I n t e r d is c ip l in a r y S t u d ie s in A n c ie n t C ulture a n d R eligio n
E d it o r
L eo n ard V. R utgers (U trecht)
E d it o r ia l board
B éatrice C aseau (Paris)
W o lfra m K inzig (B onn)
Blake Leyerle (N o tre D am e, IN )
Paolo L iv era n i (F lorence)
A n n e M arie L u ijen d ijk (P rinceton, N J)
J o d i M ag n ess (C h a p e l H ill, N C )
D a v id S atran (Jerusalem)
Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 17
THE BIRDCAGE
OF THE MUSES
P a t r o n a g e o f t h e A rts a n d S c ien c es
at th e
P t o l e m a ic I m peria l C o u r t ,
3 0 5 -2 2 2 B C E
BY
R o lf St r o o t m a n
peeters
LEUVEN -P A R I S - BRISTOL, CT
2017
A catalogue
record for this b o o k is available fro m the Library o f Congress.
© Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven
ISBN: 978-90-429-3350-7
D /2 0 1 7 /0 6 0 2 /7 4
CONTENTS
A c k n o w le d g m e n ts ........................................................................... ........
1.
I n tr o d u c tio n .............................................................................
T he golden age o f Ptolemaic Alexandria.................................
Patronage and court s o c i e t y ....................................................
H ellenistic poetry as I art pour I a r t..........................................
Understanding Ptolemaic literary p a tro n a g e........................
Court and empire in the Ptolemaic w o r ld ............................
Understanding the role o f the c o u r t ......................................
H o w this book is str u c tu r e d ....................................................
i
1
3
5
9
11
18
21
2.
T he historical background.....................................................
T he Argead royal c o u r t .............................................................
From Companions to Friends....................................................
Cultural patronage before the Hellenistic A g e ...................
Cultural patronage in the third century B C E ........................
T he mouseion o f A le x a n d r ia ....................................................
C o n clu sio n .....................................................................................
25
25
27
29
33
37
40
3. Royal courts in the Hellenistic World.....................................
W hat is a court?...........................................................................
T he Queen at C o u r t .................................................................
Court and e m p ir e ......................................................................
T he Friends o f the K in g.............................................................
T he Royal C o u n cil......................................................................
Court tid e s ....................................................................................
T he Royal Pages...........................................................................
Proximity to the th r o n e ............................................................
Conflict and c o m p e tit io n ........................................................
C o n clu sio n ....................................................................................
41
41
45
49
51
52
53
55
57
59
61
4. T he ties that bind: philia, xenia and gift exchange. . . .
63
63
65
Friendship and court s o c ie ty ..............................................
Guest-friendship...................................................
VI
CONTENTS
H i e r a r c h y ....................................................
B r o k e r a g e ............................................................ * ’ * * · ·
G ift exchange........................................................
' * *
C o n clu sio n .................................................................
’
5.
Patrons and c lie n ts...............................................
W hy court patronage?...................................................
T he usefulness o f court p a tr o n a g e ...............................
P r e s tig e ......................................................................................
C o m p e titio n .............................................................................
Accumulation and a p p r o p r ia t io n ........................................
Social C o h e sio n .................................................................... .
C onclusion................................................................ .... ,. . .
6.
66
67
69
73
75
75
76
84
86
92
93
97
Poets are a king’s best friends: the Hellenistic poet as royal
p h i b s ................................................................................................................
99
99
Poets and scholars as c o u r t i e r s ............................................
Poetry and patron: the case o f Theokritos and Hieron . . 104
Reciprocity................................................................................ 109
Competition and in n o v a tio n ............................................... .· no
Conclusion................................................................................ 113
7.
Power Poetry: Images o f empire in Alexandrian court poetry 115
Praising the king and q u e e n ................................................ 115
World Empire and Golden A g e ............................................ 120
From Zeus to P to l e m y ......................................................... 123
Peace and p ro sp e rity .............................................................. 127
130
Hellenism and empire..............................................................
133
Conclusion...............................................................................
8. From polis to oikoum ene : The imperial world view in scholar
135
ship and p h ilo so p h y .............................................................
Philosophy.............................................................................. 135
A s t r o n o m y ................................................................................................. *
Historiography, geography, e th n o g ra p h y ..........................
Conclusion............................................................................. *
138
141
145
9. Conclusion: Patronage, court and e m p ire ......................... *
147
Bibliography................................................................................. *
153
I n d e x ......................................................................................... · 181
AC K N O W LED G M EN TS
I am grateful to Leonard Rutgers and his co-editors for accepting
this book for publication in the renowned series Interdisciplinary
Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion. The final version owes a lot
to the critical and detailed comments o f the series’ anonymous peer
reviewers. In an earlier stage, my thinking about Ptolemaic court
patronage has benefited from conversations with, among others,
A nnette Ambiihl, Christiaan Caspers, Jacqueline Klooster, Floris
Overduin, and m ost o f all Martine Cuypers. Finally, I am indebted
to Elise Wiggers, who offered invaluable help in editing the text; all
rem aining typos and errors are, or course, my own responsibility.
CHAPTER O N E
I N T R O D U C T IO N
T he
g o l d e n age of
P t o l e m a ic A l e x a n d r ia
In th e H e lle n istic A g e (c. 3 3 0 -3 0 B C E ), M acedonian royal courts
becam e th e focal p o in ts o f cultural and scientific developm ents in the
G reek w orld. F o llo w in g th e exam ple o f the fourth-century B C E court
o f th e M a ced o n ia n kin gs A rchelaos, Philip II and A lexander the
G reat, literature, tech n o lo g y , ph ilosop hy, and art w ere generously
patron ized b y kings, queens, princes and courtiers.1 O f the three
com p etin g M acedon ian dynasties o f the H ellenistic W orld, the Ptole
m ies w ere th e m o st successful patrons o f the arts. T heir capital city,
Alexandria, becam e the richest center o f culture and learning in the
H ellen istic w orld du rin g th e third century B C E , ou td oin g the less
sum ptuous hou seh old o f th e less successful A ntigonids o f M acedon,
as w ell as th e itinerant court o f the Seleukids, w ho m ay have been
richer than the Ptolem ies b u t w ere burdened by massive investm ents
in the military institutions o f their overstretched empire. In the second
century, th e A tta lid court at Pergam on, the island state R hodes,
and later R om e, to o , becam e M editerranean centers o f the arts and
sciences.
Perhaps the m ost remarkable feature o f the practice o f the sciences
and arts at the early Ptolem aic court was a preference for experi
m en t and innovation. Protected and encouraged b y the monarchy,
Eratosthenes calculated the earth’s circumference, adducing for the first
tim e scientific evidence for the hypothesis that the earth’s shape is
1 The English language unfortunately has no equivalent o f the Dutch term
mecenaat or German Mäzenat to distinguish cultural patronage from clientage rela
tions in a more general sense; in this book ‘patronage’ is used to denote the suste
nance and protection o f artists, poets, scholars, and scientists by courtiers and mem
bers o f the dynasty — unless otherwise stated (as will be done especially in
Chapter 4). As we will see, however these relationships were not so very different
from the ‘patronage’ relations (in a more general sense) between the dynasty and
other courtiers.
2
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
spherical. P rotected a n d en couraged b y th e monarchy, Aristarchos
claimed th at n o t the E arth b u t th e S u n was th e center of the universe,
a brilliant theory th a t n o t m an y contem poraneous astronomers seem
to have endorsed, the theory b eing so counterintuitive, contra-empirical
a n d perhaps even blasphem ous.2 P ro tected an d encouraged by the
monarchy, H ero bu ilt a steam engine. E uclid and Archimedes inno
vated mathematics. H erophilos a n d Erasistratos caused a revolution in
medical science by charting th e h u m a n vascular and nervous systems
on the basis of empirical research.3 T echnology, geography, ethnogra
phy, historiography, and philosophy, to o , thrived at the household of
the Ptolemaic king. A bsorbing E g yptian an d other non-Greek influ
ences, the court at Alexandria in th e early H ellenistic Period was for
G reek literature w hat Classical A th en s h a d been in an earlier age: a
center of productivity an d innovation.4
In the field o f literature, to o , th e re w as a d istinct inclination to
experiment and a strong u rge to b e original.5 KaUimachos formulated
new standards for poetry. T h e o k rito s a n d his followers developed
2 For Eratosthenes and Aristarchos see Chapter 8, below.
3 O n Herophilos and his innovation o f m edicine see H . V on Staden, Herophilus:
The A rt o f Medicine in Early Alexandria (Cam bridge 1989). T he evidence for famous
doctors at the Ptolemaic court is discussed by A . G ortem an, ‘Médecins de cour dans
l’Égypte du Ille siècle avant J.-C .’, Chronique d'Égypte 3 2 (1957) 313-336. In The
Shaping o f Deduction in Greek M athem atics (Cam bridge and N ew York 1999),
R. N etz maintained that H ellenistic m athem atics was primarily concerned with
form, viz., beauty and perfection; in a m ore recent book, Ludic Proof: Greek Math
ematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic (Cambridge and N e w York 2009), Netz went
a step further, arguing that that the style o f H ellenistic mathematics, particularly
geometry, was not only ‘comparable to that o f contem porary literature’, i.e., ‘playful
and complex’, but that mathematicians actually picked up aesthetic values from
poets. O n the practice o f medicine in Ptolem aic Alexandria see now also P. Lang,
Medicine a n d Society in Ptolemaic Egypt (Leiden and Boston 20 12) 243-266, focusing
on the interplay o f Greek and Egyptian traditions o f healing and comprehensions of
illness.
4 For Hellenistic Greek literature in general see K. Gutzwiller, A Guide to Hel
lenistic Literature (London 2007), and J. J. Clauss and M . Cuypers eds., A Compan
ion to Hellenistic Literature (Malden and O xford 2 0 1 0 ; 2 n d edn 2013).
5 See B. Effe, Klassik als Provokation. Tradition und Innovation in der alexandrinischen D ichtung’, in: W. Vosskamp ed., Klassik im Vergleich. N orm ativität und
Historizität europäischer Klassiken (Stuttgart and W eim ar 1993) 317-30.; cf. M . Hose
‘D er alexandrinische Zeus. Zur Stellung der D ichtk unst im Reich der ersten
Ptolemäer’, Phiblogus 141 (1997) 3-20, esp. 4 6 -8 ; Gutzwiller 20 0 7 , 169-178
INTRODUCTION
3
bu colic literature and m im e. A pollonios reinvented epic. Meanwhile,
at the A n tigon id court, Aratos o f Soli revived the genre of didactic
poetry and h im self created the standard for such poetry for centuries
to com e. T h e Latin poetry o f the Romans, especially that of the
A ugustan A ge, was to a large degree based on Hellenistic imperial
examples as Latin authors drew their inspiration from A pollonios and
Kallim achos rather that from Plato or Pindar.6
T h e artistic merits o f H ellenistic literature are n o t the concern o f
this book. T h e significance o f H ellenistic court literature is n o w
m uch better appreciated than in the not so distant past, w hen H el
lenistic literature was still considered l ’a rt p o u r l ’a rt and artisdcally
(and, according to som e, morally) inferior to w hat the m odern world
has com e to classify as ‘Classical’ Greek literature. W hat still remains
unexplained, however, is w hy it was the courtly m ilieu that set o ff the
golden age o f H ellen istic Greek literature. W hat took place at the
royal court in Alexandria in the third century BC E defies the conven
tional juxtaposition o f Athenian democratic ‘freedom’ w ith Hellenistic
monarchical autocracy that has been a key notion o f older literature
dealing w ith H ellenistic culture. In fact, H ellenistic court literature
m ay have been m ore liberal and dem onstratively innovative than
Classical civic literature had been. In w hat follows, I w ill o f course
n o t contin ue m aking comparisons between Classical Athens and H ellènistic Alexandria. T hat is n o t the aim o f this book. N either is it, as
I already said, m y inten tion to make moral or artistic judgm ents. B ut
the perhaps counterintuitive, though inescapable, conclusion that at
the early Ptolem aic court autocratic monarchy prom oted intellectual
freedom is definitely in need o f an explanation.
Pa t r o n a g e
a n d c o u r t so c ie t y
T his b ook has its origins in a series o f lectures for graduate students
o n ‘Literary patronage in Alexandria and R o m e’ for the Classics
D epartm ent o f Leiden University, w hich I gave together w ith m y
colleague M . P. Cuypers. T his collaboration o f a classicist specialized
6 Concerning Hellenistic influences on Roman imperial court poetry see now
the detailed studies collected in A. Augoustakis ed„ Flavian Poetry and its Greek
Past. Mnemosyne Supplements 366 (Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2014).
in H ellen istic lite ra tu re (C u y p ers) a n d an historian trained in the
stu d y o f b o th A n c ie n t a n d E arly M o d e rn m onarchy and empire,
tu rn e d o u t to b e in tellectu ally rew arding. T h e intellectual founda
tions o f m y ow n w o rk o n th e H elle n istic im perial courts at that time
w ere th e socio-historical m odels th a t h a d been developed by e.g. Nor
b e rt Elias, Jürgen v o n K ru ed en er a n d C harles T illy for understanding
E arly M o d ern pow er relations a n d state form ation.7 This enabled us
to fix one eye o n A ristarchos o f A lexandria a n d one on Galileo Gali
lei, a n d to com p are th e m a g n ific e n t M aced o n ian patron Ptolemy
Philadelphos to, say, L orenzo Ί1 M ag n ifico 1 o f Florence or the great
S üleym an th e M a g n ific e n t. I t w as a tw o fo ld interdisciplinary
approach: a com ing to g eth er o f p hilological a n d historical sciences,
a n d o f the A ncient W o rld a n d (for in sp ira tio n a n d comparison) the
Early M odern Age. I b e n e fitte d fro m this perspective in writing an
additional chapter o n cu ltu ral p a tro n a g e for m y 2007 PhD disserta
tio n on co u rt culture in th e H e lle n istic em pires.8 In this chapter — a
condensed version o f w h ich later a p p eared in th e Blackw ell Compan
ion to H ellenistic L iterature — H elle n istic G reek literature was looked
at through th e eyes o f an h isto ria n .9
T h e present m o n o g rap h expands a n d im proves th a t section. I will
m ake three basic claims. F irst, th a t artists, scholars, and poets who
w orked for royal p atro n s w ere p h ilo i (‘frien d s’, o r courtiers) of the
king, and th a t th eir p o sitio n w ith in th e c o u rt society was essentially
similar to th a t o f th e o th e r p h ilo i su rro u n d in g th e monarch. Their
relations w ith the king, his fam ily, a n d o th e r courtiers, was ruled by
7 For the court as a category o f historical research in various periods see
J. Hirschbiegel, ‘Hof. Zur Ü berzeitlichkeit eines zeitgebundenen Phänomens1, in:
B. Jacobs and R. Rollinger eds., D e r Achämenidenhof. A kten des 2. Internationalen
Kolloquiums zum Thema „ Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalis
cher Überlieferungen", Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 2 3 .-2 5 . M a i 2 0 0 7 . Classica et
orientalia 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2 0 1 0 ) 13-38.
8 R. Strootman, The Hellenistic R oyal Courts: C ourt Culture, Ceremonial and
Ideology in Greece, Egypt a n d the N ea r East, 3 3 6 - 3 0 B C E (U trecht 2007), esp. 18925 0 . Parts o f this unpublished P h D thesis have later appeared in Courts and Elites
in the Hellenistic Empires: The N ea r E ast A fter the Achaemenids, c. 3 3 0 -3 0 BCE
(Edinburgh 20 1 4 ).
9 R. Strootman, ‘Literature and the Icings’, in: J. C lauss and M . P. Cuypers eds.,
A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (M alden, M A , and O xford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2 0 1 0 ) 30-45; an earlier version appeared in D u tc h as ‘M ecenaat aan de hellenis
tische hoven’ in Lampas 3 4 .3 (2001) 1 8 7 -2 0 3 .
INTRODUCTION
5
the sam e m echanism s o f gift exchange and honor-driven behavior
that characterized the court society as a whole. Second, that the inno
vative nature o f H ellenistic literature and science can for a large part
be explained from the com petition among courtiers for status and
royal favor: poem s, treatises, or inventions can best be understood as
gifts presented to the king. I f accepted by him , or his queen, his heir,
or a pow erful courtier, these gifts w ould produce a return-gift:
a material reward or an immaterial one, such as a privilege, a court
title, or a position for oneself or for one’s ow n ‘clients’. A poet w ho
was allow ed to attend a royal feast and recite there in public a newly
w ritten w ork w ou ld benefit from the aristocratic code o f honor cur
rent at the M acedonian courts which decreed that a valuable returngift should follow as a matter o f course. So the difficulty was to be
invited and be able to present a poem , or whatever other gift, to the
king (or his queen, his heir, or a powerful courtier). O ne therefore
had to be conspicuous, or create som ething conspicuous. As we will
see, H ellen istic royalty obtained prestige from protecting the arts and
sciences, w hile those working in these fields derived social status from
royal authorization o f their work, as well as from the association with
courtly circles. T h e third claim is, that Ptolemaic cultural and scien
tific patronage can best be studied in the context o f the Ptolemaic
k in gd om ’s character as a supranational, universalistic.
H e lle n is tic p o e tr y as
l ’ar t p o u r l ’ar t
A com parison m ade by D utch scholars in 1986 o f court patronage in
various cultures and periods showed that court patronage is in general
m ost successful in periods o f political and econom ic stability; this
insight w en t against the then prevailing view that investment in cul
ture increases in tim es o f crisis and/or political decline.10 T he Alex
andrian court in the first half o f the third century BCE fits in this
pattern. It was n o t a reaction to decline but an expression o f success.
T h e success o f the Ptolemies as patrons o f the arts and sciences prob
ably was n o t due to their wealth alone but also to the fact that their
court, being firmly established at Alexandria, was literally more stable
10 J. T. P. Bruijn, W. L. Idema, and F. P. Oostrom eds.. Dichteren hof. Verkenningen in veertien culturen (Utrecht 1986).
6
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
th an the itinerant courts o f th e ir rivals. C onsequently, the focus of
this bo o k will necessarily be o n th e city o f Alexandria.
T h e significance o f the royal c o u rt for understanding Hellenistic
literature and science has been broadly accepted in present scholarship.
T his is a relatively new developm ent. As was already noted, Alexan
drian literature was until recendy usually th o u g h t o f as Van pour Van;n
art for art’s sake, produced in ivory towers provided by kings for apparendy no other reason than th at it pleased th em to do so.1112 Hellenistic
poets wrote poetry for other poets. T h e ir w ork had no social or cultural
relevance and, ‘going far beyond th e b o u n d s o f good taste’ — as
E. A. Barber says in a paragraph tid ed ‘Pedantry’ in his contribution
on Hellenistic literature to the first edition o f the Cambridge Ancient
H isto ry 13 — clearly was o f less value th an th e literature o f the Classical
Age: ‘T he extension o f M acedonian control [...] marked the end of an
epoch; and literary decline accom panied political decay.’14
T h e som etim es disapproving, som etim es idealized, but always
a-historical view o f H ellenistic po etry as th e decadent expression of a
decadent age, is ultim ately a perversion o f th e influential ideas of the
G erm an classicist U. W illom aw itz-M oellendorf. After a long period
11 I will use ‘Alexandrian literature’ n o t as a comprehensive label for all
Hellenistic literature; I use it as an objective term denoting literature that was actu
ally (as far as we can tell) written in the city o f Alexandria— a much variegated
ensemble o f styles and genres; see G. Zänker, Realism in Alexandrian Poetry:
A Literature and its Audience (London 1987), for an even narrower definition of
‘Alexandrian’ poetry, namely only the poetry o f Kallimachos and his followers,
excluding Apollonios and Theokritos.
12 Thus for instance P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols; Oxford 1972)
1312, and particularly P. Green, Alexander to A ctium : The Historical Evolution of the
Hellenistic Age (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990) 84. In the study o f Roman poetry,
the significance o f patron-client relations has been acknowledged too by P. White,
Promised Verse: Poets in the Society o f Augustan Rome (Cambridge, Mass., and London
1993), and R. R. Nauta, Poetry fo r Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of
Domitian. Mnemosyne Supplements 206 (Leiden 2002). T he study o f Roman literary
patronage has been informed in particular by the conceptual model developed by
R. P. Sailer, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge etc. 1982).
13 E. A. Barber, ‘Alexandrian literature’, in: F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth,
and S. A. C ook eds., The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 7: The Hellenistic
Monarchies a n d the Rise o f Rome (Cambridge 1928) 249-83, at 271.
14 D . E. W . Wormel, ‘Alexandrian poetry’, in: D . R. Dudley and D . M. Lang
eds., The Penguin Companion to Classical a n d Byzantine, Oriental and African Litera
ture (Harmondsworth 1969) 22-3, at p. 22.
IN T R O D U C T IO N
7
o f relative neglect, Willomawitz-Moellendorf in the early twentieth
century became sincerely interested in Hellenistic poetry. Since Droysen’s G eschichte A lexanders des G roßen (1833), a discrete ‘Hellenistic
Period’ had been more firmly set apart from a ‘Classical Period’ in
Greek history. Willomawitz-Moellendorf felt that the Greek literature
o f this period was in need of some defining characteristic to distin
guish it from the literature of the preceding period. Drawing from
the Late Romantic views about art current during his own lifetime,
he tried to incite the interest of his contemporaries by presenting
Hellenistic poetry as a f i n d e siècle form of V a n p o u r V a rt.x5 This
attractive notion, a projection of the artistic ideals of his own age on
a non-Western culture of the distant past, found its way into text
books and remained there for a long time, informing for instance the
introduction to the authoritative C am bridge H istory o f Classical L i t eratu re (1989).1
516 Hellenistic science, too, has long been considered
magnificent but useless. That also has changed.
Crucial to the perception of Hellenistic poetry as socially and cul
turally irrelevant is a well-known epigram by the poet Timon on the
Alexandrian m ouseion during the rule of Ptolemy Philadelphos:
In the populous land o f Egypt, there are many who are feeding,
m any scribblers o n papyrus, always ceaselessly contending,
in the birdcage o f the M uses.17
15 U . W illamowitz-Moellendorf, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Z eit von Kdllimachos (Berlin 1924). T h e analogies between Alexandrian and nineteenth-century
Rom antic p oetiy have later also been emphasized by G. Bonelli, Decadentismo
antico e modemo : un confronte fr a Testetismo alessandrino e Vesperienza poetica con
temporanea (Turin 1979), using ‘decadent’ as a synonym o f what may be called
‘absolute poetry’, viz., hermetic l ’a rt pour Tart, and more recendy by E. Sistakou,
The Aesthetics o f Darkness: A Study o f Hellenistic Romanticism in Apollonius, Lycophron
a n d Nicander. Hellenistica Groningana 17 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012).
16 A. W . Bulloch, ‘Hellenistic poetry’, in: P. E. Easterling and B. M , W. Knox
eds., The Cambridge History o f Classical Literature. Volume 4 : The Hellenistic Period
an d the Empire (Cambridge 1989) 1-81 and 198-222.
17 T im on fr. 12 ap Ath., 1.22d = Supplementum Hellenisticum 786: πολλοί μέν
βόσκόνταt έν Αίγύπτω πολυφύλω |· βιβλιακοί χαρακίται άπείριτα δηριόωντες
I Μουσέων εν ταλάρψ. Eur., Hel. 174, uses the word mouseion to denote ‘the place
where [birds] sing’, and Tim on is probably playing with this double meaning. For
the Museum o f Alexandria see below. On the poem’s background see D . L. daym an,
Timon o f Phlius: Pyrrhonism Into Poetry (Berlin and N ew York: Walter de Gruyter,
2009) 11 and 93-94; see also Cameron 1995, 31-32.
8
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
W hen this notorious text is cited as p ro o f o f contemporaneous disap
proval of royal patronage, the fact th at T im o n him self served a mon
arch is usually passed over in silence. In fact, T im on was a philos of
Antigonos Gonatas, Philadelphos’ principal rival in his struggle for
military dominance over the Aegean, and the epigram clearly is the
product of dynastic com petition. T im o n is n o t speaking of royal
patronage in a general sense. N o d o ubt he thought differently of the
patronage provided by his own lord, Antigonos.
For some decades, classicists have been reconsidering the ‘Birdcage
of Muses’, at least the l ’a rt pour l ’a rt element that modern scholars
have read in T im on’s epigram. In 1968, R. Pfeiffer was one of the
first to doubt the historicity o f the image o f an Alexandrian ivory
tower in modern scholarship.18 Hellenistic literary texts have since
been more often related to the social and cultural contexts in which
they were produced and consumed, first o f all the context of the
court.19 This has in turn created various new questions. W hat exactly
was the place and status of artists, poets, scholars and scientists within
the social structure of the court? For w hat reasons did they prefer the
18 P. Pfeiffer, History o f Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End ofthe
Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968).
19 An early attempt at such an approach is F. T. Griffiths, Theocritus a t Court.
M nem osyne Supplement 55 (Leiden 1979). M ore recently, the work o f Gregor
W eber is o f significance, in particular Dichtung und höfische Gesellschaft. D ie Rezep
tion von Zeitgeschichte am H o f der ersten drei Ptolemäer (Stuttgart 1993), in which
the production o f poetry at the Ptolemaic court is associated with aulic festivities
and ceremonies, and J. B. Burton, Theocritus’ Urban M im es: M obility, Gender,
Patronage (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1995) 123-155. O f importance are fur
ther B. Meißner, Historiker zwischen Polis u nd Königshof: Studien zu r Stellung der
Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschaft in spätklassischer und hellenistischer
Z e it (Göttingen 1992), offering a comprehensive discussion o f everything that is
known about historians at pre-Hellenistic and H ellenistic M acedonian courts, and
Susan Stephens, ‘Callimachus at court’, in: M . A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and
G. C. Waklcer eds., Genre in Hellenistic Poetry. Hellenistica Groningana 3 (Leuven
1999) 167-85 ; W riting Epic for the Ptolemaic Court’, in: M . A Harder, R. F. Regtuit,
and G. C . Wakker eds., Apollonius Rhodius (Leuven 2001) 195-215; and notably
Seeing D ouble: Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley 2003), discuss
in g aspects o f cultural interaction in Alexandrian poetry. The alleged artistic inferi
ority o f Hellenistic poetry has been challenged most fervently by G. O . Hutchinson,
H ellenistic Poetry (Oxford 1988). I was unable to consult A. Acosta-Hughes and
S. A . Stephens, Callimachus in Context: Prom Plato to the Augustan Poets (Cam
bridge 2012).
INTRODUCTION
9
court to the polisi W hat motives did rulers have for patronizing arts
and sciences on a large scale, and why did they stimulate innovation?
H o w can w e explain that m ost o f the now extant Hellenistic court
poetry was n o t directly concerned with the court or with kingship?
U n d e r s t a n d i n g P to lem a ic
literary patronage
Various new interpretations o f Ptolemaic literary patronage have been
put forward in the past decades. Graham Zänker stressed the character
istic ‘Greekness’ o f Alexandrian poetry, and explained the Ptolemies’
apparent concern for Greek culture as a reaction to the feeling o f alien
ation that Greek and Macedonian immigrants in Alexandria and in
Egypt to his m ind suffered from: Greek poetry about Greek subject
matter provided them with a sense o f belonging in a strange world.20
T he typical Hellenistic realism (enargeia, vividness’) was employed to
bridge the gap between the old myths o f mainland Greece and the
Alexandrian present.21 But this interpretation seems to rule out the pos
sibility that ‘Greek’ cultural identity can also be created by such poetry.
E.-R. Schwinge related Alexandrian poetry to the social milieu o f
the court but found the art o f poetry incompatible with the vices o f
political power. Panegyric poetry for kings and other powerful men
and w om en therefore cannot but have had ironic undertones, and
between the lines the monarchy was mocked, not praised.22 Thus,
w hen for instance in Kallimachos’ Epigram 51 queen Berenike is
praised as the ‘fourth Grace’, Schwinge assures us that the perceptible
contemporaneous reader will smile when he realizes how ambivalent
this image o f the queen really is.23
20 G. Zänker, ‘The nature and origin of realism in Alexandrian poetry’, Antike
und Abendland 29 (1983) 125-45.
21 G. Zänker, Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience
(London 1987).
22 E.-R. Schwinge, Künstlichkeit von Kunst. Zur Geschichtlichkeit der alexandrinischen Poesie (Munich 1986).
23 Ibid p. TI (*[...] beschließt den Lektüre mit einem verstehenden, weil den
Preis in seiner Ambivalenz durchschauenden Lächeln’); J. B. Burton, Theocritus’
Urban Mimes. Mobility, Gender, Patronage (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1995)
134, discusses the debate whether or not there is irony in Theokritos’ description
o f the royal Adonis Festival in Idyll 15.
10
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
A rnd Kerkhecker dismissed the existence o f a substantial genre of
‘court poetry’ altogether by narrowing its definition. By stricdy defin
ing ‘court poetry’ as either occasional texts to be read at specific
courdy events (‘Literatur bei H ofe’) or as poetry explicitly dealing
w ith court life or the person o f the king (‘Literatur über den Hof),
the greater part of the Alexandrian literary production could be freed
from the label ‘court poetry’.24 Kerkhecker argued that Alexandrian
poetry instead was a by-product o f Ptolemaic patronage — writers
were attracted to the Ptolemaic court as M useum scholars whose
main task was scholarly; in their spare tim e these scholars wrote
learned ‘Fußnotendichtung’ full o f erudite riddles and intertextual
references. Alexandrian literature flourished a t the court but was not
concerned w ith the court.25 Alan C am eron argued the opposite: Alex
andrian poetry was produced for a m ore general audience. It was no
l ’a rt pour Vart but had a public relevance comparable to that of the
public literature produced in Classical Athens — it was written at
court, and first performed there, b u t n o t ultimately fo r the court.26
It is however difficult to reconcile this view w ith the learned and
complex nature of the poetry of, say, Kallimachos (an objection that
can also be raised against the standpoint defended by Zänker).
It is my contention that in order to understand court poetry we
must look at all poetry that is connected (as far as we can tell) with
the royal courts regardless o f its subject m atter. Admittedly it is dif
ficult to see an immediate social or political relevance in most pre
served court poetry. O nly a m inority o f it is panegyric or deals
expressly with court life. Hence, scholars studying Alexandrian poetry
with an open eye for the courtly context have focused on explicit
encomiastic passages or tried to decipher ‘hidden’ encomiastic mes
sages in non-panegyric texts, often by trying to decode presumed
Hellenized references to the monarchical ideology o f pre-Hellenistic,
pharaonic Egypt.27 But how can we account for the popularity at
24 A. Kerkhecker, Μουσέων εν ταλάρω. Dichter und Dichtung am Ptolemäer
h o f, A & A 43 (1997) 124-44.
25 For Alexandrian poetry as elitist l ’a r t p o u r l ’a r t see also P. Bing, The Scroll and
the M arble: Studies in Reading Reception in H ellenistic Poetry (Ann Arbor 2009).
esp. 106-11526 A. Cameron, Callimachus a n d his Critics (Cambridge 1995).
27 T. Geizer, ‘Kallimachos und das Zeremoniell des ptolemäischen König
shauses’, in: J. Stagl, ed., Aspekte der Kultursoziologie (Berlin 1982) 13-30; ‘Die
11
INTRODUCTION
court o f such non-panegyric genres as bucolic poetry, urban mime,
riddle poem s or pattern poems? O nly Gregor Weber has seriously
tried to solve the problem in its entirety by arguing that the king
derived prestige from literary patronage as such, irrespective o f a
p oem ’s substance.28 But to fully appreciate the social function and
cultural m eaning o f Hellenistic court poetry, the contents o f poems
surely m u st also be taken into account. I will return to this problem
in Chapter 9.
