Table Of ContentDonated to Library Genesis by FURTIM
Protecting Knowledge and Culture When Copyright Laws Won't
ATTALUS' REQUEST FOR THE CITIES OF AENUS
AND MARONEA IN 167 B.C.1
Attalus, one of the three brothers of Eumenes II (king 198/197-159/158), arrived in
Rome in the spring of 167. He was there both to congratulate theR omans on theirv ictory
over King Perseus, inw hat we usually refer to as theT hird Macedonian War (171-168),
and to alleviate the Pergamene kingdom of the "Galatian danger."2 He also asked that
two cities, Aenus and Maronea, be given to him, according to both Polybius and Livy.
Polybius writes thatA ttalus "spoke about Aenus and Maronea thinking itw orthy if they
were given to him as a gift (??ic?v ai)ic5 8o0fjvai xamaq ev Scopeq)," whereas in the
words of Livy, "having delivered these messages in the interest of the state, [Attalus]
requested Aenus ad Maronea for himself (his pro regni utilitate editis mandatis, Aenum
sibi etM aroneam petit)."3 The senators fulfilled the request, expecting to set the two
brothers against each other.W hen this failed tom aterialize, they reversed their earlier
decision and expressly proclaimed Aenus and Maronea to be free cities, as we read in
Polybius: f| a-?yKXriTo? ... xf|v u?v Aivov Kai ttjvM apaWeiav f|Xe\)0?pa)a8v. Livy
omitted this information, probably on purpose.4
Traditionally, the words of Polybius and Livy have been interpreted as ifA ttalus
requested Aenus and Maronea, economically prosperous and strategically important
cities, for himself. Therefore, many have connected his request with the senators' plan
to limit the power of Eumenes II, by splitting his kingdom between him and Attalus.5
1 The following editions are used: Polybius - Polybii Historiae, ed. L. Dindorf; rec. Th. B?ttner-Wobst,
vol. 1-5 (Leipzig, 1882-1904); Livy - Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita: Libri XXXI-XL, ed. J. Briscoe,
vol. 1-2 (Stuttgart, 1991) and Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita: Libri XLI-XLV, ed. J. Briscoe (Stuttgart,
1986). Translations are from the Loeb Classical Library, with occasional modifications. All dates
are B. C. This article has profited from comments of two anonymous referees.
2 Polyb. 30.1.3-6; Liv. 45.19.2-6, 45.20.1.
3 Polyb. 30.3.3; Liv. 45.20.2.
4 Polyb. 30.3.5-7, with E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley /L os
Angeles, 1984), 573: "Attalus in the end, so goes the tale, held to familial loyalty and declined to
intrigue. The patres, abashed and annoyed, liberated the Thracian cities to keep them out of Per
gamene clutches." Cf. H. Tr?nkle, Livius und Polybios (Basel and Stuttgart, 1977), 19: Livy "hat die
Befreiung von Ainos und Maroneia weggelassen" and C. Habicht, "The Seleucids and their Rivals,"
CALf2 8 (1989), 333 n. 25: the information about freeing the two cities was "suppressed" by Livy.
5 E.g., E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon2 (Ithaca and London, 1971), 122 ("for himself he
asked as a gift cities Aenus and Maroneia"); F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius
(Oxford, 1979), 3:419 ("as a personal gift"); Gruen, Hellenistic World (as in n. 4), 573: the senators
"endeavored to turn brother against brother, promising territory inA sia Minor toA ttalus and even
the possession of Aenus and Maronea in Thrace"; N. G. L. Hammond, "The Reigns of Philip V and
Perseus," in Id., A History ofM acedonia, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1988), 560: "the senate favoured Attalus
... in the hope of splitting the rulers of Pergamum; and even the request of Attalus to be rewarded
with the gift of Aenus and Maronea was granted only to be withdrawn"; Habicht, "Seleucids and
Historia, Band 59/1 (2010)
? Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
Attalus' Request for the Cities of Aenus and Maronea in 167 B.C. 107
While individual theories might disagree on the details,6 at base the general opinion has
been thatA ttalus requested Aenus and Maronea as a personal gift, and that his request
was closely connected with the senatorial intent to undermine Eumenes IPs position.
