History of the Ancient World, volume two - Hellenism in Asia Minor. policies and civil-temple communities during the Hellenistic period

Hellenism in Western Asia. policies and civil-temple communities during the Hellenistic period

The city, as an organization of free citizens who had certain economic and political privileges, played an important role in the social structure of the countries of Western Asia during the Hellenistic period. Alexander's successors added many new ones to the old Greek and eastern urban centers. There is information that Seleucus I founded 33 cities. Of course, most cities were not built from scratch. Usually, some local settlement was chosen, conveniently located in military and commercial terms, it was expanded, rebuilt, declared a polis and renamed in honor of the founding king or his relatives: this is how Seleucipus, Antioch, Apamea, Stratonicea appeared (the last two are named after the queens ) etc. Macedonian veterans and Greek colonists settled in these cities, and the local population became their citizens - either those who had lived here before, or those resettled from surrounding towns. The most developed civil-temple communities (for example, in Babylonia, Palestine) retained their structure, and their position in relation to the royal power was equated to the position of the poleis.

Urban development was not only the result of government policy. This process began in the pre-Hellenistic period and continued over a number of subsequent centuries; the kings simply had to recognize the existing situation, granting that city the status of a polis. Polis names such as “Horse Village”, “Sacred Village” show that some cities arose from villages. Each self-governing civil collective had a certain territory under its control. From most of the cities that were part of the Hellenistic monarchies, the kings levied taxes - cash or in kind (traditionally they were tithes). In addition to the policies and civil-temple communities, within the Hellenistic monarchies there were territories that were governed by the inheritance of another priesthood; the kings recognized the internal isolation of such territories (for example, Pessinunta in Asia Minor), but collected taxes from them into the royal treasury and, to a certain extent, controlled their activities. The policies sought to include the neighboring temple territories in their district, and the kings encouraged them in this. Thus, a long-term dispute between Mil Asa and the priest of the temple in the town of Labraupda is known: each of the parties claimed to control this town. Finally, the Seleucids (and then the Macedonian king Philip V, who invaded these areas) approved the annexation of Labraunda to Milas.

The kings - both the Seleucids and the Attalids, and representatives of local dynasties - increased the land holdings of cities through donations and sales of royal land, as well as by annexing smaller cities to larger ones. The creation of large city centras facilitated the collection of taxes, since taxes were collected from city territories by policy officials, who then transferred part of it to the royal treasury. But the tsars’ support for cities is explained not only by financial considerations: the traditional urban civil society was the most convenient form of organizing the free population among dependent exploited farmers. During the period of strengthening of the Hellenistic monarchies (III century BC), these organizations served as the support of the king and the conductor of his will. The kings sought to put the internal life of the city under their control, the methods of which were different: the placement of military garrisons, direct supervision with the help of special epistatal officials located in the cities; letters of instructions from kings addressed to cities. There were also indirect methods of intervention: cities granted citizenship to Macedonian military leaders, royal associates, and even the kings themselves. During Alexander's lifetime, Antigonus received citizenship in Priene; The city of Bargilia made Antiochus I his citizen; some cities granted civil rights to “friends of the Tsar.” As a rule, these persons received a number of other privileges: for example, an important privilege was the right to enter the bule (council) and the people's assembly first after making sacrifices. Using this right, the “friends of the Tsar” could be the first to speak at meetings, influencing the mood of the citizens.

In the Hellenistic states of Western Asia, royal cults were widespread to a lesser extent than in Egypt. However, the Seleucids claimed descent from Apollo - in order to give a "divine" character to their dynasty. In some policies, cults of individual kings were established for services rendered; There were also private associations of admirers of the royal cult (for example, admirers of Eumenes II): in addition to political motives, belief in the supernatural abilities of rulers (especially those who won victories over their opponents), the hope of finding patron gods in them instead of the previous ones, played a role in the establishment of such cults , who were losing the trust of the city gods.

During the heyday of the Seleucid power, which lasted until the beginning of the 2nd century. BC, a relatively strong alliance between the central government and the cities, and the use of katekii to control rural areas ensured the systematic exploitation of the masses of the rural population. During this period, we can trace a certain growth in productive forces on royal and urban lands, and the introduction of new agricultural crops. The Seleucids tried to cultivate Indian balsam; in Babylonia and Susiana, according to Strabo, rice and new varieties of grapes were bred. The Hellenistic polis was a more complex social structure than the classical polis. The Hellenistic polis controlled the rural territory, part of which was owned by citizens, part of which constituted the public fund of the city (pastures that citizens could use for a fee; lands leased); in addition, the territory where villages and various types of settlements were located was assigned to the policy, the inhabitants of which did not enjoy civil rights, were subordinate to city officials and paid taxes to the city in money or in kind. Sometimes a large polis dominated over smaller ones, which retained internal autonomy and paid taxes to the dominant city. In the dependent policies there were officials sent there from the dominant policy.

The largest cities were independent states. In this regard, the history of the Asia Minor possessions of Rhodes is indicative, in the total extent of which (including some islands) it could compete at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC with the Kingdom of Pergamum. Colonization of the Asia Minor coast by the Rhodians began in the 6th-5th centuries. BC These ancient colonies of Rhodes were fortresses, usually located on hills. from which it was possible to observe the coastline. After the formation of the Hellenistic states interested in an alliance with Rhodes, an important center of transit trade along the Aegean Sea, he significantly expanded his possessions. From Slevok II, as a reward for assistance in his war with Ptolemy III, Rhodes received the city of Stratopikea in Carium (in the southwest of Asia Minor) with adjacent lands. In the II century. BC, taking advantage of the difficult situation of the strategists who controlled the Asia Minor possessions of Egypt, Rhodes bought the city of Kaun (also in Caria) from them. Finally, for supporting Rome in the war against Antiochus III, the Rhodians were rewarded with most of Caria and Lycia, which had previously been under the rule of the Selscids. All these new possessions were governed by special officials sent from Rhodes - strategists, hegemons and epistates who had military, police and financial functions (they collected taxes from the dependent population).

The Hellenistic polis thus represented a hierarchy of communities. Rural communities in urban areas enjoyed some internal self-government (there was a village people's assembly), had a community fund and public lands (usually lands around sanctuaries), which were under the control of the communities: for example, in the inscription of one Malaya Azpy village located on the territory of the polis , refers to the village's decision to plant a sacred plot: the community member who grows at least three trees and keeps them in good condition for five years will be honored for this for the next five years at an annual festival. In addition, village residents made contributions for public needs (up to 100 drachmas). Farmers were personally free and had freedom of movement.

A characteristic feature of the Hellenistic city was the existence in it of different population groups - belonging to different nationalities, having different legal status. The civil collectives of the policies included both Greeks and Macedonians, as well as representatives of the local population: there were especially many of the latter in the newly founded policies and local cities that received the status of a policy. In Seleucia on the Tigris, a large number of Babylonians resettled there were noted; in Aptiokhip on the Orontes, Syrians lived alongside the Greeks; Antioch-Edessa in Upper Mesopotamia was called semi-barbarian by contemporaries. Citizens of Greek origin often adopted Hellenic names, but this was not the rule: in the sources there are references to representatives of the elite of the urban population (for example, ambassadors to the parish) who bore non-Greek names and patronymics.

During the Hellenistic period, migrations of some regions and cities to others continued. Individual settlers, for special services to the city, received full citizenship rights from the king (among them were persons of non-Greek origin); others received only the right to own land without political rights (permission for persons who are not citizens of the city to acquire land on its territory is one of the characteristic differences between the Hellenistic polis and the classical one); sometimes such a right to acquire land was mutually granted to all citizens of cities that agreed with each other. Migrants from rural areas or other cities, who did not receive any privileges, constituted a lower legal group of pareks - they had the right to live in the city and district but not acquire land ownership), took part in city festivities. Freedmen could become parecs; farmers who moved to the city and were included in the lists of pareks lost contact with the rural community. Sometimes settlers of the same nationality formed a special self-governing organization within the city - a polyteum. Such polytheums were formed by the Jews, perhaps also by the Syrians, in Antioch on the Orontes.

Hellenistic city-states concentrated a large number of slaves - private and public. Many slaves were servants in rich houses and worked in craft workshops. Public slaves were the lowest employees of the state apparatus and were used in construction. In the latter case, they received a small daily wage and clothing. Judging by the materials of the Asia Minor temple in Didyma, slaves received less than free workers (3 obols per day, while the lowest payment for a free worker was 4.5 obols). During the Hellenistic period, the transfer of slaves to “rents” continued - they ran independent households and paid certain contributions to their masters. The manumission of slaves was widespread; freedmen remained bound to their masters by certain obligations; sometimes, until the end of their days, they had to, as stated in the documents on their release to freedom, do “all the work that they did in slavery.” Children born to a slave before manumission remained slaves unless their emancipation was specifically negotiated. According to the laws of some policies, it was necessary to specifically stipulate the right of a freedman to freely leave the city. Sometimes freedmen paid off their duties with money. From among their freedmen and trusted slaves, rich people tended to recruit estate managers, workshop supervisors, and sales agents.

In addition to slaves and freedmen, free workers were used in public work, primarily in construction work, who were supplied by rural districts, where the development of commodity-money relations led to the ruin of farmers. Free artisans could also work in private workshops, and it is difficult to determine whose labor predominated - slaves or free ones. The internal self-government of the Hellenistic polis was similar in form to the self-government of the polis of the classical period. there was a national assembly, a bule (council), and elected officials. However, such an important democratic body as a court elected from among all citizens, in the period III - I centuries. was dying off. It was widespread to invite judges from other cities to examine internal disputes, which, given the stratification of the civil society, could not always be resolved on their own. Sometimes royal officials acted as judges.

Only a small number of cases were heard by elected judges.

In Hellenistic city-states, officials gradually began to play an increasingly greater role and the popular assembly began to play an increasingly smaller role. A number of positions, in particular some priestly positions, were sold. For the period III - I centuries. BC Characterized by a sharp stratification among the city's population. The existence of direct taxation in most policies founded in Asia contributed to this stratification. Debtors of the city treasury in a number of policies were deprived of their civil rights. This process was somewhat mitigated due to the presence of a public land fund that citizens could rent, and distributions that were more significant than in the previous period. Distributions were also made to the non-civilian population, sometimes to slaves, usually during city-wide religious festivals. Thus, non-citizens, who accumulated in large numbers in cities, were to some extent included in the life of the civil community.

During the Hellenistic period, civil-temple communities continued to develop in various regions of Western Asia. An example of such communities is the cities of Babylonia. In these cities there was a clearly defined civil society, formed as a result of the gradual merger of the wealthy sections of the city's population with the temple staff. At the indicated time, most of the members of this team were not actually temple servants: many artisans were noted among them; cuneiform contracts mention the owners of slaves and land (both inside and outside the city limits), but all these people were associated with the temple, in particular receiving allowances from it - a certain norm of food. The right to receive allowances was once associated with the performance of duties in favor of the temple. Already in more ancient times, this right was freely sold, and in parts (for example, one sixth or one twelfth of the right to allowances due on certain days of each month); During the period described, a woman could also buy the right to allowances associated with a male position. Thus, this right ceased to be associated with the performance of office and remained a privilege of members of the civil collective, which they could freely transfer to each other.

In the Babylonian cities there were assemblies, the chairman of which was the steward (shatammu) of the temples; These meetings resolved property issues, imposed fines, and provided honors to royal officials. Like the policies, such cities had a vast rural district, the lands of which were partly owned by citizens and partly cultivated by a dependent rural population who paid taxes to this temple city. Private lands received from the king could be assigned to such cities in the same way as to policies. In the Babylonian cities, as in a number of policies, there were royal officials - epistati (from local citizens).

Another type of civil-temple community was the Asia Minor associations around sanctuaries. We are well aware of one such city - Milas. Milasa is a famous religious center of the Carians; Herodotus wrote about it in the 5th century. BC e. The inhabitants of Milasa were divided into phylas, which were associations around temples. The Philae, in turn, were divided into syngenii - small communities that had a common sanctuary. The land of the sanctuary was the land of the community, and was distributed among the citizens, who elected officials. in charge of the “sacred” treasury. In the 4th century. BC Milasa is called a polis, but retains a number of specific features, in particular the comparative independence of phyla and syngenia.

The temple grounds were actually public land; land distribution took the form of rent. But the lease terms were relatively lenient in order to give access to land to poorer citizens; There was a collective lease, when the land was rented by the entire community as a whole, and then the plots were distributed among citizens. The example of the civil-temple communities of Asia Minor clearly shows that the public land fund was used to support low-income citizens. The Hellenistic period was characterized not only by the development of poleis and common civil temples, but also by the desire of all these self-governing cities to form closer unions among themselves, often with mutual citizenship (citizens of one city, moving to another, automatically received citizenship rights in it).

The existence of unions made it possible for cities to resist the pressure of Hellenistic rulers and more successfully develop their economies. A typical example of such a union in the eastern regions of the Mediterranean was the union of the cities of Likin. According to Strabo, this union included 23 cities. Representatives of the Lycian cities from time to time gathered in a city for a general council - the Sanhedrin. The largest cities had three votes in this Sanhedrin, the middle ones - two votes, the others - one vote each. At the sipedrion, the head of the union was elected - the lykiarch, the chief of the cavalry and the treasurer. The cities of the Lycian Union had a public treasury and common courts. In fact, the most important affairs of the union were decided by large cities, which were called “the metropolises of the Likpi people,” and public positions were occupied by citizens of these cities. Citizens of metropolises received citizenship rights in all other policies of the union and the right to own land in them. The official and written languages ​​in the Lycian union, along with Aramaic inherited from the Achaemepid offices, were also Lycian and Greek.

The exchange between the western and eastern regions, the emergence of cities as craft centers in previously economically backward areas led to the spread of technical achievements and production skills; This applies especially to mass production, such as pottery. High-quality dosage was made in a variety of places - in the cities of Greece, the Aegean archipelago, Asia Minor, Southern Italy, Egypt. Moreover, if the unique gold and silver vessels that were used in the courts of Hellenistic rulers were made by special craftsmen on special orders, then ceramics for more or less wealthy layers of townspeople were made in different centers according to the same pattern.

The development of exchange in the Hellenistic states led to a change in coinage. Alexander had already issued a large number of gold coins (staters) and silver tetradrachms. A significant part of the precious metals lying in the treasuries of the Persian gifts was put into circulation. The Hellenistic bets minted coins in the same denominations as Alexander; The image of the king was placed on the obverse of the coin. Coins of royal minting were used for international exchange: archaeologists find them far beyond the territories of the Hellenistic states.

Incomplete definition ↓

Tsar's land ownership and tsar's economy.