C ourt
a n d em pir e in t h e
P to lem a ic
w o r ld
As was stated earlier, this book was not written by a philologist but
by an historian — an historian whose regular occupation is the study
o f imperialism in the premodern M iddle East, particularly during the
H ellen istic period. W hat first attracted me to Hellenistic court
patronage, was its place in court culture in general. The court itself,
in turn, I approached as an instrument o f imperial rule. This is a
perspective from political rather than from cultural history; but
I h op e this perspective can be o f some value for classicists as well.
T h e key to understanding the (political) significance o f Ptolemaic
court patronage and, I propose, to understanding the Ptolemaic king
d om in general, is to acknowledge the imperial, non-national nature
o f the Ptolem aic world. T his is not as obvious as it may seem. Popu
lar im agination has for more than a century consistently identified
the P tolem aic kingdom w ith (pharaonic) Egypt, thinking o f Egypt as
Adaption ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolemäerhof, in: E. v a n ’t Dack ed.,
Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings o f the International Colloquium, Leuven
2 4 -2 6 M ay 1982 (Leuven 1983) 143-90; R. Merkelbach, ‘Das Königtum der
Ptolemäer und die hellenistischen Dichter’, in: N. Hinske ed., Alexandrien. Kultur
begegnungen dreier Jahrtausende im Schmelztiegel einer mediterranen Großstadt.
Aegyptiaca Treverensia 1 (Mainz am Rhein 1981) 27-35; J. D. Reed, ‘Arsinoes
Adonis and the poetics o f Ptolemaic imperialism’, Transactions o f the American
Philological Aassociation 130 (2000) 319-351; S. Noegel, ‘Apollonius’ Argonautika
and Egyptian solar mythology’, C W 97 (2003/2004) 123-36; and Stephens 2003.
A more cautious approach of the supposed Egyptianizing tendency in Alexandrian
poetry can be found in R. Hunter, Encomium o f Ptolemy Philadelphus (Berkeley, Los
Angeles, London 2003) 46-53.
28 G. Weber, ‘Poesie und Poeten an den Höfen vorhellenistischer Monarchen’,
Klio 74 (1992) 25-77; and Weber 1993, op cit. above.
th e territorial co n ta in e r o f a singular, static a n d very ancient ‘civiliza
t i o n , a n d o f ‘th e E g y p tian s as a single, ethnically and culturally
h om ogenous p eop le.29 F o r th e p o p u la r, o rientalistic image of the
Ptolem ies as E gyp tian p h arao h s them selves, o n e only needs to think
o f th e p resen tatio n o f K le o p a tra V II, th e seductive and deceitful
‘Q u e e n o f th e N ile ’, in m o d e rn E u ro p e a n p a in tin g and cinema.30
N eedless to say th a t th is im age has to a significant degree also per
vaded m o d ern scholarship, w h ere it has coexisted since the 1960s
w ith th e no less E u ro cen tric c o n cep tu alizatio n o f Ptolem aic rule over
Egypt as a form o f w estern ' co lo n ial explo itatio n .
Eager to u p h o ld th e attractiv e exoticism o f th e Ptolem aic kingdom
as a Pharaonic ‘state5, p ast sch o larsh ip has consistently minimized the
n o n -n atio n al aspects o f th e P to le m a ic p o lity bey o n d Egypt that
appear in the sources. T h is has b e e n d o n e b y conceptualizing these
29 And not merely Hollywood filmmakers, for obvious reasons, propagate such
an image, but some scholars as well; see e.g. L. Mooren, The A ulic Titulature in
Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction a n d Prosopography. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Künsten van België,
Klasse der Letteren 37.78 (Brussels 1975) 4: ‘unlike the Seleukids, the Ptolemies
had to reckon with (not counting the Cypriots) only one native people, the Egyp
tians.’ In fact, the Ptolemies had to reckon with various Aramaic and proto-Arabic
speaking peoples including Judeans and Nabataeans, as well as Nubians, Ethiopians,
Phoenicians and Syrians, Lykians, Karians, and others, none of whom were
ethnically homogeneous peoples, because the primary focus for identity for most
people still was the family, the community, the city, or the tribe — and rarely a
nation or people in the modern sense (as broad terms like ‘Phoenicians’ or ‘Cyp
riots’ imply).
30 For understanding the image of Kleopatra in modern European painting
L. Hughes-Hallett, Cleopatra: Histories, D ream s, a n d D istortions (New York 1990)
is still fundamental. For orientalistic stereotypes projected on Kleopatra in Euro
pean and American cinema see i.a. C. Fössmeier, ‘“Ich bin Ägypten”. Selbstinsze
nierung und Fremdstilisierung der Kleopatra im Film’, A n tik e W elt 32 (2001) 285288; L. Llewellyn-Jones, ‘Celluloid Cleopatras or Did the Greeks ever get to Egypt’,
in: D. Ogden ed., The Hellenistic W orld: N e w Perspectives (London 2002) 275-304;
and D. Wenzel, Kleopatra im Film. E ine K önigin Ägyptens als S in n b ild fu r orientalis
che K ultur. Filmstudien 33 (Remscheid 2005). Also the hardly less popular presen
tation of Kleopatra in contemporary films and novels as a ‘strong independent
woman’ is on closer inspection a projection of modern western ideals, as is the case
with the image of Kleopatra as an ‘African’ queen, first encountered in the romance
The M arble Faun by American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, originally published
in 1860 and then adopted by the American liberal movement against slavery; see
S.-A. Ashton and S. Walker, Cleopatra (London 2006) 13-27.
INTRO DUCTIO N
13
from an a priori Egyptian viewpoint as colonialist expansion into
foreign lands, often with economic aims, or as ‘defensive imperial
ism’, sometimes for the alleged reason of creating ‘defensible borders’
— a concept that most likely is an (early) modern innovation, result
ing from the evolution of the geographically bounded nation state in
the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.31 For instance
H. Braunert in an influential article published in 1964 transplanted
the then current views of modem European colonialism to the Ancient
World by theorizing that Ptolemaic imperialism was motivated by the
wish to secure raw materials for the ‘motherland’.32 The image of
colonial exploitation projected on the Hellenistic World in É. Will’s
contribution to the 1984 Hellenistic volume of The Cambridge
Ancient History, too, was direcdy inspired by the contemporary colo
nial experience.33 Thus, the model of the modern European nation
state has significantly informed European interpretations of Hellen
istic, viz., Ptolemaic history, and only recendy have historians begun
to challenge these modernist and Eurocentric views.34
In the third century BCE, the Ptolemaic state was much more than
a kingdom of Egypt. It was a huge, supranational, hegemonial system
that can hardly be termed a ‘state’ but does qualify as an empire, i.e.
31 For the gradual development o f the present conception o f states being
enclosed by defensible ‘natural boundaries’ see P. Sahlins, ‘Natural frontiers revis
ited: France’s boundaries since the seventeenth century’, American Historical Review
95.5 (1990) 1423-1451 (arguing nota bene against the then prevalent opinion
among French historians that the idea o f France’s natural frontiers was the product
o f nineteenth-century nationalistic myth-making).
32 H. Braunert, ‘Hegemoniale Bestrebungen der hellenistischen Großmächte in
Politik und Wirtschaft’, Historia 13 (1964) 80-104, esp. 91-94.
33 É. W ill, ‘The Succession to Alexander’, in: F. W. Walbank ed., The Cam
bridge Ancient History. Volume 7.1: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1984) 23-61,
esp. 41-42.
34 Foundational is R. S. Bagnall, ‘Decolonizing Ptolemaic Egypt’, in: P. Cardedge, P. Garnsey, E. Gruen eds., Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History,
and Historiography (Berkeley 1997) 225-241, criticizing the application o f a mod
ernist colonial model to Egypt, i.e. the conceptualization o f Egypt as a colonized
country. Against the conceptualization o f the Ptolemaic empire as a modern Euro
pean colonial state avant la lettre see now the introduction to J. G. Manning’s book
The Last Pharaohs: Egypt Under the Ptolemies, 305-30 B C (Princeton, Oxford, New
York 2009), esp. 36, cautioning against ‘analyzing Ptolemaic state formation
through the lens o f the nineteenth-century nation state’s colonial experience or
twentieth-century postcolonial reactions to colonization’.
14
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
a large composite and differentiated polity linked to a central power
by a variety o f direct and indirect relations, where the center exercises
political control through hierarchical an d quasi-monopolistic rela
tions over groups different from itself.’35 A typical feature of premod
ern empires is their internal cultural, religious and — most importandy — political diversity.36 M ost empires developed an universalistic
ideology to overcome diversity and integrate peoples and sub-states
into the overarching imperial framework.37 In the imperial ideologies
o f the M acedonian dynasties o f the H ellenistic Period, universal pre
tensions were essential, too.38 As we will see, imperial universality is
a recurring them e in Ptolemaic court poetry.
T he Ptolemaic empire in the th ird century was a maritime empire
— a vast power netw ork striving after hegem ony in the Aegean and
eastern M editerranean basin, as well as in the Red Sea region and
beyond.39 Alexandria was m ore or less its center. From Alexandria the
35 K. Barkey Empire o f Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective
(Cambridge 2008) 9.
36 Cf. e.g. C. M . Sinopoli, ‘T he Archaeology o f Empires’, Annual Review of
Anthropology 23 (1994) 159-180, esp. 159 (‘composed o f a diversity of localized
communities and ethnic groups, each contributing its unique history and social,
economic, religious, and political traditions’); S. H ow e, Empire: A Very Short Intro
duction (Oxford 2002) 15 (‘Diversity [...] is their essence’); Barkey 2008, 9 (‘large
composite and differentiated polities’).
37 For this function o f universalistic ideology in general see the excellent paper
by P. F. Bang, ‘Lords o f all the world: T he state, heterogeneous power and hegem
ony in the Roman and Mughal empires’, in: C . A. Bayley and P. F. Bang eds.,
Tributary Empires in Global History (N ew York 2 011) 171-92, cf. Strootman 2007,
354-356, for a similar argument regarding the Hellenistic empires; for the universal
spread o f imperial universalism see now P F. Bang and D . Kolodziejczyk, ‘“Ele
phant o f India’: Universal empire through time and across culture”, in: id. eds.,
Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Im perial Culture and Representation in
Eurasian History (Cambridge and N ew York 2012) 1-40, with previous literature.
38 Strootman 2007, 22-24 and 349-357; cf. id., ‘Queen o f Kings: Cleopatra VII
and the Donations o f Alexandria’, in: M . Facella and T. Kaizer eds., Kingdoms and
Principalities in the Roman Near East (Stuttgart 2010b) 140-157, and ‘Hellenistic
imperialism and the ideal o f world unity’, in: C. Rapp and H . Drake eds., CityEmpire-Christendom: Changing Contexts o f Power a n d Identity in Antiquity (Cam
bridge 2014).
39 For Ptolemaic imperialist activities outside Egypt see now E. Winter, ‘For
m en ptolemäischer Präsenz in der Ägäis zwischen schriftlicher Überlieferung und
archäologischem Befund’, in: F. Daubner ed., Militärsiedlungen und Territorialherr
schaß in der A ntike (Berlin and N ew York 20 1 1 ), listing no fewer than 28 newly
INTRODUCTION
15
P tolem ies and their entourage controlled lines o f com m u nication
rather than vast tracts o f land, the Fayum and Thebaid being two
notew orthy exceptions to this rule. In the second century BCE,
Ptolem aic influence became more or less restricted to the N ile Valley,
the Libyan C oast, and Cyprus — though claims to the w h ole o f
Alexander’s Em pire, indeed to universal dom inion, were n o t given
up, and as late as 3 4 B C E the last Ptolemaic ruler, Kleopatra V II,
could still claim to have inherited from her (by then Ptolem aic a n d
Seleukid) ancestors an universal empire stretching from the Aegean
all the w ay to India.40
It is o f course n o t m y intention to dow nplay the significance o f
Egypt for the Ptolem aic imperial system. But I do believe that the
sim plified view o f the Ptolem aic empire as a kingdom o f Egypt (with
‘overseas possessions’) is in need o f correction. Particularly in the
third century, th e traditional equation o f the Ptolem aic state w ith
Egypt is as facile and m isleading as the contrary interpretation o f the
Ptolem aic state as a purely Greek state. T he same can be said o f the
current convention to see the Ptolemies above all as ‘traditional’ phar
aohs, a view that seem s to be more popular am ong classicists than
am ong Egyptologist. T h e Ptolemies o f course did present themselves,
and were seen by others (particularly Egyptians), as pharaohs — but
only in Egypt and not in Tyre, say, or Athens or Jerusalem. T he more
recent view that sees the Ptolemaic kings and queens as consciously
presenting a double face, a ‘Janus head’ that is both Greek a n d Egyp
tian, is perhaps m ore sensible,41 but this strictly bipolar m odel, too,
built Ptolemaic towns / military strongholds along the coasts of Asia Minor only,
and K. Mueller, Settlements o f the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement
in the Hellenistic World. Studia Hellenisdca 43 (Leuven 2006); cf. C. Constantakopoulou, ‘Identity and resistance: The Islanders’ League, the Aegean islands and the
Hellenistic kings’, Mediterranean Historical Review 27.1 (2012) 51-72, revealing the
complex negotiation o f power reladons in the Aegean region.
40 Strootman 2010a and 2011b; cf. Ager 2003,49. J. Rowlandson, ‘The character
of Ptolemaic aristocracy: Problems of definidon and evidence’, in: T. Rajak, S. Pearce,
J. Aitken, and J. Dines, eds., Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley and Los
Angeles 2008) 29-49, argues that the loss of the ‘overseas’ empire resulted in an
increasing significance of nauve Egyptian officials in the Ptolemaic administration of
Egypt, though mainly in the chow and only rarely at court.
41 ‘The Janus head o f Ptolemaic kingship’ is the tide of the first paragraph in
Ludwig Koenen’s long article ‘The Ptolemaic king as a religious figure’, in:
A. W. Bulloch et al. eds., Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic
16
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
may n o t do justice to th e complexities o f the Ptolemaic imperial
project in th e eastern M editerranean and Red Sea region — how for
instance can Judeans and Idum aeans be fitted into this binary model?
— and perhaps incorrecdy juxtaposes ‘Greek’ and ‘Egyptian’ as two
hom ogenous and well-delineated cultural categories. The Ptolemies’
self-presentation as Egyptian pharaohs in Egypt, I would suggest, can
better be understood as one o f various regional titles united under the
umbrella tide o f ‘emperor’ (basileus), even as pharaoh was a very sig
nificant ‘sub-tide’. Moreover, real Egyptian culture (as opposed to
external images of Egyptian culture) in all likelihood was no coherent
thing. T he land o f Egypt contained the usual cultural differences
between regions and social groups, and if the Ptolemies really devel
oped a consistent pharaonic self-presentation aimed at all their ‘Egyp
tian’ subjects in the entire N ile Valley simultaneously, modern
observers are well-advised to take into account at least the possibility
that this image was the product o f invention and manipulation of
tradition, and as such the net result o f negotiations between the
dynasty and local elites.
Cultures are never static. Instead, they are always in flux in reac
tion the political and economic changes that affect them; also, they
are as a rule not very well-delineated so that it is usually hard to say
where one ‘culture’ ends and the other begins. Awareness of the
dynamic and interactive nature o f cultures has led to a paradigm shift
in the field of Seleukid studies. T he continuity paradigm developed
in the 1980s and 1990s that saw the Seleukid Empire as basically a
World (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993) 25-115; see further e.g. id., ‘D ie Adaption
ägyptischer Königsideologie am Ptolem äerhof, in: E. v a n ’t D ak ed., Egypt and the
Hellenistic World. Proceedings o f the International C olloquium , Leuven 24-26 May
1982 (Leuven 1983) 143-190; Merkelbach 1981; G . H ölbl, A History o f the Ptole
maic Empire (London and N ew York 2 001), passim ; Stephens 1999 and 2003; and
D . Seiden, ‘Alibis’, Classical A ntiquity 17.2 (1998) 29 0 -4 2 0 . T h e related view of
Ptolemaic Alexandria, and Egypt as a, more or less cordial, multicultural society has
been defended e.g. by W . Clarysse, ‘Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic army
and administration’, Aegyptus 65 (1985) 57-66, and id., ‘Ptolemaeïsch Egypte. Een
maatschappij m et twee gezichten’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse
M aatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 45 (1991) 21-38; D . Delia,
‘A ll army boots and uniforms? Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in: Alexandria and
Alexandrianism (Malibu 1996) 41-52; D . Seiden, ‘Alibis’, Classical Antiquity 17.2
(1998) 290-420; B. Legras, ‘Les experts égyptiens à la cour des Ptolémées’, Revue
Historique 3 0 7 .4 (2012) 963-991.
INTRODUCTION
17
static contin uation o f the Achaemenid Empire under new rulers, and
as a harm onious com m onwealth o f nations based on the Seleukid
rulers’ alleged respect for varying local ‘traditions’, is now being aban
don ed in m ore recent scholarship in favor o f a more dynamic view.42
Instead o f a unidirectional model in which local agents (e.g. Babylo
nian priests) inform the court about local customs, a new model arises
in w hich local and imperial agents interact, and what is presented in
the sources as ‘traditional’ monarchy may in fact be the innovative
result o f negotiations between civic and courtly elites.
In the Ptolem aic context, too, it perhaps w ould be fruitful to
develop a paradigm that takes as its point o f departure the complex
contemporaneous interplay between global and local levels o f imperial
presentation and imperial rule, rather than take for granted the
alleged con tin u ity o f old ‘traditions’ that imperial propaganda so
respectfully refers to. T o put it diiferendy: were poets like Kallimachos and T heokritos in their Egyptianizing efforts really doing no
more than sim ply translating preexisting pharaonic images o f rulership into a Greek idiom , as conventional scholarship suggests; or were
they at the sam e tim e som ehow engaged in the development o f an
42
See e.g. A. Mehl, ‘Zwischen West und Ost / Jenseits von West und Ost: das
Reich der Seleukiden’, in: K. Brodersen ed., Zwischen Ost und West. Studien zur
Geschichte des Seleukidenreiches. Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 5
(Hamburg 1999) 9-44; Μ. M. Ausdn, ‘The Seleukids and Asia’, in: A Erskine ed.,
A Companion to the Hellenistic World (Malden and Oxford 2003) 121-133;
R. Mairs, ‘Hellenistic India’, New Voices in Classical Reception Studies 1 (2006)
19-30; C. Tuplin, ‘The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors: A Persian
inheritance?’, in: S. M. R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi eds., Ancient Greece and
Ancient Iran: Cross-cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11-13
November 2006) (Athens 2008) 109-136; R. Strootman, ‘The Seleukid Empire
between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism: Writing the history of Iran in the Third
and Second Centuries BCE’, Nâme-ye Irân-e Bästän: The International Journal of
Ancient Iranian Studies 11.1/2 (2013) 17-35, esp. 27-30. For imperial-local interac
tion in the Seleukid Empire also see J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities o f Western
Asia Minor (Oxford and New York 2000); and Strootman 2007, passim. For the
application o f a global-local approach to cultural interaction in the Hellenistic East
in general see the papers collected in E. Stavrianopoulou ed., Shifting Social Imagi
naires in the Hellenistic Period: N anations, Practices, and Images (Leiden and Boston
2013). The harmonious model of the Seleukid imperial system has in the past been
defended by e.g. A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, From Samarkhand to Sardis:
A New Approach to the SeleucidEmpire (London 1993), and C. Carsana, Le dirigenze
cittadine nello stato seleucidico (Como 1996).
18
T H E BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
idealized new form of ‘traditional’ pharaonic representation,43 aimed
n o t only at the court but also at Egypt itself, being a part of a wider
dialogue between the court and indigenous elites?
U
n d e r s t a n d in g t h e ro le o f t h e c o u r t
T he Ptolemaic Empire, like the Seleukid, was held together by indi
viduals rather than institutions. T he court, more or less to be identi
fied w ith the dynastic household, was the main hub of the imperial
power network. Considering that in most premodern kingdoms, and
particularly empires, the political and economic relations that consti
tute royal power consisted of networks of personal relations — in the
Hellenistic world these were structured first of all by means of phtlia
or ritualized friendship (see Chapter 4, below) — the court can best
be approached as essentially a social phenomenon. Elaborating upon
a definition by John Adamson, I define the court as the king’s imme
diate social milieu, consisting of (1) the circle of persons (‘courtiers’)
around the ruler, (2) the larger matrix of political and economic rela
tions converging in the ruler’s household, and (3) the rooms and halls
where the king lives, receives guests, gives audiences and banquets,
43
As the Seleukids did in Babylonia: notably the ‘traditional’ royal terminol
ogy o f kingship w ith which the Seleukid king Antiochos I presents himself on the
so-called A ntiochos Cylinder from Borsippa has recently been shown to have been
m uch less traditional, and m uch more ‘Seleukid’, than mainstream scholarship
supposes; see for the new view K. Erickson, ‘Apollo-Nabû: The Babylonian pol
icy o f A ntiochus Γ, in: K. Erickson and G. Ramsey eds., Seleucid Dissolution:
The S inking o f the Anchor (Wiesbaden 2011) 51-66; R. Strootman, ‘Babylonian,
M aced onian, King o f the World: T he Antiochos Cylinder from Borsippa and
Seleukid imperial integration’, in: E. Stavrianopoulou ed., Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, an d Images. Mnemosyne
S u p p lem en ts 3 6 3 (Leiden and Boston 2013) 67-97; and P. J. Kosmin, ‘Seeing
d o u b le in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder o f Antiochus Γ,
in : A . M oren o and R. Thom as eds., Patterns o f the Past: Epitêdeumata in the
Greek Tradition (Oxford and N ew York 2014) 173-198; cf. P.-A. Beaulieu, ‘Nabû
and A p o llo : T h e tw o faces o f Seleucid religious policy’, in: F. Hoffmann and
K . S. S ch m id t eds.. O rien t u n d O kziden t in hellenistischer Zeit. Beiträge zur
Tagung „ O rien t u n d O kziden t - Antagonismus oder Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen,
Ideologien u n d Kulturtransfer in hellenistischer Z e it (W ürzburg 1 0 .-13. A p r il2008)
(V aterstetten 2 0 1 4 ) 13-30.
INTRODUCTION
19
and w here th e rituals or royalty are performed.44 Courts furthermore
can m ove, a n d th ey o ften do. Som e are by nature itinerant. A notori
ously ‘n o m a d ic ’ court was the court o f the Seleukids, w h o ruled their
vast em pire w ith o u t a fixed capital where a central adm inistration was
located.45 T h e traveling court was a m eans to demarcate territory and
a m ech an ism to integrate cities into the imperial superstructure.46
O ther courts de facto stayed at a central place m ost o f the tim e. This
was m ore or less the case in the Ptolem aic empire: Alexandria looks
in m an y respects like w h a t w e w o u ld n o w call a capital, though there
was n o form al separation o f im perial adm inistration and dynastic
household. T h e P tolem aic court, too, could m ove — and it did: for
instance du rin g cam paigns in the Levant against the Seleukids, or
from A lexandria to M em p h is and back again, and along the River
N ile deep in to th e E gyptian chöra, particularly in the second and first
centuries B C E .47
44 J. Adamson, T h e making o f the Ancien-Régime court, 1500-1700’, in: id.
ed., The Princely Courts o f Europe, 1500-1750 (London 1999) 7-42, esp. 7;
R. G. Asch, ‘Court and household from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries’,
in: R. G. Asch and A. M . Birke eds., Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility: The Court
at the Beginning o f the M odem Age, c. 1450-1650 (London and Oxford 1991) 1-38,
esp. 1.
45 W. Held, ‘D ie Residenzstädte der Seleukiden: Babylon, Seleukeia am Tigris,
Aï Khanum, Seleukeia in Pieria, Antiocheia am Orontes’, Jahrbücher des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts 117 (2002) 217-249; L. Martinez-Sève, ‘Peuple d’Antioche
et dynastie séleucide’, in: B. Cabouret, P.-L. Gatier, C. Saliou eds., Antioche de
Syrie. Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique. Topoi Supplement 5 (2004)
21-41; R. Strootman, ‘Hellenistic court society: The Seleukid imperial court under
Antiochos the Great, 223-187 BCE’, in: J. Duindam, M. Kunt, T. Artan eds.,
Royal Courts in Dynastie States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Rulers and Elites
1 (Leiden and Boston 2011) 63-89; P. J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings:
Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2014)
142-180.
46 Strootman 2007, 289-305; 2013, 71-73; 2014a, 273-274. For the impor
tance o f visibility for ancient imperial monarchies see O. Hekster and R. Fowler,
‘Imagining Kings: From Persia to Rome’, in: O. Hekster and R. Fowler eds, Imagi
nary King. Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome. Oriens et Occi
dens 11 (Stuttgart 2005) 9-38.
47 Like the Seleukids, the Ptolemies, too, used ritualized travel to demarcate
territory and substantiate imperial rule through the actual presence o f the king,
especially by sailing up and down the Nile, cf, Strootman 2007, 87-89, on the
Thalamegos o f Ptolemy IV, and Strootman 2010b, 150, arguing that the so-called
‘Nile Cruise o f Caesar and Cleopatra’ (Suet., ltd. 52.1,- App., BC 2.90) was in feet
20
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
T h e m odern study o f th e c o u rt o rig in ated w ith th e pioneering
works of N orbert Elias (1969) a n d Jürgen, Freiherr v on Kruedener
(1973).48 B oth aim ed a t understan d in g th e role o f th e court in the
developm ent o f absolutism a n d th e n ational state in early modern
Europe. In doing so, b o th Elias a n d K ru ed en er w orked from the
historical sociology o f M ax W eber. T h is accounts for som e striking
similarities, as Kruedener an d Elias developed th eir respective models
independendy from each other. Elias argued th a t in th e Early Mod
em Period the royal court could b e an in stru m en t in th e hands of the
king to centralize the state a n d pacify th e nobility. T h e gradual
monopolization o f warfare by th e m onarchy in th e seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, Elias m aintained, forced m em bers o f the nobil
ity to leave their ancestral dom ains an d be present near the king in
order to obtain offices, m ilitary com m ands an d prestige. A t court,
competition for royal favor an d th e extensive status expenditures
expected from a courtly ‘gentlem an’, in com bination w ith the restric
tions and obligations o f court etiquette an d cerem onial (which the
king controlled), resulted in a loss o f political an d econom ic auton
omy on the part of the old noble families. T h ey changed into a pow
erless court nobility dependent on an absolutist m onarch. Kruedener’s
most significant contribution is th a t he saw th e co u rt also as a stage
for the theater of royalty: a place w here by m eans o f ritual, architec
ture and art legitimacy was constructed, and th e m onarchy engaged
in competition with rival courts.
Later scholarship has adjusted or even rejected m any o f Elias’ influ
ential views concerning the function o f the court as an instrument of
a ritualized journey o f demarcation and integration that w as c o m m o n to the Ptole
m aic practice o f empire in Egypt; there also w ere universalistic overtones: according
to A ppian, the couple w ould have sailed as far as th e en d o f th e earth had not
Caesar’s soldiers refused to go on (note the sim ilarity to th e story o f the Macedo
n ian army’s refusal to march on to the Indian O cean k n o w n from Alexander’s
propaganda). For Ptolem aic trips to the N ilo tic countryside also see W . Clarysse,
T h e Ptolem ies visiting the Egyptian chora’, in: L. M ooren ed ., Politics, A dm inistra
tion a n d Society in the Hellenistic a n d Roman World. Studia H ellenistica 3 6 (Leuven
2 0 0 0 ) 2 9 -5 3 .
48
N orb ert Elias, D ie höfische Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen z u r Soziologie des
K ön igtu m s a n d der höfischen Aristokratie (Berlin 1969; 7 th edn, Frankfurt am Main
1 9 9 4 ); J. von Kruedener, D ie Rolle des Hofes im Absolutism us (Stuttgart 1973). See
on both Elias and Kruedener J. D uind am , M yths o f Pow er: N o rb e rt Elias a n d the
E arly M o d e m European C ourt (Amsterdam 1994).
INTRODUCTION
21
power. As w e know now, the absolutism claimed by early modern rul
ers like Louis X IV was an ideal rather than a reality.49 Jemen Duindam
in particular has nuanced Elias’ views by arguing that the restrictions
and obligations placed upon the nobility by court life affected the king
as well. For instance the ethos o f obligatory conspicuous consumption
that supposedly drained the nobility’s resources naturally required the
most extensive status expenditures from the person o f highest rank: the
king himself; D uindam moreover noted that obligatory presence at
court in fact could be advantageous for nobles, offering them the
opportunity to become part o f the new central power, using ancestral
prerogatives to enforce access to the king.50
But w hile historical research o f early modern monarchies has since
F.lias aimed at understanding the complex practice o f power and the
arduous processes o f state centralization that lie hidden behind the
double smokescreen o f contemporaneous absolutist ideology and nine
teenth-century national historiographies, the ‘myth o f absolutism’ still
pervades modern views o f Hellenistic kingship, and it is often taken
for granted that the absolute power claimed by, and ascribed to,
H ellenistic monarchs, implied absolute authority in actuality.
How
THIS BOOK IS STRUCTURED
Studies o f H ellenistic patronage tend to concentrate on a single craft,
literature forem ost, tending to isolate it from other disciplines.
Although the main focus will be on poets, in this book they will be
49 Duindam 1994, 50; cf. M. Kaiser and A. Pecar, ‘Reichsfursten und ihre
Favoriten. Die Ausprägung eines europäischen Strukturphänomens unter den
politischen Bedingungen des Alten Reiches’, in: id. eds., Der zweite Mann im Staat.
Oberste Amtsträger und Favoriten im Umkreis der Reichsfürsten in der Frühen Neuzeit
(Berlin 2003) 9-20: ‘Politische Herrschaftsgewalt war zu keiner Zeit in der Hand
einer Person konzentriert. Stets waren mehrere Personen und Personengruppen
involviert, wenn politische Entscheidungen beraten, getroffen und umgesetzt
werden sollten. Die Monarchien und Fürstenherrschaften des Ancien Régime sind
da keine Ausnahme’ (p. 9). Landmark studies that led to the deconstruction of
absolutism as an actual political reality include N. Henshall, The Myth of Absolut
ism: Change and Continuity in Early Modem European Monarchy (London and New
York 1992), and P. Burke, The Fabrication o f Louis XIV (New Haven and New
York 1992).
50 Duindam 1994, 79.
22
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
associated w ith physicians, painters and technicians. N either will the
argum ent be com pletely restricted to the Ptolem aic court. T h e courts
o f th e A ntigonids and th e Seleukids will som etim es be taken into
consideration, too. T h e dynastic households o f the three Macedonian
empires o f the A ntigonids, Ptolemies, and Seleukids were constantly
com m unicating w ith each other through the exchange o f ambassa
dors, dynastic marriages and a shared reliance on Aegean civic elites
as agents o f em pire. Because in geopolitical term s the Hellenistic
w orld was n o t dom inated by one ‘hyperpower’ — an empire without
rivals such as the A chaem enid E m pire had been — b u t by three
com peting ‘superpowers’, the international political system was tripolar and the m any autonom ous cities o f the Hellenistic world, espe
cially in the Aegean, could have dealings w ith several imperial courts
at the same tim e.51 Poets, scholars and philosophers, too, seem to
have m oved freely between th e respective courts. T here were no
clearly-defined territorial borders between the empires, let alone ‘iron
curtains’ hindering the m ovem ent o f people and ideas.
