates reminded King Philip II that Greeks were not accustomed to enduring monarchy, while other peoples were unable to live except under the rule of kings. Hellenistic kings had to learn to distinguish between their barbarian subjects and their Greek allies. Barbarians were suited for benevolent despotism, the kings were told, while Greeks were willing to acknowledge the superiority of a benefactor only if they were able and willing to protect and support autonomy and self-government.

To be sure, beneficence was the underlying principle on which monarchy should be based. But since the general principle had to be applied to different peoples, Hellenistic kings had to take into account their different ways of life. Thus, Aristotle advised King Alexander in an open letter:.

Deal with the Greeks as a leader, with the barbarians as a master, taking care for the former as friends and kinsmen, while treating the latter as animals or plants. Presumably, Aristotle's recommendation and the similar one of Isocrates were given with regard to colonization. Under the leadership of the Macedonian king, they could settle in new cities and return to the blessings of landed property and self-government.

In founding new cities, Hellenistic kings did benefit Greeks in just the same way as, according to theory, kings had done ages and ages ago, when establishing social and political order for the first time. Of course, that plan for colonization relates to the so-called panhellenic program, cf. But the founding of new cities was by no means the only benefaction Greeks expected of a Hellenistic king. Whatever he did to support, to protect, and to improve the Greek commonwealth of self-governing cities was appreciated as benefaction.

This included, for example, the protection of Greeks from barbarian raids, the preservation or restoration of peace, freedom, and democracy whatever might be meant by those terms , support in cash and kind, the building of temples, theaters, and gymnasia, the granting of land, and a wide range of privileges such as and.

Both kings and cities vied in pretending that their mutual relations were based on an interchange of benefactions and goodwill the actual state of their relations notwithstanding. For instance, when King Antiochus III won control of Iasos in Asia Minor, the citizens honored him for the benefactions which he and his ancestors had bestowed on the Greeks in general, and on the city of Iasos in particular. I quote from their resolution:.

The great King Antiochus observes the attitude of his ancestors towards all Greeks, takes care for peace, supports many who tumbled, separately and in common, has set others at liberty instead of slavery, is convinced in general that kingship is established in order to bestow benefactions on mankind, has already previously relieved our city from slavery and has given liberty to her. And when King Eumenes II accepted the honors that the Ionian League decreed for him, he recapitulated in his letter the several reasons they gave for honoring him:.

Eirenias and Archelaus met me at Delos and handed over a fine and generous decree, in which you began stating that I had chosen from the start the finest deeds and showed myself the common benefactor of the Greeks, that I had faced many great battles against the barbarians, displaying all zeal and care to make sure that the inhabitants of the Greek cities should always live in peace and enjoy the best state of affairs, receiving glory for the attendant danger and hardship, and choosing to stand firm in what concerned the League, in conformity with the policy of my father, and that I had demonstrated on many occasions my attitude in these matters, both in public and in private, being well disposed to each of the cities and helping each of them achieve many of the things that relate to distinction and glory, which through my actions demonstrated my love of glory and the gratitude of the League.

For the revised text, cf. Garlan, ZPE 9 For interpretation, see F. Dittenberger, OGIS , no.

For the English translation of inscriptions I am indebted to M. There is no need to stress the point further by quoting more testimony. Undoubtedly, the notion of king as benefactor was an ideal accepted all over the Hellenistic world; but what about the impact of this ideal on reality?

Was there any impact on economic, social, and political life?

What did kings expect from the cities in exchange for the benefactions they supplied? Were the relations between kings and cities actually based on beneficence and gratitude, as documents and literature claim? And what obstacles impeded the working of mutual goodwill created by the benefactions? Finally, we may ask whether the Greeks themselves raised any objections, on the basis of moral standards or political interest, to the temptation of accepting gifts.

It goes without saying that there are no complete or simple answers. These issues can be treated only with reference to a restricted body of evidence. Thus, I shall not deal with the foundation and liberation of cities, or with the grant of privileges like and.