TO beginning of III V. BC On the territory of the former Persian state, new states emerged, the largest of which was the Seleucid state, founded by Alexander’s commander Seleucus. Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, part of Asia Minor were part of this kingdom; Seleucus lost his Indian possessions at the end of the 4th century. BC

The Seleucids waged continuous wars with one state or another. Seleucus I himself was killed during the military campaign he undertook to conquer Thrace and Macedonia. Under his successors, long wars began with the Ptolemies for Southern Syria. Around the middle of the 3rd century. BC, during the reign of Antiochus II, the eastern regions - Bactria and Parthia - separated from the Seleucid power. In 262 BC. ruler of the fortress of Pergamon (northwestern Asia Minor) declared himself king; The kingdom of Pergamum arose, ruled by another Macedonian dynasty - the Attalids. Small kingdoms were also formed, ruled by local dynasties, such as Bithynia and Cappadocia in Asia Minor. In the first half of the 3rd century. BC The Galatian (Celtic) tribes invaded Asia Minor through the Balkan Peninsula, with whom the Hellenistic rulers had to wage a stubborn struggle. Antiochus I pushed the Galatians into the interior of Asia Minor. Then the Pergamon king Attalus I (241 - 197 BC) won a major victory over them; the Galatians' possessions were limited northern regions Frigpy.

The Seleucid domains expanded again under Antiochus III (223 - 187 BC), one of the most talented Hellenistic rulers. A feature of his policy was his reliance not only on the Greeks, but also on ancient local self-governing centers, which provided him with the support of fairly wide sections of the population in different areas of his kingdom. In addition to the Greeks and Macedonians, representatives of numerous tribes and peoples that were part of his power fought in the army of Antiochus III. He annexed new territories in Asia Minor, conquered part of Armenia, and defeated the king of Bactria, Euthydemus. Antiochus III fought another (fourth) war with Egypt for Syria. In this war he was defeated in 217 BC. uh, at the Battle of Rafia. But then, taking advantage of internal unrest in Egypt and concluding an alliance with Macedonia, he conquered part of Southern Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. At this time, Rome intervenes in the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean; The Romans declared war on Antiochus III. After the defeat at Magnesia (Asia Minor) in 190 BC. e. The Romans took away from Antiochus III part of his possessions, which were divided among the allies of Rome. Among them, a number of Asia Minor regions received Pergamon. First half of the 2nd century BC. e. was the time of the greatest prosperity of the Pergamon kingdom.

Most information on the economic history of Western Asia in the 3rd-1st centuries. BC, which we have, refers to the kingdom of the Seleucids and Pergamon, but a number of common features inherent in their economic and social system allow us to characterize the social structure of other Hellenistic states.

Already during Alexander's campaigns and the struggle of his commanders, a division emerged into the royal land itself and the lands of cities - self-governing civil collectives. Alexander's successors continued this policy. In the Seleucid kingdom there was a fund of royal land, created primarily from possessions taken from the Persians and from tribal territories; significant land holdings were under the control of policies, civil-temple communities, and local dynasts. Due to the heterogeneity of the regions that were part of their power, the Selsvkids did not have the opportunity to create a unified organization of economy and management, similar to the Ptolemaic one. Although their kingdom was divided into satrapies (led by strategoi), local organizations remained within the satrapies; The Seleucids officially addressed their orders to cities, dynasts, temples and tribes.

The entire population and all lands (with the exception of certain large estates of nobles, which they received from the king, and the lands of a number of cities) were taxed. The farmers who cultivated the royal land were called “royal people” (laoi); they lived in villages, and the kings taxed the village communities as a whole. We do not know whether the tax was the same throughout Western Azpi; it probably varied depending on local conditions; an inscription from the region of Sardis (Asia Minor) mentions a cash tax paid by villages to the royal treasury. The contributions of different villages varied greatly - in accordance with the amount of land and population (thus, three villages together paid 50 gold pieces annually, and the fourth village alone paid 57 gold pieces). In the Kingdom of Pergamon there was a monetary per capita taxation for village residents. The monetary form of the tax led to the fact that losses, as in Egypt, in the event of a crop failure fell only on farmers. Farmers were forced to sell agricultural products in city markets, which, due to fluctuations in prices, yield, proximity or distance of the nearest market, led to stratification among farmers. The “royal people,” like the “royal farmers” in Egypt, were attached not to their own piece of land, but to the community - as taxpayers; they too tried to escape from their villages. The kings did not return the farmers by force; in any case, there is no evidence of this. The resettled farmers remained members of their community: in relation to the central government they acted as “royal people”, and in all other respects - as “comets”, community members. In addition to the ancient communities, new village-communities from settlers also arose in the Hellenistic states. Among the inhabitants of one such new village, Pannu, located on royal land in Asia Minor, there were people with both local and Greek names- the latter are probably former mercenaries or fugitives Greek cities; they were part of communities, since agriculture, based on the manual labor of small owners, could not exist without an organization that united individual producers and regulated relations between them.

The “royal people” owned property and entered into trade deals. Their dependence was not personal, but communal; The tsarist government took advantage of the connection between farmers and the community to organize the collection of taxes and duties. In the Hellenistic period, we can talk about attachment to the community, since it was more convenient for the central apparatus to deal with “organized” subjects and collect taxes from entire collectives at once. The villages apparently had communal self-government. Thus, the joint resolution of the two villages, adopted at a meeting of their residents, has been preserved. This decree honors people (one of them, a major Seleucid official, is called “the lord of this district”) for ransoming villagers who were captured by the Galatians.

The Seleucids transferred a significant part of the royal land to their employees, associates, and relatives. Lands received for service were the property of their owners and could be taken away by the king: for example, one inscription speaks of the Syrian village of Baytokaika. which the king gives to the temple and which was previously owned by a certain Demetrius. In a number of cases, the owner of a plot of royal land collected taxes from villages and paid it to the royal treasury; Farmers, in addition, were obliged to pay cash taxes and labor duties in favor of the owner. There were large noble estates that were virtually independent of the royal administration.

In this regard, the correspondence of King Antiochus III with the strategist of Southern Syria Ptolemy (who went over to the side of Seleucidon) is characteristic; Antiochus left behind him the weight of his former estates and added new ones. The king gives orders to his officials so that all trade transactions within Ptolemy's domains are carried out under the control of his agents, exempts his villages from standing, prohibits the imposition of fines on the property of his people and the removal of them from his possessions to work. Among the king's entourage there were people who did not hold specific positions, but bore the honorary title “friend of the king” or “friend and relative” of the king. Sometimes they were citizens of cities and through them an additional unofficial connection was carried out between the king and the polis. The king also endowed such associates with land, and they had the right to assign their land to any polis, i.e. completely remove it from the control of the royal treasury. In this way, Antiochus II rewarded his wife Laodice, from whom he separated in order to marry the daughter of Ptolemy II. He sold Laodicea in Asia Minor a village, a fortified house and land adjacent to the village; People (laoi) who came from this village but moved to other places also came under the rule of Laodice. Laodice was exempt from taxation into the royal treasury and received the right to assign land to any policy.

In addition, Antiochus II transferred to Laodicea and his sons from her lands in Babylonia, which were assigned to the Babylonian cities. In order to exercise their rights as owners, people who received lands from the king had to include them in the territory of self-governing cities. Nothing is known about the situation of farmers on the lands assigned to the city. The term "laoi" does not appear in city documents. Probably, their position approached that of other non-citizen farmers, and dependence on the owner of the land was expressed in the payment of taxes.

On lands transferred to private individuals, in addition to communal farmers, slaves worked; they could live in the same villages as the farmers, in separate houses. By using slaves on their farms, landowners adapted to the dominant form of labor organization on their lands. There was no point in creating an expensive apparatus of control and coercion for the landowner (to maintain overseers, accountants, etc.): living in the village, slaves were subject to community regulations and control. Slaves were also used in the royal economy, in particular in the economy of the Attalids and Pergamum kings. Owning a compact territory. The Attalids had the opportunity to establish a clearer control system than

The Seleucids, although the Pergamon kings relied on greek city policies and local temple organizations. Solid tracts of royal lands (in Pergamum the state was smaller than that of the Seleucids, large cities, whose lands would have been wedged into the royal ones), the concentration of crafts mainly in one center - the city of Pergamum - allowed the kings to carry out constant monitoring over the labor of slaves. Probably, for debts to the state, peasants were turned into royal slaves, and not sold at auction to private individuals, as in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The Attalids received most of their slaves from among the local population of the kingdom of Pergamum, and these slaves, employed in agriculture and crafts, were in a better position than foreign slaves. In 133 BC, when Pergamum was engulfed in a revolt the poor, a special decree freed the city (belonging to the city of Pergamon) and royal slaves, “with the exception of those purchased under the kings Philadslf and Philometor and confiscated from private possessions that became royal.” Here the difference is clearly drawn between the bulk of the royal slaves, on the one hand, and the slaves bought during the reign of the last Attalids or received from private individuals, on the other, i.e. Slaves who were not connected by hereditary ties with the royal land and in general with the royal economy find themselves in a worse position. Royal slaves were used in agriculture and in craft workshops, which were led by special overseers subordinate to the king, and in the Seleucid kingdom, and in Pergamum, a significant part of the royal land was used to organize military-agricultural settlements of Katek warriors. Land was allocated to the settlement as a whole, and then distributed among the settlers depending on their position in the army.

The Katekians in the Seleucid kingdom were mainly Greeks and Macedonians. Over time, a number of military settlements received the status of a polis, and sometimes they merged with local self-governing collectives. Thus, in the Hyrcanian Valley in Lydia lived the Hyrcanians, resettled there by the Persians from the shores of the Caspian Sea; they formed a self-governing association around the Temple of Artemis. With this unification merged the Macedonian military settlement: the united civil community began to be called the “polis of the Macedonian-Hyrkanians.”

In all likelihood, the polis on the banks of the Euphrates, known under the double (local and Greek) name Dura-Europos, also grew out of the military settlement. The Greco-Macedonian warriors, who initially made up the main population of Dura-Europos, were endowed with land. They could sell their plots, although these plots were formally considered the property of the king: in the absence of heirs, the clergy (allotment) returned to the royal treasury. Dura-Europos was a fortress that controlled trade routes along the Euphrates. In the fortress there were representatives of the central government: the strategist - the head of the garrison, the opistate (an official who “oversaw” the internal life of the city), royal employees who monitored trade and collected duties in favor of the royal treasury. On the land assigned to Dura-Europos, as can be seen from later documents, there were also villages with a local population. In the II century. BC Dura-Europos came under Parthian rule.

The kings of Pergamum, along with the Greeks and Macedonians, attracted people from local peoples (for example, the Mysians) as warriors. In agreement with the letter of one of the Pergamon kings, military colonists (Kateki) were given plots of uncultivated land and vineyards for their service. For this land, the Kateks paid 1/20 of the grain and 1/10 of the remaining fruits. By charging a portion of the harvest rather than a flat fee, the king shared losses with the kateks in the event of natural disasters. In addition, wanting to encourage the cultivation of necessary agricultural crops, the king granted the colonists tax-free land for growing olive trees. In addition to the clerks received for military service, kateks could buy land from the royal treasury. Childless kateks had the right to bequeath their plots. Subsequently, lands in the Pergamon kathekia, as well as in the military settlements of the Seleucids, began to be bought and sold.

In general, during the 3rd - 2nd centuries. There is a gradual reduction in the royal land fund itself - not only due to the transfer of land into private hands, but also due to the transfer of royal land to the cities.

1. ROYAL LAND PROPERTY AND ROYAL ECONOMY

By the beginning of the 3rd century. BC e. On the territory of the former Achaemenid state, new states emerged, the largest of which was the Seleucid state, founded by Alexander’s commander Seleucus. Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, part of Asia Minor were part of this kingdom; Seleucus lost his Indian possessions at the end of the 4th century. BC e.

The Seleucids waged continuous wars with one state or another. Seleucus I himself was killed during the military campaign he undertook to conquer Thrace and Macedonia. Under his successors, long wars began with the Ptolemies over Southern Syria. Around the middle of the 3rd century. BC e., during the reign of Antiochus II, the eastern regions - Bactria and Parthia - separated from the Seleucid power. In 262 BC. e. The ruler of the fortress of Pergamon (northwest Asia Minor) declared himself king: the Kingdom of Pergamum arose, where another Macedonian dynasty ruled - the Attalids. Small kingdoms were also formed, ruled by local dynasties, such as Bithynia and Cappadocia in Asia Minor. In the first half of the 3rd century. BC e. The Galatian (Celtic) tribes invaded Asia Minor through the Balkan Peninsula, with whom the Hellenistic rulers had to wage a stubborn struggle. Antiochus I pushed the Galatians into the interior of Asia Minor. Then the Pergamon king Attalus I (241-197 BC) won a major victory over them; the Galatians' possessions were limited to the northern regions of Phrygia.

The Seleucid domains expanded again under Antiochus III (223-187 BC), one of the most talented Hellenistic rulers. A feature of his policy was his reliance not only on the Greeks, but also on ancient local self-governing centers, which provided him with the support of fairly wide sections of the population in different areas his kingdom. In addition to the Greeks and Macedonians, representatives of numerous tribes and peoples that were part of his power fought in the army of Antiochus III. He annexed new territories in Asia Minor, conquered part of Armenia, and defeated the king of Bactria, Euthydemus. Antiochus III fought another (fourth) war with Egypt for Syria. In this war he was defeated in 217 BC. e. at the Battle of Rafia. But then, taking advantage of internal unrest in Egypt and concluding an alliance with Macedonia, he occupied part of southern Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. At this time, Rome intervened in the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean: the Romans declared war on Antiochus III. After the defeat at Magnesia (Asia Minor) in 190 BC. The Romans took away from Antiochus III part of his possessions, which were divided among the allies of Rome. Among them, a number of Asia Minor regions received Pergamon. First half of the 2nd century. BC was the time of the greatest prosperity of the Pergamon kingdom.

Most information on the economic history of Western Asia in the 3rd-1st centuries. BC e., which we have, refers to the kingdom of the Seleucids and Pergamon, but a number of common features inherent in their economic and social system make it possible to characterize the social structure of other Hellenistic states.

Already during the campaigns of Alexander and the struggle of his commanders, a division emerged into the royal land itself and the lands of cities - self-governing civil collectives. Alexander's successors continued this policy. In the Seleucid kingdom there was a fund of royal land, created primarily from possessions taken from the Persians and from tribal territories; significant land holdings were under the control of policies, civil-temple communities, and local dynasts. Due to the heterogeneity of the regions that were part of their power, the Seleucids were not able to create a unified organization of economy and administration, similar to the Ptolemaic one. Although their kingdom was divided into satrapies (led by strategoi), local organizations remained within the satrapies; The Seleucids officially addressed their orders to cities, dynasts, temples and tribes.