In C hapter 2 the background and historical development o f Hel
lenistic patronage will be oudined. C hapter 3 discusses Hellenistic,
viz., Ptolemaic court society, including the institution o f the mottseion
(M useum), at Alexandria. C hapter 4 focuses on the significance o f
xenia, p hilia and ritualized gift exchange for the structuring o f social
relations at court. T he dynamics o f reciprocity are crucial for artistic
patronage. Chapter 5 deals w ith the question why rulers promoted
the arts and sciences — w hat were the advantages for the monarchy
and how can we make sense of, say, the invention o f machines or the
developm ent o f such literary genres as bucolic poetry and mime from
the perspective o f the court? Chapter 6 discusses the place o f cultural
and scientific patronage w ithin the social system o f the court. It will
be argued that court poets, scholars and scientists who worked at
court were not in the king’s service but were part o f the same complex
o f p h ilia relations that also structured relations am ong ‘regular’
51
R. Strootm an, ‘Kings and cities in the H ellenistic A ge’, in: R. A lston, O . van
N ijf, ancl C . W illiam son eds., Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical
Age. G roningen-R oyal H ollow ay Studies o n the Greek C ity After the Classical Age
2 (L euven: Peeters, 2 0 1 1 ) 1 41-153; the term ‘hyperpower’ was coined by France’s
foreign m inister H u b ert V edrine in 1999 to d enote U S global dom inance after the
collapse o f the Soviet U n io n , cf. A. Chua, Day o f Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to
Global D om in an ce - A n d Why They Fall (N ew York 2 0 0 9 ) xix-xx.
INTRODUCTION
23
courtiers. T h e production o f art, literature and philosophy was ruled
by the sam e ritualized exchange system which ruled also other rela
tions at court. W orks o f art, literature, and science were offered to
m em bers o f th e royal fam ily and high-ranking courtiers as gifts,
w hich, i f accepted, w ould generate favors, privileges and honors.
O btainin g prestige presumably was more important than earning
m oney, and com petition for royal favor was a strong incentive for the
production o f art and literature. Another advantage o f working for
the courts was that it gave poets or scientists the opportunity to par
ticipate in a dynam ic international network through which texts and
ideas could spread w idely and rapidly. The last two chapters, Chap
ters 7 and 8, are concerned with images o f monarchy and empire
conveyed by Alexandrian poetry and scholarship. It will be argued
that the principal message in encomiastic texts was the propagation
o f universal empire and the related image o f a golden age o f peace
and prosperity. Chapter 9 rounds o ff the book with summaries o f the
respective chapters’ m ain arguments and general conclusions.
Cl IAPTHRTWO
T H E HISTORICAL B A C K G R O U N D
T
he
A rgead
r o ya l c o u r t
The Ptolemaic court has various cultural antecedents. None was so
essential as the Macedonian heritage. Despite all the evident Egyptian
and Achaemenid influences that have attracted so much attention in
the past decades, when all is said and done the court culture that we
sec in third-century Alexandria seems to have been derived primarily
from traditions inherited from fourth-century Macedon, Though
conventional scholarship has a strong predilection to concentrate on
the pharaonic origins of Hellenistic kingship, I believe that in order
to really understand the roots of Ptolemaic court culture we have to
look first of all to the Argead kingdom of Philip II and Alexander the
Great, and its Aegean context.
The reigns of Philip and Alexander were periods of change, also
for Macedonian kingship and court culture. From an Achaemenid
vassal state of sorts, the Macedonian monarchy developed into a
fully autonomous regional superpower under Philip II and finally
into a world empire under Alexander. The culture of the court
became more grand already under Philip. His principal model for
trans-regional rule may have been the empire of the Hekatomnids,
Achaemenid sub-kings who controlled a small empire centered on
Karia. Achaemenid influences were already present at the Argead
court before the rise of Philip and have long been recognized (and
disputed) in twentieth-century scholarship.1 Because of the
1
A strong case for Achaemenid influence on Argead court culture even during
the reign o f Philip II was made by D, Kienast, Philipp II von Makedonien und das
Reich der Achaimeniden (Munich I971)î I am grateful to Professor Herman Wallinga for drawing my attention to this work. More recently a similar case was made
by M. J. Olbrycht, ‘Macedonia and Persia’, in J. Roisman and I. Worthington
(cds.), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (Malden and Chichester 2010) 342-369;
cf. J. Heinrichs and S. Müller, ‘Ein persisches Statussymbol auf Münzen Alexanders
I. von Makedonien’, Zeitschriftfilr Papyrologie undEpigraphie 167 (2008) 283-309.
26
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
multifaceted cultural m ake-up o f th e old M acedonian kingdom —
lying in betw een th e A chaem enid E m pire (in w hich it was to some
extend integrated), m ainland G reece (w hich even after the GreekPersian W ars neither can be seen as being outside o f the Achaeme
n id Em pire’s sphere o f influence), an d th e Balkans — it is impos
sible to determ ine th e precise am o u n t o f Persian or Greek influence
o n pre-H ellenistic and H ellenistic m onarchy. Contemporaneous
M acedonian kings and aristocrats presum able d id not look at
the w orld w ith the same rigid cultural categories in m ind that the
m odem w orld has created in order separate the W est from the Rest.
T hey m ore likely will have viewed A chaem enid material culture
as im perial elite culture or as a form o f international style and thus
a source o f prestige in a m anner n o t very different from the adop
tio n o f ‘Hellenistic court culture by non-G reek elites in the centu
ries after Alexander (see C h a p te r 5). W h e n Alexander and his
entourage became the leaders o f a w orld empire, the adoption of
aspects o f Persian court culture th a t better suited this new status
w ent hand in hand w ith an increasingly autocratic stance of the
monarchy.2
Already at the beginning o f the tw entieth century, E. Bevan, The House o f Seleucus
(L ondon 1902) 123, felt com pelled to argue against th e th en current simplistic
view , based o n X en ., Cyr. 8 .6 .1 0 and A n ab. 4 .1 3 .1 , that the institution o f royal
pages (basilikoi paides, see also below ) at the cou rt o f Philip and Alexander was
copied from the Achaemenids; see also Berve 1 9 2 6 I, 3 9 .
2
For the adoption o f Achaemenid cou rt style see A . J. S. Spawforth, T he
court o f Alexander d ie Great betw een Europe and A sia’, in: id . ed.. The Courtaud
C ou rt Society in A n cien t M onarchies (Cam bridge 2 0 0 7 ) 8 2 -1 2 0 . Alexanders policy
o f autocracy m et w ith resistance from several pow erful fam ilies am ong the Mac
ed on ian h igh nobility; th e best analysis o f these, often violen t, conflicts is S. Mül1er, M aßnahm en d er H errschaftssicherung gegenüber d er m akedonischen Opposition
b e i A lexan der dem Großen (Frankfurt am M ain 2 0 0 3 ), cf. G . W eber, T h e court
o f A lexander the Great as social system’, in: W . H eck el and L. A . Tride eds.,
A lex a n d er th e G rea t: A N ew H istory (M alden 2 0 0 9 ) 8 3 -9 8 , and W Heckel,
"Resistance to Alexander d ie G rea t, in: L A . T rid e ed .. The G reek W orld in the
F o u rth C en tu ry: From th e F a ll o f th e A th en ian E m pire to th e Successors o f Alexander
th e G re a t (L on d on and N e w York 1997) 1 8 9 -2 2 7 . A . C oppola, ‘Alexander’s
C o n n :’, in : B . Jacobs and R- Rollinger eds.. D er A ch äm enidenhof Classica et Ori
e n ta lia 2 (W iesb ad en 2 0 1 0 ) 1 3 9 -154, argues that b ein g constandy on campaign,
A le x an d e r h a d n o op portun ity to adopt and in stitutionalize Achaemenid court
practices. I disagree; th e A chaem enid household w as itinerant too.
T H E HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
F r o m C o m p a n io n s
to
27
Fr ie n d s
F rom perhaps m o d est beginnings, the social com position and organiza
tio n o f th e h o u seh o ld o f th e ruling dynasty, the Argeads, changed dras
tically as M a ce d o n expanded and the m onarchy increasingly became
m ore pow erful a nd m ore m ultinational. In pre-Hellenistic M acedon,
the Basileus tes M akedonës, th e k in g o f the M acedonian people (not the
land), h ad been a p rim u s in ter pares o f sorts, sharing power w ith local
barons, th e so-called hetairoi, or C om panions o f the King, a land-own
ing, horse-riding w arrior class.3 Basileia (monarchy) in old M acedon
w as a fam ily affair, an inheritable possession o f the Argead clan’.4
In th e recent past, tw o o p p o sin g historical schools have argued respec
tively that th e pow er o f th e Argead m onarchy was constitutionally cur
tailed b y a popular arm y assem bly consisting o f freeborn male M akedones and th e form alized rights o f the hetairoi; or that is was autocratic
and absolute.5 N eith er o f th e tw o view s is overwhelm ingly plausible.
Rather, th e k in g in actual practice seem s to have been a war leader o f
th e n ob ility, w h o se pow er w as curtailed, n o t constitutionally, but infor
mally, b y d ie (m ilitary) pow er o f other powerful families and individu
als, notably th ose w h o had routine access to the court.
H o p in g to counterbalance, and ultim ately break, the power o f the
old M acedon ian aristocracy, A lexander had prom oted members o f the
lesser n o b ility a n d Iranian aristocrats, all o f w hom were attached
direcdy to th e k in g b y personal ties. After Alexander, Greeks from the
3 W. Heckel, ‘King and “Companions”: Observations on the nature o f power
in the reign o f Alexander, in: J. Roisman ed., Brills Companion to Alexander the
Great (Leiden 2003) 197-226
4 E. D . Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman 2000) 4-8. Indi
vidual kings derived legitimacy from membership o f the family, viz., descent from a
previous king; acclamation by the nobility and the warrior class o f free male Makedones was a prerequisite, not because the assembly had a constitutional right to
appoint the king but because without the support of the army no man could be king.
5 An excellent, and nuanced, discussion o f this ongoing debate is given by
E. N . Borza, In the Shadow o f Olympus: The Emergence o f Macedon (Princeton
1990; 2nd rev. edn 1992) 231-252, who is probably right in arguing against the
modernist interpretation o f Macedonian kingship as a form o f constitutional mon
archy; a more recent, but concise, overview o f the tradirional-Mfrmi-constitutional
debate can be found in L. Mitchell, ‘Bom to rule? Succession in the Argead royal
house’, in: W. Heckel, L. Tritle, P. Wheatley eds., Alexander's Empire. Formulation
to Decay (Claremont 2007) 61-74, esp. 62-63-
28
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
A egean poleis increasingly b ecam e part o f th e entourages o f his Successors,
w h o m th e y served as c o m m a n d e rs, a d m in istra to rs, e tcetera . T h e transi
tio n fr o m p r e -H e lle n istic M a c e d o n ia n c o u r t s o c ie ty to th e court socie
ties o f th e H e lle n is tic w o r ld w a s m a r k e d b y th e rep la cem en t o f ‘Com
p a n io n o f th e K in g ’ b y ‘F r ie n d o f th e K in g 5 as th e g e n u in e G reek term
for so m e o n e b e lo n g in g to a so cia l circle c o n n e c te d w ith th e monarchy.6
T h e ch a n g e in te r m in o lo g y p erh ap s reflects a tra n sitio n from a Mace
d o n ia n to a m o re H e lle n ic se t-u p o f th e royal courts, caused by the
g ro w in g n u m b e r o f p o w e r fu l G reek s a m o n g th e fo llo w ers o f the kings.
‘F rien d 5 {philos) in th e co u rse o f tim e p erh ap s a cquired a more for
m al gist in so m e co n tex ts, b u t u p u n til th e e n d o f th e H ellen istic period
th e m o st p o w erfu l F riend s r em a in e d a tta ch ed to th e royal household
b y in form al ties o f ritualized fr ie n d sh ip k n o w n to th e G reeks as philia.
R oyal p h ilia is a broad term in d ic a tin g a n y fr ie n d ly relationship o f the
k in g w ith private person s, in c lu d in g th o se n o t p resen t at court. The
p h ilo i o f th e P to lem a ic a n d S e le u k id k in g s w e re o f varied ethn ic origin,
th o u g h th ey w ere prim arily c itiz e n s o f p o le is th a t cultivated a Hellenic
id en tity .7 A lth o u g h th eir n u m b e r m a y h a v e decreased in th e course of
6 There is a growing, though still n ot very substantial, body o f literature con
cerned with the various p h ib i societies; for general discussions see G. Herman, The
“friends” o f the early hellenistic rulers: Servants or officials?’, Talanta 12-3
(1 9 80/81) 103-149; Carsana 1996; G . W eber ‘Interaktion, Repräsentation und
Herrschaft. D er Königshof im H ellenism us’, in: A . W interling ed., Zwischen Haus
und S taat (M ünchen 1997) 27-71; G. H erm an, ‘T h e court society o f the Hellenis
tic age’, in: P. Cardedge, P. Garnsey, E. Gruen eds., H ellenistic Constructs. Essays in
C ulture, H istory, an d H istoriography (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1997) 19922 4; I. Savalli-Lestrade, Les p‘ h ib i royaux’ dans l A
’ sie hellénistique (Geneva 1998);
R. Strootman, ‘D e vrienden van de vorst. H et koninklijk h o f in de Hellenistische
rijken’, Lam pas 38.3 (2005) 184-197. Cf. more recently A . Erskine and L. LlewellynJones eds., The H ellenistic R oyal C ourt (Swansea and Oxford 2016) and R. Stroot
m an, Courts an d E lites in the H ellenistic E m pires: The N ear E ast A fter the Achaemenids, 3 3 0 -3 0 BCE (Edinburgh 2014).
7 C . Habicht, ‘D ie herrschende Gesellschaft in den hellenistischen Monarchien’,
V ierteljahrsch rift fü r Sozial·· u n d W irtschaftsgeschichte 45 (1958) 1-16; A. Mehl,
‘G edanken zur “Herrschenden Gesellschaft” und zu den Untertanen im Seleukidenreich’, H istoria 52.2 (2003) 147-60; J. L. O ’N eil, ‘T he ethnic origins o f the friends
o f the A ntigonid kings o f Macedon’, C Q 53 (2003) 510-22, and id ., ‘Places o f origin
o f the officials o f Ptolemaic Egypt’, H istoria 55.1 (2006) 16-25. Elsewhere I have
argued that the non-Greek elites through w hom Hellenistic controlled their empires
w ere connected w ith the court by other means than philia·, those w ho were present at
cou rt perm anently, as p h ilo i rose to power particularly in the second century as
T H E HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
29
th e secon d century, a m in ority o f M acedonian nobles continued to
dom inate the high est stratum o f the court societies in the Ptolemaic
and Seleukid k in g d o m s.8
C ultural
p a t r o n a g e before t h e
H
el l e n ist ic
A ge
C ultural patron age b y kings, queens and nobles is a phenom enon
fo u n d in m a n y cultu res th rou gh ou t history. Various N ear Eastern
m onarchs w ere ren o w n ed for their cultured courts, and the N ear East
kn ew a w idespread tradition o f text collecting at central storages, viz.,
libraries, stretch in g back to th e introduction o f cuneiform writing in
the F ou rth M ille n n iu m .9 A lth o u g h parallels betw een the Library
and M u se u m in P to le m a ic A lexandria and the fam ous library
o f A sh urbanip al at N in e v e h , co n ta in in g at least 3 0 ,0 0 0 tablets,10
have o ften b e e n p o in te d o u t ,11 the practice o f patronage at the
‘favorites’ whose principal task it was to shield the king from the established interests
group the Greek p h ib i by that time had become, a position they held precisely
because they were outsiders in the aulic milieu (Strootman 2007, 129-134);
cf. I. Moyer, ‘Court, chora and culture in Late Ptolemaic Egypt’, American Journal o f
Phibbgy 132 (2011) 15-44, confirming that the ‘native’ Egyptian elite members who
had dealings with the court and held the honorific title of syngenès, ‘kinsman (of the
king)’, were primarily located in the Egyptian countryside and did not belong to the
inner circle o f the royal household at Alexandria, as was earlier argued also by Row
landson 2009; for the significance o f Egyptian favorites at the Ptolemaic court see
R. Strootman, ‘Eunuchs, renegades and concubines: The “paradox of power” and the
promotion o f favorites in the Hellenistic empires’, in: A. Erskine and L. LlewellynJones eds.. The HellenisHc Royal Court (Swansea and Oxford 2016).
8 Strootman 2007, 124-134. At the present state of the research, it is impossible
to say whether in the course o f time intermarriage blurred the lines separating Mac
edonian aristocrats from Greek ph ibi, or that the circle of families boasting Macedo
nian ethnicity kept their ranks closed by looking for marriage partners among each
other (including perhaps Macedonian families in the Seleukid and Antigonid realms).
9 D . T. Potts, ‘Before Alexandria: Libraries in the Ancient Near East’, in
R. MacLeod ed., The Library o f Alexandria: Centre o f Learning in the Ancient World
(London and N ew York 2007) 19-33.
10 This is the number o f tablets, or fragments thereof, that were recovered at
Nineveh by the archaeologists Austin H. Layard and Hormuzd Rassam between
1849 and 1854, cf. S. Parpola, ‘The royal archives of Nineveh’, in: K. R. Veenhof
ed., Cuneiform Archives and Libraries (Leiden 1986) 6, and Potts 2007, 19.
11 But see the skepticism expressed by P.-A. Beaulieu, ‘De l’Esagil au Mouseion:
l’organisation de la recherche scientifique au IVe siècle avant J.-C.’, in: P. Briant
30
T H E BIRDCAG E OF T H E MUSES
H ellenistic courts was rooted in G reek an d M acedonian traditions
too. T h e search for non-G reek, especially Egyptian, influences on the
poetry o f Theokritos, Kallimachos and others has been at the front
o f scholarly agenda’s for a long tim e now, b u t w hen all is said and
done, it is clear th at the products o f Ptolemaic patronage first of all
built upon, or (reinvented, Hellenic-style traditions. However impor
tant Egyptian influences may have been, the Ptolemies, like the Seleukids, in their non-local, im perial self-presentation first o f all chose to
create an image th at was G reek (or ‘G reek’), even as these Greek
images may have been open to diverse ethnic interpretations.12
W hether we like it or not, this self-proclaimed Pan-Hellenic Greekness compels us to look for its models to the Aegean — the place of
origin of most o f the p h ilo i families surrounding the dynasty — and
most of all to Argead M acedon.
and F. Joannès eds., La transition entre l ’e m pire achéménide et les royaumes hellénis
tiques (Paris 2 0 0 6 ) 17-36, arguing from a N ear Eastern perspective - and by point
ing to lack o f con tin u ity - that the Alexandrian M u seu m cannot have been created
after the examples o f pre-H ellenistic eastern courts; instead its m ain source o f inspi
ration was the A thenian peripatetic tradition, introduced in Alexandria through the
agency o f Theophrastos, D em etrios o f Phaleron, and Strato o f Lampsakos; this was
then mixed w ith a distorted Greek view o f ancient ‘C haldean’ w isdom from Babylon
in the context o f the Babyloniaphilia that was en vogue in Alexandria in the early
H ellenistic period (‘un nébuleux Zeitgeist’), w h ich however was only vaguely based
o n the historical M esopotam ian organization o f scientific, viz., astronomical,
research around the tem ple, particularly the Esagila in Babylon. That the Library
was b uilt m ore o n the ideas o f A ristotle than on perceived ‘Chaldean’ traditions is
show n too by C . Jacob, ‘N avigations alexandrines’, in: M . Baratin and C. Jacob
eds., Le pou voir des bibliothèques. L a mémoire des livres en occident (Paris: Albin
M ichel, 1996) 4 7 -8 3 . O n Assyrian kings as patrons see K. Radner, ‘T he Assyrian
king and his scholars: T h e Syro-Anatolian and the Egyptian schools’, in: M . Luukko,
R. M attila, S. Svärd eds., O fG od(s), Trees, a n d Scholars: Neo-Assyrian an d Related
Studies in H onour ofS im o Parpola. Studia Orientalia 106 (Helsinki 2009) 221-238,
and on text collecting in M esopotam ia in general S. Parpola, ‘Assyrian library
records’ Journal o f N ear Eastern Studies 4 2 (1983); K. R. V een h of ed., Cuneiform
A rchives a n d Libraries (Leiden 1986); G. Frame and A. R. George, ‘The royal
libraries o f N in eveh : N e w evidence for king Ashurbanipal’s tablet collection’, Iraq
6 7 (2 0 0 5 ) 2 6 5 -2 8 4 ; and Potts 2007.
12
For the Ptolem aic practice o f using images w ith double ethnic, viz., Greek
and Egyptian, connotations, see m ost o f all Stephens 2003; compare Erickson
2 0 1 1 , arguing that the image o f a seated Apollo on third-century Seleukid coins was
co n sciou sly created in the reign o f A ntiochos I to evoke both A pollo and his Baby
lon ian counterpart N abû.
T H E HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
31
L et us first ha v e a lo o k at th e G reek w orld. G reek artistic patronage
flou rish ed n o ta b ly in th e h ey d a y o f tyranny in the seventh and sixth
c en tu r ie s.13 A r ch a ic p o e ts a n d p h ilosop hers o ften read their w ork
before aristocratic a u d ien ces, in particular during sym posia, where
fem e a n d prestige c o u ld b est b e obtained. T h e Sam ian oligarch Polykrates w as o n e o f th e m o s t m a g n ificen t o f those early Greek patrons.
H is en tou rag e in c lu d e d p o ets, physicians, architects, and sculptors.14
O th er tyrants ren o w n e d for their cultured courts were H ipparchos o f
A th en s, H ie r o n I a n d G e lo n o f Syracuse, and Arkesilas o f K yrene.15
P oem s w r itte n fo r tyrants b y Pindaros, Bakchylides and others, and
recited at sy m p o sia o r d u rin g festivities increased the prestige o f the
ruler.16 In th e fifth cen tu ry , how ever, collective bodies o f citizens,
rather th an in d iv id u a ls, becam e the principal supporters o f the arts.
In C lassical A th e n s, patron age b y the demos included the com m is
sio n in g o f great b u ild in g projects like the Parthenon, m anifesting the
co n fid en ce a n d p o w e r o f th e p o lis rather than boostin g the prestige
and pow er o f aristocratic fa m ilies.17 In the H ellenistic A ge, private
benefactors re-estab lish ed their position s as patrons o f the arts in the
G reek cities.
M ean w h ile, in M a c e d o n , th e A rchaic tradition o f court patronage
was revived tow ards th e e n d o f the fifth century b y king Archelaos
(4 1 3 -3 9 9 B C E ), w h o presented h im se lf as a philhellene and a bene
factor o f th e p o leis, a n d entertained at his court the renowned Greek
writers E uripides, A g a th o n , a nd T im o th eo s, and the painter Z euxis.18
13 A readable introduction to literary patronage in pre-Hellenistic, especially
Archaic Greece (emphasizing Pindar), is provided by B. K. Gold, Literary Patronage
in Greece and Rome (Chapel H ill and London 1987) 15-30.
14 Gold 1987, 19 with nn. 19-22.
15 Ibid. 20-23.
16 Weber 1992.
17 For ‘aristocratic’ behavior o f the Athenian demos see the classic treatment by
L. Kallett-Marx, ‘Accounting for culture in fifth-century Athens’, in: D. Boedeker
and K. Raaflaub eds., Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens (Cam
bridge, MA, 1998) 43-58.
18 Weber 1992, 64-5. Cf. Green 1990, p.84 with n. 19; E. Borza, In the Shadow
o f Olympus: The Emergence o f Macedon (Princeton 1990; 2nd rev. edn. 1992) 173.
Euripides, who spent the last years o f his life at the Macedonian court (he died
around 406); he perhaps finished his Bacchae at court and wrote for the king a work
tided Archelaos. Agathon (c. 447-401) was an Athenian tragedian whose works are
all lost; he appears in Plato’s Symposium and was ridiculed by Aristophanes in the
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
Archelaos presu m ab ly b u ilt a palace a t Pella, w h ich becam e the most
im p o rtan t city o f M ace d o n in th e course o f th e fo u rth century BCE.
W h ere th e A rgead co u rt resided before th a t tim e is unknow n; there
is no evidence in s u p p o rt o f th e p o p u la r view th a t Pella was the
‘capital’ o f pre-H ellenistic M a c e d o n .19 T h e extension o f the Argead
household in to a m ore g ran d royal c o u rt co in cid ed w ith the rise of
M acedon as a regional pow er d u rin g A rchelaos’ reign.20
A fter a poorly d o cu m e n te d p erio d o f p olitical instability o f some
forty years, P hilip II was th e n ext M a ced o n ian m o n arch to earn him
self a reputation as a p a tro n o f th e arts. P h ilip attracted in te r a lia the
com edy p oet A naxandrides to his c o u rt,21 a n d h ire d A ristode to tutor
his son A lexander and th e royal pages.22 T h e c o u rt o f Alexander the
G reat was a very cu ltu red one, to o .23 I t was d u rin g th e reigns of
Alexander and his im m ediate successors th a t a d istin ct Macedonian
form o f art developed.24 A lexander h im se lf was n o te d for his knowl
edge o f G reek literature — in p articu lar th e w orks o f H om er, Pindar,
and E uripides — and for his in te re st in science an d philosophy.
play Thesm ophoriazousai. T h e ev id e n c e fo r th e c o u rt o f A rch elaos has been collected
b y N . G . L. H a m m o n d a n d G . T . G r iffith , A H isto ry o f M acedon ia . Volume II:
5 5 0 - 3 3 6 (O xford 1 9 7 9 ) 1 4 9 n . 1; cf. E . B a d ia n , ‘G reek s a n d M acedonians’, in:
B . Barr-Sharrar and E. N . B orza ed s., M a ced o n ia a n d Greece in L ate Classical and
Early H ellenistic Tim es (W ash in gton 1 9 8 2 ) 3 3 - 5 1 . F or th e M a ced o n ia n court from
A rchelaos to A lexander also see M e iß n e r 1 9 9 2 , 3 8 3 - 4 4 3 , d iscu ssin g m ore than just
historians attached to th e A rgead h o u seh o ld .
19 For th e in d irect evid en ce see B orza 1 9 9 0 , 1 6 8 .
20 T h u cyd id es’ attribu tion to A rch elaos o f far-reach in g m ilitary reforms (Thuc.
2 .1 0 0 .2 , cf. Borza 1 9 9 2 , 1 6 5 -1 6 6 ) fin d s su p p o rt in th e n u m ism a tic record, see
W . S. G reenw alt, ‘T h e p rod u ction o f co in a g e fro m A rch elaus to Perdiccas III and
th e ev olu tion o f A rgead M aced on ia’, in : I. W o r th in g to n ed .. Ventures into Greek
H istory. Essays in H on ou r o fN .G .L . H a m m o n d (O x fo rd 1 9 9 4 ) 1 0 3 -1 3 4 .
21 H o s e 1 9 9 7 , 5 0 .
22 Paus. 6 .4 .8 .
23 T h e evid en ce for p oets, artists an d scholars at A lexan d er’s cou rt has been col
le cted in B erve 1 9 2 6 I, 6 5 -8 1 .
24 O . Palagia, ‘H e lle n istic art’, in: R. Lane F ox ed .. B rill’s Com panion to Ancient
M a c e d o n : S tu dies in the Archaeology a n d H istory o f M acedon , 6 5 0 B C -3 0 0 A D (Lei
d e n a n d B o sto n ) 4 7 7 -4 9 3 ; cf. A . C oh en , A r t in th e E ra o f A lexan d er the Great:
P a ra d igm s o f M a n h o o d a n d Their C u ltu ral T raditions (C am brid ge 2 0 1 0 ), w h o shows
th a t a lth o u g h in sp ired b y G reek art, th is elite artw ork m o st o f all celebrated mas
c u lin e v io le n c e a n d th us articulated specifically M aced on ian warrior them es: war
fare, h u n tin g , and th e ab d u ction o f w o m en in m yth (eq u atin g th e id eological cate
g o ries o f ‘e n e m y , a n im a l, and w o m a n .
T H E HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
33
D u r in g his ca m p a ig n s in A sia, a large band o f poets, historians, and
scien tists fo llo w e d h im , a m o n g th em the scholars Anaxarchos and
Pyrrho.25 T h e D ia d o c h s , lik e A lexander, w ere accom panied on their
cam paign s b y w riters a n d historians, for th e instance the popular
epigram m atist L eon idas, a clien t o f Pyrrhos and later Gonatas, and
the h istorian E u m e n e s o f Kardia, w h o w orked for the first three
A n tigon id s.
C ultural
p a t r o n a g e in t h e t h ir d c e n t u r y
BCE
T h e third cen tu ry B C E w as th e golden age o f H ellenistic cultural and
scientific patron age. A rtists a nd poets w ere given com m issions on a
grand scale. S cien tists, astronom ers, m athem aticians, and physicians
were given m u c h freed o m to pursue their investigations. V ast sums
were sp en t o n a m b itio u s b u ild in g projects, including n o t only the
construction o f tem p les, palaces a nd other m on um ents, but the plan
ning o f entire cities. S o m e artists’ w ork concerned kingship in a direct
manner: palaces h a d to b e b u ilt and adorned w ith sculptures and wall
paintings; k in gs a n d q u een s h ad to be portrayed; laudatory poem s
had to be w ritten ; p h ilo i a n d oth er guests o f the kings had to be
entertained d u rin g b a n q u ets a n d sym posia; philosophical treatises
were n eed ed to d em o n stra te th at benevolent autocracy was the best
form o f g overn m en t.
Bangs and cou rtiers o f course d id n o t possess an all-em bracing
m o n o p o ly o n stim u la tin g artistic and scientific creativity. M any alter
natives to royal patronage rem ained, as cultural life in the Greek poleis
d id n o t ch a n g e d ram atically. Literature thrived also outside the
courts; c iv ic festivals still in clu d ed p o etic contests for poets and
25
The cultural and scholarly entourage o f Alexander further included the phi
losopher Onesikritos o f Astypalaia, the engineer Diades, the physician Philip o f
Akarnania, the historian Kallisthenes o f Olynthos, and the poets Agis o f Argos,
Anaximenes o f Lampsakos, Pranichos, Pyrrhos o f Elis, Choirilos o f Iasos (Weber
1992, 67-68; cf. Berve 1926 I, 71), and others. O f the many poets known to have
formed part o f Alexander’s itinerary court, no (reference to) important works have
remained: they may have produced only occasional poetry. Weber 1992, 76, tenta
tively ascribes the lack o f excellence in the poetic output o f the court o f Alexander
‘nicht zuletzt an seinen dezidierten Anforderungen und Eingriffen’; cf. Weber
1999.
34
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
p la y w r ig h ts. I n p a rticu la r A th e n s , h o m e o f th e A c a d e m y and Lyceum,
r e m a in e d a m a jo r c e n te r o f le a r n in g , a lb e it, it s e e m s, w ith royal sup
p o r t.26 T h e s to ic s Z e n o a n d T h e o p h r a s to s p referred th e prestigious
A t h e n ia n L y c e u m to c o u r t life , a lth o u g h t h e y b o t h a ccep ted the pro
t e c t io n a n d th e o d d c o m m is s io n o f A n tig o n o s G o n a ta s.27 Strato in
h is la ter y ea rs g a v e u p a p o s it io n as h e a d o f th e A lex a n d ria n M useum
t o s u c c e e d T h e o p h r a s to s as h e a d o f th e L y c e u m .28 In oth er cities,
m e m b e r s o f th e lo c a l e lite , o lig a r c h s a n d p e tt y rulers a cted as patrons.