However, this opinion can be countered on several grounds. First, Attalus, who alleg
edly had once entertained the idea of establishing a separate kingdom for himself,7 was
unlikely to be personally interested in a couple of Thracian cities; at the same time,
two cities hardly constituted a "kingdom." IfA ttalus had cooperated with the senate in
undermining the power of his brother, he could easily have asked form ore. Second, the
-
topic of these cities was raised by Attalus, not by the senators, and according to both
-
of our main sources only after he had abandoned all such separatist plans.8 This fact
allows us to think that his request was not intended to go against his reigning brother's
interests.T hird, Attalus is known to have kept his brother's trust; some have even doubted
the story about his loyalty wavering (and ascribed it to the "annalistic tradition"), since
Eumenes would hardly have sent his brother toR ome, had he not trusted his integrity.9
Attalus most likely received his cognomen "Brother-loving" (Philadelphus) after his
mission to Rome (irrespective of whether this cognomen praised him for preserving
his loyalty or concealed his alleged one-time wavering), and was then promoted to the
status of co-ruler.10 For this reason, and because the senators changed theirm inds and
set Aenus and Maronea free afterA ttalus left the city of Rome (as we learn only from
Polybius), it follows thatE umenes did not consider the loss of the two cities to be Attalus'
fault (and, therefore, he did not consider Attalus' request for these cities to be Attalus'
fault either). At the same time, by setting these cities free, the senators did not punish
Attalus but his reigning brother.W e have no reason to disbelieve either Livy, who tells
of Attalus being escorted fromR ome with honor, or Polybius, who reports that the sen
ate continued to display the same friendly attitude toward Attalus as late as 160-159.11
-
Another difficulty encountered by the traditional interpretation thatA ttalus re
-
quested Aenus and Maronea for himself arises from the status those cities held at that
moment. After theR oman victory at Pydna, Thrace, which was west of theH ebros, was
incorporated inM acedon.12 Maronea and Aenus layw ithin the borders of the firsto f the
their Rivals" (as in n. 4), 333 n. 25: "they promised him the Thracian cities Aenus and Maronea as
a gift"); R. M. Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World, 323-30 B. C. (Oxford and Maiden,
Mass., 2008), 262: the senators granted "his request forA inos and Maroneia, now that the Kingdom
of Macedon had been demolished."
6 E.g., Walbank, Commentary (as in n. 5), 3:419: "whether these cities were to form a separate do
main or were to be held as a dorea within the kingdom of Pergamum (though anomalously as a gift
from Rome, not Eumenes) is obscure." See also E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hell?nistique,
323-30 av. J.-C. (Nancy, 1967), 2:245-246, who approached this information very cautiously.
7 Polyb. 30.1.9-30.2.10; Liv. 45.19.4-17. Pace Hansen, Attalids2 (as in n, 5), 122. There does not seem
to be any reliable evidence to support a claim that the senators urged Attalus to usurp the royal power
of Eumenes II: R. E. Allen, The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History (Oxford, 1983), 4.
8 Polyb. 30.2.10; Liv. 45.20.1-2.
9 E. g., Hansen, Attalids2 (as in n. 5), 122, 127; J. Hopp, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten
Attaliden (Munich, 1977), 14 (with n. 52).