I shall consider mainly, but not exclusively, donations in cash and in kind, or, as Cicero put it in De officiis , with beneficence through financial support. Together with Walter Ameling I have collected the available evidence on donations and foundations bestowed on Greek cities and sanctuaries by Hellenistic kings and dynasts, and I am preparing an edition with commentary on that topic. The collection of testimonia contains approximately items, including seventeen apocrypha mostly from the Alexander tradition and about dubious cases.

For instance, when, without any written evidence, modern archaeologists ascribe about thirty-five buildings to the generosity of Hellenistic kings, the arguments they put forward in support of such hypothetical ascriptions range from the highly probable to unconvincing guesswork. Since there is no certainty, it may be prudent to include all hypothetical ascriptions among the dubious cases. Two hundred and twenty-one epigraphical testimonia and items of literary evidence survive. Some donations are attested by two or more texts, but in only five instances is there an overlap between literary and.

The forthcoming edition will also include an archaeological commentary prepared under the supervision of Professor Hans yon Steuben of Frankfurt University. That may indicate the very fragmentary nature of the source material at hand; also, obviously, our knowledge is limited to a small fraction of the donations that Hellenistic kings actually bestowed on Greek cities and sanctuaries. For instance, when King Mithridates V died, the Roman Senate passed a decree ruling that the king's donations should all be validated.

But we have only one inscription from which to deduce that King Mithridates conferred a gift on a gymnasium, and this inscription is found not in the province of Asia but on the island of Delos. Notwithstanding the fragmentary state of the source material, some general conclusions may be drawn from the available evidence. From about BC there must have been a great decline in royal generosity. From the end of the Attalid dynasty down to 30 BC only fifteen pieces of testimony exist, and except for the reconstruction of the Odeion at Athens, [14] these deal with rather small donations [15] Polybius seems to be quite right in referring to the that the kings of his time displayed.

Kings and dynasts had no political motive for bestowing small gifts on the center of Greek culture and on the famous sanctuaries of Delos and Didyma, with the exception of two cases. Characteristically, these two cases occurred during the Second Mithridatic War and on the eve of the Battle of Actium. Obviously, with Rome on the scene, everything changed. Two inscriptions give special evidence of the strain on royal financial power between and BC.

However, even the Athenians must be content with installment. Drew-Bear, Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie Zutphen, , nos.

Supposedly, the kings donations to private persons were included in the Senate's decree. And in Priene, the citizens honored their rich fellow citizen Moschion for defraying building expenses in the place of some kings unable to keep their promises. The lions share of the evidence deals with dedications to gods and sanctuaries. At least items relate to cult and religion, including the gifts to gymnasia. This might seem striking, but in reality it is not surprising. Cult and religion were a part of public life, a very large part. There was no such thing as the modern separation of church and state, and the city had to raise funds for the building and maintenance of temples and gymnasia, for sacrifices, and for the celebration of festivals and games.

Daily life was influenced much less by the pressures of war, famine, or earthquakes than by the recurrence of sacrifices, processions, festivals, games, or the gymnastic exercises of the ephebes. It is no wonder that Greeks displayed much of what may be called their public way of life in the areas of cult and religion.

Other books

On the other hand, Hellenistic kings were also closely attached to the Greek gods, claiming divine lineage—or at least divine protection. To be sure, royal generosity toward the gods closely related to beneficence toward Greek cities. King Antiochus IV was praised by Polybius. Habicht, Chiron 13 Burkert, "Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange," in Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium, , ed. Nordquist, Boreas 15 [Stockholm, ]: Meuli, Gesammelte Schriften [Basel, ] 2: Stolz [Zurich, ], 70ff.

On the other hand, dedications of Hellenistic kings were meant to demonstrate the image of the victorious king to the Greek world: Thus, it is not surprising that monuments dedicated to the gods of much-frequented sanctuaries conveyed political claims and messages to the public. Unfortunately, comprehensive monographs on that topic are still needed, but for the Attalids, cf.