I n fa c t, th e k in g s ’ o w n p o lic y o f f o u n d in g n e w p o le is increased the
o p p o r t u n it ie s fo r f in d in g p a tr o n a g e o th e r th a n th a t o f th e kings.
T h e o p h r a s to s c la im e d th a t p h ilo s o p h e r s w e r e tr u e citizen s o f die
w o r ld w h o c o u ld f in d e m p lo y m e n t in a n y c o u n tr y .29 Indeed, the
w a n d e r in g p h ilo s o p h e r tr a v e llin g fr o m c it y to c ity , w ork in g as a
te a c h e r a n d te a c h in g c o s m o p o lita n is m , b e c a m e a c o m m o n figure in
th e H e lle n is tic c itie s .30 B u t H e lle n is t ic w r itin g s fr o m th e poleis are
n o w a ll b u t c o m p le te ly lo s t.31 A p p a r e n tly , n e ith e r cities nor private
b e n e fa c to r s w e r e a b le to k e e p u p w it h th e im p er ia l rulers, w ho far
o u t d id all o th er s in th e m a g n ific e n c e a n d sca le o f th eir patronage and
b u ild in g p ro g ra m s. T o p u t it d iffe r e n tly , k in g s m a y n o t have patron
iz e d th e m a jo r ity o f th e G r e e k w r ite rs a n d th in k e r s, b u t particularly
in th e th ir d c e n tu r y t h e y d id p a tr o n iz e th e b e st G reek writers and
th in k e r s. T h is m a y b e w h a t P h ilo str a to s m e a n t w h e n h e described the
P t o le m a ic c o u r t as ‘a d in in g ta b le in E g y p t to w h ic h th e m o st distin
g u is h e d m e n in th e w o r ld are in v ite d ’.32
T h e m o s t su c ce ssfu l r o y a l p a tr o n s (in te r m s o f contem poraneous
p r e s tig e a n d lo n g - te r m in flu e n c e ) w e r e th e fir st th ree Ptolemies:
S o te r , P h ila d e lp h o s a n d E u e rg e te s I. I n c u ltu ra l term s, their reigns
26 See D io g . Laert. 4.3 8 -9 ; cf. 5.67.
27 D io g . Laert. 7 .6 and 5.37.
28 D io g . Laert. 5.58.
29 V itr. 6 .2 .
30 P. Parsons, ‘Identities in diversity’, in A. W . Bulloch et al. eds.. Images and
Ideologies. S e lf D efinition in the Hellenistic W orld (London, Berkeley, Los Angeles
1 9 9 3 ) 1 5 2 -1 7 0 , e s p .1 5 6 .
31 R . L. H u n ter, ‘Literature and its contexts’, in: A. Erskine ed., A Companion
to th e H ellen istic W orld (Oxford 2 003) 47 7 -4 9 3 , esp. 4 77-479.
32 P h ilostr,, VS 1 .2 2 .5 2 4 . A contrary vision appears in D iodoros (23.6), who
r e c o r d s a sto ry in w h ich the Athenian playwright Philem on (third century BCE) on
h is d e a th b e d has a vision o f n in e girls leaving his house, and adds that this was
believed to b e sy m b o lic o f the M uses having left Athens.
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
35
had a lasting effect o n later generations comparable to Athens’ Clas
sical A ge (a classical age that, incidentally, was to a significant degree
constructed through the canonization that took place in third-century
A lexandria). T h eir principal rivals were Seleukos Nikator and his son
A ntioch os Soter, and the A ntigonid king Antigonos Gonatas. The
hou sehold o f G onatas offered hospitality to Aratos o f Soli, Persaios,
B ion o f B orysthenes, Alexandras the A tolian , Antagoras o f Rhodes
and M en ed em o s o f Eretria.33 Som e names o f renown are recorded for
the early Seleukid court as well: the architect Xenarios, responsible
for th e c ity d esig n s o f A n tio ch and Laodikeia;34 the sculptor
Eutychides o f Sik yon, a pupil o f Lysippos, who made the famous
T yche o f A n tio ch ;35 the physician Erasistratos; and the (Babylonian)
historian Berossos. F rom c. 2 7 4 to 2 72, the poet Aratos o f Soli was a
guest-friend at th e court o f A ntiochos I, which at that time perhaps
was in w estern A sia M inor, where war on the Ptolemies was waged.
Later Seleukid kings were know n particularly as friends o f philoso
phers.36 In th e seco n d h a lf o f the third century, severe military and
political crises co n fro n ted the Seleukid kings, whose armies and
m obile courts w ere constandy on the move through the vast Seleukid
realm. S om e stability was attained in the reign o f Antiochos III the
Great (2 2 2 -1 8 7 B C E ); he too was constantly on the move, but he
was culturally m ore successfiil than his predecessors had been, patron
izing am on g others the poet Euphorion.37
W ith their vast w ealth, and their court firmly established at Alex
andria, th e early Ptolem ies had a decisive advantage over their peri
patetic Seleukid antagonists. T he Ptolemaic court became crowded
w ith ‘philologists, philosophers, mathematicians, musicians, painters,
athletic trainers, and other specialists’, as Athenaios later wrote.38
M any o f th em w ere attached to the mouseion founded by Ptolemy I
in Alexandria (see below ). After the death o f Ptolemy III (221), the
33 Diog. Laert. 2.110; 4.46; 7.6.9; 9.110; Plut., Mor. 1043c. Cf. Hose 1997,
62 with n. 98.
34 G. Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton 1963) 31-32.
35 Ibidem, 35.
36 See K. Ehling, .Gelehrte Freunde der Seleukidenkönige“, in: A. Goltz,
A. Luther, H. Schlange-Schöningen eds., Gelehrte in der Antike. Alexander Demandt
zum 65. Geburtstag (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 2002) 41-58.
37 Suda, s.v. ‘Euphorion’. Cf. Bevan 1902 II, 276.
38 Ath. 4.184b-c.
Ptolem aic E m p ire w as m u c h w e a k en ed a n d A lex an d ria gradually lost
h er status as th e w o rld ’s u n e q u a lle d c e n te r o f a rt a n d learning.
B etw een 2 0 2 a n d 1 95, th e cam p a ig n s o f A n tio c h o s III all but
destroyed th e P to lem aic E m p ire in th e M e d ite rra n e a n an d Aegean.
In th e so-called S ixth Syrian W a r (1 7 0 -1 6 8 ), S eleukid forces under
A ntiochos IV tw ice invaded E gy p t, te m p o ra rily c a p tu rin g Memphis
an d T hebes, a n d laying siege to th e city o f A lex an d ria in 168. It was
only th ro u g h R o m a n in te rv e n tio n th a t th e P to lem ies w ere saved.
N evertheless th e nam es o f several im p o rta n t w riters o f the later
H ellen istic p erio d are c o n n e c te d w ith th e la te r P to lem aic court,
including the bucolic p oets M o sch o s a n d B ion, th e technologists
Philo o f B yzantion an d H e ro o f A lexandria, a n d th e philologist Lysianas. H ow ever, in th e seco n d c e n tu ry , n ew p o litical competitors
appeared to challenge M a c e d o n ia n su p re m a c y in th e N ear East.
T hese were in th e first place th e n o n -G reek , b u t H ellenized monarchs
o f Asia M in o r — som e o f th e m (form er) S eleukid vassal rulers —
w ho increasingly m anifested them selves as philhellenes and benefac
tors o f G reek culture, a n d seco n d ly p h ilh e lle n e R o m a n aristocrats
w ho attracted G reek intellectuals to Italy. As a result, other centers
em erged or re-em erged to rival A lexandria: A th en s, Pergam on, Rho
des, A ntioch, and R om e.39 M oreover, n o n -ro y al G reek private per
sons now tried to ou td o royalty. W h e n a t th e b eg in n in g o f the second
century the personal library o f T h eo p h rasto s, w h ich included some
original m anuscripts o f A ristode, w as p u t u p to auction, it was not
bo u g h t for the royal libraries o f A lexandria o r Pergam on, b u t by a
39
H o s e 1 9 9 7 argues th at th e p atron age o f G r eek literatu re at th e Ptolemaic
c o u rt w as d eliberately term in ated in th e seco n d ce n tu ry b ecau se th e d ynasty was by
th e n able to legitim ize itse lf th rou gh th e ‘p o w e r o f tra d itio n ’ an d w as therefore no
lo n g er in n eed o f literary propaganda; h ow ever, th e relative d eclin e o f Ptolemaic
cu ltu ral an d scien tific p atronage after P to le m y III m a y h ave h ad m o re to do with
th e re -em ergen ce o f th e Seleukids u nd er A n tio c h o s III an d th e su b seq u en t collapse
o f P to le m a ic m aritim e h eg em o n y , as w ell as v io le n t co n flicts a m o n g th e Ptolemies
th em selv es d estab ilizin g th e court. M oreover, d u rin g tw o rem arkable b u t short peri
o d s o f tem p orary im p erial revival u nd er P to lem y V I an d K leopatra V II in respec
tiv e ly 1 5 4 - 1 4 5 an d 4 1 -3 1 B C E , th e P to lem a ic d yn asty w as in n eed o f international
p r e s tig e m o r e th an ever. For R h od es’ rise to p rom in en ce as a cen ter o f learning in
th e H e lle n is tic w o rld see K. B ringm an n , ‘R h o d o s als B ild u n gszen tru m der hellen
is tis c h e n W e lt ’, C h iron 3 2 (2 0 0 2 ) 7 1 -8 2 2 0 0 2 . A ttalid p atron age is discussed at
le n g t h in E . V . H a n s e n , T h e A tta lid s o f Pergam on (Ith aca an d L o n d o n 1946;
2 n d rev. and en larged ed n . 1 9 7 2 ) 3 9 0 -4 3 3 .
T H E H ISTO R ICA L BA CK G R O U ND
37
w ea lth y A th e n ia n c itiz e n , th e n o to rio u s b o o k collector A pellik on o f
T eo s.
The
m o u s e io n
o f A le x a n d r ia
T h e fo c a l p o in t o f A le x a n d r ia n sch o la rsh ip w as th e mouseion or
M u seu m w ith its lib rary.40 T h e m ouseion w as b o th an institution and
a b u ild in g , a n d th e lib rary w a s k e p t in various places th roughout the
city, in c lu d in g e .g . th e S e r a p e io n . I t w as here th at scholars are
fam ously sa id to h a v e b e e n g iv e n a free rein to pursue their investiga
tions. B u t th e m ouseion m a y have served first o f all a practical pur
pose: th e e d u c a tio n o f th e royal ch ild ren and royal pages.41
T h e M u s e u m w a s fo u n d e d b y P to le m y Soter, w h o appointed as its
first p resid en t {epistates) D e m e tr io s o f Phaleron, form er tyrant o f A th
ens and a p e r ip a te tic p h ilo so p h e r o f so m e renow n. D em etrios was
com m issio n e d t o set u p a library, to b e attach ed to th e institution o f
the M u seu m .42 S o ter ’s successor, P to le m y Philadelphos, turned the
M u seu m in to th e celeb ra ted cen ter o f learning for w h ich it is now
rem em bered. T h e M u s e u m w as still op erational w hen Strabo visited
40 O n the mouseion and library o f Alexandria consult Fraser 1972 I, 312-9;
L. Canfora, The Vanished Library: A Wonder o f the Ancient World. Hellenistic Cul
ture and Society 7 (London 1989); A. Erskine, ‘Culture and power in Ptolemaic
Egypt: T he M useum and Library o f Alexandria’, Greece & Rome 42 (1995) 38-48;
R. McLeod, The Library o f Alexandria: Center o f Learning in the Ancient World
(London 2 0 0 0 ). For A ncient libraries in general see L. Casson Libraries in the
Ancient W orld (N ew H aven 20 0 1 ). T he Seleukid king Antiochos IX Kyzenikos,
who according to D iodoros (34.34) was mainly interested in actors and mechanical
curiosities, tried to make A ntioch rival Alexandria by founding a royal mouseion
there (Malalas 2 35.18-236.1; cf. D ow ney 1961,130-132). Antioch became a center
o f Seleukid rule only from the reign o f Antiochos IV (Martinez-Sève 2004).
41 Strootman 2001 and 2007, 185-186; cf. T. Engberg-Pedersen, T h e relation
ship between intellectual and political centres in the Hellenistic World’, in: P. Bilde,
T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, J. Zahle eds., Centre and Periphery in the Hel
lenistic W orld (Aarhus 1994) 285-315, esp. 288-290. For the royal pages see below,
Chapter 3.
42 Euseb. 5.8.11; Plut., M or. 1095d; Letter ofAristeas 1.10. The connection o f
library and mouseion follows, apart from their simultaneous foundation, from the
feet that Ancient sources usually do not distinguish between the two; Strabo 17.1.8,
our main source for the buildings and institutions o f the Alexandrian palace district,
does not m ention the famous library, whereas he does mention the mouseion.
38
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
Alexandria at the end o f the first century BCE. According to Strabo,
the M useum belonged to the royal district o f the city {basileid), and
he describes it as a huge complex o f buildings and gardens:
T h e M u seu m also form s part o f th e basileia; it has a covered prome
nade, an arcade w ith recesses and seats and a large house in which is
the d in in g hall o f the learned m em bers o f th e M u seu m . T his associa
tio n o f m en shares c o m m o n property a nd is headed b y a priest of the
M uses, w h o used to be ap p oin ted b y th e kings b u t is n o w appointed
b y Caesar (A ugustus).43
In Classical Greece a mouseion had been b oth a sanctuary of the
Muses and a school.44 W hether or n o t the Alexandrian Museum was
inspired by Plato’s Academy or Aristode’s Lyceum, as is sometimes
contended (both were called mouseion, too),45 its magnitude was
unprecedented and incomparable to anything Greece had seen before.
O nly Mesopotamian royal libraries, like the one o f Ashurbanipal II,
seem comparable (though from this does n o t necessarily follow that
these were models). And whether or not the surviving accounts of the
number o f books owned by the Ptolemies, are exaggerated, the library
of Alexandria may well have been the largest collection of boob the
world had ever seen.46 M ore im portantly, the Ptolemaic library
43 Strabo 17.1.8. N o remains o f the mouseion have yet been found.
44 A mouseion originally was a tem ple sacred to the M uses, and as such a place
that was both their seat o f residence and a sanctuary w here they were worshipped.
T h e m ost fam ous pre-H ellenistic mouseion was on M o u n t Helikon: a temple
adorned w ith the statues o f famous artists where manuscripts o f such celebrities as
H esio d were kept (Ath. 14 .629a). There also was a mouseion on the Hill of the
M uses at Athens (Pausanias 1.25.8). As the M uses are best worshipped with music,
son g, dance, and words, these sanctuaries became cultural centers already in the
Classical period, often com prising a library, and the w ord also came to mean
‘sch o ol’, although this does n ot im ply that its religious character was lost in the
course o f tim e (Fraser 1972 I, 312).
45 D io g . 4.1; cf. Ath. 5.187d; Plut., M or. 736d . Cf. H ose 1997, 51-2; Green
1 9 9 0 , 8 5 ; Engberg-Pedersen 1994, 2 9 0 -300.
46 T h e Letter o f Aristeas (1.10) claims that D em etrios o f Phaleron began the
library w ith 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 volum es and hoped to see it grow to at least half a million;
cf. G ell., Ν Α 7 .1 7 .3 . Concerning the burning o f part o f the Library’s holdings by
Caesarean troops in 4 8 /7 BCE, Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16.13) claims that no
jess than 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 scrolls were lost in the fire, against Seneca’s estimated 400,000
( T ran q. 9 .5 ). Caesar’s m isconduct in Alexandria did n ot put an end to the library’s
p re-em in en ce: A n to n y replenished the depleted collection w ith 200,000 scrolls
T H E HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
39
claim ed, and actually attem pted, to be, a place where universal knowl
edge w as collected .47
D esp ite its fam e, little can be said about the M useum o f Alexandria
w ith certainty. T h e association comprised primarily philologists and
other professional scholars, rather than creative artists. The Ptolemies
supported th em at least by providing meals, lodgings, servants, and
pleasant w o rk in g c o n d itio n s, besides an inspiring intellectual and
highly com p etitiv e atm osphere.48 Their work was dedicated to the
M uses, as th e original sacred nature o f the mouseion had not become
obsolete in H ellen istic tim es: an annual festival for the Muses was held
in the M u seu m and its epistates had the responsibilities o f a priest.49
T he epistates w as norm ally also the principal tutor o f the royal children
and the pages.50 Presumably, an important place at the Museum was
reserved for ph ilologists studying the Greek literaiy past.51
O ther dynasties m aintained similar albeit less brilliant institutions.
U nder the later Seleukids there was a library and a mouseion at Anti
och, th ough his m a y have been a civic or even private institution
rather than an im perial fou n d ation .52 T he Attalid royal library at
Pergamon boasted at least 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 volum es (the number Antony
stolen from the library o f Pergamon (Plut., Ant. 58). On the extent and uniqueness
o f the library’s collections see the important article by R. S. Bagnall, ‘Alexandria:
Library o f dreams’, Proceedings o f the American Philosophical Society 146 (2002) 348362, discussing ‘the disparity between, on the one hand, the grandeur and impor
tance o f this library, both in its reality in antiquity and in its image both ancient
and modern, and, on the other, our nearly total ignorance about it’ (p. 348).
47 Cf. Bagnall 2002, 361: ‘The sources tell us that [the reach of the library]
extended beyond Greek culture to the literature o f its neighbors, ranging from the
Jews to India. They probably exaggerate, but it is still significant that already within
a century or so o f its founding the Library had become a symbol of universality of
intellectual inquiry and o f the collection o f written texts.’ On universal knowledge
in the context o f the court see further bellow. Chapter 8.
48 Call. fr. 191 Pfeiffer; Timon ff. 12 (cited above).
49 Strabo 17.1.8; Vitr. 7 pr. 8 ; cf. Fraser 1972 II, 467 n. 34.
50 P.Oxy 1241. Known tutors o f the royal princes and pages include Philitas of
Kos, Straton o f Lampsakos, Apollonios o f Rhodes, and Aristarchos of Samothrake
(Burton 1995, 123-124; Delia 1996, 49).
51 C. de Jonge, ‘D e Alexandrijnse bibliotheek en de geschiedenis van de klassieke
filologie’, in: R. M. van den Berg, C. de Jonge, R. Strootman eds., Alexandrie (Hil
versum 2011) 331-348.
52 Suda, s.v. ‘Euphorion’; Malalas 235.18-236.1. Cf. G. Downey, A History of
Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton 1961) 132.
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
40
later t o o k fr o m th ere to r ep le n ish th e lib rary a t A lexandria).53 The
lib rary o f th e A n tig o n id s w a s e a g erly c la im e d b y A e m iliu s Paullus as
h is p erso n a l b o o t y after th e d e fe a t o f K in g P erseus in 1 6 8 , a price that
a p p a r e n tly w a s
s p le n d id
enough
to
be
r e m e m b e r e d by later
g e n e ra tio n s.54
C
o n c l u s io n
T h e P to le m a ic practice o f c o u r t p a tro n a g e o f th e th ird century con
tin u e d earlier practices a tteste d for th e co u r ts o f th e fourth-century
A rgead k in gs A rch ela o s, P h ilip II, a n d A le x a n d e r III. W ith their vast
w ea lth , a n d sta tio n a ry e sta b lis h m e n t o f a sta b le co u rt at Alexandria,
th e early P to le m ie s h a d a d e c isiv e a d v a n ta g e over th eir itinerant
S eleu k id a n d A n tig o n id a n ta g o n ists. T h is e n a b le d th em to develop
th e M u se u m o f A lexandria in to a fir m ly in stitu tio n a liz ed organization
th a t attra cted sch olars a n d s c ie n tists fr o m all over th e Hellenistic
M ed iterra n ea n . In c o m b in a tio n w ith th e s tr o n g gravitational force of
th e co u rt as an in ter n a tio n a l lo c u s fo r th e d istr ib u tio n o f status and
w e a lth , th is m a d e A le x a n d r ia in to th e H e lle n is tic w o rld ’s principal
cen ter o f art a n d learn in g. O f co u rse, it w as p e o p le a nd their connec
tio n s th at m a d e A lex a n d ria fa m o u s. In th e n e x t chapter w e w ill there
fore lo o k m o re c lo se ly at th e H e lle n is tic , v iz ., P to lem a ic court as a
social system .
53 P lut., A n t. 58.
54 Ibid.
CHAPTER THREE
R O Y A L C O U R T S I N T H E H E L L E N IS T IC W O R L D
W
h a t is a c o u r t ?
O n e o f th e basic claim s m a d e in th is b o o k , is that writers and scien
tists at court particip ated in th e sam e social system as other p h ilo i did.
T o understand th eir m o tiv a tio n s a nd th e nature o f their w ork, w e
have to lo o k at h o w royal cou rts fu n c tio n e d . In th is chapter the
organization a nd social d y n a m ics o f th e royal court in the M acedo
nian em pires o f th e H e lle n is tic A g e w ill be discussed. A lthough sev
eral general o b serv a tio n s w ill b e m a d e — th e courts o f the three great
em pires o f th e H e lle n is tic W o r ld w ere to a large degree intercon
nected and in m a n y respects sim ilar — th e focus w ill be on the
P tolem aic co u rt in th e th ird c en tu r y .1 W e w ill see h o w the social
system o f th e co u r t w as a fa ce-to -fa ce society: a netw ork o f personal
(friendship a n d /o r k in sh ip ) c o n n e c tio n s, driven by th e exchange o f
gifts, favors a n d services.
1
The present chapter is based on my PhD research and several publications
deriving from it; see esp. ‘Dynastic courts o f the Hellenistic Empires’, in: Η. Beck
ed., A Companion to Ancient Greek Government (Malden, MA, Oxford, N ew York
2013) 38-53; publications associated with this research project, further include
‘Mecenaat aan de hellenistische hoven’, Lampas 34.3 (2001) 190-206; ‘D e vrienden
van de vorst. H et koninklijk h o f in de Hellenistische rijken’, Lampas 38.3 (2005b)
184-197; ‘D e gouden kooi: mecenaat van kunst en wetenschappen aan het Ptolemae'ische h o f, Groniek 177 (2008) 23-38; ‘Literature and the kings’, in: J. Clauss
and M . Cuijpers eds., A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (Malden, MA, and
Oxford 2010) 30-45; ‘Hellenistic court society: The Seleukid imperial court under
Antiochos the Great, 223-187 BCE’, in: J. Duindam, M. Kunt, T. Artan eds..
Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Rulers and Elites
1 (Leiden 2011) 63-89; ‘Dynastic courts o f the Hellenistic empire;, in: H. Beck
ed., A Companion to Ancient Greek Government (Malden, MA, and Oxford, 2012)
38-53; ‘Hellenistic Court’, in: R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. B. Champion,
A. Erskine, S. R. Huebner eds.. The Encyclopedia o f Ancient History (Malden,
Oxford, N ew York 2012) 1818-1820; Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empres:
The Near East After the Achaemenids, 330-30 BCE (Edinburgh 2014).
42
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
A s w e have seen in C hapter 1, a royal court m a y be defined as consisd n g o f a k in g s im m ed ia te social m ilieu , th e physical surroundings
w here he lives a nd w here th e p u b lic ritual o f royalty is enacted, and the
larger m atrix o f p olitical a nd e c o n o m ic relations converging in the
dyn astic h o u se h o ld .2 Sin ce N o r b e rt E lias’ sem inal stu d y D ie höfische
Gesellschaft (1 9 6 9 ; see C hapter 1), historians have approached the court
as a political institution , the focal p o in t for the (re)distribution o f power
and w ealth. M o d ern historiography therefore defines the royal court in
socio-political terms and in this b o o k I w ill d o th e sam e.3 From a social
p o in t o f view , a court is basically th e h o u seh o ld o f a dynasty comple
m ented by, and entw in ed w ith , th e h ou sehold s o f the aristocrats belong
in g to the social circle around the kin g, for instance m ilitary comman
ders and court functionaries such as th e m ajord om o or chamberlain.
T h e num ber o f people b elo n g in g to a particular court is variable; courts
expand and contract th rou ghout th e year in accordance w ith the time
table for the aulic ‘great events’ and religious festivals.4
A lth o u g h the M a ced o n ia n royal courts w ere basically the compos
ite h o u se h o ld s o f th e r u lin g fa m ilie s,56 (co n tem p o ra n eo u s) Greek
vocabulary acknow ledges that a d y n a stic co u rt is a distin ct category
o f h ou seh o ld , com parable to th e m o d er n c o n c e p t o f a royal court.
T o be sure, th e m o d ern n o u n ‘co u rt’ (F rench cour, G erm an Hofi may
have a H ellen istic ety m o lo g y : aulë.G A th e n a io s (1 8 9 e ) explains that
2 Adamson 1999, 7.
3 For the court as a social system see J. Hirschbiegel, ‘H o f als soziales System.
Der Beitrag der Systemtheorie nach Niklas Luhmann fiir eine Theorie des Hofes’,
in: R_ Butz, J. Hirschbiegel, D . W illoweit eds., H o f und Theorie. Annäherungen an
ein historisches Phänomen (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 2004) 43-54.
4 For good discussion o f these and other characteristics o f dynastic courts con
sult Jeroen Duindam’s introduction to his book Vienna an d Versailles. The Courts
o f Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1559-1780 (Cambridge 2003), and the introduction to
A , J. S. Spav/forth ed., The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies (Cam
bridge 2007) 1-16.
5 T his is reflected by the use o f the word oikos in Greek historiography to denote
a royal ‘court’, i.e. the house, property, members and (political and economic) inter
ests o f an extended family; in the context o f monarchy, oikos could by extension
m ean also mean ‘kingdom’ (e.g. Polyb. 2.37.7).
6 Cf. e.g., Polyb. 4.42.2; Diod. 31.15a.l-3; 1 Macc. 2.46. See B. Tamm, ‘Aula
regia, “aide” und aula’, in: G. Säflund ed.. Opuscula Carolo Kerenyi dedicata. Stock
h olm Stu dies in Classical Archaeology 5 (Stockholm 1968) 135-242, for the Roman
use o î aula to designate the imperial court, and this words relation to Hellenistic
ROYAL COURTS IN TH E HELLENISTIC WORLD
43
this w ord, w h ich generally signifies the courtyard o f a mansion, in
the H ellenistic period becam e a pa rs pro toto term for a royal palace
‘because there are very spacious squares in front o f the house o f a
king’. T here w ere in d eed som etim es large squares before Hellenistic
palaces, for instance at D em etrias, an A ntigonid capital, where a hiera
agora separated th e c ity proper from ‘royal space’.7 A more likely
background how ever is suggested by archaeology: the fact that the
structural design o f excavated H ellenistic palaces in Macedonia and
the Levant have as their focus a central courtyard surrounded by
(banqueting) room s.8
T he im m ediate social m ilieu o f H ellenistic kings was therefore fre
quently designated b y th e terms ‘people o f the court’ {peri tën aulëri)
or aulikoi, w hich translates rather literally as ‘courtiers’.9 The term for
‘courtiers’ (in a very broad sense) that is used most often in both
7 H. Kramolisch, 'Demetrias’, in: S. Lauffer ed., Griechenland. Lexikon der his
torischen Stätten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (München 1989) 190-191,
esp. 191.
8 The classic example is the Antigonid ceremonial palace at Vergina (Aigai) in
Macedon; a similar basic construction has recendy come to light in a Seleukid
governor’s palace at Jebel Khalid, Syria; see G. W. Clarke, ‘The governor’s palace,
acropolis, Jebel Khalid’, in: I. Nielsen ed.. The Royal Palace Institution in the First
Millennium BC (Athens 2001) 215-247. On this architectural form see W. Hoepfner, ‘Zum Typus der Basileia und der königlichen Andrones’, in: G. Brands and
W. Hoepfner eds., Basileia. D ie Paläste der hellenistischen Könige (Mainz am Rhein
1996b) 1-43, and I. Nielsen, ‘Royal banquets: The development of royal banquets
and banqueting halls from Alexander to the Tetradis,’ in: H. S. Nielsen and
I. Nielsen eds., Meals in a Social Context: Aspects o f the Communal Meal in the Hel
lenistic and Roman World (Aarhus and London 1998) 102-133. For Hellenistic
palaces in general consult Inge Nielsen’s Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal
(Aarhus 1994), and the papers collected in G. Brands and W. Hoepfner eds.,
Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin
vom 16.12.1R92 bis 2 0.12.1992 (Mainz am Rhein 1996). Another word to denote
a Hellenistic royal palace is basileion (Polyb. 10.27-9; Diod. 19.18.1; Plut. Luc.
29.8; Athenaios 654b; Jos. AJ 13.136) or basileia, the name of the royal district in
Alexandria (Strabo 11.7.2; 13.4/ 508 and 524). The word perhaps reached modern
European languages via the Romans, who adopted it as aula in much the same
meaning (see above, n. 6).
9
Peri tën aulên·. e.g. Polyb. 5.26.13; App. Syr. 45; Jos. AJ 12.215; aulikoi:
Polyb. 16.22.8; Plut. Demetr. \7 . Sometimes also therapeia, ‘retinue’, is used; this
word can indicate both the king’s bodyguard (Diod. 33.4a) and his retinue in a
wider sense (Polyb. 5.39.1). Neither therapeia nor peri ten aulên and aulikoi are
‘official’ terms; they do not appear in the epigraphical record.
44
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
h is to r io g r a p h y a n d c o n te m p o r a r y o ffic ia l d o c u m e n ts , h o w ev er, is ‘the
fr ie n d s o f th e k in g ’ -
a lth o u g h s tr ic d y s p e a k in g th is w a s a wider
g r o u p , a lso c o m p r is in g r ela tio n s o f th e k in g w h o w e r e n o t present at
c o u r t. T h e fr e q u e n t u s e o f te r m s lik e philoi ton basileös, aulikoi and
peri tën aulên in h isto r io g r a p h y m e a n s th a t th er e w a s a contem pora
n e o u s n o t io n o f ‘c o u r t’ as a (m o b ile ) s o c ia l g r o u p , o r social system,
w h ile
aulê a n d basileia (see b e lo w ) in d ic a te d a p la c e , v iz ., a palace.10
I t is im p o r ta n t to realize th a t a lth o u g h th e H e lle n is tic em pires may
b e d e fin e d as states o f sorts, th e y w e r e n o t n a tio n a l sta tes o f th e mod
ern ty p e w ith c lea rly d e fin e d b o r d e r s, c itiz e n s h ip , m agistrates and a
raison d ’état e x istin g in d e p e n d e n d y fr o m th e ruler o r th e dynasty.
S u c h m arkers o f sta te h o o d w e r e c o n s p ic u o u s b y th eir absence in the
sources: to refer to th ese em p ir e s, G r e e k h isto r io g r a p h y uses the terms
basileia (‘k in g sh ip ’) or arche (‘ru le’); o ffic ia l p r o p a g a n d a in the epita pragmata, i.e. th e in ter e sts o f th e imperial
g rap h ic record prefers
ruler a n d h is fa m ily . I t is im p o ss ib le to d is e n ta n g le th e administration
o f th e em p ir e fr o m th e e c o n o m ic a n d p o litic a l in terests o f the
oikos
o f th e d yn asty; th ere w a s, in th is resp e c t, n o t h in g e x cep t the court.