10 E. g., S. Dmitriev, "Three Notes on Attalid History," Klio 81 (1999), 406-407.
11 Liv. 45.20.3; Polyb. 32.1.7.
12 E. g., J.M . R. Cormack, "Thace," OCD3 1515.
108 SVIATOSLAV DmITRIEV
four divisions (u?prO of the post-war Macedon, all of which were established by the
Romans. But theyw ere excluded from this u?po?13 because, in the opinion of modern
scholars, theR omans acknowledged them as free cities.14 If these were free cities, and
if they did not belong to the Pergamene kingdom when Attalus made his request before
the senate, how could the senators have viewed this request as damaging Eumenes
IPs interests? Some, therefore, have directly connected Attalus' request forA enus and
Maronea with the prospect of founding a separate kingdom for himself. This was to have
been established inT hrace, i. e. side by side with the Pergamene realm. Others did not
see any connection between Attalus' request and the prospect of a separate kingdom;
in their opinion, a prospective kingdom of Attalus was to be organized at the expense
of that of Eumenes II. Hence Hermann Tr?nkle believed thatA ttalus' request forA enus
and Maronea was only expected to precede the foundation of a separate kingdom for
himself,15 and Jean-Marie Bertrand spoke of this kingdom as one to be established next
to that of Eumenes II,16 whereas Benedictus Niese and Frank Walbank found it pos
sible that a future kingdom of Attalus could be set up within the territorial limits of the
Pergamene realm.17 In what might look like an attempt at a compromise, Erich Gruen
suggested that the senators also promised Attalus some territory inA sia Minor,18 so
thatA enus and Maronea were only one part of the senatorial "package" toA ttalus. But
with regard to the first opinion, why did Attalus request only two cities and not a whole
territory as his kingdom? And why, then, was he both welcomed home by Eumenes
II and promoted by him to the position of co-ruler? And as for the second, why, then,
did Attalus request Aenus and Maronea, which lay beyond the borders of his brother's
kingdom, if the senatorial plan was to partition the Pergamene kingdom? Finally, there
13 Diod. 31.8.8 (7r?,f)vx ? 7ip?? "A??rjpav Kai Map(6veiav Kai A?vov 7i6?,?i?).
14 E. g., B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht von
Chaeronea, vol. 3 (Gotha, 1903), 130 n. 1, 180 n. 3 (though with reference to Plin. AW 4.42, which
cannot support this conclusion); E. Oberhummer, "Maroneia," RE 14.2 (1930), 1913; A. H. M.
Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford, 1940), 130; Will, Histoire politique du
monde hell?nistique (as in n. 6), 238; Hammond, "Reigns" (as in n. 5), 564. Pace Chr. M. Danov,
"Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zur Gr?ndung Konstantinopels,"
in ANRW II.7.1 (Berlin and New York, 1979), 99-100, who raised neither the problem of the (free)
status of Aenus and Maronea after both theA pamean settlement and the Roman partition ofM acedon,
nor that of the competition between theM acedonian and Attalid dynasties over these cities.
15 Tr?nkle, Livius und Polybios (as in n. 4), 156: "So habe er im Senat lediglich die Bitte vorgebracht,
ihm die St?dte Ainos und Maroneia, die Philipp unter makedonische Herrschaft gebracht hatte, zu
?berlassen" and "Der Senat habe dem zugestimmt in der sicheren Erwartung, Attalos werde den
Wunsch nach einer separaten Herrschaft sp?ter eigens vorbringen."
16 J.-M. Bertrand, "Territoire donn?, territoire attribu?: note sur la pratique de l'attribution dans le
monde imp?rial de Rome," Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 2 (1991), 146: "Attale put imaginer
qu'on lui permettrait de cr?er un nouveau royaume ? c?t? de celui de son fr?re avec les territoires
de la c?te nord de l'Eg?e enlev?s ? Pers?e."
17 Niese, Geschichte (as in n. 14), 200: "Man redete ihm zu, die Auftr?ge seines Bruders zu vergessen,
f?r sich selbst zu sorgen und einen Teil des pergamenischen K?nigreichs zu erbitten ... Der Senat
... versprach ihm die thrakischen K?stenst?dte Aenos und Maroneia"; Walbank, Commentary (as
in n. 5), 3:419 (see n. 6 above).
18 Gruen, Hellenistic World (as in n. 4), 573 (see n. 5 above). Cf. Niese, Geschichte (as in n. 14), 202.
Attalus' Request for the Cities of Aenus and Maronea in 167 B.C. 109
is no evidence that the senators gave (or even promised) Attalus any other territorya side
from Aenus and Maronea.