The entire population and all lands (with the exception of certain large estates of nobles, which they received from the king, and the lands of a number of cities) were taxed. The farmers who cultivated the royal land were called “royal people” ( laoi); they lived in villages, and the kings taxed the village communities as a whole. We do not know whether the tax was uniform throughout Western Asia; it probably varied depending on local conditions; an inscription from the region of Sardis (Asia Minor) mentions a cash tax paid by villages to the royal treasury. The contributions of different villages varied greatly depending on the amount of land and population (thus, three villages together paid 50 gold pieces annually, and the fourth village alone paid 57 gold pieces). In the Kingdom of Pergamon there was a monetary per capita taxation for village residents. The monetary form of the tax led to the fact that losses, as in Egypt, in the event of a crop failure fell only on farmers. Farmers were forced to sell agricultural products in city markets, which, due to fluctuations in prices, yield, proximity or distance of the nearest market, led to stratification among farmers. The “royal people,” like the “royal farmers” in Egypt, were attached not to their own piece of land, but to the community - as taxpayers; they too tried to escape from their villages. The kings did not return the farmers by force; in any case, there is no evidence of this. The resettled farmers remained members of their community: in relation to the central government they acted as “royal people”, and in all other respects - as comets, community members. In addition to the ancient communities in the Hellenistic states, new village-communities arose from settlers. Among the inhabitants of one such new village - Pannu, located on royal land in Asia Minor, there were people with both local and Greek names - the latter, probably, former mercenaries or fugitives from Greek cities; they were part of communities, since agriculture, based on the manual labor of small owners, could not exist without an organization that united individual producers and regulated relations between them.

The “royal people” owned property and entered into trade deals. Their dependence was not personal, but communal; The tsarist government used the connection between farmers and the community to organize the collection of taxes and duties. In the Hellenistic period, we can talk about attachment to the community, since it was more convenient for the central apparatus to deal with “organized” subjects and collect taxes from entire groups at once.

Villages have had communal self-government since pre-Hellenistic times. But in the III-I centuries. BC e. village communities begin to adopt decrees and record them in inscriptions on stone. In this regard, the ruling of two villages from the Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor in the 3rd century is interesting. BC e. The villages were located on the land of a major royal official, the governor of the district; the villages pay tribute to him and his subordinates for ransoming the villagers from captivity. The resolution is formulated on the model of polis decrees: in honor of the “benefactors” festivals must be celebrated and sacrifices made; they and their descendants are granted the right to sit in the front rows during village-wide festivities. Thus, traditional community organizations accepted Greek forms of self-expression and were constituted not only on the basis of customary law, but also written regulations. Similar decrees (though they would become widespread only in Roman times) appeared in other areas of the Hellenistic states. The opportunity to issue joint decisions on behalf of the community, imposing certain responsibilities on its members in the present and future, should have led to an increase in collective self-awareness, a sense of solidarity, and intensified the activities of community members.

The Seleucids transferred a significant part of the royal land to their employees, associates, and relatives. The lands received for service were not the property of their owners and could be taken away by the king: for example, one inscription speaks of the Syrian village of Baytokaika, which the king transfers to the temple and which was previously owned by a certain Demetrius. In a number of cases, the owner of a plot of royal land collected taxes from villages and paid it to the royal treasury; Farmers, in addition, were obliged to pay cash taxes and labor duties in favor of the owner. There were large noble estates that were virtually independent of the royal administration. In this regard, the correspondence of King Antiochus III with the strategist of Southern Syria Ptolemy (who went over to the Seleucid side) is characteristic; Antiochus left behind him all his former estates and added new ones. The king gives orders to his officials so that all trade transactions within Ptolemy's domains are carried out under the control of his agents, exempts his villages from standing, prohibits the imposition of fines on the property of his people and the removal of them from his possessions to work.

Among the king's entourage were people who did not hold specific positions, but bore the honorary title “friend of the king” or “friend and relative” of the king. Sometimes they were citizens of cities and through them an additional unofficial connection was carried out between the king and the polis. The king also endowed such close associates with land, and they had the right to assign their land to any policy, that is, to completely remove it from the control of the royal treasury. In this way, Antiochus II rewarded his wife Laodice, from whom he separated in order to marry the daughter of Ptolemy II. He sold Laodicea in Asia Minor a village, a fortified house and land adjacent to the village; People (laoi), who came from this village but moved to other places, also came under the rule of Laodice. Laodice was exempt from taxation into the royal treasury and received the right to assign land to any policy. In addition, Antiochus II transferred to Laodicea and his sons from her lands in Babylonia, which were assigned to the Babylonian cities. In order to exercise their rights as owners, people who received lands from the king had to include them in the territory of self-governing cities. Nothing is known about the situation of farmers on the lands assigned to the city. The term "laoi" does not appear in city documents. Probably, their position approached that of other non-citizen farmers, and dependence on the owner of the land was expressed in the payment of taxes.

On lands transferred to private individuals, in addition to communal farmers, slaves worked; they could live in the same villages as the farmers, in separate houses. By using slaves on their farms, landowners adapted to the dominant form of labor organization on their lands. There was no point in creating an expensive apparatus of control and coercion for the landowner (to maintain overseers, accountants, etc.): living in the village, slaves were subject to community regulations and control.

Slaves were also used in the royal economy, in particular in the economy of the Attalids, the Pergamon kings. Owning a compact territory, the Attalids had the opportunity to establish a clearer system of government than the Seleucids, although the Pergamon kings relied on Greek policies and local temple organizations. Solid tracts of royal lands (in the Pergamon state there were fewer large cities than in the Seleucids, whose lands would be wedged into the royal ones), the concentration of crafts mainly in one center - the city of Pergamum - allowed the kings to exercise constant control over the labor of slaves. Probably, for debts to the state, peasants were turned into royal slaves, and not sold at auction to private individuals, as in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The Attalids received most of their slaves from the local population of the kingdom of Pergamon, and these slaves, employed in agriculture and crafts, were in a better position than foreign slaves. In 133 BC. e., when Pergamum was engulfed in an uprising of slaves and the poor, a special decree freed the city (belonging to the city of Pergamum) and royal slaves, “with the exception of those bought under the kings Philadelphus and Philometor and confiscated from private possessions that became royal.” Here the difference is clearly drawn between the bulk of the royal slaves, on the one hand, and slaves bought during the reign of the last Attalids or received from private individuals, on the other, i.e., slaves who were not connected by hereditary ties with the royal land find themselves in a worse position and in general with royal economy. The royal slaves worked in agriculture and in craft workshops, which were led by special overseers subordinate to the king.

Both in the Seleucid kingdom and in Pergamon, a significant part of the royal land was used to organize military-agricultural settlements of Katek warriors. Land was allocated to the settlement as a whole, and then distributed among the settlers depending on their position in the army. The Katekians in the Seleucid kingdom were mainly Greeks and Macedonians. Over time, a number of military settlements received the status of a polis, and sometimes they merged with local self-governing collectives. Thus, in the Hyrcanian Valley in Lydia lived the Hyrcanians, resettled there by the Persians from the shores of the Caspian Sea; they formed a self-governing association around the Temple of Artemis. The Macedonian military settlement merged with this unification: the united civilian community began to be called the “polis of the Macedonians - Hyrcanians.”

In all likelihood, the polis on the banks of the Euphrates, known under the double (local and Greek) name Dura-Europos, also grew out of the military settlement. The Greco-Macedonian warriors, who initially made up the main population of Dura-Europos, were endowed with land. They could sell their plots, although these plots were formally considered the property of the king: in the absence of heirs, the clergy (allotment) returned to the royal treasury. Dura-Europos was a fortress that controlled trade routes along the Euphrates. Representatives of the central government were in the fortress: strategist- chief of the garrison, epistat(an official who “oversaw” the internal life of the city), royal employees who monitored trade and collected duties for the benefit of the royal treasury. On the land assigned to Dura-Europos, as can be seen from later documents, there were also villages with a local population. In the II century. BC e. Dura-Europos came under Parthian rule.

The kings of Pergamum, along with the Greeks and Macedonians, attracted people from local peoples (for example, the Mysians) as warriors. According to a letter from one of the kings of Pergamon, military colonists (kateki) were given plots of uncultivated land and vineyards for their service. For this land, the Kateks paid 1/20 of the grain and 1/10 of the remaining fruits. By charging a portion of the harvest rather than a flat fee, the king shared losses with the kateks in the event of natural disasters. In addition, wanting to encourage the cultivation of necessary agricultural crops, the king granted the colonists tax-free land for growing olive trees. In addition to the clerks received for military service, kateks could buy land from the royal treasury. Childless kateks had the right to bequeath their plots. Subsequently, lands in the Pergamon kathekia, as well as in the military settlements of the Seleucids, began to be bought and sold.

In general, throughout the III-II centuries. There is a gradual reduction in the royal land fund itself - not only due to the transfer of land into private hands, but also due to the transfer of royal land to the cities.

2. POLICIES AND CIVIL-TEMPLE COMMUNITIES IN THE HELLENISM PERIOD

The city, as an organization of free citizens who had certain economic and political privileges, played an important role in the social structure of the countries of Western Asia during the Hellenistic period.

Alexander's successors added many new ones to the old Greek and eastern urban centers. There is information that Seleucus I founded 33 cities. Of course, most cities were not built from scratch. Usually, some local settlement was chosen, conveniently located in military and commercial terms, it was expanded, rebuilt, declared a polis and renamed in honor of the founding king or his relatives: this is how Seleucia, Antioch, Apamea, Stratonicea appeared (the last two are named after the queens ) etc. Macedonian veterans and Greek colonists settled in these cities, and the local population became their citizens - either those who had lived here before, or those resettled from surrounding towns. The most developed civil-temple communities (for example, in Babylonia, Palestine) retained their structure, and their position in relation to the royal power was equated to the position of the poleis.

Urban development was not only the result of government policy. This process began in the pre-Hellenistic period and continued over a number of subsequent centuries; kings often had to recognize the existing situation, granting one or another city the status of a polis. Polis names such as “Horse Village”, “Sacred Village” show that some cities arose from villages. Each self-governing civil collective had a certain territory under its control. The kings levied taxes from the cities they subordinated - cash or in kind (the latter traditionally amounted to tithes).

The political relations between the king and the city-states were unique. The Seleucid monarchy was not perceived by the Greeks as territorial state V modern sense. The inhabitants of the country, which was subject to the royal administration, were considered subjects of Seleucus, Antiochus, etc. The royal power of the Seleucids was thus of a personal nature in relation to the policies; The official designation of the power in the inscriptions was the expression “such and such a king and his subjects.”

In addition to the policies and civil-temple communities, within the Hellenistic monarchies there were territories under the control of a hereditary priesthood; the kings recognized the internal isolation of such territories (for example, Pessinunta in Asia Minor), but levied taxes on them for the royal treasury and, to a certain extent, controlled their activities. The poleis sought to include the neighboring temple territories in their district, and the kings contributed to them in this. Thus, Milasa’s long dispute with the priest of the temple in the town of Labraunda is known: each of the parties claimed to rule this town. Finally, the Seleucids (and then the Macedonian king Philip V, who invaded these areas) approved the annexation of Labraunda to Milas.

The kings—the Seleucids, the Attalids, and representatives of local dynasties—increased the land holdings of cities through donations and sales of royal land, as well as by annexing smaller cities to larger ones. The creation of large urban centers facilitated the collection of taxes, since taxes were collected from urban areas by policy officials, who then transferred part of it to the royal treasury. But the kings’ support for cities is explained not only by financial considerations: the traditional urban civil community was the most convenient form of organizing a free population among dependent exploited farmers. During the period of strengthening of the Hellenistic monarchies (III century BC), these organizations served as the support of the king and the conductor of his will. The kings sought to bring the internal life of the city under their control, the methods of which were different: placing military garrisons; direct supervision with the help of special epistat officials located in the cities; letters of instructions from kings addressed to cities. There were also indirect methods of intervention: cities granted citizenship rights to Macedonian military leaders, royal associates, and “friends of the king”; these people influenced the political life of cities, carrying out the royal will.

In the Seleucid state, the royal cult became widespread, although to a lesser extent than in Egypt. The kings sought to establish a dynastic cult, asserting the divine origin of the Seleucids (from the god Apollo): they founded sanctuaries of the king and queens, and established special priestly positions. Such a cult was supposed to reinforce the dynasty's rights to power; in addition, he united people from the Macedonian circle of the king who had lost contact with their “fatherly gods.” The royal cult played a different role in the policies: there it personified the connection of the city with the personality of the king; polis cults were not of a national character: the kings, the Seleucids and Attalids, were revered only in the city where their cult was established by the decision of the national assembly (as a rule, they were revered together with the patron deity of the city). The policies, thus, worshiped the king-god, but he was recognized as god by the civil collective, which retained (at least in appearance) the highest sovereignty - even in relation to the deity. In addition to political motives, gratitude for good deeds and faith in the supernatural abilities of rulers (especially those who won victories over their opponents), and the hope of finding patron gods in them instead of the previous ones who were losing the trust of the city gods, played a role in the establishment of royal cults.

During the heyday of the Seleucid power, which lasted until the beginning of the 2nd century. BC e., a relatively strong alliance between the central government and the cities, and the use of katekii to control rural areas ensured the systematic exploitation of the masses of the rural population. During this period, we can trace a certain growth in productive forces on royal and urban lands, and the introduction of new agricultural crops. The Seleucids tried to produce Indian balsam; in Babylonia and Susiana, according to Strabo, rice and new varieties of grapes were bred.

The Hellenistic polis was a more complex social structure than the classical polis. The Hellenistic polis controlled the rural territory, part of which was owned by citizens, part of which constituted the public fund of the city (pastures that citizens could use for a fee; lands leased); in addition, the territory was assigned to the policy where villages and various types of settlements were located, the inhabitants of which did not enjoy civil rights, were subordinate to city officials and paid taxes to the city in money or in kind. Sometimes a large polis dominated over smaller ones, which retained internal autonomy but paid taxes to the dominant city. In the dependent policies there were officials sent there from the dominant policy.