Schalles, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im 3. The king defrayed the building expenses for the Olympieion at Athens, thus honoring Zeus Olympios and, at the same time, giving Athenians important financial support. Of course, the people of Athens made the arrangements for investing and spending the money they received from the king. Some inscriptions show how such financial transactions might work. When the Milesians received a large sum from King Eumenes II to pay the building expenses of a new gymnasium, they didn't need the money all at once, and so part of it was invested in short-term loans.

Accordingly, the people of Miletus passed a decree ruling that an inscription should be affixed to the market hall indicating that the building was dedicated to Apollo by Antiochus. They further ruled that all the buildings to be financed from the rents should be regarded as dedicated by the same Antiochus. Ptolemy IV transferred to Thespiae the proceeds of a foundation in Egypt dedicated to the Muses of Thespiae, and it was the people of Thespiae who passed a decree governing the purchase and lease of sacred land.

Erecting large buildings or establishing schools involved much expense. The kings might be short of cash, but they collected huge contributions in kind, especially in grain, from their subjects. Greece, on the other hand, depended to some extent on grain imports. Thus, grain became the main product on which to base devices of indirect finance. For instance, the Rhodians received from King Eumenes II a large quantity of grain to establish a school fund to provide for teachers' salaries. That quantity of grain was worth from to talents the difference is due to the known price fluctuations.

Jamot, BCH 19 Holleaux, REG 10 On freight rates which are not taken into consideration above , see Heichelheim, Wirtschaftliche Schwankungen , 91ff. But it was a long way from the kings promises to the payment of salaries. About 14, tons of grain must be shipped and sold, the proceeds had to be loaned out, and the annual rents had to be collected.

Rhodian shippers and traders thus maintained their crucial position in the Hellenistic grain trade even after the establishment of the free port at Delos in BC , and they could profit from the transaction. For instance, Miletus received from King Eumenes II a quantity of grain worth from to talents. The money was not needed all at once and was lent out to merchants who, as we happen to know, had been encouraged to increase their trade with the Seleucid realm by receiving from King Antiochus IV the privilege of duty-free trade.

It was used to purchase grain from the annual yield, and each citizen was entitled to receive a fixed quantity on King Eumenes' birthday. The few examples I mention show the impact which royal generosity might have on the economy of a Greek city. The kings provided funds for buildings, for the celebration of festivities, for teachers' salaries, for grain, oil, or fuel. In so doing, they made jobs and loans available and supplied grain and timber. It is by no means surprising that both large and small cities tried to receive donations from the kings, especially in the case of emergencies caused by war, famine, or earthquake.

The cities usually took the initiative, and it should be noticed that the ambassadors of Greek cities as well as the Friends of Hellenistic kings played an important role in arranging royal grants. Sometimes the negotiators were both royal Friends and citizens of the leagues and cities involved. Jahrhundert vor Christus Munich, , 59ff. As for Miletus and Milesians, cf. Greek interest in royal generosity does not need any explanation.

But why did Hellenistic kings lavish large sums on providing Greek cities with the money and goods they needed? In cases of common interest, of course, the answer is very simple. For example, when Athens between and BC received at her request large sums of money and large quantifies of grain from Lysimachus, Ptolemy I and II, Spartocus, Audoleon, and Antipater Etesias, these kings thus gave support to an enemy of their enemy, the Antigonid dynasty. Characteristically, however, the bargain was called benefaction, and the kings involved in bargains of this kind received great honors for securing a city's freedom and autonomy.

But motives are not as obvious in many other instances. For example, we may wonder why King Antiochus IV promised the cities of Tegea and Megalopolis to provide building funds for a theater and a city wall. Perhaps he simply built wherever he was allowed to do so. Moralia D-F; Sylloge , no. Meritt, Hesperia 5 Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus Darmstadt, , In his Art of Rhetoric , Aristotle stressed most concisely the close relationship between glory, honor, and benefaction:.