There is no reason to doubt that the senatorial plan, which Attalus himself might
have entertained at one time,w as to partition the Pergamene kingdom between Eumenes
II and Attalus. Polybius and Livy make this clear on two occasions: when the physician
Stratius persuaded Attalus to remain loyal to his reigning brother; and when Attalus, hav
ing requested Aenus and Maronea from the senate, leftw ithout challenging his brother's
position, contrary to the expectation of the senators. In the firsto f these episodes, as de
scribed by Polybius, Stratius convinced Attalus that ifh e continued quarrelling with his
brother, he would ruin the kingdom, depriving both brothers of their kingdom and their
rule in it (crcepfioei 8? Kai xo\)? ??eta|)o\)? xfj?? p%fj? Kai xfj?? v a\)xr\S Dvaoxeia?). Ac
cording toL ivy, Stratius advised Attalus to preserve what he would undoubtedly rule one
day (quod haud ambiguum prope diem regnaturum), as Eumenes II was in poor health
and childless. Stratius pleaded with Attalus to preserve his brother's kingdom (servasse
fratri regnum) and wondered whether Attalus was trying to secure a part of the kingdom
for himself or deprive his brother of thew hole (utrum enim partem regni petiturum esse,
an totum erepturumT), warning him that either step would doom both brothers, as well
as their kingdom.19 The danger, therefore,w as not in establishing another kingdom but
in splitting the Pergamene kingdom into two parts. In the second episode, Polybius says
thatA ttalus "also spoke about Aenus andM aronea, thinking itw orthy if theyw ere given
to him as a gift.A s tow hat he had been about to say against Eumenes II and about the
partition of the kingdom (Kepi %ox> \ie?>ig\iox)T fj? ?p%fj? ei? x?Xoc) he did not utter a
word." In Livy's text,o nce Attalus asked forA enus andM aronea, "after disappointing the
hopes of those who had supposed that he would accuse his brother and seek a partition
of the kingdom (partitionem regni), he left the senate house."20 Thus, the senatorial plan
was to divide the Pergamene kingdom between the two brothers; they did not necessarily
wish to establish a separate kingdom forA ttalus. Since Aenus and Maronea were free
cities, the grant ofA enus andM aronea had nothing to do with the prospect of dividing the
Pergamene kingdom in two.A nd ifA ttalus requested these cities as part of the senatorial
plan to establish a separate kingdom for him, why were the senators disappointed in the
end? The same conclusion follows from the run of Polybius' and Livy's narratives: the
senators expected Attalus to raise the topic of partitioning the kingdom after he asked for,
and received, Aenus and Maronea. The information from Polybius and Livy, therefore,
contradicts them odern opinion thatA ttalus requested Aenus and Maronea in connection
with a plan to establish his own kingdom, as the senators wished. We should treat these
two stories separately from each other.
Why, then, did Attalus ask forA enus and Maronea in the firstp lace? His request
was prompted by a competition over these important cities; one which started soon after
theA pamean settlement (188) between the rulers of Pergamum and Macedon.21 Once
19 Polyb. 30.2.2, 9; Liv. 45.19.11, 14, 15.
20 Polyb. 30.3.3^4- (see n. 3 above); Liv. 45.20.2.
21 For the overall view of the importance of Aenus and Maronea in helping to secure the supervision
over Thrace and Macedonia: Polyb. 5.34.8. Their economic importance: A. M. Eckstein, Rome Enters
the Greek East (Maiden, Mass., and Oxford, 2008), 164, 345 n. 9.
110 SVIATOSLAV DmITRIEV
the Romans defeated Antiochus III, Aenus and Maronea were declared free under the
provisions of this settlement.22 But Philip V ofM acedon appropriated several Thracian
cities, including Maronea. Representatives of both Philip V and Eumenes II laid their
sovereigns' claims to these cities before theR oman commissioners sent to the East in
185.23 In Livy's words, the envoys of Eumenes II insisted that these two cities, which
had belonged toA ntiochus III, "should fall as prizes of war (praemia belli) toE umenes
rather than to Philip."24 Praemia belli was a standard Roman expression for rewards
to the victor of a war or in a battle. We see it inm any Roman texts,25 including that of
Livy. He often uses this phrase in reference to territories in both thew est and the east
(such as Sicily and Sardinia, Zacynthus, Messene and Elis, or Egypt),26 emphasizing
that at the end of thew ar everyone receives rewards or punishments, according to his
merit.27W hen the envoys of Eumenes II claimed thatA enus and Maronea "should fall
as prizes of war {praemia belli) toE umenes rather than to Philip," because of Eumenes
II's merit as a Roman ally in thew ar, theyw ere referring to the outcome of theA pamean
settlement.28 The nature of this settlement thus appears to have been the distribution to
Roman allies, of parts of the territoryc onquered by Rome fromA ntiochus III as "prizes
of war." Yet, when Philip objected to Eumenes' claim, he was also referring to the
Apamean settlement, though in a differentw ay: he asked when Eumenes had received
Aenus and Maronea, and whether they were actually included in what Eumenes was
supposed to obtain through theA pamean settlement.29T he point was well taken, because
theR omans had made no official decision about awarding the two cities to theA ttalids.