The largest cities were independent states. In this regard, the history of the Asia Minor possessions of Rhodes is indicative, in the total extent of which (including some islands) it could compete at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC e. with the Kingdom of Pergamum. Colonization of the Asia Minor coast by the Rhodians began in the 6th–5th centuries. BC e. These ancient colonies of Rhodes were fortresses, usually located on hills from which it was possible to observe the coastline. After the formation of the Hellenistic states interested in an alliance with Rhodes, an important center of transit trade along the Aegean Sea, he significantly expanded his possessions. From Seleucus II, as a reward for assistance in his war with Ptolemy III, Rhodes received the city of Stratonicea in Caria (in the southwest of Asia Minor) with adjacent lands. In the II century. BC e., taking advantage of the difficult situation of the strategists who controlled the Asia Minor possessions of Egypt, Rhodes bought from them the city of Kaun (also in Caria). Finally, for supporting Rome in the war against Antiochus III, the Rhodians were rewarded with most of Caria and Lycia, which had previously been under Seleucid rule. All these new possessions were governed by special officials sent from Rhodes - strategists, hegemons and epistates, who had military, police and financial functions (they collected taxes from the dependent population).

The Hellenistic polis thus represented a hierarchy of communities. Rural communities in urban areas enjoyed some internal self-government (there was a village people's assembly), had a community fund and public lands (usually lands around sanctuaries), which were under the control of the communities. For example, the inscription of one Asia Minor village located on the territory of the polis speaks of the village’s decision to plant a sacred plot: one of the community members who grows at least three trees and keeps them in good condition for five years will be honored for this for the next five years at the annual festival. In addition, village residents made contributions for public needs (up to 100 drachmas). Farmers were personally free and had freedom of movement.

A characteristic feature of the Hellenistic city was the existence in it of different population groups - belonging to different nationalities, having different legal status. The civil collectives of the policies included both Greeks and Macedonians, as well as representatives of the local population: the latter were especially numerous in the newly founded policies and local cities that received the status of a policy. In Seleucia on the Tigris, a large number of Babylonians were noted to have been resettled there; in Antioch on the Orontes, Syrians lived alongside the Greeks; Antioch-Edessa in Upper Mesopotamia was called semi-barbarian by contemporaries. Citizens of non-Greek origin often adopted Hellenic names, but this was not the rule: sources contain references to representatives of the elite of the urban population (for example, ambassadors to the king) who bore non-Greek names and patronymics.

During the Hellenistic period, migrations from one region and city to another continued. Individual settlers received full citizenship rights for special services to the city or the king (among them were persons of non-Greek origin); others received only the right to own land without political rights (permission to persons who are not citizens of the city to acquire land on its territory is one of the characteristic differences between the Hellenistic polis and the classical one); sometimes such a right to acquire land was mutually granted to all citizens of cities that agreed with each other. Migrants from rural areas or other cities who did not receive any privileges constituted a lower legal group of pareks - they had the right to live in the city and district, but not to acquire land ownership, and took part in city festivities. Freedmen could become parecs; farmers who moved to the city and were included in the lists of pareks lost contact with the rural community. Sometimes settlers of the same nationality formed a special self-governing organization within the city - a polyteum. Such polytheums were formed by the Jews, perhaps also by the Syrians, in Antioch on the Orontes.

Hellenistic city-states concentrated a large number of slaves - private and public. Many slaves were servants in rich houses and worked in craft workshops. Public slaves were the lowest employees of the state apparatus and were used in construction. In the latter case, they received a small daily wage and clothing. Judging by the materials of the Asia Minor temple in Didyma, slaves received less than free workers (3 obols per day, while the lowest payment for a free worker was 4.5 obols). During the Hellenistic period, the transfer of slaves to “rents” continued - they ran independent households and paid certain contributions to their masters. The manumission of slaves was widespread; freedmen remained bound to their masters by certain obligations; sometimes, until the end of their days, they had to, as stated in the documents on their release to freedom, do “all the work that they did in slavery.” Children born to a slave before manumission remained slaves unless their emancipation was specifically negotiated. According to the laws of some policies, it was necessary to specifically stipulate the right of a freedman to freely leave the city. Sometimes freedmen paid off their duties with money. From among their freedmen and trusted slaves, rich people tended to recruit estate managers, workshop supervisors, and sales agents.

In addition to slaves and freedmen, free workers were used in public work, primarily in construction work, who were supplied in abundance by the rural districts, where the development of commodity-money relations led to the ruin of farmers. Free artisans could also work in private workshops, and it is difficult to determine whose labor predominated—slaves or free ones.

The internal self-government of the Hellenistic polis was similar in form to the self-government of the polis of the classical period: there was a national assembly, bule(council), elected officials. However, such an important democratic body as a court elected from among all citizens, in the period of the 3rd-1st centuries. was dying off. It was widespread to invite judges from other cities to examine internal disputes, which, given the stratification of the civil society, could not always be resolved on their own. Sometimes royal officials acted as judges. Only a small number of cases were heard by elected judges.

In Hellenistic city-states, officials gradually began to play an increasingly greater role and the popular assembly began to play a lesser role. A number of positions, in particular some priestly positions, were sold. For the period III-I centuries. BC e. Characterized by a sharp stratification among the city's population. The existence of direct taxation in most policies founded in Asia contributed to this stratification. Debtors of the city treasury in a number of policies were deprived of their civil rights. This process was somewhat mitigated due to the presence of a public land fund that citizens could rent, and distributions that were more significant than in the previous period. Distributions were also made to the non-civilian population, sometimes to slaves, usually during city-wide religious festivals. Thus, non-citizens, who accumulated in large numbers in cities, were to some extent included in the life of the civil community.

The mixing of the population in the policies, the decline in the political activity of citizens in cities subordinate to the tsarist power, led to a weakening of ties within the civil collective. A natural reaction to this process was the desire to create private associations: various kinds of cult unions, partnerships not associated with a political organization - neither with the polis, the crisis of which was acutely felt at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, nor with the bureaucratic-monarchical one, still alien to the Greek consciousness. In cities, associations that included people of different ethnic origin and miscellaneous social status. For example, in one of the small towns of Asia Minor there was a union that united people from four different cities, local residents and slaves. In another city there was a small religious community, which included Greeks, Phrygians, Thracians, Phoenicians, Pisidians (a people in Asia Minor), and Libyans. As a rule, such unions consisted of a small number of people who knew each other quite well.

Members of the unions made joint sacrifices, organized dinners and celebrations. Private associations strengthened ties between city residents, including non-citizens, and, of course, influenced social life policies.

During the Hellenistic period, civil-temple communities continued to develop in various regions of Western Asia. An example of such communities is the cities of Babylonia. In these cities there was a clearly defined civil society, formed as a result of the gradual merger of the wealthy sections of the city's population with the temple staff. At the indicated time, most of the members of this team were not actually temple servants: many artisans were noted among them; cuneiform contracts mention the owners of slaves and land (both inside and outside the city limits). But all these people were connected with the temple, in particular, receiving allowances from it - a certain amount of food. The right to receive allowances was once associated with the performance of duties in favor of the temple. Already in more ancient times, this right was freely sold, and in parts (for example, 1/6 or 1/12 of the right to allowance due on certain days of each month); During the period described, a woman could also buy the right to allowances associated with a male position. Thus, this right ceased to be associated with the performance of office and remained a privilege of members of the civil collective, which they could freely transfer to each other.

In the Babylonian cities there were assemblies, the chairman of which was an economist ( shatammu) temples; These meetings resolved property issues, imposed fines, and provided honors to royal officials. Like the policies, such cities had a vast rural district, the lands of which were partly owned by citizens and partly cultivated by a dependent rural population who paid taxes to this temple city. Private lands received from the king could be assigned to such cities in the same way as to policies. In the Babylonian cities, as in a number of policies, there were royal officials - epistati (from local citizens).

Another type of civil-temple community was the Asia Minor associations around sanctuaries. We are well aware of one such city - Milas. Milasa is a famous religious center of the Carians; Herodotus wrote about it in the 5th century. BC e. The inhabitants of Milasa were divided into phylas, which were associations around temples. Philae, in turn, were divided into syngenia- small communities that had a common sanctuary. The land of the sanctuary was the land of the community, it was distributed among the citizens, who elected officials in charge of the “sacred” treasury. In the 4th century. BC e. Milasa is called a polis, but retains a number of specific features, in particular the comparative independence of phyla and syngenia. The temple grounds were actually public land; land distribution took the form of rent. But the lease terms were relatively lenient in order to give access to land to poorer citizens; There was a collective lease, when the land was rented by the entire Singhenia community as a whole, and then the plots were distributed among citizens. The example of the civil-temple communities of Asia Minor clearly shows that the public land fund was used to support low-income citizens.

The Hellenistic period was characterized not only by the development of policies and civil-temple communities, but also by the desire of all these self-governing cities to form closer unions among themselves, often with mutual citizenship (citizens of one policy, moving to another, automatically received citizenship rights in it). The existence of unions made it possible for cities to resist pressure from Hellenistic rulers and more successfully develop their economies. A typical example of such a union in the eastern regions of the Mediterranean was the union of the cities of Lycia. According to Strabo, this union included 23 cities. Representatives of the Lycian cities from time to time gathered in some city for a general council - Sanhedrin. The largest cities had three votes in this Sanhedrin, the middle ones had two votes, and the others had one vote each. At the Sanhedrin, the head of the union was elected - the lyciarch, the chief of the cavalry and the treasurer. The cities of the Lycian Union had a public treasury and common courts. In fact, the most important affairs of the union were decided by large cities, which were called “metropolises of the Lycian people,” and public positions were occupied by citizens of these cities. Citizens of metropolises received citizenship rights in all other policies of the union and the right to own land in them. The official and written languages ​​in the Lycian union, along with Aramaic inherited from the Achaemenid offices, were also Lycian and Greek.

The exchange between the western and eastern regions, the emergence of cities as craft centers in previously economically backward areas led to the spread of technical achievements and production skills; This especially applies to mass production, such as pottery. High-quality dishes were made in a variety of places - in the cities of Greece, the Aegean archipelago, Asia Minor, Southern Italy, Egypt. Moreover, if the unique gold and silver vessels that were used in the courts of Hellenistic rulers were made by special craftsmen on special orders, then ceramics for more or less wealthy layers of townspeople were made in different centers according to the same pattern.

The development of exchange in the Hellenistic states led to a change in coinage. Alexander had already issued a large number of gold coins (staters) and silver tetradrachms. A significant part of the precious metals that lay in the treasuries of the Persian kings was put into circulation. The Hellenistic kings minted coins in the same denominations as Alexander; The image of the king was placed on the obverse of the coin. Coins of royal minting were used for international exchange: archaeologists find them far beyond the territories of the Hellenistic states. Self-governing cities minted their own coins (often imitating the royal, especially Alexander, coinage), but, as a rule, they circulated only in domestic markets.

However, the development of the economy was hampered by endless military clashes between the Hellenistic monarchies - the struggle of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, Seleucids and Parthia led to the devastation of cities and disruption of trade relations. This was one of the reasons that, starting from the 2nd century. BC e. The top population of a number of Hellenistic cities came out in support of the new great power - Rome. Another reason for the pro-Roman position of some of the rich strata was the aggravation in the Hellenistic states of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. socio-political struggle.

3. DECAY OF THE KINGDOM OF THE SELUCIDS AND PERGAMUS.
SOCIAL STRUGGLE IN THE II CENTURY B.C.

The socio-political struggle in Asia Minor and Asia Minor in the last centuries BC was complex character and covered various segments of the population. Thus, the struggle in Judea against the power of the Seleucids, which will be discussed later, was directed not only against foreign domination, but also against the strengthening of the noble Jewish families who supported Hellenization. A number of large policies opposed dependence on the central government; During the wars between the Hellenistic monarchs (Seleucids and Ptolemies, Philip V of Macedon and Pergamon), as well as during military clashes with Rome, the cities switched sides.

The instability of the position of the Seleucid power was especially revealed after the defeat inflicted by Rome on Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia (Asia Minor). According to the peace concluded in the city of Apamea, Antiochus lost a significant part of the Asia Minor possessions (they were transferred to Rome's allies in this war - Pergamum and Rhodes). Greater Armenia and Sophene declared themselves independent; the areas beyond the Tigris were captured by the Parthians. The son of Antiochus III, Antiochus IV, attempted to restore the Seleucid power to its former borders. He led successful wars with the Ptolemies and invaded Egypt twice. In 168 BC. e. Antiochus IV besieged Alexandria. But the Romans intervened: the Roman ambassador arrived in Egypt and presented Antiochus with a demand to immediately leave Egypt; The ambassador, talking with the king, drew a circle in the sand, inside which Antiochus found himself, and declared that he should give an answer before he crossed the circle. Antiochus did not risk a conflict with the Romans: he withdrew his troops from Egypt.

Antiochus devoted the rest of his reign to strengthening power in those areas that still remained within his empire. He abandoned the policy of Antiochus III, who supported local self-governing organizations, and began the intensive Hellenization of all regions of the kingdom in order to create a single political system and a single ideology. It was then that Jerusalem was turned into a polis. But this policy backfired: popular unrest broke out. Antiochus IV died during one of the eastern campaigns. After the death of the king, at the request of Rome, the Seleucid military fleet was destroyed and the war elephants were killed. Military power The Seleucid powers were broken. From the middle of the 2nd century. BC e. A long struggle for power began in Syria. Egypt also intervened in this fight, supporting one or the other contender. In 142 BC. e. Parthian king Mithridates I captured Babylonia. Antiochus VII temporarily strengthened his kingdom: he again subdued Judea and launched a successful offensive against the Parthians. But in 129 BC. e. he was defeated and died. The Seleucid state was limited to Syria. In just one hundred years (from 163 to 63 BC), 19 kings were replaced in the Seleucid kingdom, and none of them died natural death. Finally, in 63 BC. e. Syria, the last area remaining with the Seleucids, was turned into a Roman province.

Social movements also took place on the territory of city policies: the rural population, who did not enjoy civil rights, opposed the citizens of the cities, plundered their estates, and went over to the side of the enemy in the event of hostilities (for example, residents of the rural areas of some cities in Asia Minor went over to the side of the Galatians when the latter invaded to the territory of Asia Minor). One of the most significant popular movements II century there was an uprising that broke out in Pergamon in 133 BC. e. (“Aristonik’s revolt”) and covered the entire rural area of ​​the country. As one of the inscriptions dating back to that time says, the land of Pergamum remained unsown and all its fruits were taken to the enemies. Attalus III, who ruled the state at this time, is one of the strange and gloomy figures characteristic of late Hellenism. It was said about him that his favorite pastime was breeding poisonous plants for making poisons. Wanting to get rid of the annoying advisers - close associates of his father Eumenes II, he one day invited them to the palace and ordered his guards to kill everyone. Unable to suppress the uprising that had arisen in the country, suspecting treason everywhere and everywhere, Attalus III, under pressure from the Romans, drew up a will, according to which, after his death, the kingdom of Pergamon passed to Rome. The Romans probably promised for this military assistance, but they didn’t have to wait particularly long: in 133 Attalus died, according to official version, from sunstroke. The news of his death and will caused a further expansion of the uprising, headed by a contender for the throne - the illegitimate son of Eumenes II Aristonicus. The rebels captured a number of cities. In the south, unrest spread as far as Halicarnassus in Caria. The city authorities of Pergamon were forced to grant citizenship rights to the Cateks from local tribes and free the royal and public slaves. But this did not stop the development of the uprising, as well as the last measure - granting the right of citizenship to slaves raised in the house of their masters.