Honor is the token of a reputation for doing good. The components of honor are sacrifices, memorials in verse and prose, gifts of honor, holy precincts, front seats [at festivals and games], public burial, state maintenance. Kings were so eager to be honored by Greek cities that they often de-frayed their expenses. In BC the Athenians, in return for the political guarantees they received from Ptolemy III, decreed that in addition to religious honors, a gymnasium should be named after the king.

Subsequently, Ptolemy took over the building costs. Thus, the glory of being a city's benefactor was well documented in public life: Citing the decree of the Ionian League, King Eumenes wrote:. And you passed a resolution, in order that you might always be seen to be repaying worthy honors to your benefactors, to crown me with a gold crown for valor, and to set up a golden statue in any place in Ionia I wished, and to proclaim these honors both in the competitions you celebrate and in those celebrated in each of the cities.

Both in ancient literature and in epigraphical evidence, the term and related ones point out the benefactor's motivation. When characterizing Eumenes II, Polybius ascribed the king's outstanding generosity to his extreme love of glory. For example, the Milesians proclaimed that they honored the king because his attitude to the Greeks was marked by love of glory.

No doubt honor and glory confer majesty on a king, and at the same time they are devices to exert power upon people. Using this analysis, Cicero discusses the issue of expediency in De officiis 2. As is well known, he follows mainly the Hellenistic philosopher Panaetius. Further, according to Cicero, the origin of affection is beneficence.

Benefactor and beneficiary are linked together by moral ties. The latter is obliged to be grateful to the former because, as Cicero puts it, no duty is more imperative than that of proving one's gratitude. A man unable to return the favor in the same measure continues to owe gratitude and loyalty to his benefactor. And since the moral account is not balanced, the benefactor and the beneficiary are not on equal terms.

According to Aristotle, it is that kind of inequality which marks the relationship between father and son, forefather and descendant, king and subject: Thus, although Greek cities bestowed secular and religious honors on kings because of benefactions they received, this did not release them from the duty to be grateful. Both sides were keeping records, so to speak, on giving and receiving. Lycortas, father of the historian Polybius and a prominent statesman, enumerated the benefits that the Achaeans. On Panaetius' lost work and its relation to Cicero's De officiis , cf. To know which benefits were granted or received might be useful, or even necessary.

We know, for example, of benefactors who laid claim to gratitude. Lycortas did so in order to recommend a grant of military support that the government in Alexandria had requested. At the conference of Locris, Philip V inflicted a moral defeat on the representatives of the Achaean League. There was no need to add another word, for, as Cicero puts it, all men detest ingratitude. In this way beneficence became a device of policy establishing strong moral ties between kings and cities. No doubt both were in need of those informal ties.

Considering the volatile character of their power, Helle-. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon Cambridge, , ff. Meritt, "Greek Inscriptions," Hesperia 36 Tracy, " IG II. They were well aware of the fact that they depended more or less on the goodwill of Greek cities. Accordingly, they tried to live up to the standards of benevolence that the cities were expecting.

Thus, it is no longer really difficult to understand why King Antiochus IV conferred benefits on Athens as well as on small towns in the Peloponnese. Glory and gratitude were funds which might bear interest. To be sure, Tegea and Megalopolis were only small towns, but they were both members of the Achaean League, and all kings competed for the league's friendship. It is well known that after losing the war against Rome, the Seleucids took special care to be on good terms with the Achaeans. Antiochus was well aware of the fact that his ancestors had done less for the Greeks than had the Ptolemies or the Attalids.

As I have pointed out, in BC the Achaean statesman Lycortas demanded military support for the government at Alexandria against King Antiochus IV on the grounds that the Ptolemies had done much more for the Achaeans than had their rivals, the Seleucids. A benefactor was entitled to receive gratitude and loyalty, but political circumstances governed whether he succeeded in making good his claim.