Therefore, the best argument the envoys of Eumenes II could offerw as that since the ten
commissioners of 188 gave Eumenes theC hersonese and Lysimachea (after theR oman
war against Antiochus III was over), "they certainly gave him Aenus and Maronea as
well, for these two places owing to their proximity formed appendages as itw ere of the
larger gift."30 Such considerations were not convincing, because both cities lay far to the
west of Gallipoli; Maronea was fully one hundred miles west. As a result, theR oman
envoys came up with the following three options: (i) if these cities had been assigned
22 E. g., Liv. 37.60.7, 39.27.2; B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit
der Schlacht von Chaeronea, vol. 2 (Gotha, 1899), 75; Bertrand, "Territoire donn?, territoire attribu?"
(as in n. 16), 146 n. 111; Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East (as in n. 21), 345 n. 9, 354 n. 45.
23 Polyb. 22.11.2. See the same topic raised during the negotiations in 184-183: Polyb. 23.1.1-4, 23.3.
24 Liv. 39.27.3 (see n. 28 below).
25 E. g., Caes. B. C. 2.32.11; Lucan. B. C. 1.341, 5.246 and 330; Sallust. Cat. 21.1; Sen. De benef. 3.37;
Sil. Ital. Pun. 3.149; Stat. Theb. 8.592; Tac. Hist. 2.86, 3.37, 5.16; Tibull. Eleg. 2.5.115; Val. Flacc.
Arg. 2.14.
26 Liv. 2.24.2, 21.40.5 (Sicily and Sardinia), 35.49.13, 36.32.1-9 (Zacynthus), 42.37.9 (Messene and
Elis), 44.24.6 (Egypt).
27 Liv. 8.12.1 : "the war being thus dispatched and rewards and penalties distributed in accordance with
everyone's merits (ita bello gesto, praemiis poenaque pro cuiusque merito persolutis)."
28 Liv. 39.27.3-4: multo verius esse quae sub Antiocho fuerint praemia belli Eumenem quam Philip
pum habere, vel pro paths Attali meritis bello, quod adversus Philippum ipsum gesserit populus
Romanus, vel suis, quod Antiochi bello terra marique laboribus periculisque omnibus interfuerit.
29 Liv. 39.28.12: ubi tandem Aenus etM aronea et Thraciae civitates adscriptae sunt?
30 Liv. 39.27.5: qui cum Chersonesum Lysimachiamque dederint, Maroneam quoque atque Aenum
profecto d?disse, quae ipsa propinquitate regionis velut appendices maioris muneris essent.
Attalus' Request for the Cities of Aenus and Maronea in 167 B.C. Ill
to Eumnes II (decreto Eumeni datae civitates eae es sent), no change would be made;
(ii) ifP hilip captured them during the war, he should hold them as "prizes of victory
under the law of war" (praemium victoriae iure belli habiturum), which was a reflec
tion of the standard Roman practice that the spoils of war (spolia, praeda) belonged to
the victor; and (iii) if neither of the two was true, them atter was to be referred to the
-
senate.31 The decision of the Roman envoys which was also based on the principle
-
that lay at base of theA pamean settlement once again shows that this settlement took
the form of distributing and acknowledging "prizes of war."
