Выбрать главу

The silphium-fields were situated, apparently, mainly in the southern region. Theophrastus[95] testifies that the plant flowered when the flocks were in the same area, i.e. in the winter, and Arrian writes that though not cultivated, it was necessary to fence it to protect it from the livestock.[96] Strict supervision of the seasonal movement of the flocks was thus imperative to safeguard the silphium as a source of income, so that if the Battiads controlled this branch, it was essential to them to control flock-rearing as well. A careful balance was in fact needed between the two branches, since not only the wool-trade, but also the fertility of the arable areas of the north depended on the condition of the flocks.

There was, however, a limit to the development of this “symbiosis” of flock-rearing, silphium and the arable of the plateau. When settlement expanded on the plateau, and arable began to extend southward to the accompaniment of the pasturing of flocks whose origin was on the Jebel itself, fewer areas remained to the flocks of the southern nomads for summer-grazing, a situation that was apt to prejudice the Greek cultivator when he wished to send his own flock southward to graze the steppe. This situation would produce clashes between the nomads and the settled cultivators, and cause a decline in the organic content of the arable soils of the plateau.

The expansion of Greek settlement under Battus II led to an extension of the corn-growing link in the symbiosis of flock-rearing, silphium and arable, for we know from the text of the “Stele of the Founders” at Cyrene, that vacant tracts were distributed to the new settlers.[97] Whatever was the cause of the quarrel between Arkesilaos and his brothers, then, it would seem that the reason for the founding of Barka was a desire to perpetuate the squirelike cooperation of the nobility with the more permanently settled element among the Libyans (perhaps those who had suffered from the ἀναδασμὸς γῆς of Battus II) on the basis of local cattle-rearing and corn-growing in the Barka Plain. Furthermore the execution or exile of the aristocracy by Arkesilaos would have meant the confiscation of their estates and the growth of the royal lands. Even if we suppose that the King’s brother Polyarchus restored the former political situation,[98] we have no means of knowing if this included the restoration of the confiscated lands to the aristocrats or to their heirs, and if this was done, the process may not have been completed, for with regard to the reforms of Demonax, Herodotus tells us,[99] that only religious functions and τεμένεα were left to Battus I, meaning that additional lands till then held by the monarchy now passed into other hands.[100]

We may obtain additional information on the policy of Arkesilaos II if we assume, with other enquirers,[101] that the oracle given by Delphi, cited by Diodorus[102] as concerning the transgressions of one Arkesilaos, was directed to him, and this is credible, since Arkesilaos III gained from Delphi qualified support.[103] The oracle accused Arkesilaos II of deserting the ways of Battus II, of seizing the revenues of the state and of diminishing the piety owed to the gods. We can understand the second and third charges, if we examine the economic policy of his ally and contemporary, Amasis of Egypt. Amasis relied on a mercenary force,[104] inaugurated a property census in order to impose taxation,[105] and confiscated temple revenue.[106] His pro-hellenic policy was indeed closely bound up with the development of Egypt’s overseas trade,[107] and it was in Arkesilaos’ reign that the introduction of coinage into Cyrenaica took place,[108] meaning that her external trade began to develop more intensively, concomitantly with the royal interest in the export of wheat, wool and silphium, and, in all probability, in agricultural intensification (vines, olives and perfume-producing plants). For this the King would have exploited the sequestrated lands of the aristocracy on which to settle the mercenaries of whom Plutarch speaks;[109] lands might also have been allocated to the peasants whose farms had been lost owing to the negative effects of the introduction of coinage, i.e. of the rise in the prices of craft-products in contrast to the prices of agricultural produce, which would have remained as before.[110] We have no decisive proof of a royal policy of this sort, but it is probably in view of the general tyrannical trend of Amasis and Arkesilaos, who, it is important to recall, enjoyed till his death the support of the majority of the citizens of Cyrene, seven thousand of whom died for his cause at the battle of Leukon.[111] It is further necessary to explain who were the people who received the grant of citizenship from Demonax. Even if the restoration of the status quo by Polyarchos had not caused them to be deprived of their rights, Demonax would have found it necessary to create new Cyrenean tribes composed of the settlers who had responded to Battus’ invitation, since the losses of Leukon had to be made good, and it is clear from the language of the “Stele of the Founders” that those newcomers who had received land — or at least the Therans amongst them, — had also, in the first place, received citizenship.

Yet Arkesilaos’ situation had been difficult. On the one hand the maintenance and extension of the threefold symbiosis — flocks, silphium and arable — was rendered necessary by growing economic commercialization, and this depended on the strict safeguarding of the balance between the three branches. But the growth of the population, as a result of the settlement of mercenaries and overseas colonists, the bearers of the small intensive farm unit — led to the restriction of the pastoral areas of the plateau, and to growing hostility on the part of the nomadic elements, on whose loyalty the harvesting of the silphium depended, and on the part of the settled Libyans, whose lands were continually being diminished. The conflict between the expansion of the symbiosis and the extended colonization needed for the political strengthening and physical realization of this policy, led ultimately also to a clash with aristocratic owners of extensively farmed estates, to the battle of Leukon and to the death of Arkesilaos. Demonax found a solution to the situation by granting citizenship to the permanently settled Libyans (the περίοικοι), and by confirming or restoring the rights of the recently arrived Greek colonists. If the nobles recovered their estates at his insistence, we cannot tell; he certainly restored lands to elements whom we cannot define.

вернуться

95

HP IV, 3, 1.

вернуться

96

Anab., III, 28.

вернуться

97

SEG 9, 3: πολίτηίας καὶ τιμᾶμ πεδέχ[εν] καὶ γᾶς ἀδεσπότω ἀπολάγχανεν.

вернуться

98

Plut., de mul. virt., (Eryxo), 260 sqq.

вернуться

99

Herod. IV, 161.

вернуться

100

I am grateful to Professor D. Asheri for drawing my attention to Will’s study of this problem. (REA 59, 1957, pp. sqq.) He interprets Battus II’s division of land as the allotment of areas recently acquired, and not as the reassignment of soil already owned by Greeks (as opposed to the view of G. Thompson, Studies in Ancient Greek Society, I, 1949, pp. 249 sqq.) Will inclines to see the terms used in Herodotus’ account of the reforms of De-monax (loc. cit., n. 6; Herod. IV, 161 — τά ἀλλα πάντα) as applying both to the functions and estates which were taken from the king. (“L’interprétation de ce passage en termes de biens fonciers me parait la plus immediate”).

вернуться

101

Thrige, RC, para. 37.

вернуться

102

VIII, 30.

вернуться

103

Herod. IV, 163.

вернуться

104

Herod. II, 154.

вернуться

105

Herod. II, 177.

вернуться

106

Herod. II, 174.

вернуться

107

Herod. II, 178.

вернуться

108

BMC, p. xxviii.

вернуться

109

De mul. virt., 261 c.

вернуться

110

GS I, 176 sq.

вернуться

111

See p. 17.