Aristonik's supporters called themselves heliopolitans - citizens of the State of the Sun. Among the local tribes of Asia Minor, cults of solar deities were widespread, which attracted the masses as opposed to the official religion of the Hellenic gods and god-kings. The ideologists of the rebels, among whom were philosophers (for example, a certain Stoic philosopher from Qom, who fled to Aristonicus from Italy), linked the spontaneous faith of the masses in the blessed Sun with the doctrine of an ideal state where everyone would be equal. The Heliopolitan movement crossed the borders of the Pergamon state. The Roman legions had to heavy battles conquer the kingdom bequeathed to Rome; With with great difficulty they managed to lock Aristonicus in Carian Stratonicea (already outside Pergamon) and starve him into surrendering in 130 BC. e. Individual detachments of the rebels resisted the Romans for another year. The kingdom of Pergamon was turned into the province of Asia - the first Asia Minor province of Rome.

The Roman conquests in the Eastern Mediterranean serve as a definite chronological milestone, since the inclusion of this area into a single centralized state (from the time of the establishment of the empire at the end of the 1st century BC) had a significant impact on internal development conquered western regions the former Seleucid power and the Kingdom of Pergamon.

The annexation of the eastern regions of the Seleucid kingdom to Parthia also introduced specifics into their historical fate. And although Hellenistic traditions continued to exist in many spheres of social and cultural life, the period of Hellenism proper in Western Asia ends with the time of the Roman and Parthian conquests.

The Palestinian civil-temple community, led by the Jerusalem high priests, was finally formed by the second half of the 4th century. BC e. and received a significant degree of autonomy, separating itself from the surrounding population on the “royal land”. This community reacted very indifferently to the death of the Achaemenid power and greeted it quite favorably in 332 BC. e. Alexander the Great, who allowed her to maintain her old laws, that is, complete autonomy and “protection” of herself from outside world. After the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. BC, which ended the struggle of Alexander's successors - the Diadochi, Palestine was captured by the ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy Lagus, but in 200 BC. e. Antiochus III incorporated the country into the Seleucid Empire.

During the reign of the Ptolemies and Seleucids in Palestine, in the satrapy then called "Celesyria and Phenicia" and including Samaria, Judea, Edom, Transjordan and Phenicia, intensive Hellenistic urbanization took place. It was mainly deployed in coastal strip, Northern Palestine and Transjordan. The Hellenistic city-states surrounded on three sides the civil-temple community in Judea, which was not affected by Hellenistic urban planning. Although there is no reliable data on the number of inhabitants of Hellenistic-Roman Palestine, all researchers admit that non-Jews made up from half to two-thirds of the country’s inhabitants, and among them there was a continuously increasing number of specific gravity Hellenes or Hellenized representatives of the local population. This significantly increased the degree of influence of Hellenism on the rest of the population of Palestine, which was also involved in the Hellenistic economic system.

Important trade routes of the Hellenistic world passed through Palestine, which contributed to the development of foreign, especially transit, trade. Researchers count about 240 names of Palestinian goods foreign trade, of which about 130 were imported items: incense, gems and gold from Arabia, fabrics from Mesopotamia, bread and linen from Egypt, spices from India, etc. Constant contacts with the Hellenistic world contributed to the introduction of more advanced agricultural technology, contributed to the development of crafts and commodity-money economy in Palestine. All these phenomena affected Judea to a lesser extent, but the introduction of the entire country to the Hellenistic world also gave rise to changes in the structure of the Jewish civil-temple community.

It had self-government, headed by a hereditary high priest and a "gerusia (council of elders) of the whole people", actually consisting of the nobility. The high priest was not only the leader of the community, but also a representative of the central government, responsible for collecting taxes and depositing them into the royal treasury. Having conquered Palestine, Antiochus III provided the community with tax benefits: Members of the Gerusia, priests and temple ministers were completely exempt from all taxes, and the rest received an exemption for three years, followed by a reduction in taxes by one third.

The Edict of Antiochus III confirms that at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC e. the division characteristic of the civil-temple community into priests, Levites and non-priests was preserved. But sources also point to a number of new phenomena in society. If in the VI-IV centuries. BC e. bet-bot was comprehensive structural unit, common to all members of the community, the number of families that do not belong to these broad agnatic groups is now increasing. Along with the preserved land property of the Bet-Abot, alienated only within it and in the possession of the families of this group, the share of large and small private land ownership.

Already before there was a struggle between supporters of “universalism” and “particularism”. The tension was incomparably greater in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC e. in the face of territorially close and advancing Hellenism. For the Jewish community, a structure close in its function to the Hellenistic city-states, two “answers” ​​were possible: to maintain its isolation or to open itself to the perception of Hellenism. The choice of answer was determined for each social stratum and group by the interweaving of not only economic, social and religious motives and motives, but also the traditional orientation of influential families (bet-abot), for example the Tobiads. This noble family, lived in Palestine and Transjordan at least since the 8th century. BC e. and under the Achaemenids, he strongly opposed the creation of an autonomous civil-temple community in Palestine, in the specific political situation of the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC e. led the Hellenization movement. The Tobiads were supported not only by groups of the priestly and non-priestly elite of the community close to them, but also by representatives of other strata, especially part of the merchants and artisans of Jerusalem, for whom Hellenization would mean an expansion of their economic activities. In 175 BC. e. The high priest Jason, close to the Tobiads, obtained permission from Antiochus IV Epiphanes to organize a polis in Jerusalem with an ephebe, gymnasium and other polis institutions. This policy included only supporters of the Hellenization movement, who called themselves “Antiochians in Jerusalem.” The Hellenizers did not consider their actions a rejection of Judaism; on the contrary, in their opinion, separation from other nations was not only the cause of the disasters that befell the Jews, but also a violation of the covenant of Moses, who taught that the god Yahweh can and should be revered by all people.

The conflict that engulfed Jewish society, expressing socio-economic contradictions, unfolded on a religious and ideological plane. At first, disagreements did not go beyond the community, and the question of political independence was not raised. However, the dependence of the “Antiochians in Jerusalem” on the support of the Seleucids, as well as the actions of the Syrian rulers, inevitably led them to a choice: to remain or not to remain Judea under the rule of the “pagans”?

The edict of Antiochus IV (167 BC) under threat of death prohibited the fulfillment of the instructions of Yahwism - observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifice to Yahweh, food regulations, etc. The Jerusalem temple was turned into the temple of Olympian Zeus, scrolls scripture burned, etc. The practice of religious persecution, so unusual for Hellenistic kings, stems from the very essence of the conflict in Judea; since the main thing in it was the struggle for and against the “fence” from the outside world, the reaction of Antiochus IV was an attempt to destroy this “fence.”

The nature of the struggle that unfolded in Judea also explains the emergence of martyrdom for the faith at that time: many died passively resisting the implementation of the edict of Antiochus IV. Others responded to the call of Mattathias from the Hasmonean priestly family to actively fight. This marked the beginning of the rebellion (167-142 BC) known as the Maccabean War (after the nickname of the eldest of Mattathias' five sons, Judah Maccabee).

The actions of the rebels, whose main base was Judea, were so successful that in 164 BC. e. Antiochus IV addressed them with a message in which he demanded an end to armed uprisings, promising that “those who return home” will be guaranteed impunity and that the Jews will be able to eat their food and keep their laws as before. The message was an official renunciation of religious persecution and a promise to restore the autonomy of the Jewish community. However, the rebels rejected the king's offer.

The Hasmonean goal of achieving complete independence was facilitated by two circumstances. The first is the support of the rebels by Rome, which concluded in 161 BC. e. agreement with Judas Maccabee about mutual assistance in case of war, which was the recognition of the rebels as independent political force. The second is the collapse of the Seleucid power that began after the death of Antiochus IV. The Hasmoneans skillfully exploited the Seleucid struggle for the throne, during which the contenders sought their support, providing them with very significant privileges in return - as part of preserving Judea as part of the Seleucid state. However, this power was disintegrating before our eyes, and the Hasmoneans, especially Simon, who led the struggle after the death of Judah and his brother Jonathan, increasingly persistently sought complete independence. In 142 BC. e. the Syrian king Demetrius II, in a letter to “the high priest Simon and the friend of the kings (i.e., the Seleucids), the elders and the people of Judea,” freed Judea from paying all taxes and proposed to make peace with it - in fact, as an equal party.

The desire to strengthen their power pushed the first Hasmonean rulers - Simon (142-134 BC), John Hyrcanus I (134-104 BC) and Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). BC) - on the path of conquest. They included Edom, all of Palestine (including the coast), parts of Transjordan and Southern Phenicia into their state. As a result, the population of the Hasmonean state became ethnically and religiously more and more diverse. Realizing the danger of this, the Hasmoneans tried to solve this problem through the forced Judaization of the country, which caused resistance.

The expanding Hasmonean state could no longer be a civil-temple community, the immutable prerequisites for the existence of which (as well as the existence of Hellenistic cities) were relative socio-economic equality and ethno-religious homogeneity of its full members, a small numerical strength and limited area. The Hasmonean state gradually turned into a Hellenistic monarchy. When in 140 BC. e. The "Great Assembly" confirmed Simon in the hereditary rank of high priest, strategist and ethnarch(“head of the people”), and from the end of the 2nd century. BC e. his successors added the royal title to the rank of high priest; this was a violation of the religious and political doctrine of Judaism, according to which only the Zadokids were to be high priests, and only the Davidids were to be kings, and then only in the distant future.

The evolution of the Hasmonean state into the Hellenistic monarchy was externally manifested in the creation of an extensive administrative and bureaucratic apparatus, the replacement of civil militia with foreign mercenaries, the formation of a magnificent court, the construction of palaces and fortresses, etc. All this required large funds and entailed an increase in the tax burden, which reduced the effectiveness of the economic recovery that occurred in the country after the end of the Maccabean War was negated.

Enthusiastic support of the Hasmoneans by the masses gradually gave way to growing discontent, which under Alexander Yannai took on the character of an open and fierce struggle. For six years (90-84 BC), led by the so-called Pharisees a popular uprising, which the tsar brutally suppressed. In the anti-Hasmonean movement of the 1st century. BC e. socio-economic motives were inextricably linked with religious ones. This movement was similar in nature to the earlier anti-Seleucid one.

The victorious completion of the Maccabean War and the creation of an independent state strengthened faith in the effectiveness of the “contract” with Yahweh, in the “chosenness” of Yahweh’s people, i.e., a particularistic tendency. On the other hand, changes in the socio-economic and political life of the country urgently required the renewal and expansion of the religious community itself, based on the Old Testament legislation of a completely different era. This universalist tendency was especially strong among Jews diaspora(exile) - in Mesopotamia and Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece and other countries in direct contact with the Hellenistic environment, which showed a growing interest in Judaistic monotheism. To carry out a dialogue between Judaism and Hellenistic culture, the works of the former had to not only be translated into Greek, but also close to the system of Hellenistic ideas and images. This was clearly evident in Greek translation The Old Testament, the so-called “Translation of 70 interpreters”, or “Septuagint”. Carried out in Alexandria in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC e. translation and was an adaptation of the Old Testament to the world of Hellenistic ideas and images.

5. FALL OF THE INDEPENDENT STATES IN PALESTINE

In 63 BC. e. Roman commander Pompey included Judea in the Roman province of Syria as autonomous region, however, greatly reduced its territory. One of the last Hasmoneans, Hyrcanus II, was appointed high priest and ethnarch, but actual power lay in the hands of the Judaized Edomite Antipater and his sons. Skillfully using difficult situation civil wars in Rome, the most energetic and treacherous of Antipater’s sons, Herod, became the ruler of Judea as “an ally and friend of the Roman people” (37-4 BC).

In foreign policy Herod was limited by the instructions and control of Rome, but in the interior he was given almost complete freedom, which he used to transform citizens into silent and resigned subjects. Herod abolished the hereditary high priesthood, exterminated the Hasmoneans and other noble families, and replenished the treasury by confiscating their property. These events were accompanied by a redistribution of land: Herod concentrated most of the land in own hands, endowing it with their relatives and associates, which created a new elite that was dependent on the king and obsequiously served him.

Herod went down in history as one of the greatest urban planners. Under him, new city-states (Sebastea, Caesarea, etc.), fortresses and numerous palaces were built. Cities were decorated with circuses, therms(antique baths), theaters and other public buildings. Herod became especially famous for the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple he began, which, ironically, later became an important center of the struggle against Rome. Herod often sent generous gifts to Athens, Sparta, and other Hellenistic cities. Constantly in need of large funds, the tsar sharply increased taxation of the population. Even under Herod's successors, who ruled a significantly reduced territory, annual revenues to the treasury reached 1000-1200 talents. Numerous taxes and levies extremely burdened the country and caused mass discontent, strengthened by the king’s innovations that were incompatible with Judaism. For example, all subjects had to swear allegiance to the Roman emperor and Herod personally. Despite all this, Herod continued to consider himself an adherent of the Jewish religion.

For continuous popular performances and uprisings, Herod responded with massive bloody repressions, not even sparing members own family. The morbidly distrustful and vindictive tyrant executed his wife, brother-in-law, and three sons, prompting the Roman Emperor Augustus to say that “it is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” Death of Herod in 4 BC e. served as a signal for new mass protests, which grew after the transformation of Judea in 6 AD. e. into the imperial province and brought the country to a tragic explosion - the Jewish War with Rome of 66-73.

By the beginning of the 3rd century. BC On the territory of the former Persian state, new states emerged, the largest of which was the Seleucid state, founded by Alexander’s commander Seleucus. Media, Persia, Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, part of Asia Minor were part of this kingdom; Seleucus lost his Indian possessions at the end of the 4th century. BC

The Seleucids waged continuous wars with one state or another. Seleucus I himself was killed during the military campaign he undertook to conquer Thrace and Macedonia. Under his successors, long wars began with the Ptolemies for Southern Syria. Around the middle of the 3rd century. BC, during the reign of Antiochus II, the eastern regions - Bactria and Parthia - separated from the Selovkid power. In 262 BC. the ruler of the fortress of Pergamon (northwestern Asia Minor) declared himself king; The kingdom of Pergamon arose, where another Macedonian dynasty, the Attalids, ruled. Small kingdoms also formed. ruled by local dynasties, for example Vlfinnya and Cappadocia in Lesser Azpi. In the first half of the 3rd century. BC The Galatian (Celtic) tribes invaded Asia Minor through the Balkan Peninsula, with whom the Hellenistic rulers had to wage a stubborn struggle. Antiochus I pushed the Galatians into the interior of Asia Minor. Then the Pergamon king Attalus I (241 - 197 BC) won a major victory over them; The Galatians' possessions were limited to the northern regions of Frigpi.