A n d w h e n all is said a n d d o n e , th e o ld tr u ism o f p rev io u s literature
th a t in th e H e lle n is tic w o r ld ‘th e k in g w a s th e sta te ’ m a y be no more
th a n a m o d er n a tte m p t to in tr o d u c e a m o d e r n ty p e o f state where in
reality th ere w as n o n e . A n e m p ir e is n o t a n a tio n . T h e communities
th a t p e o p le prim arily b e lo n g e d to w e r e still th e p o litie s o n e or more
levels b e lo w th e im p eria l level: c itie s, trib es,
ethnë, sm all kingdoms,
e t cetera. T h e c o n seq u e n c e o f all th is is th a t rela tio n s at court were
to a h ig h degree person alized . T h e c o u r t w a s a fä ce-to -fa ce society in
w h ic h p e o p le o w e d alleg ia n ce to in d iv id u a l k in g s, qu eens, princes,
a n d aristocrats. T h is o f course also has c o n se q u e n c e s for th e position
o f p o e ts a n d scholars a n d artists at co u rt. W e sh o u ld n o t project on
t h e m th e m o d e r n r o m a n tic n o t io n o f lo n e s o m e strangers in a
stra n g e w o r ld . T h e y to o m u st have b e e n part o f e x te n d e d families and
p a tr o n a g e n etw o rk s, i f n o t th em selv es at th e h e a d o f households of
th e ir o w n . A n d th e y to o p a rto o k in th e H e lle n is tic w o r ld o f the poleis
— th e in te r n a tio n a l n etw o rk o f g lo b a liza tio n th a t co n n e c te d cities
w it h e a c h o th e r a n d w ith th e im p eria l c o u rts. W e w ill therefore
n o w tu r n to th e e n ta n g le m e n t o f em p ire a n d city , a nd th e role o f the
p h ilo i in th e H e lle n is tic in tern a tio n a l arran gem en ts. For it was
10 For the term inology see also W eber 1997, 31 w ith n. 15.
not
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
45
on ly the cultural a n d scientific producers’ themselves that physically
m oved th rou gh th is w orld o f interconnectivity — their work likely
circulated th rou gh th e personalized networks o f empire as well, as we
w ill see later on.
T
he
Q
ueen at
C ourt
A peculiarity o f H ellen istic court cultures is the relatively powerful
roles royal w o m e n played, and their pivotal place in dynastic repre
sentation. N o ta b ly in th e P tolem aic context, queens increasingly
acted as the equals o f their m ale counterparts, who often were their
brothers as w ell as their husbands. From the brother-sister reign o f
Arsinoe II and P to lem y II, both carrying the cult title o f Philadelphos
(‘brother/sister-lover’), queens at the Ptolemaic court gradually rose
to considerable p ow er, culm inatin g in the sole reigns o f Berenike IV
and Kleopatra V II in the m id-first century BCE.11
T h e sign ifica n t a n d co n sisten t pow er o f queens in the Hellenis
tic dyn asties (as co m p a red to m ost, perhaps a ll other imperial
dynasties in th e p rem o d ern w orld) has often attracted the atten
tion o f m o d er n sch olars a n d various explanations have been
adduced to ex p la in th eir p ro m in en ce.12 A popular explanation,
11 On the importance o f Arsinoe II’s queenship as model for later Ptolemaic
queens see R. A. Hazzard, Imagination o f a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propa
ganda (Toronto 2000) 81-100. The epigraphical and papyrological evidence for the
evolution o f Ptolemaic queenship is explored by P. van Minnen, ‘Die Königinnen
der Ptolemäerdynastie in papyrologischer und epigraphischer Evidenz,’ in: A. Kolb
ed., Augustae. Machtbewußte Frauen am römischen Kaiserhof? Herrschafisstrukturen
und Herrschaftspraxis II. Akten der Tagung in Zürich, 18.-20.9.2008 (Berlin) 39-54.
G. Ramsey, T h e queen and the city: Royal female intervention and patronage in
Hellenistic civic communities’. Gender arid History 23.3 (2010) 510-127, is a recent
discussion o f queens as representatives o f empire in the Aegean cities.
12 Though out o f date in some respects, G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens:
A Study o f Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Balti
more 1932), remains the only comprehensive study of female power at the Hel
lenistic courts. Biographies o f individual Ptolemaic queens can further be found in
J. Whitehorne, Cleopatras (London and New York 1994) and M. Pfrommer,
Königinnen vom N il (Mainz am Rhein 2002). For our understanding of the power
ful Argead queens and princesses who paved the way for Ptolemaic female rulership
the work o f Elizabeth Carney is o f central importance, see esp. Women and Monar
chy in Macedonia (Norman 2000).
46
T H E BIR DCA GE O F T H E M USES
m o s t in flu e n tia lly d e fe n d e d b y G race H a r r iet M a cu rd y , is that the
relative e q u a lity o f k in g a n d q u e e n in th e M a c e d o n ia n em pires went
b a c k to a p r e su m e d m o r e ‘e m a n c ip a te d ’ p la c e o f w o m e n in primi
tiv e p r e -H e lle n is tic B alk an s o c ie tie s .13 T h e disapp earance o f com
p e te n t m a le h eirs to th e M a c e d o n ia n k in g sh ip gave royal women
lik e O ly m p ia s a n d later h er d a u g h ter, K leo p a tra , a chance to step
o n t o th e sta g e o f w o r ld p o litic s, o n ly to d isa p p ea r fro m it w hen the
patriarchal R o m a n s o c c u p ie d E g y p t in 3 0 B C E . A lth o u g h the image
c re a te d b y M a c u r d y o f w e a k k in g s d o m in a te d b y th eir ‘tigress
q u e e n s ’ is n o w n o lo n g e r te n a b le ,14 it is e v id e n t th a t after Alexan
d er’s d e a th a n e w fo r m o f q u e e n s h ip e m e rg e d at th e courts o f the
D ia d o c h s , in d ic a te d b y th e u se o f a n e w title , basilissa. T h e title was
created fo r P h ila , d a u g h ter o f A n tip a tr o s, w h o m arried Demetrios
P o lio rk etes, a n d it w as p ro b a b ly in v e n te d b y th e A n tig o n id court to
s u p p le m e n t th e c o m m o n w o r d b a s ilin n a , w h ic h expressed a wom
an ’s sec o n d a ry statu s as ‘w ife o f a k in g ’. 15 F iv e w iv es o f Demetrios
P o lio rk etes are k n o w n b y n a m e, b u t o n ly P h ila , his principal queen
a n d th e m o th e r o f h is su ccesso r, A n tig o n o s G o n a ta s, held the title
o f b asilissa.16 T h e u se o f th e n e w title — w h ic h h ad th e ability to
s in g le o u t a ‘first q u e e n ’ w ith in th e p o ly g a m o u s k in g s’ households
— th u s lik ely fu n c tio n e d as an in str u m e n t for establishing hierarchy
a m o n g th e ro y a l w o m e n a n d th e ir o ffsp r in g , a n d thus prevent
13 Macurdy 1932; cf. id., ‘Queen Eurydice and the evidence for woman-power
in early Macedonia’, American Journal o f Philology 48 (1927) 201-207. Against
Macurdy’s view o f the βασίλισσα as a ‘female king’, E. D . Carney, ‘Being royal and
female in the early Hellenistic period’, in: A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones eds.,
Creating a Hellenistic W orld (Swansea and Oxford 2011) 195-220, esp. 202, argued
that the term should be translated as ‘royal wom an’ because it later refers also to
daughters o f kings, female regents, and ruling queens.
14 T h e formulation is from Hazzard 2000, 81, w ho points out that the image
o f Arsinoe’s exceptional importance is mainly known from her brother-husband’s
propaganda.
15 E. D . Carney, ‘“W hat’s in a name?” The emergence o f a title for royal women
in the Hellenistic Period’, in: S.B. Pomeroy ed.. Women’s History and Ancient His
tory (Chapel H ill and London 1991) 154-172.
16 W h en D em etrios assumed the royal title 306, Phila like her husband received
cu ltic honors from Greek cities. For instance the Athenians consecrated a Philaion
in the T hria region and associated the queen with Aphrodite (Alexis ap. Ath. VI
2 5 4 a , p. 142); see C. Wehrli, ‘Phila, fille d’A ntipater et épouse de Démétrius, rois
des M acéd onien s’, Historia 13 (1964) 140-146, esp. 142.
ROYAL CO URTS IN TH E HELLENISTIC WORLD
47
succession str ife .17 A s a result o f the increasing equality o f king
and q u een , th e P to le m a ic co u rt w as n o t split into various sub
courts cen tered a ro u n d various royal w ives and their male sons, as
the Argead, A n tig o n id a nd Seleukid courts perhaps were, though
exogam ous m arriage o f th e k in g to a princess from outside the
Ptolem aic fa m ily m a y have resulted in the temporary introduction
o f a separate q u e e n ’s e n to u ra g e, co n n ected w ith her family o f
origin.
O f particular sig n ifica n ce for understanding the importance o f
queens at court w as th e crucial role M acedonian elite w om en played
in the transm ission o f the dynastic inheritance, o f which royalty was
the m ost im p o rta n t e le m e n t.18 T h e w ish to keep the inheritance
intact m ay w ell have b een an underlying reason o f the brother-sister
marriages peculiar to th e Ptolem aic dynasty, w hich in turn may have
17 Strootman 2007, 117. That succession strife caused by polygamous marriage
was a structural problem o f the Macedonian kingdoms has been argued most exten
sively by D . Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (Lon
don 1999).
18 D. Miron, ‘Transmitters and representatives o f power: Royal women in
Ancient Macedonia’, Ancient Society 30 (2000) 35-52; R. Strootman, ‘De vrouwelijke koning. Mächtige vrouwen in de hellenistische vorstendommen, 323-31
v.Chr.’, Groniek 158/159 (2002) 45-62, and id. 2014a, 107-110; cf. H.-J. Gehrke,
‘Prinzen und Prinzessinnen bei den späten Ptolemäern’, in: Victor Alonso Troncoso ed., ΔΙΑ Δ Ο Χ Ο Σ Τ Η Σ Β Α Σ ΙΛ Ε ΙΑ Σ . La figura del sucesor en la realeza
helenîstica. Geriôn Anejos 9 (Madrid 2005) 103-117, esp. 113. It appears from
Greek sources that Achaemenid royal women, too, owned private property,
including land, and played a role in the transmission o f dynastic inheritance and
kingship; see e.g. A. Tourraix, ‘La femme et le pouvoir chez Hérodote. Essai
d’histoire des mentalités antiques’, Dialogues d ’histoire ancienne 2 (1976) 369386; M. W. Stolper, Entepeneurs and Empire (Leiden and Boston 1985) 63-64;
H. W. A. M. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ‘Περσικόν δε καρτα ο στρατός δωρον: A typ
ically Persian gift (Hdt. IX 109)’, Historia 37.3 (1988) 372-374; G. Cardascia,
‘La ceinture de Parysatis’, in: D . Charpin and F. Joannès eds., Marchands, diplo
mates et empereurs (Paris 1991) 363-369. Achaemenid royal women however are
hardly visible in the self-presentation o f the dynasty, especially as compared to
their Macedonian successors. The evidence for Achaemenid queens is collected
and discussed by M. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia (559-331 BC) (Oxford and
New York 1996). O n the possible Iranian and Anatolian influences on Seleukid
queenship — which existed in constant interaction with Ptolemaic queenship
through frequent intermarriage after 200 BCE — see K. L. Nourse, Women and
the early development o f royal power in the Hellenistic East (diss. University of
Pennsylvania 2002).
48
TH E BIRDCAGE OF TH E MUSES
c a u sed th e in c r e a sin g fo r m a l e q u a lity o f k in g a n d q u e e n ,19 w h o both
r eceiv ed c u ltic h o n o r s , o ft e n jo in tly , as a d iv in e c o u p le .20 Be that as
it m a y , th e p r o m in e n t p o s itio n o f th e q u e e n a t th e P to lem aic court
is refle cted in c o u r t p o etry ; q u e e n s b o t h a c te d as patron s and figure
in p o e tic te x ts,21 fo r in sta n ce in K a llim a c h o s’ V icto ry ofB erenike, an
19
Strootman 2 0 1 4 , 104. T h e background o f royal brother-sister marriage is still
debated. M any scholars follow D iodoros (1.27) in believing that it continued a
pharaonic tradition, notwithstanding that the on ly possible Egyptian examples of
dynastic brother-sister marriage predate the Ptolem ies by m ore than a millennium,
cf. S. R. Huebner, ‘“Brother-sister” marriage in R om an Egypt: A curiosity of
humankind or a widespread family strategy?’, Journal o f Roman Studies 97 (2007)
2 1 -4 9 , esp. 21-24; the practice o f sibling-marriage by the Hekatomnid rules of
Karia provides a more plausible possible source o f inspiration, cf. E. D . Carney,
‘W om en and dunasteia in Caria’, American Journal o f Philology 126.1 (2005) 65-91.
O gden 1999 explained the phenom enon as an attempt to avoid conflicts over the
succession, w hile Hazzard 2000 saw it as an attem pt on the part o f Ptolemy Philadelphos, w ho married his sister Arsinoe, to reunify around him self the family
descended from the Theoi Soteres, Ptolem y I and Berenike.
20 See e.g. H . Hauben, ‘Ptolem ee III et Berenice II, divinités cosmiques’, in:
P. Iossif, A . S. Chankowski, C . C . Lorber eds.. M ore than M en, Less than Gods:
Studies on Royal C ult an d Imperial Worship. Proceedings o f the International Confer
ence organized by the Belgian School a t Athens, 1 -2 Novem ber 2 0 0 7 (Leuven 2011)
357-388; E. Lanciers, ‘D ie Vergötdichung und die Ehe des Ptolemaios IV. und der
Arsinoe III.’, A P F 24 (1988) 27-32; J. Quaegebeur, ‘Kleopatra VII und der Kult
der ptolemäischen Königinnen’, in: D . W ilding and S. Schoske eds., Kleopatra
(Mainz am Rhein 1989) 45-58.
21 See La. A. Ambühl, “‘Tell, all ye singers, m y feme”: Kings, queens and nobility
in epigram’, in: P. Bing and J. S. Bruss eds., Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram
(Leiden and Boston 2007); S. Barbantani ‘Goddess o f love and mistress o f die sea.
Notes on a Hellenistic hymn to Arsinoe-Aphrodite (P.Lit.Goodsp. 2 , 1-IV)’, Ancient
Society 35 (2005) 135-165; ‘Arsinoe II Filadelfo nell’interpretazione storiografica
moderna, nel culto e negli epigrammi del P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309’, in: L. Castagna and
C. Riboldi eds., Amicitiae Templa Serena. Studi in onore d i Giuseppe Aricb (Milano
2008) 103-134, cf. id. 2010; 2011; V. Bertazzoli, ‘Arsinoe II e la protezione della
poesia. U na nuova testimonianza di Posidippo’,A £ F 4 (2002) 145-153; S. G. Caneva,
‘Courtly love, stars and power: The queen in 3rd-century royal couples, through
poetry and epigraphic texts’, in: M. A. Harder, R F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker eds.,
Hellenistic Poetry in Context. Tenth International Workshop on Hellenistic Poetry, Gro
ningen 25th -27th August 2 010 (Leuven 2014) 25-58; J. A. Foster, ‘Arsinoe II as epic
queen: Encomiastic allusion in Theocritus, Idyll 15’, Transactions o f the American
Philological Association 136 (2006) 133-148; A. Fuliriska, ‘Arsinoe Hoplismene:
Poseidippos 36, Arsinoe Philadelphos and the Cypriot cult o f Aphrodite’, SAAC 16
(2012) 141-156; A. Mori, ‘Personal favor and public influence: Arete, Arsinoe II, and
the Argonautica’, O ral Tradition 16 (2001) 85-106;
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
49
epinician o d es c eleb ra tin g th e v icto ry o f Q u een B eren ik es horses in
the O ly m p ic G a m e s.22
C ourt
a n d e m p ir e
M aintaining g o o d r ela tio n s w ith cities w as o f vital im portance for the
practice o f em p ire. C itie s c o m m a n d e d th e infrastructure and formed
the loci w h ere su rp lu ses w ere co llected , b o th o f w hich were essential
for the exercise o f th e em p ires’ core business: war-making. In spite o f
the established v ie w th a t th e M a ced o n ia n victory in the Battle o f
C haironeia te r m in a ted th e g o ld e n age o f the independent polis, and
the related fo r m u la th a t th e slo g a n ‘freedom for the Greeks’ upheld
by H ellen istic k in g s w as a h o llo w phrase, m ost cities w ithin the Seleukid and P to le m a ic sp h eres o f in flu en ce, w ere n o t o n ly de iure but
usually also d e fa c to a u to n o m o u s states.23 Rather than coerce cities
into su b m ission at all co st, H e lle n istic rulers preferred peaceful co
operation w ith u rban oligarchies. A s H a n so n and Shipley righdy put
it, ‘[t]he o ld cities n e g o tia te d th eir relationship w ith kings formally
22 T. Führer, ‘Callimachus epinician poems’, in: M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit,
G. C. Wakker eds., Callimachus (Groningen 1993) 79-97; Livrea, E., ‘I cavalli di
Berenice’, in: Studi in onore d i Aristide Colonna (Perugia 1982) 199-202; P. J. Par
sons, ‘Callimachus: Victoria Berenices’, Zeitschrift fiir Papyrlogie und Epigraphik
(1977) 1-50; A. Szastynska-Siemion, ‘Victoria Berenices (254-269 Lloyd-Jones,
Parsons) as a victory ode’, Eos 7 6 (1988) 259-268.
23 See generally Strootman 2011b with previous literature. The old idea that
the Greek poleis lost their autonom y after ‘Chaironeia’ has been challenged espe
cially by Philippe Gauthier, see especially Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs
(IVe-Ier siècle avant J.-C .). Contribution à l ’histoire des institutions (Parijs 1985) and
the essays collected in Études d ’histoire et d ’institutions grecques: choix d ’écrits (édité
et indexé p a r Denis Rousset) (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2011). The persistence, and
even expansion, o f democracy in the post-Classical poleis has been demonstrated
by several recent studies, e.g. V. Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie: politische Organi
sation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen (Stutt
gart 2008); S. Carlsson, Hellenistic Democracies : Freedom, Independence and Politi
cal Procedure in Some East Greek City-States (S tuttgart 2010); D. A. Teegarden, Death
to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle against Tyranny (Princeton
and Oxford 2013). O n the autonomy o f the poleis also see J. Ma, ‘Fighting poleis
o f the Hellenistic world’, in: H . van Wees ed„ War and Violence in Ancient Greece
(London 2000) 337-376.
50
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
o n th e basis o f eq u a lity : th e y w e re e ffe c tiv e ly states w ith in states.’24
C o n s e q u e n tly , th ere w as m u c h to gain for th e cities, to o . Rulers could
o ffer p r o te c tio n a n d b e s to w o n c itie s v a rio u s b en efa ctio n s, trading
p riv ileg es, tax e x e m p tio n s, a n d so forth . T h u s , cities w ere allied to
k in g s rather th a n s u b je c te d to th e m . I n th e resu ltin g networks
o f in ter a c tio n b e tw e e n th e d y n a sty a n d c iv ic elites, th e court was the
m a in h u b .
A n o th e r p riority o f rulers w as secu rin g th e allegiance o f military
leaders, w h e th e r cen trally a p p o in te d o fficia ls or lo calized aristocrats.
T h is req u ired su b sta n tia l rew ards fo r su ccess, su ch as land grants,
b o o t y , a n d h o n o r s .25 A g a in th e c o u r t w a s th e focal p o in t for the
n e g o tia tio n o f po w er d istr ib u tio n , th e place w h ere th e ‘friends’ o f the
k in g a n d oth ers c o u ld o b ta in o ffices, c o m m a n d s, and status.
T h e H e lle n is tic w o r ld o f cou rse w as n o t prim arily a Greek world,
th o u g h contrary to a n o w p o p u la r v ie w , G reek and H ellenized elites
d id c o n stitu te th e rulin g classes o f th e S eleu k id a nd P tolem aic empires
a n d th e H e lle n is m created a n d p ro p a g a ted at th e courts did serve as
a c o h e siv e supranational e lite cu ltu re, also for n on -G reek civic oli
garchs. T h e royal court p ro v id ed a reference cultu re for local contexts.
M o reo v er, ‘H e lle n is m ’ as an in str u m en t o f c o m m u n ica tio n , together
w ith p o lis in stitu tio n s, also spread th ro u g h th e process o f ‘peer polity
in ter a c tio n ’, a so cio -h isto rica l c o n c e p t th a t w as introduced to Hel
le n istic stu d ies b y J o h n M a .26
S till, m a n y o f th e cities a nd elites th a t th e M a ced o n ia n chanceller
ies h a d to co op erate w ith , h ad a d istin ct (or partial) non-G reek iden
tity . T h e P to le m ie s o f course h ad to d o bu sin ess w ith the indigenous
24 G. Shipley and Μ . H . Hansen, ‘T he polis and federalism’, in: G. R. Bugh
ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (Cambridge 2006) 52-72,
esp. 54.
25 Sinopoli 1994, 167.
26 J. M a, ‘Peer polity interaction in the Hellenistic Age’, Past and Present 180.1
(2 0 0 3) 9-39. The ‘peer polities in this model are the poleis, especially in Asia Minor.
For a good application o f this concept see now C. Michels, ‘The spread of Greek
p olis institutions in Hellenistic Cappadocia and the peer polity interaction model’,
in: E. Stavrianopoulou ed.. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Nar
rations, Practices, a n d Images (Leiden and Boston 2013) 283-307. For the concep
tualization o f the Hellenistic world as a network o f interconnected poleis see earlier
A . G iovann in i, ‘Greek cities and Greek commonwealth’, in: A. W. Bulloch,
E . S. G ruen, A . A . Long, A. Stewart eds.. Images and Ideobgies: Self-Definition in
th e H ellenistic W orld (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1993) 265-286.
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
51
Egyptian p riesth o o d , w h o s e tem p les controlled the countryside in
Egypt proper, as w ell as w ith G reek and non-G reek landholders in
the E gyptian chöra. B u t in th e third century they also had regular
dealings w ith a variety o f n o n -G reek local elite families in the Red
Sea basin, Palestin e, P h o en icia , C yprus, Lykia, Karia, and the shores
o f the B lack Sea. In terw o v en w ith these lines o f com m unication were
the p h ilia a nd x e n ia n etw o rk s th at b o u n d specifically Greek (or
H ellenized) civ ic elites to each other and to the royal household.
M oreover, d u e to freq u en t intermarriages, diplom atic exchanges, and
the predom inance o f A eg ea n Greeks in the imperial elites, the house
holds o f the three M a ce d o n ia n im perial dynasties were to a high
degree entan gled social system s.
Thus, the H e lle n istic W o r ld w as an extensive network o f connec
tivity in w h ich royal courts co n stitu ted the m ain hubs. This complex
network brough t th e M editerranean directly into contact with East
Africa, C entral A sia a nd India.
T
he
F r ie n d s
of the
K in g
Like Philip and A lexander, th e D iad och s tried to select their closest
collaborators o n th e basis o f loyalty and merit. Lysimachos, Antigonos, Seleukos a n d P to le m y all benefited from warfare and con
quest, w hich supplied th em w ith land, w ealth and honor to distribute
among their follow ers. B u t by sharing power w ith others, rulers risk
losing pow er to these others. T h is is the paradox o f power, a recurring
dilem ma o f all personal form s o f rulership: handing out favors and
land in order to fin d su p p o rt for autocratic rulership w ill initially
create a group loyal to th e kin g, bu t alm ost as a rule will eventually
burden th e ruler w ith new ly-established interest-groups defending
their ow n privileges instead o f w orking in the interest o f the king.27
T he loyalty o f th eir follow ers therefore was a matter o f constant con
cern for kings.
As w e have seen, th e technical term for ‘courder’, at least the larg
est and m o st co n sp icu o u s segm en t o f the class, was philoi tou basileös,
‘friends o f the kin g’, or sim p ly philoi. T his is no euphemisdc termi
nology. V arious form s o f dependence ded courtiers to the king and
27 Duindam 1994, 50-51.
52
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
vice versa, b u t th e princip al arrangem ent un derlying the relationship
w as philia , th e G reek social system (an d m oral com plex) o f reciprocal
‘friendship’. In C hapter 4 w e w ill take a closer lo o k at philia bonds
and its counterpart: ritualized gift exchange.
R o y a l philoi at royal cou rts ca m e fro m a w id e range o f cities,
ev en fro m b e y o n d th e em p ires’ b o u n d a ries. A partial explanation
o f th is has b een offered b y G abriel H e r m a n , w h o placed the move
m e n t o f philoi fro m c ity to c o u r t in th e c o n te x t o f the Greek
tra d itio n o f xenia, a fo rm o f ritualized p erson al relationships associ
ated w ith th e related c o n c ep t o f philia th a t u su a lly is translated as
‘g uest-friend ship’ in A n g lo p h o n e literature.28 Xenia relations consti
tu ted supranational elite n etw orks lin k in g to g eth er m en o f approxi
m a tely equal social status b u t o f separate so cia l u n its (in particular
poleis). B y availing th em selves o f xenia n etw orks, H ellenistic kings
c o u ld c o n n e c t w ith G reek e lite fa m ilies a n d th is ‘account[s] not
o n ly for th e prepond erance o f G reeks a m o n g th e new ly recruited
H e lle n istic court m em b ers, b u t also for th e increasing similarities
b etw een th e three courts’.29 In oth er w ord s, im perial networks were
in part based u p o n p reex istin g sy stem s o f reciprocal interaction
betw een peers. In th e fo llo w in g paragraphs w e w ill see h o w at court
hierarchy w as created w ith o u t fu n d a m en ta lly challengin g the ideal
o f equality.
T h e R oyal C o u n c il
T h e upper echelons o f the court societies o f th e Ptolem ies, Seleukids,
and A ntigonids were united in a sunedrion, a council advising the king.
A ‘seat’ in this council, in w h ich M acedon ians seem to have been
overrepresented, was tantam ount to direct access to the person o f the
k in g o n a regular basis, and hence influence o n political matters. The
c o u n c il advised m onarchs on im portant matters, especially concerning
w ar a n d foreign relations. In the P tolem aic E m pire, the council at
variou s occasions m anaged the affairs o f the m onarchy in the name of
28
York
29
m ore
G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge and New
1987).
Herman 1987, 208. For the Ptolemaic empire as a network o f individuals see
recently Mueller 2006.
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
53
a minor successor, w ith sometimes one o f the council-members being
appointed guardian {epitropos) o f the child-king .3031Yet the authority
o f the royal councils was unofficial and informal. In historiographical
sources the sunedrion appears as the single most important body in the
Hellenistic kingdom s, but the word is absent from inscriptions.
Like the C om panions in Alexander’s council, the foremost philoi
who had a seat in the sunedrion discussed matters o f state openly with
the king, often holding sway against the king’s opinion. A fundamental
aspect o f the ideal o f equality among the philoi who were present at the
council was forthrightness, parrhesia, an aristocratic ideal and a pivotal
virtue in the moral complex o f p h ilia ? x In the context o f Hellenistic
monarchy this finds expression in the trope o f the ruler going towards
his doom after ignoring the advice o f his friends — for instance Ptolemy
Keraunos in D iodoros (22.3.1) — and the king who is corrupted by
power and surrounds him self with sycophants never disagreeing with
him — for instance Philip V in Polybios and Livy.32
C ourt
titles
In the Seleukid and Ptolem aic kingdoms, court hierarchy was regu
lated and explicated by means o f titles and offices. The distribution
of tides was part o f the com plex o f gift exchange structuring relations
at court. T ides were awarded in combination with material gifts, in
particular purple clothing, crowns, or horse’s trappings, so that the
recipient could show his rank to others and derive status from that.
Plutarch relates h o w a man w ho had received the title of philos with
the accompanying gifts from Mithradates Eupator, put on the purple
robe, leaped upon the horse and rode through the city, crying: “All
this is m ine!’”33
30 See e.g., Polyb. 4.76.1; 15.25.21; Caes. BCiv. 3.105, 108; Diod. 30.15.1.
31 Konstan 1997, 93-94; For frankness of speech as an aristocratic ideal associated
with royal courts see Strootman 2007,156-158; cf. O. Murray, ‘Hellenistic royal sym
posia’, in: P. Bilde et al. eds.. Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Aarhus 1996) 15-28, sug
gesting that Macedonian royal feasts provided a platform for free expression of opinion.
See E. N. Borza, ‘The symposium at Alexander’s court’, in: Ancient Macedonia 3 (Thes
saloniki 1983) 45-55, for die significance of drinking bouts at the later Argead court.
32 Polyb. 15.24.4; Liv. 35.17.3-4.
33 Plut., Pomp. 36.5.
54
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
Most evidence for court titulature stems from the Ptolemaic empire
in the second century, where indeed the most sophisticated tides
system seems to have developed, though the Seleukids and Ptolemies
influenced each other much in this respect. In the context of the
Ptolemaic court, Léon Mooren, one o f die first to study these tide
systematically, distinguishes between ‘honorific titulature’ and ‘real
aulic titulature’. Le. tides indicating concrete aulic functions,34 but
the categories often overlapped.
The word p h ilo s (in itself a tide o f honor) was at the basis of the
complex of honorific titulature. After c. 200 we hear of such tides as
First Friends, H onored Friends, and First and Highly Honored
Friends at the Ptolemaic court.35 How exactly these tides related to
each other is unknown. Two other notable titles of honor, attested
for all Macedonian courts, are sungenês. Kinsman of the King,36 and
suntrophos, Foster-Brother o f the King.37 The latter title indicated
that one had been a royal page together with the ruling monarch (see
below). The tide sungenês may have had a similar connotation but
could also be awarded honoris causa.
Mooren’s category o f ‘real aulic titulature’ comprises first of all titles
connected with the domestic affairs o f the household. At the early
Ptolemaic court the principal dignitary of the household seems to have
been the dioiketes, the majordomo, who was aided by a steward respon
sible for the reception of guests and the progress of symposia and ban
quets.38 The chancellery was led by a (chief) secretary called variously
gram m ateus, epi tou grammateus, and epistolographos by Polybios.39Mili
tary tides such as strategos (general) and nauarchos (admiral) also were
34 L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt. Introduction and Prosopography (Brussels 1975) 2; id. ‘Über die ptolemäischen Hofrangtitel’, in: Antidoron W. Peremam sexagenario ab alumnis oblatum. Studia Hellenistica 16 (Leuven
1968), and La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque. Contribution à l'étude des institutions
e t des classes dirigeantes à l'époque héllenistique (Leuven 1977). On the Ptolemaic
court system see now also the excellent treatment by Rowlandson 2008, with several
valuable adjustments to Mooren’s prosopography.
35 M ooren 1975, passim. The first two also turn up in a Seleukid context (Jos.
A J 12.53; 1 Macc. 11.27).
36 E.g. Arr. Anab. 7.11.1; 1 Macc. 11.31; 2 Macc. 11.12; OGIS 148 and 259;
Liv. 3 0 .4 2 .6 ; Polyb. 4.48.5; Plut. Mor. 197a; Jos. A J 16.288.
37 Polyb. 5.9.4; 15.33.11; O G IS 247, 1-3; 2 Macc. 11.22.
3H P. Tebt. 8 = Austin2 265; Jos. A J 12.2.12.