Eumenes II did not receive Aenus and Maronea in 185. Philip V used his support
ers from among theM aronites tom ake Eumenes' partisans flee. Polybius mentions that
the people of Aenus were also divided into pro-Attalid and pro-Macedonian factions,
whereas, according toL ivy, Philip controlled both cities.32A lthough Philip had to evacu
ate Aenus and Maronea late in the 180s,33 the two cities appear to have been back under
Macedonian control by the late 170s: Aenus and Maronea refused to open their harbors
to theR oman navy in them idst of theT hird Macedonian war.34 Then, as we have seen
above, once the Romans defeated Perseus and abolished the royal power inM acedon,
they (again) proclaimed Aenus and Maronea free cities.35 Eumenes II, with the help of
Attalus, found another opportunity to request these cities in the 160s. On what grounds?
These appear to have been the same as in 185. Attalus' request forA enus and Maronea
on behalf of the Pergamene kingdom was again based on them erits of the Pergamene
kingdom's actions in theR oman war against Antiochus III. These merits were not small.
In particular, Eumenes let the decisive cavalry charge atM agnesia by the Sipylus in early
189, which had turned the tide of the battle forR ome and her allies.36 In Polybius' words,
Attalus described his services toR ome in thew ar against Perseus; begged the senators
to send legates to stop the revolt of the Galatians; and spoke of Aenus and Maronea,
requesting them for himself, "thinking worthy if they are given to him as a gift." Livy
informs us thatA ttalus firstw ent over his merits and those of his brother in the war
against Perseus (sua m?rita eo bello fratrisque); then he touched upon the revolt of the
Galatians, requesting a Roman diplomatic intervention; and then he asked forA enus
-
and Maronea.37 From this point of view, the words of both Polybius and Livy that
-
Attalus requested the two cities "for himself should not have implied a distinction
31 Liv. 39.29.1-2.
32 Polyb. 22.6.1-2, 22.6.7 (discord inA enus), 22.11.2 (envoys from both cities, as well as from Philip
and from Eumenes); Liv. 3.24.9 (Philip holds both cities), 39.24.10 (Philip's envoys), 39.27.1-6 (the
envoys of theM aronites testifying to the Roman commissioners that Philip's soldiers were dispersed
throughout the city, while his friends occupied positions of power). Cf. Walbank, Commentary (as
in n. 5), 3:184; Gruen, Hellenistic World (as in n. 4), 551 dated these embassies to 186.
33 E.g., Polyb. 23.8.1-2; R. B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum (Urbana,
1964), 157-158 (with n. 29).
34 E. g., B. Lenk, "Thrake (Geschichte)," RE 6 A.l (1936), 438; Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East
(as in n. 21), 354 n. 45.
35 See nn. 12-14 above.
36 Cf. Polyb. 21.20.10. See esp. McShane, Foreign Policy (as in n. 33), 146 (and n. 199); Hansen, At
talids2 (as in n. 5), 86-87; Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East (as in n. 21), 332.
37 Polyb. 30.3.1^1 (at 30.3.3; see also nn. 3 and 20 above) and Liv. 45.20.1-3 (see n. 11 above). Cf.
Polyb. 30.3.3; Liv. 45.20.2 (see n. 3 above).
112 SVIATOSLAV DmITRIEV
between Attalus' requests on behalf of the Pergamene kingdom and those for himself,
as has typically been assumed.38 During his stay inR ome, Attalus petitioned the senate
on the basis of the evidence he produced about the Pergamene kingdom's good service
to Rome, thus renewing the old contest over the Thracian cities in a situation thatw as
now more favorable to theA ttalid cause: he asked for them, using the particularly op
portune moment of Perseus' defeat.