The Seleucid domains expanded again under Antiochus III (223 - 187 BC), one of the most talented Hellenistic rulers. A feature of his policy was his reliance not only on the Greeks, but also on ancient local self-governing centers, which provided him with the support of fairly wide sections of the population in different areas of his kingdom. In addition to the Greeks and Macedonians, representatives of numerous tribes and peoples that were part of his power fought in the army of Antiochus III. He annexed new territories in Asia Minor, conquered part of Armenia, and defeated the king Bactrian Euthydemus. Antiochus III fought another (fourth) war with Egypt for Syria. In this war he was defeated in 217 BC. uh, at the Battle of Rafia. But then, taking advantage of internal unrest in Egypt and concluding an alliance with Macedonia, he conquered part of Southern Syria, Phenicia and Palestine. At this time, Rome intervenes in the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean; The Romans declared war on Antiochus III. After the defeat at Magnesia (Asia Minor) in 190 BC. e. The Romans took away from Antiochus III part of his possessions, which were divided among the allies of Rome. Among them, a number of Asia Minor regions received Pergamon. First half of the 2nd century BC. e. was the time of the greatest prosperity of the Pergamon kingdom.

Most information on the economic history of Western Asia III-I centuries. BC, which we have, refers to the kingdom of the Seleucids and Pergamon, but a number of common features inherent in their economic and social system allow us to characterize the social structure of other Hellenistic states.

Already during Alexander's campaigns and the struggle of his commanders, a division emerged into the royal land itself and the lands of cities - self-governing civil collectives. Alexander's successors continued this policy. In the Seleucid kingdom there was a fund of royal land, created primarily from possessions taken from the Persians and from tribal territories; significant land holdings were under the control of policies, civil-temple communities, and local dnasts. Due to the heterogeneity of the regions that were part of their power, the Selsvkids did not have the opportunity to create a unified organization of economy and management, similar to the Ptolemaic one. Although their kingdom was divided into satrapies (led by strategoi), local organizations remained within the satrapies; The Seleucids officially addressed their orders to cities, dynasts, temples and tribes.

The entire population and all lands (with the exception of certain large estates of nobles, which they received from the king, and the lands of a number of cities) were taxed. The farmers who cultivated the royal land were called “royal people” (laoi); they lived in villages, and the kings taxed the village communities as a whole. We do not know whether the tax was the same throughout Western Azpi; it probably varied depending on local conditions; an inscription from the region of Sardis (Asia Minor) mentions a cash tax paid by villages to the royal treasury. The contributions of different villages varied greatly - in accordance with the amount of land and population (thus, three villages together paid 50 gold pieces annually, and the fourth village alone paid 57 gold pieces). In the Kingdom of Pergamon there was a monetary per capita taxation for village residents. The monetary form of the tax led to the fact that losses, as in Egypt, in the event of a crop failure fell only on farmers. Farmers were forced to sell agricultural products in city markets, which, due to fluctuations in prices, yield, proximity or distance of the nearest market, led to stratification among farmers. The “royal people,” like the “royal farmers” in Egypt, were attached not to their own piece of land, but to the community - as taxpayers; they too tried to escape from their villages. The kings did not return the farmers by force; in any case, there is no evidence of this. The resettled farmers remained members of their community: in relation to the central government they acted as “royal people”, and in all other respects as “comets”, community members. In addition to the ancient communities, new village-communities from settlers also arose in the Hellenistic states. Among the inhabitants of one such new village of Pannu, located on royal land in Asia Minor, there were people with both local and Greek names - the latter were probably former mercenaries or fugitives from Greek cities; they were part of communities, since agriculture, based on the manual labor of small owners, could not exist without an organization that united individual producers and regulated relations between them.

The “royal people” owned property and entered into trade deals. Their dependence was not personal, but communal; The tsarist government took advantage of the connection between farmers and the community to organize the collection of taxes and duties. In the Hellenistic period, we can talk about attachment to the community, since it was more convenient for the central apparatus to deal with “organized” subjects and collect taxes from entire groups at once. The villages apparently had communal self-government. Thus, the joint resolution of the two villages, adopted at a meeting of their residents, has been preserved. This decree honors people (one of them, a major Seleucid official, is called “the lord of this district”) for ransoming villagers captured by the Galatians.

The Seleucids transferred a significant part of the royal land to their employees, associates, and relatives. Lands received for service were the property of their owners and could be taken away by the king: for example, one inscription speaks of the Syrian village of Baytokaika. which the king gives to the temple and which was previously owned by a certain Demetrius. In a number of cases, the owner of a plot of royal land collected taxes from villages and paid it to the royal treasury; Farmers, in addition, were obliged to pay cash taxes and labor duties in favor of the owner. There were large noble estates that were virtually independent of the royal administration.

In this regard, the correspondence of King Lentiochos III with the strategist of Southern Syria Ptolemy (who went over to the side of Seleucidon) is characteristic; Antiochus left behind him the weight of his former estates and added new ones. The king gives orders to his officials so that all trade transactions within Ptolemy's domains are carried out under the control of his agents, exempts his villages from standing, prohibits the imposition of fines on the property of his people and the removal of them from his possessions to work. Among the king's entourage were people who did not hold specific positions, but bore the honorary title “friend of the king” or “friend and relative” of the king. Sometimes they were citizens of cities and through them an additional unofficial connection was carried out between the king and the polis. The king also endowed such associates with land, and they had the right to assign their land to any polis, i.e. completely remove it from the control of the royal kazpa. In this way, Antiochus II rewarded his wife Laodice, from whom he separated in order to marry the daughter of Ptolemy II. He sold Laodicea in Asia Minor a village, a fortified house and land adjacent to the village; People (laoi), who came from this village but moved to other places, also came under the rule of Laodice. Laodice was exempt from taxation into the royal treasury and received the right to assign land to any policy.

In addition, Antiochus II transferred to Laodicea and his sons from her lands in Babylonia, which were assigned to the Babylonian cities. In order to exercise their rights as owners, people who received lands from the king had to include them in the territory of self-governing cities. Nothing is known about the situation of farmers on the lands assigned to the city. The term "laoi" does not appear in city documents. Probably, their position approached that of other non-citizen farmers, and dependence on the owner of the land was expressed in the payment of taxes.

On lands transferred to private individuals, in addition to communal farmers, slaves worked; they could live in the same villages as the farmers, in separate houses. By using slaves on their farms, landowners adapted to the dominant form of labor organization on their lands. There was no point in creating an expensive apparatus of control and coercion for the landowner (to maintain overseers, accountants, etc.): living in the village, slaves were subject to community regulations and control. Slaves were also used in the royal economy, in particular in the economy of the Attalids and Pergamum kings. Owning a compact territory. The Attalids had the opportunity to establish a clearer system of government than the Seleucids, although the Pergamon kings also relied on Greek policies and local temple organizations. Solid tracts of royal lands (in Pergamon the state was smaller than that of the Seleucids, large cities, whose lands would have been wedged into the royal ones), the concentration of crafts mainly in one center - the city of Pergamon - allowed the kings to exercise constant control over the labor of slaves. Probably, for debts to the state, peasants were turned into royal slaves, and not sold at auction to private individuals, as in Ptolemaic Egypt.

The Attalids received most of their slaves from among the local population of the kingdom of Pergamum, and these slaves, employed in agriculture and crafts, were in a better position than foreign slaves. In 133 BC, when Pergamum was engulfed in a revolt the poor, a special decree freed the city (belonging to the city of Pergamon) and royal slaves, “with the exception of those purchased under the kings Philadslf and Philometor and confiscated from private possessions that became royal.” Here the difference is clearly drawn between the bulk of the royal slaves, on the one hand, and the slaves bought during the reign of the last Attalids or received from private individuals, on the other, i.e. Slaves who were not connected by hereditary ties with the royal land and in general with the royal economy find themselves in a worse position. Royal slaves were used in agriculture and in craft workshops, which were led by special overseers subordinate to the king, and in the Seleucid kingdom, and in Pergamum, a significant part of the royal land was used to organize military-agricultural settlements of Katek warriors. The land was allocated to the settlement as a whole, and then distributed among the settlers depending on their position in the army.

The Katekians in the Seleucid kingdom were mainly Greeks and Macedonians. Over time, a number of military settlements received the status of a polis, and sometimes they merged with local self-governing collectives. Thus, in the Hyrcanian Valley in Lydia lived the Hyrcanians, resettled there by the Persians from the shores of the Caspian Sea; they formed a self-governing association around the Temple of Artemis. The Macedonian military settlement merged with this unification: the united civilian community began to be called the “polis of the Macedonian-Hyrcanians.”

In all likelihood, the polis on the banks of the Euphrates, known under the double (local and Greek) name Dura-Europos, also grew out of the military settlement. The Greco-Macedonian warriors, who initially made up the main population of Dura-Europos, were endowed with land. They could sell their plots, although these plots were formally considered the property of the king: in the absence of heirs, the clergy (allotment) returned to the royal treasury. Dura-Europos was a fortress that controlled trade routes along the Euphrates. In the fortress there were representatives of the central government: the strategist - the head of the garrison, the opistate (an official who “oversaw” the internal life of the city), royal employees who monitored trade and collected duties in favor of the royal treasury. On the land assigned to Dura-Europos, as can be seen from later documents, there were also villages with a local population. In the II century. BC Dura-Europos came under Parthian rule.

The kings of Pergamum, along with the Greeks and Macedonians, attracted people from local peoples (for example, the Mysians) as warriors. In agreement with the letter of one of the Psrham kings, military colonists (Kateks) were given plots of uncultivated land and vineyards for their service. For this land, the Kateks paid 1/20 of the grain and 1/10 of the remaining fruits. By charging a portion of the harvest rather than a flat fee, the king shared losses with the kateks in the event of natural disasters. In addition, wanting to encourage the cultivation of necessary agricultural crops, the king granted the colonists tax-free land for growing olive trees. In addition to the clerks received for military service, kateks could buy land from the royal treasury. Childless kateks had the right to bequeath their plots. Subsequently, lands in the Pergaiskpkh katekii, as well as in the military settlements of the Seleucpdians, began to be bought and sold.

In general, during the 3rd - 2nd centuries. There is a gradual reduction in the royal land fund itself - not only due to the transfer of land into private hands, but also due to the transfer of royal land to the cities.

The city, as an organization of free citizens who had certain economic and political privileges, played an important role in the social structure of the countries of Western Asia during the Hellenistic period. Alexander's successors added many new ones to the old Greek and eastern urban centers. There is information that Seleucus I founded 33 cities. Of course, most cities were not built from scratch. Usually, some local settlement was chosen, conveniently located in military and commercial terms, it was expanded, rebuilt, declared a polis and renamed in honor of the founding king or his relatives: this is how Seleucipus, Antioch, Apamea, Stratonicea appeared (the last two are named after the queens ) etc. Macedonian veterans and Greek colonists settled in these cities, and the local population became their citizens - either those who had lived here before, or those resettled from surrounding towns. The most developed civil-temple communities (for example, in Babylonia, Palestine) retained their structure, and their position in relation to the royal power was equated to the position of the poleis.

Urban development was not only the result of government policy. This process began in the pre-Hellenistic period and continued over a number of subsequent centuries; the kings simply had to recognize the existing situation, granting that city the status of a polis. Polis names such as “Horse Village”, “Sacred Village” show that some cities arose from villages. Each self-governing civil collective had a certain territory under its control. From most of the cities that were part of the Hellenistic monarchies, the kings levied taxes - cash or in kind (traditionally they were tithes). In addition to the policies and civil-temple communities, within the Hellenistic monarchies there were territories that were governed by the inheritance of another priesthood; the kings recognized the internal isolation of such territories (for example, Pessinunta in Asia Minor), but collected taxes from them into the royal treasury and, to a certain extent, controlled their activities. The policies sought to include the neighboring temple territories in their district, and the kings encouraged them in this. Thus, a long-term dispute between Mil Asa and the priest of the temple in the town of Labraupda is known: each of the parties claimed to control this town. Finally, the Seleucids (and then the Macedonian king Philip V, who invaded these areas) approved the annexation of Labraunda to Milas.

The kings - both the Seleucids and the Attalids, and representatives of local dynasties - increased the land holdings of cities through donations and sales of royal land, as well as by annexing smaller cities to larger ones. The creation of large city centras facilitated the collection of taxes, since taxes were collected from city territories by policy officials, who then transferred part of it to the royal treasury. But the tsars’ support for cities is explained not only by financial considerations: the traditional urban civil society was the most convenient form of organizing the free population among dependent exploited farmers. During the period of strengthening of the Hellenistic monarchies (III century BC), these organizations served as the support of the king and the conductor of his will. The kings sought to put the internal life of the city under their control, the methods of which were different: the placement of military garrisons, direct supervision with the help of special epistatal officials located in the cities; letters of instructions from kings addressed to cities. There were also indirect methods of intervention: cities granted citizenship to Macedonian military leaders, royal associates, and even the kings themselves. During Alexander's lifetime, Antigonus received citizenship in Priene; The city of Bargilia made Antiochus I his citizen; some cities granted civil rights to “friends of the Tsar.” As a rule, these persons received a number of other privileges: for example, an important privilege was the right to enter the bule (council) and the people's assembly first after making sacrifices. Using this right, the “friends of the Tsar” could be the first to speak at meetings, influencing the mood of the citizens.

In the Hellenistic states of Western Asia, royal cults were widespread to a lesser extent than in Egypt. However, the Seleucids claimed descent from Apollo - in order to give a "divine" character to their dynasty. In some policies, cults of individual kings were established for services rendered; There were also private associations of admirers of the royal cult (for example, admirers of Eumenes II): in addition to political motives, belief in the supernatural abilities of rulers (especially those who won victories over their opponents), the hope of finding patron gods in them instead of the previous ones, played a role in the establishment of such cults , who were losing the trust of the city gods.