39 Polyb. 15.27-7 ; 4.87.8; and 31.3.16.
ROYAL C O UR TS IN T H E HELLENISTIC W O R L D
55
pan o f this category, as th e higher military offices were monopolized
by members o f th e court. Because it w ould be done on an ad hoc,
temporal basis, th e distribu tion o f military commands was a potential
instrument o f pow er o f th e king. O n th e other hand, a recent papyrological study b y C hristelle Fischer-B ovet and W illy Clarysse o f military
recruitment in Ptolem aic E gypt strongly suggests that the class o îp h ih i
not only provided th e officers com m an ding royal troops in the field,
but that ph ilo i them selves fu n ctio n ed as military entrepreneurs respon
sible for the recruitm ent a nd m aintenance o f their own, personal regi
ments.40 T h e o ld im age o f th e H ellenistic kings as absolute rulers hold
ing sway over subservient courtiers has already been doubted on other
grounds;41 this n e w evidence, to o , indicates a greater dependence o f the
king on his courtiers that has been previously assumed.
T
he
R o y a l Pa g es
At the P tolem aic co u rt w ere also royal pages (basilikoipaides), an age
group consisting o f y o u th s b etw een abou t their fourteenth and eight
eenth years. T h e pages w ere th e sons o f nobles, including the king’s
own sons. T h e in stitu tio n w e n t back to the Argead court o f Philip
and Alexander, w h ere it h a d b een ‘a training school for the com
manders and officials o f th e M acedon ians’.42 There is some evidence
that at the P tolem aic cou rt a sim ilar institution existed for girls.43
T he king’s sons a n d th e oth er pages received an education under
the supervision o f a co u rt dignitary usually bearing the title o f tropheus, Foster-Father. T h e o ffice o f tropheus had been a position o f
40 C. Fischer-Bovet and W. Clarysse, Ά military reform before the battle of
Raphia?’, Archiv fu r Papyrusßrschung 58 (2012) 26-35.
41 Herman 1997; Strootman 2011a; 2015.
42 Curt. 8.6.6. Evidence for pages at the later Argead court is collected in
N. G. L. Hammond, ‘Royal Pages, personal pages, and boys trained in the Macedo
nian manner during the period o f the Temenid monarchy’, Historia 39.3 (1990)
261-290; Hammond’s discussion o f this evidence is somewhat flawed by an implicit
association o f this and other Macedonian institutions with their modern British
‘counterparts’.
43 Polyb. 15.33.11, mentioning ‘some young girls who had been (queen) Arsinoe’s suntrophot ; in the Grand Procession o f Ptolemy Philadelphos there were 500
girls dressed in purple chitons with gold girdles (Ath. 200e).
T H E BIRDCAGE O F T H E MUSES
56
geese honor already at th e court o f P hilip Π.44 M en w ho had been
brought o p together w ith th e k in g as pages w ere afterwards honored
as A c Mug’s stm&ûpèm , Foster-Brothers, and addressed one another
as ^brother. Evidence for the use o f th e ride svntropbos and tropkeus
however com es prim arily from the SeleuM d Empire.
D etailed inform ation concerning th e pages’ duties is available only
for tire: co u rt o f A lexander th e G reat.45 T h e classic te s t is Curtins
S.6-2-6: T h e y to o k tu rn s keeping w atch a t n ig h t a t th e door o f the
k in g s bedcham ber, and let in his w om en th ro u g h an entrance other
th a n th a t w atched by th e arm ed guards. T h e y also to o k the kings
horses from th e groom s a n d presented th e m for th e king to mount;
they accom panied him in th e h u n t a n d in bard e; a n d they were edu
cated in all aspects o f th e liberal arts. T h e y regarded it as a great
h o n t» chat drey were allowed to w ait o n th e k in g a t his table.’
T h e tr&pbeœ — th e aulic co u n terp art o f th e civic paidonomos —
was n ot h im self th e re ad ier o f th e pages. L earned m en and other
skilled professionals w ere ap p o in ted as tu to rs to train the pages in
mxdri&Dous drills. Tire education was b o th physical and intellectual.
Tire royal princes an d you n g nobles w ere prepared for their later tasks
as railkarv m m m a i d m a n d adm inistrators, as w ell as traîn ai in all
th e liberal ans.46 T h e b est k n o w n exam ple o f such a teacher is Arisrode, w ho was invited to th e c o u rt o f P hilip Π w h en Alexander had
reached th e age o f T h ir te e n a n d h is ed u catio n together with other
pages begun. A ristode tau g h t th e pages m ainly philosophy and poli
tics.* ' H e was n o t a trophrus — A lexander’s foster-father was Leoni
das, a k in sm a n o f his m other O lym pias — n o r even was he the only
« m m .A kx.5.
See H svkrf 1 9 9 2 , 2 3 7 -9 8 .
T h is b ad already h e m d ie case a t th e A rgead cou rt: C urt. 5.1 -4 2 and 8.6.4.
T h e education! o f pages m ay h are in flu en ced th e ed u ca tio n o f p a id es from ch ic dite
tsm ilies in eels Heilen istic G reek cities, as d ev elo p m en ts am i innovations in educa
tional practices in th e H ellen istic age m a y h ave started at th e courts. T h e curricu
lu m k n o w n eo h a v e b een taught to d it e ch ildren in th e cities in clud ed philosophy
literature, writing, réci tation , ami som etim es m u sic a n d th e w ritin g o f verse, as well
as various brandies o f sport. S ee E . D . C arney, ‘H ite ed u cation and high culture in
M aced onia*, in : W . H ech el a n d L A . ed s., Crossroads o f H istory. T he A ge efAlexan
d e r ''Claremont 2003) 47-63; on elite ed u cation in G reek circles in Alexandria in
general consult R. Crxhiore, G ym nastics o f d ie M in d . G reek E ducation in Hellenistic
a n d Roman Egypt (Princeton 2001).
4' P ine, Alex. 1.
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
tutor at P h ilip s co u rt.4S H istorians w ere em ployed as teachers o f
princes and pages.4849 A n o th er tutor o f Alexander and his fellow-pages
was A naxim enes o f L am psakos (c. 3 8 0 -3 2 0 BC E), a Greek historian
who wrote histories o f G reece, Philip Π, and Alexander, the latter two
perhaps c om m issio n ed b y these kings. H e is also said to have written
a treatise o n rhetoric addressed to Alexander. Kassandros, the son o f
Antipatros, w h o h ad b een a page together w ith Alexander, knew the
Iliad by heart to o .50 Later kin gs continued to attract intellectuals o f
renown to their courts to tu tor the princes and other pages. Alexander
himse lf app ointed A risto d e’s pu pil Kallisthenes as tutor o f the pages.
Antigonos G onatas bro u g h t th e sto ic philosopher Persaios to his
court for the sam e reason. Furtherm ore, prom inent representatives o f
major p h ilosophical sch o o ls — A ristode, Z eno, Kleanthes and many
others — w rote treatises o n th e art o f kingship for the benefit o f the
kings children. Perhaps so n s o f kings w ere even sent abroad for
higher education after their training as a page had ended.51 The pages
at the court o f P to lem y Soter were educated by, among others, Strato,
and at the cou rt o f P to lem y Philadelphos by Aristarchos, Apollonios
o f Rhodes and perhaps K allim achos.52 I f Ptolemaic pages indeed
received their intellectu al educarion from the scholars who worked in
the M useum o f A lexandria, this m ay w ell have been the principal
reason w hy this in stitu tio n , as w ell as similar institutions in the other
kingdoms, initially w as fo u n d ed .53
P r o x im it y
to th e throne
Since the kin g was th e central figure w ith in the court society, a cour
tier s relative status w as determ ined by the principle o f proximity to
48 Ibid.,
49 Meißner 1992, 493-497.
50 Ath. 620.
51 Antigonos Gonatas was educated by Zeno in Athens. Antiochos Grypos also
studied in Athens as a youth (App., Syr. 68); the Attalids perhaps sent their sons to
Rhodes for further study (Polyb. 31.31).
52 On the probability that Kallimachos was a tutor o f royal pages see C. Meillier,
CaUimaque et son temps. Recherches sur la carrière et la condition d'un écrivain à
l’époque des premiers Lagides (Lille 1979) 9-21.
53 P. Oxy 1241; cf. Fraser I, 330-3; Green 1990, 86 with nn. 27 and 28.
58
T H E BIRD C AG E O F T H E M USES
the throne, or ‘favor’, that is, the degree to w hich he was able to gain
access to the person o f the king, or to persons near the king, or to
persons near the persons near the king. G ift exchange, court titulature
and etiquette, too, helped determ ining a courtier’s relative position
w ithin the subtle hierarchy o f the court.
Like so many autocratic m onarchs, H ellen istic kings attempted to
regulate access to their own persons as an instrum ent to manipulate
the court’s function as a center for the redistribution o f power and
status. Prohibiting m ost people to approach the king directly accentu
ated the privilege o f the few individuals w ho did have routine access
to the king, for instance suntrophoi, royal w om en, the king’s personal
servants, his physician, or his bodyguards. Such individuals acted as
brokers between the king and others. E specially queens and royal
concubines played a crucial role in this respect.54
Behavior (‘good manners’) distinguished courtiers from non-cour
tiers and could be a means to m aintain social hierarchies within the
court society.55 Polybios (2 2 .2 2 .1 -5 ) gives a rare description of an
‘ideal’ H ellenistic courtier, in his portrayal o f the Ptolemaic philos
Aristonikos: ‘H e was a born soldier and spent m ost o f his time in the
company o f other such m en, and studying m ilitary matters. He was
also very good in the art o f conversation. In addition to that he was
by nature benevolent and generous.’
Erudition and esprit were essential qualities in the competition for
favor and status at court. Already Philip II, we are told, enjoyed being
surrounded by men ‘who could say funny things’.56 Josephus tells us
that at the court o f Ptolemy V there was a professional jester, Trypho,
‘who was appointed for jokes and laughter at festivals’, and during a
feast went up to the king to make a joke at the expense o f one of the
guests, a certain Hyrkanos. After Hyrkanos had been laughed at, the
king gave him, in his turn, permission to react, which o f course he did
splendidly, and at the expense o f his adversaries; ‘upon which the king
admired his answer, which was so wisely made; and directed them all
54 Strootman 2007, 141-2.
55 T he significance o f courtly behavior as an hierarchizing mechanism was rec
ognized by Elias (1969: 135), although he wrongly attributed to the king an entirely
free rein in manipulating court etiquette to his own discretion (Duindam 1995:
97-101).
56 Ath. 435c.
ROYAL COURTS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD
59
to make an acclamation, as a mark of their approval of his jest.’57 The
image of the courtier as a flatterer, although topical, testifies also to the
importance of the art of conversation at the Hellenistic courts, especially
during banquets and symposia. The complexity and learnedness of court
poetry, with its references to obscure versions of myths and ingenious
literary allusions, give some idea of the level of sophistication that was
required to take part in table talk at court.
C o n f l ic t
a n d c o m p e t it io n
To the outside world, the king and his council, and the court in gen
eral, presented an image of harmony and unity. In theory, all philoi
depended on the king’s grace for obtaining and preserving status at
court. As Polybios summarized this ideal, kings measured friendship
and enmity by the sole standard of expedience’.58 In practice however,
the court could be deeply divided by rivalry between individuals and
interest groups competing for favor.59 The longer the kingdoms existed,
the more the families of leading philoi, who were rewarded for their
services to the crown with riches, estates and status, acquired independ
ent sources of wealth and status. Powerful philoi maintained retinues
of their own; the size of one’s personal following was indicative of
power and created power. But being a patron created obligations to act
in the interest of one’s clients; philoi furthermore interceded at court
in the interest of their cities or families of origin.
To secure their positions and overcome their rivals, philoi joined
forces in factions round powerftd men or women — queens, princes,
leading men from the sunedrion. Conflicts between courtiers could
become interlinked with struggles for the throne within the royal
family, an inherent problem of the Macedonian royal families that
not even the Ptolemaic practice of sibling marriage could solve.
Through involvement in these struggles, philoi could win a lightning
57 Jos., Ant. 12.208; transi. Whiston. Cf. Cameron 1996,73-76, quoting many
examples o f both witticism and erudition as means to impress the royal hosts during
drinking bouts at the early Hellenistic courts.
58 Polyb. 2.47.5; cf. Plut. Mor. 183d.
59 Strootman 2007, 167-181; the element of competition is also stressed by
L. Mooren, T h e Ptolemaic Court System’, Chronique d ’Égypte 60 (1985)
214-222.
60
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U S E S
career if the prince th ey supported su cceed ed to th e throne, but risked
exile or death w h en th is w as n o t th e case. T h e career o f the philoso
pher D em etrios o f P h aleron , form er lead er o f A th en s and trusted
counselor o f P tolem y I, en d ed abrupdy w h en h e supported the wrong
candidate for th e su ccession after P tolem y’s d eath .60
In order to cop e w ith th e grow in g pow er o f th e established philoi
d ass, P tolem aic and S eleukid kin gs from c. 2 0 0 increasingly resorted
to the prom otion o f ‘favorites’.61 T h e id eal favorite was elevated by
the ruler to a p o sitio n o f pow er to w h ich h e had n o tid e through
nob le descent or acquired social statu s, and th at h e could never have
obtained w ith ou t th e k in g’s grace, so th a t h e w as entirely reliant on
the king for the preservation o f h is status. B y m aking such individuals
their closest advisors, kings tried to bypass th e sunedrion and screen
them selves o ff from th e p h ilo i. T h e favorite w ou ld take responsibility
for unpopular m easures, or take th e blam e w h en things went wrong
—hence d ie negative reputation o f favorites, w h o are typically stereo
typed as archetypal w icked advisors co n tro llin g th e king.
Favorites often w ere so d a l outsiders. A t th e Ptolem aic courts of the
m iddle and late H ellen istic periods eunuchs and non-H ellenes were
em ployed as favorites. A n E gyptian nam ed A ristonikos (the ideal cour
tier w e encountered earlier in th is chapter) becam e the foremost philos
o f an unknown Ptolem y in the second century B C E (Polyb. 22.22.1-5).
From 169 to 164, P tolem y V I patronized an E gyptian called Petosarapis, w ho was also know n by the G reek nam e o f D ionysios. Diodoros
(31.15.1-4) claim s that Petosarapis w ield ed greater influence at court
than anyone else; he also characteristically accuses him o f trying to win
control o f the kingdom .62 T h e sam e k in g is said to have entrusted his
entire army to tw o Jewish generals, O nias and D ositheos.63
60 D io g . Laert. 5 .7 7 -8 . C onflicts betw een factions as a driving force of sodal
dynam ics at court, in w h ich kings (in particular A n tio ch o s III and Philip V) try to
keep their courts divided, is em phasized b y H erm a n 1 9 9 7 .
61 O n favorites at th e H ellenistic courts see Strootm an 2 01 5 ; in what follows
this article is summarized.
62 For another intriguing case, dating to th e reign o f P tolem y II, see Rowland
son 2 0 0 8 , 4 4 . M ore exam ples have b een co m p iled b y O ’N e il 2 0 0 6 , 17-18.
63 Jos., C ontra A pion 2 .4 9 ; cf. Fraser 1 9 7 2 , 8 3 and 2 2 2 ; H ölbl 2001, 190.
O ’N e il 2 0 0 6 , 18, argues that this O nias should be identified w ith the well-known
high priest o f Jerusalem. T h e tw o sons o f this O nias are Chelkias and Ananias, who
c o m m a n d e d troops for Kleopatra III Euergetes.
ROYAL COURTS IN T H E HELLENISTIC WORLD
61
From ca. 221 to 168 BCE, the Ptolemaic monarchy went through
a period of political crisis and change, mainly caused by the expansionistic policies o f the Seleukid Empire under Antiochos III and
Antiochos IV, In this period, the Ptolemaic maritime empire in the
eastern M editerranean collapsed. In 169 and 168 Seleukid troops
invaded Egypt and laid siege to Alexandria. It is not surprising
that in this period Ptolemaic politics were dominated by ministerfavorites. Léon M ooren sums them up in an article on the political
influence o f phibv.
The series opens with Sosibius and Agathocles who dominated the
reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B.C.). After the accession of
Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-180 B.C.) they had to leave the field to
Tlepolemus who was later displaced at the top by Aristomenes; after
which Polycrates took charge. During the early years of Ptolemy VI
Philometor - at least until the sixth Syrian War (170-168 B.C.) Eulaeus and Lenaeus and after them Comanus and Cineas determined
Ptolemaic policy.64
C
o n c l u s io n
At the Hellenistic courts, philoi functioned as intermediaries between
monarchy and city, and in some circumstances some of them ruled
the empire on behalf o f the king. T he court society was the locus of
a complex and far-reaching network o f patronage relations. The ten
tacles of this network, as H erm an has noted, ‘reached into every sec
tion of the kingdom, so that the king’s power was manifested to his
subjects through the members o f his court’.65 The system, however,
also worked the other way round, permitting cities and elite families
to exert influence at court. Moreover, royal courts were not the only
source of political power in the Hellenistic world. As long as the king
was successful and wealthy, he could bind powerfid men to his person
and with their help control cities and territories. But when a dynasty
became impoverished or lost charisma (usually the result of military
64 L. M ooren, 'Kings and courtiers: Political decision-making in the Hellenistic
states’, in: W . Schuller ed.. Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum (Darmstadt
1998) 122-133, at p. 122.
65 Herman 1997, 2 0 0 .
62
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
failure), philoi and other powerful men at court could become more
autonomous,
In the next chapter, we will go into some more detail concerning
the patronage relationships between the king and his courtier, includ
ing the court poets. T he motor of the xenia and philia ties that bound
the court, and by extension the empire as a whole, together, was the
ritualized exchange o f gifts. I will argue that it is in the context of
reciprocal gift giving that we can best appreciate the production of
poetry at court.
CHAFFER FOUR
T H E TIES THAT BIND:
PHIL/A, XENJA AND GIFT EXCHANGE
F r ie n d s h ip a n d c o u r t s a c n c ir
Patronage relations at the Hellenistic courts were characterized by
obligations of loyalty and what may be termed ‘fictive equality’.
Patronage in a general sense can be defined with Peter Burke as ‘a
system based on personal relationships between unequals, between
leaders (or patrons) and their followers (or clients). Each party has
something to offer to the other. Clients offer patrons their political
support and also their deference, [...] For their part, patrons offer
clients hospitality, jobs and protection.’1As Terry Johnson and Chris
topher Dandeker noted, ‘a patronage system may remain personalized
and based on reciprocal exchange, but these processes are neither
bounded by, nor describable in terms of, the patron-client dyad’.2
The principal arrangement underlying the social system of the
court was philia, the Greek social system of friendship, and the related
concept of xenia, guest-friendship between members of different
communities. The two concepts overlapped. Both could be interna
tional. Both were reciprocal arrangements, creating bonds of loyalty
and obligation cemented by ritualized gift exchange and sometimes
intermarriage. This web of relations bound the empires together.
Kings could influence Greek civic politics through theirphiloi, whose
families in turn derived status from royal favor and thus acquired a
decisive advantage over other factions in the internal political strug
gles of the cities. As members of oligarchic families dependent on
royal support, philoi ideally represented the interests of the cities at
court, and the interests of the court in the cities. Philoi served the
kings as administrators, advisers and above all as military and naval
commanders. In due time, they acquired new or additional sources
1 Burke 1992, 72.
2 Johnson and Dandeker 1989, 227.
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U S E S
o f w ealth an d p restige: P to lem a ic p h ilo i b ecam e landholders in par
ticular in E gypt.
P h ilia can be described as a p erson al, reciprocal b on d o f loyalty and
solidarity b etw een tw o or m ore in d ivid u a ls o f approxim ately equal sta
tus w ho share rou gh ly th e sam e in terests; th ey w ere com m itted to cadi
other b y m utual ob lig a tio n s, an d co u ld rely o n each other for help.3
T h e ob jective o f p h ilia n orm ally w as to ach ieve a com m on goal, and
u n ited action tow ards th at en d w as a m ean s to stren gth en and display
the b on d .4 V io lation o f frien d sh ip w as con sid ered h ig h ly dishonorable,
even im p io u s.5 K ings th em selves w ere su b ject to th e obligations of
p h ilia too. D iod oros relates h o w th e S icilia n ruler A gathokles was pun
ished b y the d ivin e p ow ers th a t b e b ecau se h e h ad murdered a man
w ho was h is p h ilos and xenos.6 P h ilia m oreover h ad traits o f fictive kin
ship. In the I lia d it is said th a t a g o o d frien d is ‘in n o w ay less than a
brother’.7 T h is m ay exp lain w h y royal p h ilo i are som etim es honored as
the sungeneis (‘relatives’) or a d elp h oi (‘b roth ers’) o f th e king.8
In th is chapter th e sig n ifica n ce o f p h ilia (ritu a lized friendship) for
court society w ill b e d iscu ssed . I t w ill b e argu ed th at gift exchange
was th e p rin cip al m ech a n ism u n d erly in g so c ia l relation s at court
T h is is relevant for u n d erstan d in g th e p o sitio n o f artists at court, too.
3 S. G old hill, R eadin g G reek T ragedy (C a m b rid g e 1 9 8 6 ) 82; cf. G. Herman,
‘Friendship’, in: S. H ornblow er and A Spaw forth ed s.. T h e O x ford C lassical Dictionary
(3rd edn; O xford 1 996) 1 1 6 -1 1 7 . A co m p reh en siv e in tro d u ction to Classical philia is
offered by D avid K onstan, F riendship in th e C lassical W o rld (C am bridge 1997), though
perhaps overvaluing the affective, em o tio n a l e le m e n t in p h ilia a nd certainly misunder
standing H ellenistic royal p h ilia as a rational arrangem ent and thus a perversion of the
Classical ideal. A passage in Plut., C leom . 13, in w h ic h a contrast is drawn between real
friends’ and royal p h ilo i, probably reflects debates o f th e R o m a n period. T he point is,
that royal p h ilo i maintained p h ilia relations a m o n g each other too, and not just with
the king. See n o w also the n ew stu d y o f reciprocity in pre-H ellenisric p h ilia relations
by Tazuko van Berkel, The Econom ics o f F rien dsh ip: C h an gin g Conceptions ofReciprocitj
in C lassical A thens (P hD thesis: U niversity o f L eiden, 2 0 1 2 ), w h ich begins with an
excellent discussion o f m eanings and form s o f p h ilia a t p p . 1 -4 8.
4 K onstan 1 9 9 7 , 9 7 .
5 E. S. B elfiore, M u rd er A m o n g F rien d s : V io la tio n o f P h ilia in G reek Tragedy
(N e w Y ork and O x fo rd 2 0 0 0 ).
6 D io d .2 0 .7 0 - 3 -4 ; cf. H erm a n 1 9 9 6 , 6 1 2 .
7 O d ., II. 8 .5 8 4 -6 ; cf. H . v a n W e es, S ta tu s W a rrio rs: W ar, Violence an d Society
in H o m er a n d H isto ry (A m sterdam 1 9 9 2 ) 4 4 -4 8 .
8 O G IS 1 4 8 and 2 5 9 ; P o ly b . 4 .4 8 .5 ; P lu t. M o r. 19 7 a ; 1 M acc. 3.32; 2 Macc.
1 1 .1 2 ; Liv. 3 0 .4 2 .6 .
THE TIES THAT B IN D : PHILIA, XENIA AND GIFT EXCHANGE
G
65
u e s t - f r ie n d s h ip
Royal p h ilo i had their origins in a wide range o f Greek cities; they
often came even from beyond the empires’ boundaries.9 An expla
nation of this perhaps remarkable fact was given by Gabriel Herman
who drew attention to the interrelation o f p h ilia and x e n ia .10
According to H erm an, the G reek tradition o f x e n ia (or p h ilo x en ia )
— a form o f ritualized personal relationships with traits of fictive
kinship, usually translated as ‘guest-friendship’ — constituted
supranational, ‘horizontal’ elite networks linking men of approxi
mately equal social status b u t o f separate social units, viz., p o leis,
thus uniting the G reek w orld at its highest level. It was an aristo
cratic ideal. T hrough participation in a social sphere outside the
city, civic elites distanced themselves from their inferiors. With the
renewal of class distinctions in the Hellenistic p o le is, the significance
of xenia increased.11
A king’s personal or inherited paternal x<?raÆ-network provided him
with means to attract from beyond setded court circles p h ilo i who did
not yet possess a power base at court, but whose families were influen
tial within their own cities. This had an additional advantage. The
ph iloi normally retained links w ith their families and cities of origin,
presumably through several generations.12 As Herman explains, ‘Hav
ing turned royal officials, these members o f governing élites are often
found to be acting as mediators between the kings and their own com
munities of origin, deriving substantial benefits from both systems.’13
Two interesting examples o f the geographical range of aristocratic xenia
in the Hellenistic Age are provided by the third century Spartan kings
Leonidas and Kleomenes. Leonidas had lived ‘in the palaces of satraps’
9 Strootman 2 0 0 7 , 124-129.
10 Herman 1987, passim··, cf. id. 1997, 208.
11 See also M eißner 1992, 478-d escribing h ow historians became attached to
rulers by being introduced at court by their by their own philoi, esp. through the
mediadon o f their mentors; the patron-pupil system o f patronage may have pro
vided the basiss o f networks in other disciplines as well.
12 Savalli-Lestrade 1996 and 1998; M uccioli 2001; cf. Buraselis 1994, 20, and
Habicht 1958, 11-12. For a different view see O ’N eil 2006, 20: W e cannot assume
that all these m en had an active connection with their home cities’. Why not?
13 Herman 1996, 6 13. O n ph iloi as mediators between king and cities see also
Bringmann 1993, 7 -2 4 and Savalli-Lestrade 1996.
66
T H E BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
and was married to the daughter o f a Seleukid philos.[A Kleomcnes,
after having been driven from Sparta, fled to Alexandria with his fol
lowers and stayed at the court o f Ptolemy III, who gave him an annual
pension of 24 talents; Kleomcnes used that money largely to distribute
gifts among his own clients and increase his influence at the Ptolemaic
court,15
H ie r a r c h y
Philia at the royal courts served two functions. First it was instrumen
tal in creating unity by stressing that the philoi immediately sur
rounding the king belonged to one and the same status group and
were ideally each other’s’ peers. As Terry Johnson and Christopher
Dandeker noted regarding premodern patronage in general, ‘crucial
to the maintenance o f patronage system are those legitimating mean
ings and beliefs cohering round such concepts as “loyalty” or fides
which may themselves be rooted in fictive kinship or the ethics of
friendships.’16 Second, philia created a real sense of accord which in
turn facilitated collective action.
Patronage relations at the Hellenistic courts were characterized by
obligations o f loyalty and ‘fictive equality’.17 Like the Companions in
Alexander’s council, the foremost philoi who had a seat in the sumdrion o f Hellenistic kings discussed matters o f state with the king,
often publicly holding sway against the king’s opinion,10 But while
14 Plut,, Α φ 10, é . 3.
19 Plut, Clem. n .l·.
10 Johnson Sc Dandeker 198 9 ,2 3 1 .
(/ Patronage in itself can be defined tu ‘a political system based on jjersonal
relationships between unequal«, between leaders (or patrons) and their followers
(or clients). Each party has som ething to offer to the other. Clients offer patrons
their political support and also their deference f ,.] For their part, patron* offer
d ie m s hospitality, jobs and protection' (Burke 1 9 9 2 ,72), See however the objec
tions against such a hierarchized view raised by Silverman 1977 and Gibemiii
1977,
m Pace Konsum 1997,121, On the mmdrlon see above. Note that the old Macedo
nian institution o ff k m panions of die King was named alter a term, hetalrtlti, designat
ing a (p o lited ) confraternity, too (Herman 19%, PI l)s the Companions and the
M m erlnnlm king belonged to the same peer group in which die king was prim t Inter
l„ im 0 hough a strong king could of m u m In actual practice he mure espial than hi*
THE TIES THAT BIND: PHIL!A, XENIA AND GIFT EXCHANGE
67
the philoi society at court was defined as a social group by the ideal
of equality, the philoi comm unity was in actual practice also hierar
chical. Hierarchy was created by various informal dynamics.
Since the king was the focus o f all aspects of the court society, a
courtier’s relative status was determined by the principle of proximity
to the throne, or ‘favor’, that is, the degree to which one was able to
gain access to the person of the king, or to persons near the king, or
to persons near the persons near the king.19 Gift exchange, court titu
lature and etiquette were instrumental in determining a courtier’s
position within the subtle hierarchy o f the court.
In what fo llo w s^ v eral aspects o f the principle of proximity to
the throne will be discussed. Specifically, we will look at gift
exchange as a mechanism for constructing social relations at court,
the more or less formalized complex o f aulic titles, membership of
the royal council, and other status determinants. In Die höfische
Gesellschaft, N orbert Elias listed what he believed to be the deter
minants for status at court.20 Although many of Elias’ views have
In later research been abandoned, this particular inventory still
holds good. Elias’ status determinants are: family prestige, wealth
(possessed and received), rank, military achievements, the king’s
favor, the ability to influence powerful persons (dignitaries, but also
e,g. concubines of the king), membership o f a certain clique, esprit,
courtly behavior and outward appearance. We will have to keep
these mechanisms in m ind when examining social behavior at the
Hellenistic courts.
B r o kerage
The fact that m ost people could not approach the king, at least not
directly, accentuated the privilege o f those few individuals who did
have routine access, such as the m ost prom inent courtiers, the queen,
peers). O', Arier., Pol, 5.9.6, comparing the relationship between a king and his com
mon subjects to the authority of a father over his children, i.e. an unequal relationship,
while in lUh, Hud, 7A. 1-2 it is stated that a father-son relationship is not a form of
pliltht.
v> Eor the importance o f W
m Elias \<m,
and ‘favor’ see Starkey 1977 and Winterling
68
nia»·Eanrorg nm iA m es·
pgaoa^. j^gsïciagl·, Of Ιΐοφ^Ο^Γ&Τ- dci.
mtmmlrgfe rffiffl SiOTas mgjjggMiS. «sr ΊμηιΙβεβ, beswcsœ soe lcrgEc
«^Hrerg.— Fsit-rfaas ose MoliKaam- w tao ss s fin n ig naan sæ js: s r*
am orœ B ^ 3 3 d tS œ s t as s liŒ Eig^ H  ifa its i B essm kt d p r â u s r
g f f m r r^Tsir «îrrff- -WS® T fe^ MM3SE. m & S C a S E r f 2 fB fl A c HSOSC ΐ ί ΐ Π Χ β S X
ôxxa^aeexBc; dF dae mises d rE k ifaw d -2·Jeseplii» s é m hem s tsszzxr
FsfgT £ ÎBfag g jriagpcs- SS ŒSBOCCTE lÊOEIl JeUBlAffl., tEElcËkgâ " ' de
'EdaàŒsasc c t c g ss o b s ïn œ h sês pöfiSegES lo r la s fâm % r
\Ξ5ξ rr *trx?*rræ rr x^rrr pr*SS=S tffi d e 5frg- Sad CS [cp ssf EkrÇSX
an£ îk
£ 3 = 12 ^ snd ö d ï d ^ w err pGwceEj. ær Gocrti ard d e ^
■mirÎiîggïg dE arapeâ*â! sas EdnseH?*
S . S3QC3 r^saksd H 2 .rzaæ sdg«SA . sise iô b g
T*d£e <H gdxiisxrT ■
:Vj, tsss s z s d lH g finem Mgmxglfig s® AW^rifd?..
j /a e ^ - w â ^ a b c ^ d g c s ^ a g a g ila c e ^ j r g ^ f^ o a ta a à g a g g -y s
H ra sd dem d e rrn^d sasrdgg,, amd ^wzs girös. fessâm ad d re »
drrcæss- d e drrgr
âas «ebbstmfi&g æsd cjsxsx <æ«rs«s3aeifos2 he m ^ e aBtocdie
5 eô a sia aB f ^ d jck a ^ arèô h ^ a» » fifcc S îi^ aed h e t« £ s* 3 îsd if
dîmcas: ac d e rasas«, as>a gpaeae: s r s ic fssfsl «aMe.·3
J jc a s Ä ^ -de ra x e o a s c , Jseesfcas vSasss éaaz yihæa a r~aa d H
/H ä ; -»sa dxswm H ;a£ afier î« b g zù scsr âræ çzL , fm -»fis d d m H
"IG&æ x sz 'X d d H dT ^HssçaEsa. æSsaæaed d e Idog «afH* H x sjrx '
dtiÂ
d e r d s '£ \ x ?jxxs m a gm sm . H s d ies so τ β Η
χχχζχχχ;~ χ d e c sS e YäeygesssL m> a p u m txtm d r d e J«*®, k s d
_p»sspd% ÄEÜ3. s d d haorz érxm «a sf P d o n ^ c «jasetis had d ar rjSs
d
*' ' ^
‘d
^
^ 7^ ^ » « de $
« » a ß » <35*a#aäf
M s æ æ ^ l e s rxé& ds ώ
a ^ ^ a s ? * Ü e y ttfd ß é& 4 & G ro ffu n I W n W > )
''**' '*
k>
f d a & m * a s ftm » sajcrad d
XXXJX.Ä5
«X 3 2 .4 ^ ,
- d ^ y ir
X X * /,.'#
' '5·ν ^ ^ '
^
vy iW ç ίί ν ,φ ί ΐ o b î
W r/> h e
s Z itXX. X.