The infamous address to the senate by Prusias II of Bithynia offers another illus
tration of this situation. Prusias, who arrived inR ome later in the same year (167) and
for a similar reason (to request a territorial enhancement of his kingdom), also "offered
congratulations on the [Roman] victory; recited his services in thew ar (m?rita sua in
eo hello commemoravit)" and "asked that the alliance with him should be renewed,
and that the land taken fromK ing Antiochus, which had been assigned to no one by the
Roman People and was being held by Galatians (quern nulli datum a populo Romano
Galli possiderent) should be given to him."39 The Roman response to Prusias' request
is worth quoting here in full:
The answer was that envoys would be sent to look them atter over; if this land
belonged to theR oman people and had been given to no one, theyw ould consider
Prusias most worthy of receiving it as a gift (si is ager populi Romani fuisset ne
cuiquam datus esset, dignissimum eo dono Prusiam habituros esse). If, on the other
hand, itw as shown not to have belonged toA ntiochus, and therefore not to have
come into the possession of theR oman people (si autem Antiochi non fuisse et eo
ne populi quidem Romani factum appareret), or that it had been presented to the
Galatians (aut datum Gallis esse), then Prusias must pardon the Roman people if
theyw ere unwilling tow rong anyone in the process of making him a present (si ex
nullius iniuria quidquam ei datum vellet populus Romanus). A gift, said the senate,
could not be pleasing even to the recipient, if he knew that the giver would take it
away again whenever he pleased (Ne cui detur quidem, gratum esse donum posse,
quod eum qui det, ubi velit, ablaturum esse sciat).40
Livy says that he had been relying only on Roman sources before turning to the text
of Polybius, which Livy then used exclusively for his story about the self-degrading
behavior of Prusias II before the senate.41 Because Livy's information regarding the
request of Prusias and the senate's response to him comes from Roman sources, this
38 For this interpretation, see the bibliography cited in n. 5 above.
39 Liv. 45.44.8-9.
40 Liv. 45.44.10-12.
41 Liv. 45.44.19: "Such is the account of Prusias given by our writers. Polybius reports that this king
was unworthy of so high a title" etc. (Haec de Prusia nostri scriptores. Polybius eum regem in
dignum maiestate nominis tanti tradit etc.). For Prusias' degrading behavior in front of the senate:
Polyb. 30.18, 30.19.16, and C. Habicht, "Prusias II.," RE 22.2 (1957), 1111 on the two versions of
this episode, one being traced to Polybius, whereas the other is thought to have been derived from
"annalistic sources" (with further references to ancient texts). For different interpretations of Prusias'
behavior: A. C. Scafuro, "Prusias II of Bithynia and Third Party Arbitration," Historia 36 (1987),
28-37 and A. M. Eckstein, "Rome, theW ar with Perseus, and Third Party Mediation," Historia 37
(1988), 414-444.
Attalus' Request for the Cities of Aenus and Maronea in 167 B.C. 113
information reflects how theR omans treated the territorial requests of their allies. Livy's
account - and it is the only one thatw e have about Prusias' request - does not show
thatP rusias asked for a "gift"; thew ord "gift" (donum) ism entioned only in the senato
rial response, indicating once again thatw hat we see in this instance reflected standard
Roman practices and vocabulary. Thus, both Eumenes II (with the help of Attalus) and
Prusias II (in person) tried to use the fall of theM acedonian kingdom in the early 160s
to convince the senators to adjust the outcome of theA pamean settlement on the basis of
them erits of their respective kingdoms in theR oman war against Antiochus theG reat.
The senators, however, considered any territorial enhancement a gift thatw as merely
showing Roman goodwill.
Being aware of the senators' displeasure with Eumenes and of their plans for
himself, Attalus could have used their sentiment to gain territorial advantages for the
Pergemene kingdom. It is a worthy speculation that the precedent of Demetrius, the
younger son of Philip V, who came toR ome on an official visit in 184, might still have
been remembered by some senators in the early 160s. All of Demetrius' requests (that is,
those made by Philip V in the interests of theM acedonian kingdom) had been granted
by the senators, because the senators expected to put Demetrius on the throne, either
instead of Philip V or after him, in circumvention of Demetrius' elder brother Perseus.42
Hence, the senators expressly proclaimed that fulfilling requests formulated by Philip
and presented by Demetrius was "a favor granted toD emetrius," which was, of course,
an (intended) offense to both Philip and Perseus.43 A similar attitude can be extrapolated
toA ttalus' visit to Rome: the fact that the senators granted his request forA enus and
Maronea does not mean that they saw it as a separatist move. The senators only showed
that they favored him over his brother and expected that he would then request a part
of theA ttalid kingdom for himself. Once the senators' expectations were dashed, they
revoked their grant, thus damaging the interests of Eumenes II.