During the heyday of the Seleucid power, which lasted until the beginning of the 2nd century. BC, a relatively strong alliance between the central government and the cities, and the use of katekii to control rural areas ensured the systematic exploitation of the masses of the rural population. During this period, we can trace a certain growth in productive forces on royal and urban lands, and the introduction of new agricultural crops. The Seleucids tried to cultivate Indian balsam; in Babylonia and Susiana, according to Strabo, rice and new varieties of grapes were bred. The Hellenistic polis was a more complex social structure than the classical polis. The Hellenistic polis controlled the rural territory, part of which was owned by citizens, part of which constituted the public fund of the city (pastures that citizens could use for a fee; lands leased); in addition, the territory where villages and various types of settlements were located was assigned to the policy, the inhabitants of which did not enjoy civil rights, were subordinate to city officials and paid taxes to the city in money or in kind. Sometimes a large polis dominated over smaller ones, which retained internal autonomy and paid taxes to the dominant city. In the dependent policies there were officials sent there from the dominant policy.

The largest cities were independent states. In this regard, the history of the Asia Minor possessions of Rhodes is indicative, in the total extent of which (including some islands) it could compete at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC with the Kingdom of Pergamum. Colonization of the Asia Minor coast by the Rhodians began in the 6th-5th centuries. BC These ancient colonies of Rhodes were fortresses, usually located on hills. from which it was possible to observe the coastline. After the formation of the Hellenistic states interested in an alliance with Rhodes, an important center of transit trade along the Aegean Sea, he significantly expanded his possessions. From Slevok II, as a reward for assistance in his war with Ptolemy III, Rhodes received the city of Stratopikea in Carium (in the southwest of Asia Minor) with adjacent lands. In the II century. BC, taking advantage of the difficult situation of the strategists who controlled the Asia Minor possessions of Egypt, Rhodes bought the city of Kaun (also in Caria) from them. Finally, for supporting Rome in the war against Antiochus III, the Rhodians were rewarded with most of Caria and Lycia, which had previously been under the rule of the Selscids. All these new possessions were governed by special officials sent from Rhodes - strategists, hegemons and epistates who had military, police and financial functions (they collected taxes from the dependent population).

The Hellenistic polis thus represented a hierarchy of communities. Rural communities in urban areas enjoyed some internal self-government (there was a village people's assembly), had a community fund and public lands (usually lands around sanctuaries), which were under the control of the communities: for example, in the inscription of one Malaya Azpy village located on the territory of the polis , refers to the village's decision to plant a sacred plot: the community member who grows at least three trees and keeps them in good condition for five years will be honored for this for the next five years at an annual festival. In addition, village residents made contributions for public needs (up to 100 drachmas). Farmers were personally free and had freedom of movement.

A characteristic feature of the Hellenistic city was the existence in it of different population groups - belonging to different nationalities, having different legal status. The civil collectives of the policies included both Greeks and Macedonians, as well as representatives of the local population: there were especially many of the latter in the newly founded policies and local cities that received the status of a policy. In Seleucia on the Tigris, a large number of Babylonians resettled there were noted; in Aptiokhip on the Orontes, Syrians lived alongside the Greeks; Antioch-Edessa in Upper Mesopotamia was called semi-barbarian by contemporaries. Citizens of Greek origin often adopted Hellenic names, but this was not the rule: in the sources there are references to representatives of the elite of the urban population (for example, ambassadors to the parish) who bore non-Greek names and patronymics.

During the Hellenistic period, migrations of some regions and cities to others continued. Individual settlers, for special services to the city, received full citizenship rights from the king (among them were persons of non-Greek origin); others received only the right to own land without political rights (permission for persons who are not citizens of the city to acquire land on its territory is one of the characteristic differences between the Hellenistic polis and the classical one); sometimes such a right to acquire land was mutually granted to all citizens of cities that agreed with each other. Migrants from rural areas or other cities, who did not receive any privileges, constituted a lower legal group of pareks - they had the right to live in the city and district but not acquire land ownership), took part in city festivities. Freedmen could become parecs; farmers who moved to the city and were included in the lists of pareks lost contact with the rural community. Sometimes settlers of the same nationality formed a special self-governing organization within the city - a polyteum. Such polytheums were formed by the Jews, perhaps also by the Syrians, in Antioch on the Orontes.

Hellenistic city-states concentrated a large number of slaves - private and public. Many slaves were servants in rich houses and worked in craft workshops. Public slaves were the lowest employees of the state apparatus and were used in construction. In the latter case, they received a small daily wage and clothing. Judging by the materials of the Asia Minor temple in Didyma, slaves received less than free workers (3 obols per day, while the lowest payment for a free worker was 4.5 obols). During the Hellenistic period, the transfer of slaves to “rents” continued - they ran independent households and paid certain contributions to their masters. The manumission of slaves was widespread; freedmen remained bound to their masters by certain obligations; sometimes, until the end of their days, they had to, as stated in the documents on their release to freedom, do “all the work that they did in slavery.” Children born to a slave before manumission remained slaves unless their emancipation was specifically negotiated. According to the laws of some policies, it was necessary to specifically stipulate the right of a freedman to freely leave the city. Sometimes freedmen paid off their duties with money. From among their freedmen and trusted slaves, rich people tended to recruit estate managers, workshop supervisors, and sales agents.

In addition to slaves and freedmen, free workers were used in public work, primarily in construction work, who were supplied by rural districts, where the development of commodity-money relations led to the ruin of farmers. Free artisans could also work in private workshops, and it is difficult to determine whose labor predominated - slaves or free ones. The internal self-government of the Hellenistic polis was similar in form to the self-government of the polis of the classical period. there was a national assembly, a bule (council), and elected officials. However, such an important democratic body as a court elected from among all citizens, in the period III - I centuries. was dying off. It was widespread to invite judges from other cities to examine internal disputes, which, given the stratification of the civil society, could not always be resolved on their own. Sometimes royal officials acted as judges.

Only a small number of cases were heard by elected judges.

In Hellenistic city-states, officials gradually began to play an increasingly greater role and the popular assembly began to play an increasingly smaller role. A number of positions, in particular some priestly positions, were sold. For the period III - I centuries. BC Characterized by a sharp stratification among the city's population. The existence of direct taxation in most policies founded in Asia contributed to this stratification. Debtors of the city treasury in a number of policies were deprived of their civil rights. This process was somewhat mitigated due to the presence of a public land fund that citizens could rent, and distributions that were more significant than in the previous period. Distributions were also made to the non-civilian population, sometimes to slaves, usually during city-wide religious festivals. Thus, non-citizens, who accumulated in large numbers in cities, were to some extent included in the life of the civil community.

During the Hellenistic period, civil-temple communities continued to develop in various regions of Western Asia. An example of such communities is the cities of Babylonia. In these cities there was a clearly defined civil society, formed as a result of the gradual merger of the wealthy sections of the city's population with the temple staff. At the indicated time, most of the members of this team were not actually temple servants: many artisans were noted among them; cuneiform contracts mention the owners of slaves and land (both inside and outside the city limits), but all these people were associated with the temple, in particular receiving allowances from it - a certain standard of food. The right to receive allowances was once associated with the performance of duties in favor of the temple. Already in more ancient times, this right was freely sold, and in parts (for example, one sixth or one twelfth of the right to allowances due on certain days of each month); During the period described, a woman could also buy the right to allowances associated with a male position. Thus, this right ceased to be associated with the performance of office and remained a privilege of members of the civil collective, which they could freely transfer to each other.

In the Babylonian cities there were assemblies, the chairman of which was the steward (shatammu) of the temples; These meetings resolved property issues, imposed fines, and provided honors to royal officials. Like the policies, such cities had a vast rural district, the lands of which were partly owned by citizens and partly cultivated by a dependent rural population who paid taxes to this temple city. Private lands received from the king could be assigned to such cities in the same way as to policies. In the Babylonian cities, as in a number of policies, there were royal officials - epistati (from local citizens).

Another type of civil-temple community was the Asia Minor associations around sanctuaries. We are well aware of one such city - Milas. Milasa is a famous religious center of the Carians; Herodotus wrote about it in the 5th century. BC e. The inhabitants of Milasa were divided into phylas, which were associations around temples. The Philae, in turn, were divided into syngenii - small communities that had a common sanctuary. The land of the sanctuary was the land of the community, and was distributed among the citizens, who elected officials. in charge of the “sacred” treasury. In the 4th century. BC Milasa is called a polis, but retains a number of specific features, in particular the comparative independence of phyla and syngenia.

The temple grounds were actually public land; land distribution took the form of rent. But the lease terms were relatively lenient in order to give access to land to poorer citizens; There was a collective lease, when the land was rented by the entire community as a whole, and then the plots were distributed among citizens. The example of the civil-temple communities of Asia Minor clearly shows that the public land fund was used to support low-income citizens. The Hellenistic period was characterized not only by the development of poleis and common civil temples, but also by the desire of all these self-governing cities to form closer unions among themselves, often with mutual citizenship (citizens of one city, moving to another, automatically received citizenship rights in it).

The existence of unions made it possible for cities to resist the pressure of Hellenistic rulers and more successfully develop their economies. A typical example of such a union in the eastern regions of the Mediterranean was the union of the cities of Likin. According to Strabo, this union included 23 cities. Representatives of the Lycian cities from time to time gathered in a city for a general council - the Sanhedrin. The largest cities had three votes in this Sanhedrin, the middle ones - two votes, the others - one vote each. At the sipedrion, the head of the union was elected - the lykiarch, the chief of the cavalry and the treasurer. The cities of the Lycian Union had a public treasury and common courts. In fact, the most important affairs of the union were decided by large cities, which were called “the metropolises of the Likpi people,” and public positions were occupied by citizens of these cities. Citizens of metropolises received citizenship rights in all other policies of the union and the right to own land in them. The official and written languages ​​in the Lycian union, along with Aramaic inherited from the Achaemepid offices, were also Lycian and Greek.

The exchange between the western and eastern regions, the emergence of cities as craft centers in previously economically backward areas led to the spread of technical achievements and production skills; This applies especially to mass production, such as pottery. High-quality dosage was made in a variety of places - in the cities of Greece, the Aegean archipelago, Asia Minor, Southern Italy, Egypt. Moreover, if the unique gold and silver vessels that were used in the courts of Hellenistic rulers were made by special craftsmen on special orders, then ceramics for more or less wealthy layers of townspeople were made in different centers according to the same pattern.

The development of exchange in the Hellenistic states led to a change in coinage. Alexander had already issued a large number of gold coins (staters) and silver tetradrachms. A significant part of the precious metals lying in the treasuries of the Persian gifts was put into circulation. The Hellenistic bets minted coins in the same denominations as Alexander; The image of the king was placed on the obverse of the coin. Coins of royal minting were used for international exchange: archaeologists find them far beyond the territories of the Hellenistic states.

Self-governing cities minted their own coins (often imitating the royal, especially Alexander, coinage), but, as a rule, they circulated only in domestic markets. However, the development of the economy was hampered by endless military clashes between the Hellenistic monarchies - the struggle of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, Seleucids and Parthia led to the destruction of cities and disruption of trade relations. This was one of the reasons that, starting from the 2nd century. BC e. The top population of a number of Hellenistic cities came out in support of the new great power - Rome. Another reason for the pro-Roman position of some of the rich strata was the aggravation in the Hellenistic states of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. socio-political struggle.

The socio-political struggle in Asia Minor and Asia Minor in the last centuries BC was complex and involved various segments of the population.

Thus, the struggle in Judea against the power of the Seleucids, which will be discussed later, was directed not only against foreign domination, but also against the strengthening of the noble Jewish families who supported the policy of Hellenization. A number of large policies opposed dependence on the central government; During the wars between the Hellenistic monarchs (Seleucids and Ptolemies, Philip V of Macedon and Pergamon), as well as during military clashes with Rome, the cities switched sides first, then the other. The instability of the position of the Soleucid power was especially revealed after the defeat inflicted by Rome on Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia (Asia Minor). According to the peace concluded in the city of Apamea, Antiochus lost a significant part of the Asia Minor possessions (they were transferred to Rome's allies in this war, Pergamum and Rhodes). Greater Armenia and Sophona declared themselves independent; the areas beyond the Titus were captured by the Parthians. The son of Antiochus III, Antiochus IV, attempted to restore the Seleucid power to its former borders. He fought successful wars with the Ptolemies and twice invaded Egypt. In 168 BC. e. Antiochus IV besieged Alexandria. But the Romans intervened: the Roman ambassador arrived in Egypt and presented Aitiochus with a demand to immediately leave Egypt; The ambassador, talking with the king, drew a circle in the sand, inside which Antiochus found himself, and declared that he should give an answer before he crossed the circle. Antiochus did not risk a conflict with the Romans: he withdrew his troops from Egypt. AITIOKH devoted the rest of his reign to strengthening power in those areas that still remained within his power. He abandoned the policy of Antiochus III, who supported local self-governing organizations, and began the intensive Hellenization of all regions of the kingdom in order to create a unified political system and a unified ideology. It was then that Jerusalem was turned into a polis. But this policy backfired: popular unrest broke out. Antiochus IV died during one of the eastern campaigns. After the death of the king, at the request of Rome, the Seleucid military fleet was destroyed and the war elephants were killed. The military power of the Seleucid power was broken.

From the middle of the 2nd century. BC A long struggle for power began in Syria. Egypt also intervened in this fight, supporting one or the other contender. In 142 BC. Parthian king Mithridates I captured Babylonia. Antiochus VII temporarily strengthened his kingdom: he again subjugated Judea and launched a successful offensive against the Parthians. But in 129 BC. he was defeated and died. The Seleucid state was limited to Syria. In just a hundred years (from 163 to 63 BC), the Seleucid kingdom was replaced by 19 kings, and none of them died a natural death. Finally, in 63 BC. e. Syria, the last area remaining with the Seleucids, was turned into a Roman province.

Social movements also took place on the territory of the policies: the rural population, but enjoying civil rights, opposed the citizens of the cities, plundered their estates, and went over to the side of the enemy in the event of hostilities (for example, residents of the rural areas of some cities in Asia Minor went over to the side of the Galatians when the latter invaded to the territory of Malok Asia). One of the most significant popular movements of the 2nd century. there was a revolt that broke out in Pergamon in 133 BC. (“Aristonik’s uprising”), which covered the entire rural territory of the country. As one of the inscriptions dating back to that time says, the land of Pergana remained unsown and all its fruits were taken to the enemies. Attalus III, who ruled the state at this time, is one of the strange and gloomy figures characteristic of late Hellenism. It was said about him that his favorite pastime was breeding poisonous plants to make poisons. Wanting to get rid of the annoying advisers - close associates of his father Eumenes II, he one day invited them to the palace and ordered his guards to kill everyone. Unable to suppress the uprising that had arisen in the country, suspecting treason everywhere and everywhere, Attalus III, under pressure, drew up a will, according to which, after his death, the kingdom of Pergamon passed to Rome. The Romans probably promised military assistance for this, but they did not have to wait particularly long; in 133, Attalus died, according to the official version, from sunstroke. The news of his death and will caused a further expansion of the uprising, headed by a contender for the throne - the illegitimate son of Eumenes II Aristonicus. The rebels captured a number of cities. In the south, unrest spread as far as Halicarnassus in Carinus. The city authorities of Pergamon were forced to grant citizenship rights to the Cateks from local tribes and free the royal and public slaves. But this did not stop the development of the uprising, just like the last measure - granting the right of citizenship to slaves raised in the house of their masters.