‘/ , 'y , ite -A v r, Λ
<;ι& $ χ fâ m vjà v^ X ssx vh K / 'v.".r* id
w ;.*>
< ,# 2 2 *:¥/■//,) î m r # i .
THE TIES THAT B IN D : ΡΗ Κ ΙΛ , XE2CÄ AND GIFT EXCHANGE
G ift
c
exchan ge
Tbc principal instram eniality in creating and maintaining band«
between a king and Iris p kth L as weil as between die king and ethers,
wss die exchange o f gilts. G ilt exchange was a pivotal element in die
ideal o f pbiB&F G ift exchange furthermore was tantamount co the
roral rinne o f generosior, direcdy related to royal eneigerism and die
pdhlk display o f wealth th at is also known as tryphi. Plutarch skeprioBy npgrofked rhar ‘kings hu n t for men by attracting them with pits
asd money — and then catch them !522 However, the opposite also
happened: that friends through gifts or setrices obliged rulers. But let
us statt as with the generosity o f the king.
In an encomiastic poem {Idyll 17), the court poet Theokritos praises
Paokmy Pmbdelpfeos as a man who is ‘generous with gifts, as a king
bdfes, generous ro dries and loyal friends.*27*29 Magnanimity was a aurial
compoisait o f the Hellenistic ideal o f kingship. Kings were obliged to
fi*e up to that ideal. In a society where honor depended on appearances
sad behavior, the lavish distributions o f gifts was a means to attain or
confirai superior status. Royal gifts went out, first of all, to the gods.
T im so relatives am i friends. And finally to dries and temples.
Although royal euergerism in dries is at present the best known and
U M studied form o f royal gift givin g die munificence o f Hellenistic
kings toward their phtloi was o f equal significance for die maintenance
of empire, and more is written about by andent authors.30
In anthropological theory, the prindpal function of p it exchange is
dît creation or affirmation o f social relations.31 The exchange of gifts
if a reciprocal ami normally highly ritualized process. It serves no eco
nomic aim, even though the circulation o f goods brought about by gift
«change often has significant economic consequences.32 J. J. Jansen
27 Kontra« 1997, 4 i see n ow also the study by Van Berkel (2012), focusing on
the
o f friendship.
^ Wut., C&!»w. 13.$.
** T b w cr., /<£ m i 124-$; cf. /</. xvi 32-3.
30 Ssz for instance M h , 48f; 49a; Sokrat« o f Rhodes FHG ill 96 ap. Am. 148a;
Μ , Λ / 12/19-1; 12,59; 13,82.
i j Ss« generally Burke 1992, 69-71,
Kettering, S „ Patrons, brokers, a n d Clients in Seventeenth-Century France
P h w 7 c tk 1986), and id. ‘foffrgiving and patronage in Early Modern France*,
/7w;/y / II·.tory 2 <3 988) 333-15 3; "cf. Burks 1992, 74.
THE MRDG&ΠOF THE MUSES
dSsnngmsbes four f e m s o f royal gifts: ‘gifts5 (incidental donsrizzs'.
"ieoiDiKiaiQos’ (m ddeniai g j& in return for a specific service), sskir'
Cregnlar pænooent; in return fin -s^ d cx s),aix is(^tem ^s5 (various gib a
gods. priest^ cmt Eemples).5^ M fau n s are apparent in the Hdfeaisk
jringAuns. T h e p è ih L th e people dorest to the king, reœhned tana·
ngrggjpns5in exchange for gifts o r as rewards for services, ratin' tbzt
regular salary. U nwritten rales regulated w hat sort o f presort n s
proper in a green cnntotLr*
T h e m ost highly desired reward o f couise was land. The Hrêmfyrrl·.-’.
a f f e d a d esrares. tr i m in d tid ir^ buildings» laborers and slaves, pitmid
éatpèzM ·wâfe both s o u k and a source o f income. Estates could be am·
z s p i m tsaaaew. Tims. Apollonias the major-domo o f Ptolmiv PliikMphos Æ ^s^rr^na^dhisim ssesâcM rsindreF ^um — some 2.500 ss-tf
land, ÿ v m m him ire th e king — through his steward, die Kais
ZeooG, as has been documented in the weft-known Zenon Papyi.
BhIces distributed land am ong th eir followers to secure ifwir fay
afcr. However, t k s e land-holdings could earify become heredimy
pisiogjeivES-, turning their owners in to established elites with pimizd a i power bases, capable o f opposing th e king. This is whar scerotp
base h appen ed in th e Ptolem aic E m pire in du» third century, sal
Π2ΣΤ sapiam th e rise o f Egyprian ‘favorites5 in the second oanm?.s
Kazbsr rh m a t all cost o r to (re)conquer new lands eo ΗίςπίΚπτ?» n
arrisr m create a new group o f loyal adherents, the Ptolemies mad ns
ihetr inooEne from th e direct taxation o f Egyptian sottrrjtusal pm âocm m and th e Mediterranean-Red Sea trade.
In h a seminal essay on th e gjft, Marcel Mauss theorized msi û
s f r eadiange h subject to three basic rales: the obligation as φ χ, u>
recerre, and to redprocate.^ R e d p ro d ty however is rarely bakstaii
— cbe pesso» w ith th e highest status is obliged to offer the am
rs & sb it gifts o r fin e s . In an anecdote told by Plutarch, a osons?
wfjii requested from Alexander dowries for his daughters was ofsraJ
^ JJ. jl Jässseö* H a gscfceak. des koangs*, m; H. j. M. Chmm aL, Âkàus
mgg&ezr. Met m tpakefykheid pm h a waegf kmmpekap Çüutxkt 1984') 51-59** /J e M ^ â a p a tf ^ îd m m m A e p ^ - ^ é m h ^ w m x â ià m d z m t^ q
"rj 3 r-, Z, 5 >.2& e£ Z£d/>)% Same* tfia m p tsim vecâveâ m km than έ.ψ χ d ks
rar
de<f.3k&se i f VstAemy Ϋ ΐ& ώ ά φ » ÇDieg. Lko, 5.5% c£ A i !$&
viras
■>'
i t o , ii'iÄfti' sta k dm, F&rme a rahm de ïàhan?e dam h χάάα
zrsh & sa t; *¥*ί» y /4 y p
T H E TIES T H A T B IN D : PH1LM, XENIA A N D GIFT EXCHANGE
1
fifty* talents; when the courtier politely said that ten talents would be
more than enough, the king retorted: ‘Enough for you to receive, but
not enough for me to give'.37 Unbalanced reciprocity first of all is a
matter of honor. However, in practice it is instrumental in securing
that the lesser-ranking person remains indebted and dependent
because he is neither able nor allowed to fully reciprocate. The anec
dote furthermore shows how it was not considered dishonorable to
ask for gifts.38 In fact, any petitioner appearing before the king could
expect his request to be complied with. O f course, he himself should
make an initial gift. This could be a material gift, but also a sendee.39
Josephus informs us that if the initial gift was too small relative to
one’s status, the king could be displeased; if, however, the gift of the
petitioner was accepted by die king, the request would be granted.40
In Greek aristocratic morality, working for pay was considered tan
tamount to servitude, but to be rewarded for services with gifts, hon
ora or privileges was honorable.41 T he value of a gift was not deter
mined only by its exact worth, bu t also by the status of the giver.
To be rewarded by a king increased one’s social status enormously.
Moreover, it is customary in virtually all pre-modem monarchical
societies that objects which have been in contact with the body of the
long attain a certain ‘sacred’ quality.42 For th is reason, Hellenistic
kings, like the Achaememds before diem, after banquets not only
allowed their guests to take with them the silverware from which the
guests had eaten, but also gave away the cups and plates from their
own table.43 Such royal gifts were the tangible signs of ‘favor and
J7 P lo u M o r. 1 2 7 b .
38 For m ore instances s e e A d i. 2 1 1 b and A ristodem os ap. Ath- 246e. Pace Her
man 1980, arguing th a t d ie d e p en d en ce o f p h ilo i o n royal gifts led to their charac
terization as parasites in d ie w ritten sources, m ainly o f the Roman period.
Jansen 1 9 8 4 , 5 1 .
49 Jos., AJ 1 2 .2 1 7 and 2 1 9 .
43 Komtan 1 9 9 7 , 8 1 -2 .
42 Jansen 1984, 58.
4i> H d t. 9 .2 0 ; X e n ., A nab., 1 .2 .2 7 , 8 .2 8 -9 . T h e H ellenistic custom o f giving
tabh&me m ay have been a b orrow ing from d ie Achaem enid court. Am ong die
Persiam, robes and sw ords given b y th e kin g w ere im portant tokens o f royal favor,
c£ J. M . Brgv/ood, ‘C tesias, h is royai patrons and Indian w ords’. Journal o f Hellenic
Btudki 115 (1 9 9 5 ) 1 3 5 -1 4 0 ; H . W . A M . Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ‘Gifts in the Per
ris« empire', in : P. Briam and C . H errenschm idt eds.. Le m but dam l’empire pene
(Paris V M n 2 8 6 -3 0 2 .
72
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USE S
could boost one’s status. As I will argue later on, poets or artists who
offered a poem or treatise to the king as a gift, participated in this
system o f exchange too, deriving status in addition to die gifts they
received from the king in return, or were given to them when partak
ing in courtly feasting.
For kings, the public distribution o f gifts had the additional advan
tage that it was a means o f publicly allocating favor, and thus estab
lish the receivers’ place w ithin the court hierarchy or even, as in the
case o f purple clothing, a means to control the exit and entrance to
the philoi group.
T he exchange o f gifts created n o t only horizontal bonds of loyalty
b u t also vertical bonds o f dependence to hold the formal equality of
the philoi in check. N o rb ert Elias in D ie höfische Gesellschaft mu
m aintained th at the requirem ent o f massive status expenditures
drained courtiers o f their financial resources, to the benefit of the
absolutist monarch because it m ade them dependent on royal gener
osity. However, the obligation o f generosity placed a heavier financial
burden on the king, being the person o f highest status. In reaction to
Elias’ thesis, D uindam notes th a t the king too was the prisoner of the
spending pattern: ‘H e could n o t control the game without participat
ing in it. It is im portant to note th a t the pressure to prove one’s
superior status was greater on th e m onarch than on anyone else.’44
T he obligation o f kings to grant any request when made in public
is amusingly illustrated by an anecdote in which Lysimachos a
practical joker w ith a dark sense o f hum or, b u t also a notorious miser
— once threw a dead scorpion in the robe o f one of his philoi; the
latter retaliated by requesting a gift o f one talent — a rather large sum
o f money — from the king, who was thereby scared out of his wits,
too.45 This joke works because the audience knows that Lysimachos
would not be able to publicly refuse a gift when asked for it. Con
versely, Ptolemy IV was faced w ith conspiracies and philoi going over
to the Seleukids because he was n o t able to fulfill their demands.46
T hus, kings constantly ran the risk o f over-consumption, which could
erode the financial foundation o f their military power, or even lead
to dependence on wealthy philoi, a process that has been described
44 D u in d a m 1 9 9 4 , 8 6 a n d 9 5 .
45 Ath. 246c.
44 Polyb. 5.34.4, 10.
T H E TIES T H A T B IN D : PHILIA, XENIA A N D GIFT EXCHANGE
73
for the early modern court by Duindam: 'Extravagant expenditures
to confirm the pretense o f power and status eroded the financial
foundation. Status expenditures had to be reduced, resulting in the
loss of face and thus loss o f power. The king could avoid this by find
ing new sources of income. This in turn led to dependence - on the
assemblies of estates or on private financiers.’47
Kings could forestall the risk o f running out of wealth to meet the
demands of the p h tb i by distributing symbolic gifts. Privileges and
tides were much desired gifts, also among poets, scholars and philoso
phers. Purple clothing, tableware used at royal symposia, were in itself
valuable, but had an added value as the visible tokens of such intan
gible rewards as ‘protection’ or ‘favor’.48
C
o n c l u s io n
In this chapter has been shown how the principal arrangement under
lying the social system o f the court, was philia, the Greek social sys
tem of ritualized friendship, and the related, partly overlapping, con
cept of xenia, guest-friendship between members of different
communities. Both philia and xenia were, in theory at least, recipro
cal arrangements, creating bonds o f loyalty and obligation cemented
by the ritualized exchange o f gift. This web of relations bound the
Ptolemaic empire together and it bound also the Ptolemaic court
together. In the next chapter we will see why kings encouraged, poets
and other writers to become part of this system of interaction.
47 D u in d am 1 9 9 4 , 8 6 .
48 T h e purple garm ents given to phifoi as status sym bols m ay have been woven on
the loom s o f the king’s w ives or daughters; it was custom ary at the Argead court that
the royal w o m en w o u ld w eave th e m en fo lk ’s clothing, cf. H am m ond 1990, 270.
CHAPTER FIVE
P A T R O N S A N D C L IE N T S
W
h y c o u r t pa t r o n a g e ?
A fryp^n^ror o f db.e H eB enistic geographer Eratosthenes praises
Poofcaaay III as a protector o f culture.1 But patronage o f arts and
« A w w By pilers is o f cotixse n o t a typical Hellenisric phenomenon.
For dae in lets o f d ie A nden. Régim e, patronage o f art and science
«•yam*!
to have a m oral and political .dimension and to Be part
o f statecraft-52 A i dbe con n s o f R m alssance M y , "the praede« o f ant
patronage and a it csdlectim a, w ere obsionsily n ^ id e d as acfflbides
idbredh Bait n o t secondary, to dfee e a o d se o f fow er, land]] were
ccnddeied operational eap an s».’3 TBe didasMonay o f on tribe one
Band aanosKmons am and «ml th e oAear Band a it §m m g psfeatdl
propagandas pnipeases, is a m odern contention- GaÜko GsliSdl, as
one Isissosian p e t st, T k ed on e eye on dbe «noons ofJc^iner and tribe
odasr on Iks p atron /4
Historians sradying easily m odern Ecmope wemgmzs tribas tn tribe
Memmamœ toys! stippoct acrisrely ssam m a^à and even gjridäd tribe
“ &&&sdxxx5, fc, 35v Ι3 Ί 5 Powefib c£ TEerjcr.,. M. M„ L dt (Prclemv FF as
ρκκεδϋΓ o f ccfecgçy andi
97% 7 (Ffeafietny W fa connection. witfc die cample of
Harasr fa Aiezansdlrfaj ; o s die passage fa Eracoscftenes: see G- Agosti, ‘Eratascine
Muse e ß re1, Hermes 125 (1997) IIS-22, I ewe diese rderences co Silvia
BteEssssr.:!-
* A. Stroup1*T he political theory and practice of technology under Louis XF7,
« ί δ , X Moras ecL* Eosrmoge and Institutions; Science* Technology, and Medicine
as the European Omen, Î5QÔM75Û (Rodiescer, NY,, and Woodfaridge 1991; 211234, « 2 11E GardiiK, ‘Thesacred errdeof Mancoa’, far S, BerreLL F. Cardini, E. Gar6«r<> Zo?» eds^
Courts o f the Italian Eenaissance ^Milano l9Sf; TJAl£,
i t 95,
4 . &· T· Monas* Xarrosage and »»emittens, Courts, unr/er-ides, and academies
(ft Girmasy; A s o-rer/kr*r, 1559-1756", in; id sd , hasmnage and Institutions: Sci
ence, Technology, and Medicine a t the European Court, IMdJ-lIM) Techesres NY,
snd Wdcdiridge :99I> 155-33, at 159.
76
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
em ergence a n d d e v e lo p m e n t o f m o d e rn science an d art.5 In the study
o f H e lle n istic c u ltu re , how ever, th e m o ralizin g n otion that art and
science are in c o m p a tib le w ith p o litic a l p o w er has been very influen
tial, th o u g h it is n o w o n th e w a n e .6
W h a t w as th e so cial f u n c tio n a n d c u ltu ra l m eaning of court
patronage? W h y d id ru lers fin d it so im p o rta n t to promote the arts
a n d sciences? F o r w h a t reasons d id th e y enco urag e particularly inno
v a tio n a n d even th e p u rs u it o f u n o rth o d o x ideas? Regarding litera
tu re , th e q u e stio n m a y b e raised w h y k in g s p atronized notably Greek
w riters. T o p u t th a t last q u e stio n so m e w h a t m o re polemically: what
w as it t h a t c o m p e lle d M a c e d o n ia n k in g s w h o m led largely nonG re e k p o p u la tio n s to p ro m o te G re e k c u ltu re far beyond the old
G reek m o th erla n d ? B elow , I w ill id e n tify five possible motives, five
advantages fo r th e m o n a rc h y , th a t to g e th e r m ay explain the promi
n en ce o f arts a n d sciences a t th e h e a rt o f M acedonian imperialism.
In w h a t follow s, I w ill discuss th e se five m otives, labeled ‘usefulness’,
‘p restig e’, ‘c o m p e titio n ’, ‘a c c u m u la tio n a n d appropriation’, and
‘co h esio n ’.
T h e USEFULNESS OF COURT PATRONAGE
O bviously, m u c h o f w h a t w as p ro d u c e d a t co u rt was practical in a
very dire c t m an n e r. T h is w as c o n sp icu o u sly th e case with the encour
agem ent o f th e stu d y o f ballistics fo r th e sake o f improving military
technology.7 H ellen istic w arfare w as p re d o m in a n d y siege warfare and
th e d ev elo p m e n t o f w ar m ach in es th erefo re o f pre-eminent impor
tance. T h e tec h n ic ia n P h ilo w ro te th a t in Ptolem aic Alexandria tech
nicians ‘w ere heavily subsid ized because th e y w orked for ambitious
5 G . F. L y tle a n d S. O r g e l e d s ., P atronage in th e Renaissance (Princeton 1981);
} . C . E a d e, W . F. K e n t, P. S im o n s e d s ., P atronage, A rt, a n d Society in Rmaissmt
Ita ly (O x fo r d a n d N e w Y o rk 1 9 8 7 ); B . T . M o r a n e d .. Patronage and Institutions:
Science, Technology, a n d M edicin e a t th e E uropean C ourt, 1500-1750 (Rochester,
N Y , a n d W o o d b r id g e 1 9 9 1 ); M . B ia g io li, G alileo, C ourtier: The Practice of Science
in th e C u ltu re o f A bsolu tism (C h ic a g o a n d L o n d o n 1 9 9 3 ); D . Griffin, Litcrarj
P atronage in E ngland, 1 6 5 0 -1 8 0 0 (C a m b r id g e 1 9 9 6 ).
6 S e e th e referen ces c o m p ile d in C h a p ter 1.
7 Fraser 1 9 7 2 I , 4 2 9 .
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
77
kings who appreciated craftsmanship.’8 In the early Hellenistic period
the techniques of making catapults and other siege machinery
improved rapidly, as well as the development of fortifications and
warships — the latter becoming bigger and bigger in a virtual arms
race between the empires.9 The inventor Hero fitted this develop
ment neady in a framework of imperialist ideology when in the intro
duction to a treatise on ballistics he stated that the development of
military technology was necessary to secure ataraxia, the Stoic notion
of tranquility, or rather, the absence of disturbances, thus neady link
ing his own contribution to the development of new weapons with
Ptolemaic ideology in which the creation of peace through military
victory was a central idea.10 Ktesibios, who worked in Alexandria
around 200 BCE and who is best known for his invention of
a hydraulic organ and other such astounding machines, wrote a
compendium of technology in nine books, at least two of which
were concerned exclusively with war machines (Book 4 on the con
struction of catapults and Book 8 on offensive and defensive siege
engines).11
Artists and writers, too, served basic practical needs of the court, for
instance by decorating palaces with frescoes, mosaics and sculptures;
8 Philo, Belop. 5 0 .2 9 . O n patronage o f technology in Alexandria see Lloyd
1973, 3-7; and T . W . Africa, Science and the State in Greece and Rame (New York,
London, Sydney 1 968) 4 6 -6 7 .
9 F. W . W albank, ‘M onarchies and m onarchic ideas’, in: id. ed., The Cam
bridge Ancient History. Volume 7.1: The Hellenistic World (2nd rev. edn; Cam
bridge 1984) 6 2 -1 0 0 , esp. 195; and Y. Garlan, ‘Hellenistic science: Its applica
tion in peace and war. W ar and Siegecraft. In F. W . Walbank ed., The Cambridge
Ancient History. Volume 7.1: The Hellenistic World (2nd rev. edn; Cambridge
1984) 3 5 3 -3 6 2 . For technical aspects see E. W . Marsden, Greek and Roman Artil
lery. Volume 1: Historical Development (Oxford 1969), and for reconstructions see
the illustrations in D . B. C am pbell, Greek and Roman Siege Machinery,
399 BC-AD 3 6 3 (L on d on 2 0 0 3 ); extant ancient works on ballistics have been
collected in E. W . M arsden, Greek and Roman Artillery. Volume 2: Technical
Treatises (O xford 197 1 ).
10 H ero, Belop. 7 1 . C f. M arsden 1971, 19; Green 1990, 479. On the ideology
see R. Strootm an, “T h e daw ning o f a G olden Age: Images o f peace and abundance
in Alexandrian court poetry in relation to Ptolemaic imperial ideology’, in:
M. A. Harder, R. F. R egtuit, G . C . Wakker eds., Hellenistic Poetry in Context.
Tenth International Workshop on Hellenistic Poetry, Groningen 25th-27th August
2010. H ellenistica G roningana 2 0 (Leuven 2014) 325-41.
11 G. J. T oom er in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd edn, 1996) 1166-1167.
78
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
by portraying th e king an d queen for coins; by writing poetry for royal
festivals an d celebrations;12 an d entertaining courtiers, guests and
ambassadors w ith their work.
A gainst this background, th e learned b u t at first sight irrelevant
co n ten t o f m u ch cou rt poetry m ay also be understood: its sodal rel
evance was in p a rt to entertain th e king and his courtiers during
sym posia an d banquets,13 offering th em subjects for debate and hence
o p p o rtu n ities for eru d ite co m p etitio n , as well as binding them
together as a social group. Reference to court life could take many
forms. T h u s Kallimachos’ H ym n to A rtem is, which narrates the educa
tio n o f th e divine princess A rtem is, n o t only contains various ideas
abo ut contem porary kingship, b u t refers direcdy to Ptolemaic coun
etiquette, as Ivana Petrovic has poin ted out,
[A rtem is] acquires a circle o f a tten d a n ts rem iniscent o f basilikoipaidts.
Sh e requests a n d is g iv e n six ty O c e a n id nym phs and twenty daughters
o f th e K retan river A m n isu s (1 3 - 1 7 ). T h e number (eighty) and the
status (n y m p h s) o f h er a tten d a n ts corresp ond to the dignity of the
d iv in e p rincess. T h e se n y m p h s are su p p o sed to assist Artemis in the
h u n t a n d care for h er d o g s a n d deer (11. 1 6 -1 7 ), which is exactly what
th e b a silik o ip a id e s d id as w e ll. [ . .. ] A s so o n as the goddess has acquired
th e fetishes o f p o w er, C a llim a ch u s w ishes to be included in her inner
circle a n d - w ith a to n g u e -in -c h e e k reference to the philoi of the Alex
andrian royal co u rt — asks to be a privileged member o f the in-crowd
(1 3 6 f .).14
T h e recent discovery o f the M ilan Papyrus, a poetry book with epi
grams by Poseidippos dating to the late third century BCE, offers a
12 P oetry w ritten for royal festivals: already G riffiths 1979, 120; also Weh«
1 9 9 3 , 1 6 5 -8 2 ; Zänker 1 9 8 7 , 2 4 -5 ; cf. W . H . M ineur, Callim achus’Hymn to Dès
Introduction a n d Commentary (Leiden 1 9 8 4 ) 10.
13 W h eth er or n o t H e lle n istic cou rt p oetry was sym potic poetry depends on
o n e ’s d efin itio n o f ‘sym p osiu m ’; th e claim o f C am eron 1995, 71-7, that Alexan*
drian p oetry w as ‘sym p otic poetry’ and recited in contexts similar to the ritualize«
symposion o f A rchaic G reece has n o t b een universally accepted, but there is nogo°a
reason to d o u b t that A lexandrian p oets read their w ork at banquets and drinking
b o u ts at court. W h a t other occasions cou ld have been m ore suitable for the pres«1'
tation o f n ew poetical w ork at court? Poetry b ein g recited at banquets at the Sei«1'
k id court: A th . 155b; 21 Id; 555a.
14 I. P etrovic, ‘H ellen istic poetry and Ptolem aic court ceremonial’, in: A. Erskin6
and L. L lew ellyn-Jones eds., The H ellenistic R oyal Court (Swansea and Oxford,111
press; I am grateful for an advance cop y).
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
79
rare insight in to th e tastes o f a H e lle n is tic co u r t a u d ien ce. O n e o f the
most striking asp ects o f th is c o m p ila tio n is th e fact d ia t it contains a
relatively h ig h n u m b e r o f p o e m s ad d ressin g m em b ers o f the P tole
maic fam ily an d m e m b e r s o f th e P to le m a ic cou rt, particularly in the
H ippika, th e s e c tio n d e a lin g w ith th e n o ta b le aristocratic subject o f
equestrian v ic to r y at th e P a n -H e lle n ic gam es o f m ain lan d G reece.15
Ruler praise is in teg r a te d in it. T h u s in E pigram 6 3 ,1 . 8, P to lem y II
is described as ‘g o d a n d k in g a t th e sa m e tim e ’ (Π το λ εμ α ίο υ δ’ φ δε
θεο θ’ ά μα κ α ί β α σ ιλ ή ο ς) :
[Poseidon saw a great trium ph,] Berenike’s
Horse [victorious at the swift-running] race-courses.
The [much-garlanded] M acedonian child near the Akrokorinthos
was admired by [Pirene’s] majestic water
with her hither Ptolem y. For you proclaimed at the Isthmos
your house so often victorious - a queen on your ow n.16
And,
We were the first three kings to w in on our own
the chariot race at O lym pia, m y parents and I.
I am one o f them , Ptolem y’s namesake, son o f Berenike,
O f Eordean stock, and m y tw o parents.
To my father’s great glory I add m y ow n, but that my mother
W on a chariot victory as a wom an, this is just great.17
15 M. Fantuzzi, ‘T h e structure o f the Hippika in P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309’, in:
B. Acosta-Hughes, M . Baumbach, E. Kosmetatou eds.. Labored in papyrus Leaves:
Perspectives on an d Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil. Vogl. VIII309)
(Washington, D .C ., 2004) 212-224; id., ‘Posidippus at court: The contribution of
the Ιππικά o f P.Mich. V ogl. VIII 309, to the Ptolemaic kingship’, in: K. Gutzwiller
ed.. The N ew Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005) 249-68; D . J. Thompson, ‘Posidippus, poet of the Ptole
mies’, in: K. Gutzwiller ed., The N ew Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford
2005). For text and translation see C. Austin, C. Bastianini, G. Gallazzi, Posidippi
quae supersunt omnia (Milano 2002), and S. Pozzi and F. Rampichini, Posidippo,
Epigrammi (Rome 2008).
16 Poseidippos, Epigram 82 (P.Mich. Vogl. VIII 309); transi. Austin with minor
adjustments.
17 Poseidippos, Epigram 88 (P.Mich. Vogl. VIII 309); transi. Austin. On the
‘geopoetics o f die Lithika also see P. Bing, ‘The politics and poetics of geography in
the Milan Posidippus, Section One: O n Stone (AB 1-20)’, in: K. Gutzwiller ed.,
The N ew Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005) 119-140 = id.. The Scroll and the M arble (Ann Arbor 2009) 253-271.
T H E B IRDCAGE OF T H E M USES
T h e inventiveness o f e p ig ra m ; th e v irtu o s o o f b u c o lic poetry; the
preference fo r o b sc u re v e rsio n s o f m y th s a n d le a rn e d allusions to
H o m e r o r H e sio d ; th e use o f ra re w o rd s; th e o b sessio n w ith far-away
lands a n d th e m y th ic a l p a st — th e s e a re all featu res o f typical court
poetry, w ritte n for th e sake o f a se lf-c o n fid e n t, e d u c a te d upper class
distan cin g itse lf fro m o th e rs b y its e r u d itio n a n d tim e for leisure.
Perhaps th e L ibrary w as a so u rc e fo r all th is le a rn in g , especially the
m any a itia a n d rare v o c a b u la ry in th e w o rk o f A pollo n io s and Kallim achos, b u t th e p o e m s th e m se lv e s n e v e r a llu d e to th e Library.18
T h ere also m ay b e a m o re p o litic a l a sp e c t to th e c o u rt’s preference
for variant local m y th s o f o rig in : th e in te re s t m a y have coincided with
Ptolem aic im perial in te re sts o n th e G re e k m a in la n d an d may even
have provided a d ip lo m a tic v o c a b u la ry th a t e n a b le d th e court to deal
w ith m ultifarious p oleis a n d p e o p le s in G re e c e .19
By m eans o f allusions a n d su g g e stio n , c o u r t p o e ts prompted the
audience, as it w ere, to ‘d e c o d e ’ th e te x t.20 E . A . B arber unwittingly
h it th e nail o n th e h e a d in h is c o n tr ib u tio n to th e 1928 Cambridge
A n cien t H istory w h e n saying, d isa p p ro v in g ly , th a t Lykophron’s Alex
andra, an elaborate p o e m w ritte n (m o s t likely) fo r th e Attalid court
against th e b ack d ro p o f R o m a n e x p a n sio n ,21 is ‘o n e vast riddle’ and
continues to express his a m a z e m e n t th a t even K allim achos does not
spare his audience: ‘T h u s in h is elegiac V ictory o f Sosibius, he refers
to the victor o n th e s tre n g th o f h is Is th m ia n a n d N em ean successes
as ‘tw ice-crow ned h a rd b y b o th c h ild re n , th e b ro th e r o f Learchus and
the in fan t w h o w as suck led w ith M y r in e ’s m ilk .’ A h a rd n u t to crack
w ith o u t a m ythological d ic tio n a ry !’22 In te re stin g ly , it was precisely in
this p erio d th a t (m y th o lo g ic a l) d ic tio n a rie s w e re com piled at the
A lexandrian M u seu m .