Conflicts between moral duty and expediency were by no means remote issues to be discussed by overly subtle people like philosophers and sophists. On the contrary, political decisions were in many instances focused on this very issue. King Ptolemy II, about BC , reminded the Milesians of the privilege of and the grant of land—benefactions they had received from himself and his father, respectively—when he urged the people of Miletus to preserve their friendship and alliance, now under pressure from a military attack launched on the city presumably by Antigonus Gonatas.

Nevertheless, they joined King Antiochus II some years later. However, he apparently failed to secure the grant of military support which the government at Alexandria had requested. Of course, political interest and self-preservation might be more compelling issues than the gratitude and goodwill established by former benefactions. At any rate, no one could deny that a benefactor was entitled to gratitude. This claim might cause uneasiness, at least among the powerful, who hate to be indebted to anyone, and who receive benefactions only to return them with interest.

In his Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle states:. He [the powerful person] is fond of conferring benefits, but ashamed to receive them, because the former is a mark of superiority and the latter of inferiority. He returns a service done to him with interest, since this will put the original benefactor into his debt in turn, and make him the party benefitted.

Further, a man who asked for benefits without being in want completely humiliated himself. For this reason Polybius rebuked the Rhodians for having requested and received large funds to establish a school foundation. To be sure, the Rhodians had never hesitated to ask kings and dynasts for the supplies they needed.

Two of the benefactors, Hieron II and his son Gelon even bestowed honors on them, "as if," to quote Polybius, "they were still under obligation. Kings and dynasts had to sell their grain surplus in order to get money, and so they needed the services of Rhodian shippers and grain traders. Casson, TAPhA 85 The Rhodians might ask for aid in emergencies, but they were well aware of the fact that they were entitled to get support in return for the services they themselves had rendered. But when the Rhodians asked King Eumenes II for funds to cover the expenses of teachers' salaries, this kind of interpretation, according to Polybius, was no longer valid.

They were not in want of money, we are told, and so they violated the standards of decency when they declined to assume the costs of their children's education. Such a gift might perhaps be accepted from his friends by a private person who found himself in temporary straits, in order not to allow his children to remain untaught through poverty, but the last thing that anyone in affluent circumstances would submit to would be to go a-begging among his friends for money to pay teachers.

And, as a state should have more pride than a private person, more strict propriety of conduct should be observed in public transactions than in private, and especially by the Rhodians owing to the wealth of the community and their noted sense of dignity. The very dilemma beneficiaries might face was brought into the open when the Assembly of the Achaean League discussed an offer from King Eumenes II. But such an impudent offer could not be accepted. The unsettled issue of Aegina outraged the Achaeans. The community of Aegina had been a member of the league.

In the so-called First Macedonian War it was conquered by the Romans and handed over to the Aetolians. The very core of the issue was expounded by Apollonidas of Sicyon. I quote Polybius' record:. For that the council should be in Eumenes' pay every year, and discuss public affairs swallowing a bait, so to speak, would evidently involve disgrace and hurt. Now it was Eumenes who was giving them money; next time it would be Prusias and after that Seleucus. The kings ambassador had endlessly reiterated Eumenes' goodwill and beneficences toward the league.

But, after all, what he actually wanted was for the Achaeans to violate their own laws forbidding magistrates and private persons to accept money from kings and so give up their claim to Aegina. In fact, what the king offered was a bribe. Accordingly, Apollonidas brought into the open the kings real intention. In this way, beneficence is shown in a totally unfavorable light, and it is quite understandable that Cicero, following Panaetius on the whole, is so critical of generosity shown in gifts of cash and kind.

Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands. Withoutabox Submit to Film Festivals. Amazon Renewed Refurbished products with a warranty. Amazon Second Chance Pass it on, trade it in, give it a second life.

• El niño con el pijama de rayas (Novela) (Spanish Edition)
• Last Orders: A gripping and twisty suspense thriller youll find impossible to put down (Gus Dury)
• Poet and Peasant: Overture - E-flat Horn 1
• Novena Meditations With Teresa of Calcutta
• Making the Majors: The Transformation of Team Sports in America