Finally, it is true thatP olybius and Livy approach the episode of Attalus' request in
167 in two differentw ays: Polybius speaks of a Roman "gift" toA ttalus, which was then
taken away by the senate, whereas Livy, who never uses thew ord "gift," says only that
Attalus requested (petit) the two cities and provides no information about the senators'
subsequent decision on the status of those cities.44 But both Livy and Polybius connect
Attalus' request with his reference to them erits of the Pergamene ruling family, thus
acknowledging the principle of the reward matching them erit. The case of Aenus and
Maronea shows that the principles and the vocabulary of theA pamean settlement could
be extended to other territories as well.45 It is not surprising, therefore, that the senate
originally consented toA ttalus' request: the senators saw nothing unusual or wrong in
42 Polyb. 23.2.1-11, 23.3.4-9 and, in general, F. Witek, Die "B?hne des Schicksals." Demetrios von
Makedonien inH istoriographie und Drama (Salzburg, 2001), 11-25.
43 Polyb. 23.2.10 and 23.3.6, respectively. Here, too, Livy made significant alterations tow hat he found
in Polybius; see esp. J. Briscoe, "Polybius, Livy, and the Disaster in theM acedonian Royal House,"
in Corolla Cosmo Rodewald, ed. N. Sekunda (Gdansk, 2007): 115-119.
44 E. g., Tr?nkle, Livius und Polybios (as in n. 4), 156-157; Habicht, "Seleucids and their Rivals" (as
in n. 4), 333 n. 25 (see n. 5 above).
45 Cf. Liv. 38.39.9: as part of theA pamean settlement, "to the Clazomenians, in addition to immunity,
they gave the island of Drymussa as a gift (dono dederunt)."
114
SVIATOSLAV DmITRIEV
Attalus' request forA enus and Maronea in 167, because Attalus was formally applying
the principles and vocabulary of the Romans. But to the senators, any gift was only a
sign of Roman goodwill; hence the senators gave Aenus and Maronea toA ttalus, only
to take them away and set them free. The case of these two cities further confirms that
the difference in how Polybius and Livy described the territorial aspect of theA pamean
settlement cannot be reduced tom ere matters of terminology, and explained simply as
a Greek misinterpretation of Roman legal terms.46
Conclusions
The evidence collected and presented here leads to two conclusions. The first is that
therew as no actual connection between Attalus' request forA enus and Maronea and the
senate's intent to split the Pergamene kingdom between him and Eumenes II. In fact,
Attalus made this request in the interest, and surely according to the instructions, of his
reigning brother. Livy's "for himself meant "as a special sign of favor for himself, not
as an independent kingdom for himself, and as opposed to letting these cities remain with
Macedon": Attalus' request wound up two decades of competition between theA ttalids
and the kings of Macedon over control of these cities. The second conclusion is that
Attalus' request forA enus and Maronea shows that theA pamean settlement took the
form of Romans' distributing the newly conquered territories as "gifts" toR oman allies,
according to their "merit" in the Roman war against Antiochus III. This was standard
Roman practice and theR omans used their own terms to describe it.
Ball State University Sviatoslav Dmitriev
Department of History
BurkhardtR oom 200
Muncie, IN 47306
[email protected]
46 E.g., H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen
Rhodos (Berlin, 2002), 286-288. Examining the meaning of the word "gift" in this context goes
beyond the limits of this short article; for this problem, see esp. M. Holleaux, Etudes d'?pigraphie
et d'histoire grecques, 6 vols., ed. L. Robert (Paris, 1938-1968), 5:421; D. Magie, Roman Rule in
Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 955; H. H. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos (Munich, 1957), 99-105; M.
W?rrle, "Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens: II," Chiron 8 (1978), 207-225 (with
notes); A. Bresson, "Rhodes, Cnide et les Lyciens au d?but du Ile si?cle av. J.-C.," R?A 100 (1998),
66-77.