Aristonik's supporters called themselves heliopolitans - citizens of the Solptsa State.

Among the local tribes of Asia Minor, cults of solar deities were widespread, which attracted the masses as opposed to the official religion of the Hellenic gods and god-kings. The ideologists of the rebels, among whom were philosophers (for example, a certain Stoic philosopher from Qom, who fled to Aristonicus from Italy), linked the spontaneous faith of the masses in the blessed Sun with the doctrine of an ideal state where everyone would be equal. The Heliopolitan movement crossed the borders of the Pergamon state. The Roman legions had to conquer the kingdom bequeathed to Rome in difficult battles; with great difficulty they managed to lock Aristopikos in the Carian Stratonix (already outside Pergamon) and force him to surrender by starvation in 130 BC. e. Individual detachments of the rebels resisted the Romans for another year.

The kingdom of Pergamon was turned into the province of Asia - the first Asia Minor province of Rome. The Roman conquests in the Eastern Mediterranean serve as a certain chronological milestone, since the inclusion of this region into a single centralized (since the establishment of the empire at the end of the 1st century BC) state had a significant impact on the internal development of the conquered western regions of the former Seleucdian state and the regions of the Kingdom of Pergamon .

The annexation of the eastern regions of the Seleucid kingdom to Parthia also introduced specifics into their historical fate. And although Hellenistic traditions continued to exist in many spheres of social and cultural life, the period of Hellenism proper in Western Asia ended with the time of the Roman and Parthian conquests.

The Palestinian civil-temple community, led by the Jerusalem high priests, was finally formed by the second half of the 4th century. BC and received a significant degree of autonomy, separating itself from the surrounding population on the “royal land”. This community reacted very indifferently to the death of the Achaemenid power and greeted it quite favorably in 332 BC. e. Alexander the Great, who allowed her to maintain her old laws, that is, complete autonomy and “protection” of herself from the outside world.

After the Battle of Ins in 301 BC. which ended the struggle of Alexander's successors - the Diadochi, Palestine was captured by the ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy Lagus, but in 200 BC. Antpokh III included the country into the Seleucid Empire.

During the reign of the Ptolemies and Seleucids in Palestine, in the satrapy then called "Celesyria and Phenicia" and including Samaria, Judea, Edom, Transjordan and Phenicia, intensive Hellenistic urbanization took place. It was mainly deployed in the coastal zone, Northern Palestine and Trans-Dapye. The Hellenistic city-states surrounded on three sides the civil-temple community in Judea, which was not affected by Hellenistic urban planning. Although there is no case data on the number of inhabitants of Hellenistic-Roman Palestine, all researchers recognize that the Jews made up from half to two-thirds of the country’s inhabitants, and among them the proportion of Hellenes or Hellenized representatives of the local population was constantly increasing. This significantly increased the degree of influence of Hellenism on the rest of the population of Palestine, which was also involved in the Hellenistic economic system.

Important trade routes of the Hellenistic world passed through Palestine, which contributed to the development of foreign, especially transit, trade. Researchers count about 240 names of goods of Palestinian foreign trade, of which about 130 were imported items: incense, precious stones and gold from Arabia, fabrics from Mesopotamia, bread and linen from Egypt, spices from India, etc. Constant contacts with the Hellenistic world contributed to the introduction of more advanced agricultural technology and contributed to the development of crafts and the commodity-money economy in Palestine. These phenomena affected Peto to a lesser extent, but the introduction of the entire country to the Hellenistic world also gave rise to changes in the structure of the Jewish civil temple community.

It had self-government, headed by a hereditary high priest and a "gerusia (council of elders) of the whole people", actually consisting of the nobility. The high priest was not only the leader of the community, but also a representative of the central government, responsible for collecting taxes and depositing them into the royal treasury. Having conquered Palestine, Antiochus III provided the community with tax benefits: members of the Gerusshg, priests and temple servants were completely exempt from all taxes, and the rest received: exemption for three years with a subsequent reduction in taxes by one third.

The edict of Lntioch III confirms that at the beginning of the 2nd century. BC the division characteristic of the civil-temple community into priests, Levites and non-priests was preserved. But sources also point to a number of new phenomena in society. If in the VI -IV centuries. BC bet-abot was a comprehensive structural unit common to all members of the community, now the number of families that do not belong to these broad agnates is increasing (Agnates are persons descended through the male line from one ancestor or adopted. Agdats did not include married daughters and granddaughters , but wives entered.) groups. Along with the preserved land property of the Bet-Abot, alienated only within it and in the possession of the families of this group, the share of large and small private land property is increasing. Already before there was a struggle between supporters of “universalism” and “particularism”. The tension was incomparably greater in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC in the face of territorially close and advancing Hellenism. For the Jewish community, a structure close in its function to the Hellenistic city-states, two “answers” ​​were possible: to maintain its isolation or to open itself to the perception of Hellenism. The choice of answer was determined for each social stratum and group by the interweaving of not only economic, social and religious motives and incentives, but also the traditional orientation of influential families (betabots), for example the Tobiads.

This noble family, who lived in Palestine and Transjordan at the extreme sea since the 8th century. BC and under the Achaemenids, he strongly opposed the creation of an autonomous civil-temple community in Palestine, in political situation III - II centuries. BC led the elipnization movement. The Tobiads were supported not only by groups of the priestly and non-priestly elite of the community close to them, but also by representatives of other strata, especially part of the merchants and artisans of Jerusalem, for whom Hellenization would mean an expansion of their economic activities. In 175 BC. The high priest Jason, close to the Tobiads, obtained permission from Antiochus IV Epiphanes to organize a polis in Jerusalem with an ephebene, a gymnasium and other polis institutions. This policy included only supporters of the Hellenization movement, who called themselves “Antiochians in Jerusalem.”

The Hellenizers did not consider their actions a rejection of Judaism; on the contrary, in their opinion, separation from other nations was not only the cause of the disaster that befell the Jews, but also a violation of the covenant of Moses, who taught that the god Yahweh can and should be revered by all people. The conflict that engulfed Jewish society, expressing socio-economic contradictions, unfolded on the religious and ideological plane. At first, disagreements did not go beyond the boundaries of the community; the question of political independence was not raised. However, the dependence of the “Antiochians in Jerusalem” on the support of the Seleucids, as well as the actions of the Syrian rulers, inevitably led them to a choice: to remain or not to remain Judea under the rule of the “pagans”)?

The edict of Antiochus IV (167 BC) under threat of death prohibited the fulfillment of the instructions of Yahweh - the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifice to Yahweh, food regulations, etc. The Temple of Jerusalem was turned into the temple of Olympian Zeus, the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures were burned, etc. e. The practice of religious persecution, so unusual for Hellenistic kings, stems from the very essence of the conflict in Judea; since the main thing in it was the struggle for and against the “fence” from the external government, the reaction of Anthony IV was an attempt to destroy this “fence”.

The nature of the struggle that unfolded in Judea also explains the emergence of martyrdom for the faith at that time: many died passively resisting the implementation of the edict of Aitiochus IV. Others responded to the call of Mattathias from the Hasmonean priestly family to actively fight. This marked the beginning of a rebellion (167-142 BC) known as the Maccabean War (after the nickname of the eldest of Mattathias' five sons, Judah Maccabee). The actions of the rebels, whose main base was Judea, were so successful that in 164 BC. Antiochus IV addressed them with a message in which he demanded an end to armed uprisings, promising that “those. who return home,” impunity will be guaranteed and that the Jews will be able to eat their food and keep their laws as before. Poslappe was an official renunciation of religious persecution and a promise to restore the autonomy of the Jewish community. However, the rebels rejected the king's offer.

Two circumstances contributed to the realization of the Hasmopean goal - achieving complete independence. The first is the support of the rebels by Rome, which concluded in 161 BC. an agreement with Judas Maccabee on mutual assistance in case of war, which was the recognition of the rebels as an independent political force. The second is the collapse of the Seleucid power that began after the death of Antiochus IV. The Hasmoneans skillfully used the Seleucid struggle for the throne, during which the contenders sought their support, providing them with very significant privileges in return - as part of preserving Judea as part of the Seleucid state. However, this power was disintegrating before our eyes, and the Hasmoneans, especially Simon, who led the struggle after the death of Judah and his brother Jonathan, increasingly persistently sought complete independence. In 142 BC. e. the Syrian king Demetrius II, in a message to “the high priest Simon and the friend of the kings (i.e., the Seleucids), the elders and the people of Judea,” freed Judea from paying all taxes and proposed to make peace with it - in fact, as an equal party.

The desire to strengthen their power pushed the first Hasmonean rulers - Simon (142-134 BC), John Hyrcanus I (134-104 BC) and Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). e.) - on the way of conquest. Ont included Edom, all of Palestine (including the coast), parts of Transjordan and Southern Phenicia into their state. As a result, the population of the Hasmonean state became ethnically and religiously more and more diverse.

Realizing the danger of this, the Hasmoneans tried to solve this problem through the forced Judaization of the country, which caused resistance.

The expanding Hasmonean state could no longer be a civil-temple community, the immutable prerequisites for the existence of which (as well as the existence of Hellenistic cities) were relative socio-economic equality and ethno-religious homogeneity of its full members, a small number and limited territory. The Hasmonean state gradually turned into a Hellenistic monarchy. When in 140 B.C. The “Great Assembly” confirmed Simon in the hereditary rank of high priest, strategist and ethnarch (“head of the people”), and from the end of the 2nd century. BC his successors added the royal title to the rank of high priest; this was a violation of the religious and political doctrine of Judaism, according to which only the Zadokids were to be high priests, and only the Davidids were to be kings, and then only in the distant future.

The evolution of the Hasmonean state into the Hellenistic monarchy was externally manifested in the creation of a ramified administrative and bureaucratic apparatus, the replacement of civil militia with foreign mercenaries, the formation of a magnificent court, the construction of palaces and fortresses, etc. All this required large amounts of money and entailed an increase in the tax burden, which negated the effectiveness of the economic upswing that came in the country after the end of the Maccabean War.

The enthusiastic support of the Hasmoneans by the masses was gradually replaced by growing discontent, which under Alexander Yannai took on the character of an open and fierce struggle. For six years (90-84 BC), there was a popular uprising led by the so-called Pharisees, which the king brutally suppressed. In the anti-Hasmonean movement of the 1st century. BC socio-economic motives were inextricably linked with religious ones. This movement was similar in nature to the earlier anti-Seleucid one.

The victorious completion of the Maccabean War and the creation of an independent state strengthened faith in the effectiveness of the “contract” with Yahweh, in the “chosenness” of Yahweh’s people, i.e. particularistic tendency. On the other hand, changes in the socio-economic and political life of the country urgently required the renewal and expansion of the religious community itself, based on the Old Testament legislation of a completely different era. This universalistic tendency was especially strong among the Jews of the diaspora (exile) - in Mesopotamia and Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece and other countries in direct contact with the Hellenistic environment, which showed a growing interest in nudaistic monotheism. To carry out a dialogue between Judaism and Hellenistic culture, the works of the former had to not only be translated into Greek, but also be brought closer to the system of Hellenistic ideas and images. This is clearly evident in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the so-called “Seventy Interpreters Translation”, or “Septuagint”. Carried out in Alexandria in the III - II centuries. BC translation and was an adaptation of the Old Testament to the world of Hellenistic ideas and images.

In 63 BC. The Roman commander Pompeii included Judea into the Roman province of Syria as an autonomous region, but greatly reduced its territory. Odipus of the last Hasmoneans, Hyrcanus II, was appointed high priest and ethnarch, but actual power lay in the hands of the Judaized Edomite Antipater and his sons.

Skillfully using the difficult situation of civil wars in Rome, the most energetic and treacherous of Antipater’s sons, Herod, became the ruler of Judea as “an ally and friend of the Roman people” (37-4 BC).

In foreign policy, Herod was limited by the instructions and control of Rome, but in domestic policy he was given almost complete freedom, which he used to turn citizens into silent and resigned subjects. Herod abolished the hereditary high priesthood, exterminated the Hasmoneans and other noble families, and replenished the treasury by confiscating their property. These events were accompanied by a redistribution of land: Herod concentrated most of the land in his own hands, allocating it to his relatives and associates, which created a new elite, dependent on the king and obsequiously serving him.

Herod went down in history as one of the greatest urban planners. Under his rule, new city-polises (Sebastea, Caesarea, etc.), fortresses and numerous palaces were built. Cities were decorated with circuses, baths (ancient baths), theaters and other public buildings. Herod became especially famous for the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple he began, which, ironically, later became an important center of the struggle against Rome. Herod often sent generous gifts to Athens, Sparta, and other Hellenistic cities. Constantly in need of large funds, the tsar sharply increased taxation of the population. Even under Herod's successors, who ruled a significantly reduced territory, annual revenues to the treasury reached 1000-1200 talents. Numerous taxes and levies extremely burdened the country and caused mass discontent, strengthened by the king’s innovations that were incompatible with Judaism. For example, all subjects had to swear allegiance to the Roman emperor and Herod personally. Despite all this, Herod continued to consider himself an adherent of the Jewish religion.

Herod responded to continuous popular uprisings and uprisings with massive bloody repressions, not even sparing members of his own family. The morbidly distrustful and vindictive tyrant executed his wife, brother-in-law, and three sons, prompting the Roman Emperor Augustus to say that “it is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” Death of Herod in 4 BC. e. served as a signal for new mass uprisings, which grew after the transformation of Judea in 6 AD. into the imperial province (In the outlying regions of Palestine, the sons of Herod ruled for some time, becoming vassals of Rome. For example, Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas.) and brought the country to a tragic explosion - the Jewish War with Rome of 66-73.

Sections 4-5 were written by N.P. Voilberg. using materials from Amusin I.D.

Literature:
Sventsitskaya I.S. Hellenism in Western Asia./History of the Ancient World. The flourishing of Ancient societies. - M.: Knowledge, 1983 - pp. 332-352