18 A. Harder, ‘From text to text: T h e im p a ct o f th e A lexandrian library on the
w ork o f H ellen istic poets’, in: J. K ö n ig , K . O ik o n o m o p o u lo u , G. W oolf eds.,
A n cien t L ibraries (Cambridge: C am brid ge U n iv ersity Press, 2 0 1 3 ) 96-108.
19 P. G authier, N ouvelles in scription s d e S ardes II. D ocum ents royaux du temps
d ’A ntiochos III: D écret d e sardes en l ’hon neur d ’H éliodôros. Archaeological Explora
tions o f Sardis: Études gréco-rom ain 15 (G en ev a 1 9 8 9 ), o n a m ission from Sardis
to D elp h i in 2 2 6 /5 B C E (SIG 3 5 4 8 /5 4 9 ).
20 G . Zänker, M odes o f V iew ing in H ellen istic P oetry a n d A r t (Madison, WI, 2004).
21 E. K osm etatou, ‘L ycophron’s A lexandra R econsidered. T h e Attalid Connec
tion ’, H erm es 128 (2 0 0 0 ) 3 2 -5 3 .
22 Barber 1 9 2 8 , 2 7 1 .
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
81
To quote on ly o n e exam ple o f the latter in full, the pattern poem
‘Syrinx’ from the P a la tin e A nthology, attributed to Theokritos, is liter
ally a riddle:
The bedmate o f nobody, mother o f the warmonger,
bore the nimble pilot o f the stone-swapped’s nurse;
not the horned one fed by the son o f the bull,
but the once-heart-burning for the P-less Itys,
named whole but is double, loves a girlish
split-voice, wind-blown child o f the sound,
who made a sharp sore for the Muses,
violet-crowned, to sing his hot desire,
conquered the parricide-like army,
drove them out o f Tyre’s maiden,
to whom this Simichid Paris
gives the blind’s fold blight
which enjoy, man-treading
a gadfly o f Lydia’s queen,
fatherless thief s son,
box-legs, delights in,
plays sweet tunes
to your mute girl,
an unseen
Kalliope.23
This is a cryptogram in poetical disguise. T h e answer to the sequence ·
of riddles is invariably ‘Pan’, as is easy to see. T he fun o f it obviously
was not to find the right answers bu t to clarify the allusions. Discuss
ing this type o f erudite riddle poetry is leisure-class pastime, some
thing courtiers like to do. A t the Ptolem aic courtp h ilo i competed in
learning and w it, discussin g seem in gly ‘irrelevant’ or light-hearted
topics as //th e y had all the tim e in the world. A t the Seleukid court
meanwhile it was ‘custom ary’ that courtiers conversed about scholarly
and literary topics during sym posia,24 precisely like the Arkadian
herdsmen do in the pastoral poem s o f Theokritos and Bion:
Spring, Myrson, or winter, autum n or summer, which do you prefer?
[...] Com e, tell me. W e’ve plenty o f tim e for a chat.25
23 Translation A. Holden, Greek Pastoral Poetry (Harmondsworth 1974) 197.
24Ath. 211d.
25 Bion 3.1-8. In ideological terms, this fragment also evokes an image of empire
as timeless and peaceful.
82
T H E BIRDCAGE O F T H E MUSES
A n o th er exam ple o f th e social relevance o f co u rt poetry is Theokrito;'
fifteen th Id y ll, b e tte r k n o w n as ‘T h e A d o n ia’. In this mime two
im m ig ran t A lexandrian w o m e n , G o rg o a n d Praxinoa, together with
th eir children a n d a slave, p ro ceed to th e palace for the annual Ado
n ia Festival in th e royal g ard en s. T h e festival is organized by the
queen, A rsinoe P hiladelphos. A s th e cro w d slowly progresses, the two
w om en praise th e b en ev o le n ce o f P to le m y a n d Arsinoe. But the
w om en them selves are p o rtra y e d w ith typical aristocratic contempt
fo r th e ‘m id d le classes’. T h e y b ab b le. T h e y have a Dorian accent.
T h e y com plain a b o u t th e ir g o o d -fo r-n o th in g husbands, are afraid
o f snakes a n d frig h ten e d b y h o rses, th e y q uarrel w ith their fellowcitizens, use th eir elbow s to ju m p th e qu eu e, and, perhaps worst of
all, openly discuss p ecu n iary m atte rs. B u t as so o n as the royal gardens
com e in to view, th e to n e changes as G o rg o a n d Praxinoa are over
w helm ed by th e sp le n d o r o f c o u rt a n d m o n arch y :
G o r g o : ‘P r a x in o a , c o m e h e r e ! L o o k a t th o s e tapestries, see how fine
th e y are a n d h o w g r a c e fu l. F it f o r a g o d , d o n ’t y o u say?’ Praxinoa:
‘L ady A th e n a , w h a r c r a fts m e n th e y m u s t h a v e b e e n to m ake these, what
artists to d ra w th e lin e s s o tr u e . T h o s e fig u re s s ta n d a n d m ove as if they
are really a liv e .’26
T h e poet’s m ocking to n e has co m p letely disappeared when a profes
sional singer in th e service o f th e q u e e n starts chanting a hymn to
A donis. T his hym n, paren th etically p raisin g queen Arsinoe as Aphro
dite incarnate, m ay have been earlier c om posed b y Theokritos and sung
in actuality a t the A donis Festival, later to be incorporated in Idyll 15;
this however, is controversial.27 B y rid icu lin g th e reactions of the com
m on p o lita i, w ho for a single d ay are allow ed in to the palace gardens,
the courtiers for w h o m this p o e m w as in te n d e d distan çai themselves
from their ‘bourgeois’ inferiors im m ed iately below co u rt circles, and by
laughing a t their expense th e ir g ro u p cohesion was boosted.28
26 T heocr., Id . 1 5 .1 2 5 -3 2 .
27 For a historical discussion o f the h y m n see R. L. H unter, ‘M im e and mime
sis: Theocritus, Id y ll 15’, in: M . A . H arder, R . F. R egtuit, G . C . Wakker eds.,
Theocritus. H ellenistica G roningana 2 (G roningen 1 9 9 6 ) 1 4 9 -6 9 , esp. 158-66.
28 T h e p oem has in the past been understood as evidence for the emancipation
o f w om en in Ptolem aic A lexandria b y e.g. F. T . G riffiths, ‘H o m e before lunch:
T h e em ancipated w om an in T heocritus’, in: H . P. Foley ed .. Reflections o f Women
in A n tiq u ity (N e w York 1981) 2 4 7 -7 3 , and B urton 1 9 9 5 ,1 4 5 ; however, the occasion
PATRONS A ND CLIENTS
83
In a comparable m a n n er w e m a y u n d e rsta n d w h y H e lle n is tic
mechanikoi so often develop ed m ach in ery a n d illu sio n ist d e vice s w ith
seemingly no other pu rp ose th an to im press — ’a co lle ctio n o f elabo
rate mechanical toys [and] cu riosities [of] c o m p le te irrelevance’, as
Peter Green puts it.29 B u t H e lle n istic te c h n o lo g y w as n o t irrelevant.
Amazing inventions such as K tesibios’ hydraulic organ or H e r o ’s ro b o t
in the shape o f Herakles w h ic h co u ld autom atically sh o o t an arrow at
a steam-blowing serpent, w ere fu n ctio n a l in th e co n tex t o f th e court as
amusement and subject for debate. In fact, th e presentation o f autom ata
and other amazing devices is a fam iliar p h en o m e n o n at m an y courts
throughout history. Su ch th ings served as p ieces d e conversation. Fur
thermore, these so-called toys w ere a t th e sam e tim e prototypes dem
onstrating technological principles th a t c o u ld b e used for practical pur
poses.30 For instance K tesibios’ tw in -cy lin d er w ater-pum p — presented
at court in the form o f a m u sical in stru m en t — a nd th e w ater-lifting
device invented b y A rchim edes for P to le m y P h iladelph os w ere actually
used to improve irrigation in E gypt so th a t th e k in g co u ld boast to have
actually advanced th e fertility o f th e land .31 Literary and archaeological
evidence shows that K tesibios’ hydraulic organ w as adop ted in various
forms throughout the H ellen istic w o rld , and in M acedon ia and m ain
land Greece was used for b o th c u ltic as w e ll as private purposes;
descriptions o f its use have survived in P h ilo o f B yzan tion, H ero
of Alexandria and V itruviu s.32 A u to m a ta w ere also used in public
for which Gorgo and Praxinoa leave the house without their husbands is the cele
bration of a religious festival, and from lines 27-37 it is clear that these women are
not expected to go to the market to do the shopping.
29 Green 1990, 478-9.
30 A Schürmann, Griechische Mechanik und antike Gesellschaft. Studien zur staatli
chen Förderungen einer technischen Wissenschaft (Stuttgart 1991), has shown that the
inventions of Ktesibios, Hero, Archimedes and others were widely used in society, e.g.
in mining, in harbors, and in construction; she argues that the Ptolemies deliberately
promoted technological research for precisely this reason. See also K. D . White, ‘“The
base mechanic arts”? Some thoughts on the contribution o f science (pure and applied)
to the culture o f the Hellenistic Age’, in: P. Green ed., Hellenistic History an Culture
(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993) 220-332, with references to further literature about
the functionality and diverse applicability o f Hellenistic mechanics.
31 Diod. 1.34.2; Strabo 17.1.52; Vitr. 10.6.1-4.
32 L. Beschi, ‘Uorgano idraulico (hydraulis): una invenzione ellenistica dal
grande fiituro’, in: M. C. Martinelli ed., La musa dimenticata: aspetti dell’esperienza
musicale greca in eta ellenistica (Pisa 2009) 247-266.
84
T H E BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
c e le b r a t io n s t o im p r e s s t h e c r o w d ; fo r in s ta n c e th e Grand
Procession
o f P t o l e m y P h ila d e lp h o s in c lu d e d a s e a te d sta tu e o f the nymph Nysa,
n u r s e o f D i o n y s o s , w h i c h ‘c o u l d rise u p a u to m a tic a lly without anyone
p u t t i n g h is h a n d s t o it , a n d a fte r p o u r in g a lib a tio n o f m ilk from a gold
s a u c e r i t w o u l d s it d o w n a g a i n . 33
P r e s t ig e
B y a c c o m m o d a t i n g t h e a r ts a n d s c ie n c e s a t h is court, a king met
sev e r a l o f t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o r b e i n g a n id e a l ruler. H e proved to be
h o s p it a b le , b e n e v o le n t a n d g e n e r o u s . T h e accu m u lation of art and
k n o w le d g e in t h e h o u s e o f t h e k in g , a fo r m o f tryp h ë, moreover added
t o h is s ta tu s as a r ic h a n d w is e m a n b y a sso c ia tio n . A ll this improved
h is c h a r ism a .
I n th e R e n a is s a n c e p e r io d , t h e c o n n e c t io n b e tw e e n politics and the
arts w a s s u s t a in e d b y t h e id e a l o f t h e ‘le a r n e d p rin ce’. T he ideal ruler
q u a lita te q u a c o m b in e d p o te n tia a n d s a p ie n tia , political power and
w is d o m . B o t h C a s t ig lio n e ’s C o rtig ia n o a n d M ach iavelli’s II principe
stress th e im p o r ta n c e o f a c q u ir in g a g o o d r ep u ta tio n through impress
in g o n e ’s s o c ia l e n v ir o n m e n t b y p la y in g a so cia l role. Machiavelli
stresses th e p o litic a l u s e o f c u ltu r a l p a tr o n a g e , advising that a prince
o u g h t t o s h o w h im s e lf a lo v e r o f a b ility , g iv in g em ploym ent to able
m e n a n d h o n o r in g t h o s e w h o e x c e l in a particular field’. Above all,
M a ch ia v e lli g o e s o n , ‘a p r in c e s h o u ld e n d e a v o r to w in the reputation
o f b e in g a g rea t m a n o f o u t s t a n d in g a b ility [h im self].’34 Thus, spon
so r in g art, litera tu re, a n d s c ie n c e w a s a w a y to p u b licly demonstrate
th e taste, le a r n e d n e ss, a n d w is d o m o f th e ruler. Better still was phi
lo s o p h iz in g o r w r itin g o n e s e lf . T h e R e n a issa n c e period may have
b e e n th e a p o g e e o f th e c u lt o f th e le a r n e d p rin ce, but it was no
ex clu siv e R en a issa n ce, o r e v e n E u r o p e a n , p h e n o m e n o n . Throughout
33 Ath. 5.198E
34 The Prince, translated by G eorge Bull (Harmondsworth 1961) 121;
cf. W . Eamon, ‘Court, academy, and printing house: Patronage and scientific
careers in late]Renaissance Italy’, in: B. T. M oran ed.. Patronage and Institutions
(Rochester NY, and W oodbndge 1991) 125-50, esp. 32; Biagioli 1993 2 with
n. 4 For the evolution o f the image o f the prince as protecTor o f the’arts see
B. Petey-Girard, Le sceptre e tL t plume. Images du prince protecteur des lettres à ln
Renaissance au G rand Siècle (Geneva 2010).
e
PATRONS A N D CLIENTS
85
history, rulers have dabbled in science and literature. Princes like
Charles d’Orléans, Süleyman the Magnificent, Lorenzo de’ Medici,
or, last but not least, Jan I of Brabant, were not merely great patrons
of the arts, but poets o f distinction themselves.
The Hellenistic period had its learned princes too.35 The possession
of wisdom {sophia) and shrewdness (phronësis) were standard claims in
the theory of Hellenistic kingship. Therefore the best of teachers were
hired to tutor princes.36 Several Hellenistic rulers were not merely
patrons but were personally involved in creating literature, scholarship,
or historiography. Alexander was called ‘a philosopher in arms’ by a
contemporary, but the same can be said o f other kings.37 Ptolemy Soter
was an historian who wrote a memoir of Alexander’s campaigns. Arrian
35 See the evidence collected in C . Préaux, Le monde hellénistique. La Grèce et
l’Orient (323-146 av. J .C .) (Paris 1978) 2 1 2 -220; cf. D . Engster, ‘Attalos III.
Philometor - ein “Sonderling” a u f dem Thron?’, Klio 86.1 (2004) 66-82, who
places Attalos I ll’s supposedly ‘eccentric’ com m itm ent to scientific studies, for
which the king is often criticized in both ancient and modern historiography, firmly
in the contact o f Hellenistic royal patronage o f science.
36 In an inscription from Ephesos, Attalos II praises his nephew’s tutor, empha
sizing the importance o f being trained in literary skills and morality: Inschriften von
Ephesos no. 202, cf. J. Roy, ‘T h e masculinity o f the Hellenistic king’, in: L. Foxhall
andj. Salmon eds., When M en Where M en : Masculinity, Power an d Identity in Clas
sical Antiquity (London and N ew York 1998) 111-35, esp. 113, who notes the
association o f two statues o f Ptolemaic kings with statues o f poets and philosophers
in the sanctuary o f Sarapis at M emphis, com m enting that ‘beyond the immediate
historical or political circumstances this is clearly a celebration o f universal learning
as a quality o f the good ruler’ (p. 113 n. 24). Kallisthenes, pupil and nephew o f
Aristode, was in charge o f the basilikoi paides at Alexander’s court. Another pupil
ofAristode, Demetrios o f Phaleron, was epitropos o f the children o f Ptolemy Soter
and Eurydike, teaching them philosophy and ‘good rulership’. Soter’s children by
Berenike (including the later king Ptolem y Philadelphos) were educated by Strato,
Philetas, Zenodotos, and others; cf. A. W . Bulloch, ‘Hellenistic poetry’, in:
P. E. Easterling and B. W . Knox eds.. The Cambridge History o f Classical Literature.
Volume 1, Part 4 : The Hellenistic Period an d the Empire (Cambridge 1989) 1-58.
Persaios, a student o f Zeno and a friend o f Antigonos Gonatas, tutored Gonatas’
son Halkyoneus, and the philosopher Euphantes o f Olynthos was the tutor o f Anti
gonos Doson. Several o f the philosophers who were employed by kings to educate
their sons and pages wrote treatises on kingship to instruct their pupils in the art o f
ruling (see below).
37 Onesicr. F G rH 134 F 17a. Alexander, it was said, was eager to learn about
atomism and the idea o f infinity, and enjoyed discussing these with Anaxarchos o f
Abdera, a student o f Demokritos who accompanied him on his campaigns in Asia
(Plut., Alex. 8.28; D iog. Laert. 9.60).
m
T H E M m C M fo E m T H B Z
C B csS esé é m n o w h m sco p es %fass œ ssr æfasfak: spxrst>; } ;..r
Soesr m k zzâ x n zzx e : krnernm. m Bare öPccposecL a csg scv c2~.sc ,-ii;:.
έε-^ f fis ®xs- Bsés3^*Iî^^lc% iM s^ wxooe oag»£r» cscu^ sad cxrr.- **» a c *gsacggg w ä e a im f- In à te e æ * A a à œ h m Y M w zrxs eh r.:
ψ χ τ τ fri chs s s fe o £ Nj&aaß&ix ^Gdkri «pioee?; spEoe ψϊζ3%$ rbc —
p o d c e ^em a m sm sns&es/.42 tik e A d r zm szm m M im ssorfaa:
ccssx s é ep ig sz ss m xfae om m arn o f f a p m fk fo zp ff farpeπ κ ; *
L^spiöc· oc. D eB sasd iexs Jockig;a «fekÄ B^face: Ä r fass räerrje
C h M zirjésL - T h e ~ffeS esm a# nder Ä rcw asl II c£ Ä scseds. 55-:I
BC Ej, w SiK
sad. oefaes"îw se m w c o c ç o â k k is io GrsdL-faisal
g agsergsE ap ss sac ïjefgg- o f Arsssess — s wack o f Ikæhc ber w£r
â a f e ccTiffif 2 s â r o o c k e g f i g i s g s r & œ m tœ m e é —
w f c œ J P s a g r r X fa -
dsdgfccs· g so sfasg· tfaar bjr cotncm ssioffirig a Grssk si^ sfe iss ci âe
TcaxËn "ï fasse €Soog a « o k gkæioeag m ts tp à Ê ^
G O M SO E E K »?
Facxßcs casas as: foœrfi àpesdaoicfa w gse living $sæ » sæcfoxxL Ibrr
faad a s rc^öin-acc pars a® phgr m sise cossgjetifiosi feeofgc r r i
a s s a . Y E zm crass so occd o gadh « fcer fas appaopngf^ â e rxx
* Aeaàh., ψζ T ^sékssym b & rm is^ ^ ß ä Ba&owss paar:â®M eszxez^csnxEm
seel kùk casedbßbör«&» <cfSuegeaéeBeas&f$ zs&p* <s£ IL Μ. JEss^sscl"Bisäcrxiæ>kksmxj<&£ijex>mâsif fiÊmmdfo$œ*z&éy Z9 (fIfo&foj 7$SA th C B,Tsk: XBe
æôj^Scx 'xHsÀes&r-ss> as foxærxjfoscfo, asesMêsee&mm M ssmMEk&stM it mamnti
A- E&zsgtc T 'xxr* fofofoZy IfAfoAi, 'sàcæjws& ssz fow jkzzf' κτώτ»τ rsgaggssssr
GWît .--âiî: B a r & k s î i â » δ * » im â ésm m & M e· m â χΰΒ Β ζψ ζιαζχζ, csHcsL h L · B- 3®-
^x£^SJexm é& Éi9& é& £âU it Th? T r& ^^tifT n m m h fO ézxâ 1%E 3--éî>
^
i S
'■* 1®c H, iSkm x^ *$foÊ3féem «a yMkMheéM, Hermmeex 57 ΚΦΑ, 2X5-$;·sa
;-X&.
Oawee-seo >^5*5^,
5«5
Mkàcesr S9&5,32B.
rm &e ^^sszsrxst cSkssssA ihEimFsfJe^r SI act txsæ z, Csratcca ΐ>0ε, SB.,*ixa
<m#z ^mkmm. fox a zmmsm: m a r-sçrall gc^oÉsa, raisnr
.^îcô% V; «οο,, »»«3» Sasrwa s» AxzàqEsj fox cher â2r ε
'*' Y*ûr~., ÿjtm xêh,
<m&; vv
küA àx-
S^e^ea»
<5esft»
m $ 7 !$ a & L ·
T î« »
**
x m * -m à %A M . f4 M ç, 'Τ ^ « Υ ^ ^ ^ ώ € Η & Α χ χ ί? τ χ /χ ^ ε Ε Ο ΐ3 τ
tm m ’'ÎSÆ*foM> Y /7 0 / 2?A *
*'' f a A j r j L f o
PÄIMJXS ΑΧΟ G2£XT5
87
sd m r ists a n d m en o f letters. Ac first, to e P tolem ies by
f o o œ ü d d i m m a is in d û s respect. N o ta b ly ia D io g en es Laertius
she aopos can be fo u n d o f tfae philosopher refusing a n invitation (or
osier) so join a court. A n rig o n o s Gonacas invited Z en o, founding
fo le r o f stoic p h ilo so p h y a n d a p h ilo s o f th e A nrigonids. to his court.
Twin preferred A thens a n d recom m en ded his pupil Persaios in his
3 g a i# Gonaias d id succeed in en ticin g Alexandras die Aitolian away
nom die Ptolem aic cou rt, w h ile « in v e r se ly A nriochos 1 Soter for
« a t years ‘borrowed’ th e p o e t A ratos from his ally, Gonatas; Aratos’
a d e a t the SeJeuldd co u rt w as to prepare an edition o f the Odyssey
a d the B a d few th e kin g.47 T h e P tolem ies m eanw hile tried to per
suade the illustrious p h ilosop her T heophrastos to give up Athens for
Alexandria; Theophrastos, lik e Z en o , sen t a pupil instead, Strato.48
When the Indian k in g Bindusara, so n o f Chandragupta, asked Antiochos S o a r to send h im a sophist, th e Seleukid king refused.49 One
source even daim s th at P to lem y Soter w as prepared to use force to
bring philosophers to h is court,50 a n d Aristophanes o f Byzantion
z k g a l·/ w as locked u p w h en it cam e o u t that h e planned to leave
Alexandria and jo in th e A n a lid s.51
Artistic and scientific patronage thus w as a continuation o f war
with other means.“2 Just as kings sen t athletes and horses to the panHefleoic games, so to o d id th e y com p ete w ith one another in poetry,
fchokohsp a n d science. For th is reaso n , kings were looking for qual
ify — they needed th e best poets a n d philosophers and were not
fm m sk é y keen o n d o cile propaganda-makers. Thus, competition
m ât rival courts accounts, to o , for th e innovative nature o f Hellenstic, particularly A lex an d rian , lite ra tu re and scholarship. In the past
* £>%. Lam, 7£S', c£ Piuc, Mor. 1043e
Downey 1961,8 7 with n, 3; Bevan 1902 Π, 276 with n. 4,
# Zeno; Dkg, iaett, 7.6; Theophrastos: Diog. Lam. 5.37; Strato; Diog, Laert.
137, CE Diog. Lam. 2.115, on the Ptolemaic efforts to attract Stilpo, head of the
h%iis*a phifcsaphkal school
» A *. W \W o<.
% D % Lam, 2,115.
y Vferi 7 pr. 5-7,
Ike «senpeeiiti’/e nature o f court patronage was emphasized by Kruedener
1973,21-2; fern heftiger Wettbewerb entbrannte, ein Konkurrenzkampf, der /sich
Wwftêgsrd suféem Felde der festlichen Kumt ahîpielre und zu dem die ver«féafece Disziplinen wie Musik, Dkfmin^ Malerd, Architektur zürn dekorativen
vereinigt ins Treffen geführt wurden,’
88
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
it has b een su rm ise d th a t G re e k p o e ts a n d scholars working for monarchs b a rte re d aw ay th e ir in te g rity a n d fre e d o m for money. However,
even a b rie f glance a t th e ev id en c e suffices to see th at the opposite
w as th e case: th e re p ro b a b ly n e v e r existed so m u ch intellectual and
artistic freed o m in th e G re e k w o rld as a t th e royal courts of the Hel
lenistic A ge. T h e c o u rts o ffered o p p o rtu n itie s to do and say things
th a t p u b lic m o ra lity in th e p o lis w o u ld have m ade difficult, if not
en tirely p ro h ib ite d .
T o u n d e rs ta n d th is p re fe re n c e fo r fre e d o m I would suggest to
co n n e c t it to th e fa c t th a t vis-à -vis cities, M aced o n ian kings presented
them selves as th e d e fe n d e rs o f a u to n o m y a n d democracy.5354This was
a key id ea o f H e lle n istic ro y al id eo lo g y a n d it should not surprise us
to see th a t th e y also p o se d as th e c h a m p io n s o f freedom in the field
o f th e arts a n d sciences, esp ecially in c o m p e titio n with rival rulers
w h o also v ied fo r acc e p ta n c e b y th e poleis. I t was o f pivotal impor
tan ce fo r a k in g n o t to b e lo o k e d u p o n as a repressive tyrant lest he
w o u ld lose th e im p o rta n t s u p p o r t o f G re e k poleis.5A
T h e early P to le m a ic c o u rt in p a rtic u la r w as a safe haven for intel
lectuals w ith u n o rth o d o x , ev e n subv ersiv e views. T he philosopher
T h e o d o ro s o f K y re n e , calle d th e ‘Godless* (Atheos), was expelled
fro m A th en s becau se o f h is alleg ed d e n y in g o f th e existence of the
gods, b u t a later n o to rio u s ‘atheist*, E u h em ero s o f Messene, found a
w arm w elco m e a t th e c o u rt o f K assan d ro s a n d later in Alexandria,
53 R. J. Seager and C . J. T u p lin , ‘T h e freed om o f the Greeks of Asia: On the
origins o f a co n cep t and th e creation o f a slogan’. Jou rn al o f Hellenistic Studies 100
(1 9 8 0 ) 1 4 1 -1 5 4 ; P. J. S tylianou, ‘T h e Pax m acedonica and the freedom of the
Greeks o f A sia’, E peteris tou K en trou E pistem on ikon Ereunon 20 (1993/1994) 71-84;
P. T u cci, ‘La dem ocrazia d i P o lib io tra eredità classica e fédéralisme’, in: C. Beaizot
e t a l. eds., G li sta ti te rrito ria li n el m ondo a n tico (M ilano 2003) 45-86; M. Dixon,
‘C orinth , G reek Freedom , and th e D ia d o c h o i, 3 2 3 -3 0 1 B C ’, in: W. Heckei, L Trid e, P. W h e a d e y eds., A lex a n d er’s E m p ire: F orm u lation to Decay. A Companion to
Crossroads o f H isto ry (C larem ont, C A , 2 0 0 7 ) 1 5 1 -1 7 8 .
54 O n th e im age o f H ellen istic kings as th e destructors o f tyranny see H. S. Versnel, ‘Isis, un a quae es om n ia. T yrants against tyranny: Isis as a paradigm of Hel
lenistic rulership’, in id .. T er U nus. Isis, D ionysos, H erm es. Three Studies in Henotheism (L eiden 1 9 9 0 ) 3 9 -9 5 ; see n o w also T eegarden 2 0 1 3 , 115-141, on the
‘A nti-T yran ny D ossier’ from Eresos (/<7X11 2 , 5 2 6 ), reflecting trials against ‘tyrants’
that to o k place in Eresos in the early H ellen istic period under the auspices of Alex
ander and his successors.
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
89
where he was encouraged to further d evelop his radical ideas.55 A t the
court o f Ptolem y II, A ristarchos o f Sam os developed his revolutionary
heliocentric theory, even th o u g h th is th eo ry w as w id ely criticized, n o t
only on scientific, b u t n o ta b ly o n m oral gro u n d s.56 T h e Ptolem ies
enabled the physicians H er o p h ilo s a nd Erasistratos to perform sys
tematic dissections o f h u m a n cadavers — a practice that was as
unique and progressive as A ristarchos’ hyp othesis, and provoked sim i
lar hostile reactions.57
Poetry, in particular epigram , co u ld be used to celebrate victories
over other rulers and dynasties, or sim p ly to m align rivals. W e already
encountered the epigram b y th e A n tig o n id p o e t T im o n ridiculing the
Alexandrian mouseion. M u c h earlier, at a state banquet in 3 3 6 , shordy
55 Diog. Laert. 2.102-3; Ath. XII 61 lb ; Cic., Tusc. 1.102. Cf. Winiarczyk
1981. Euhemeros o f Messene propagated the view that the Olympian gods were
originally ancient kings who had been deified (FG rH 63 ap. Diod. 6.1.2-10), and
this blurring o f the distinction between man and god can also be understood,
according to taste’, as advancing a rationalisation o f atheism (S. Hornblower,
s.v. ‘Euhemerus’ in Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 567; cf. Fraser 1972 I, 289).
Greek words for ‘atheism’ were ούνομίζειν, ‘not recognizing the gods’, and άναιρείν,
‘to remove the gods’; άθεος denoted impiety or being abandoned by the gods,
cf. R. Parker s.v. ‘Atheism’ in Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 201.
56 Diog. Laert. 7.174. The principal (and sensible) scientific argument against
the heliocentric hypothesis, was that it conflicted with empirical observation; philo
sophical and moral objections were put forward first o f all by Kleanthes, who held
that the theory was at odds with divine determination. Aristarchos’ hypothesis was
hardly influential until the Renaissance, and Africa 1968, 66, may be right in sup
posing that the idea only survived until the time o f Copernicus because it was sub
versive. The only astronomer who perhaps accepted, and used, Aristarchos’ ideas
was his near contemporary Seleukos o f Seleukeia-on-the-Red-Sea, a Babylonian
philosopher who tried to explain the ocean tides by accepting the notion o f a rotat
ing earth (Strabo 1.1.9; 16.1.6; Plut., Mor. VIII 1006c). On the revival of helio
centrism in the Renaissance I recommend O. Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read:
Chasing the Revolutions o f Nicolaus Copernicus (New York 2004).
57 It was rumored that both Erasistratos and Herophilos, with the approval of
the king, performed vivisection on convicted criminals (Celsus, De Medicina, pr.
23-4), cf. H. F. J. Horstmanshoff, ‘Sectie en anatomie in Alexandrie’, Hermeneus 57
(1985) 142-51, esp. 150-1). Natacha Massar, Soigner et server. Histoire sociale et
culturelle de la médecine grecque à l'époque hellénistique (Paris: De Boccard, 2005)
248-253, places Celsus’ remarks in the context o f scientific polemics current at
Rome in his own day, arguing instead that Eraistratos and Herophilos performed
section only on dead human bodies, perhaps supplemented by section on life
animals.
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
b efo re P h ilip IP s p la n n e d in v a sio n o f A sia, the king’s guests were
en terta in ed b y th e actor N e o p to le m o s w h o sang verses pertaining to
th e c o m in g P ersian ca m p a ig n , ‘reb u k in g th e wealth o f the Persian
k in g , great a n d fa m o u s as it w a s, a n d su ggestin g that it could be
overtu rn ed so m e d a y b y fo r tu n e ’; th e verses sung by Neoptolemos
b egan w ith th ese lin es:
Y our th o u g h ts reach h ig h er th a n th e air;
Y ou dream o f w ide fields’ cultivation.
T h e hom es y o u p lan surpass th e hom es
T h a t m e n have k n o w n [...].·58
W h e n (probably) L eo n id a s o f T aras w ro te the votive inscription for
th e sh ield s Pyrrhos c o n q u e r e d fr o m C e ltic mercenaries in Antigonid
service, th e p o e t c ele b r a ted b o th h is p a tro n ’s skills as a Homeric
spear-fighter a n d b e litd e d th e m artial qualities o f Pyrrhos’ archenemy,
A n tig o n o s G onatas:
T hese shields, n o w ded icated to A th en a Itonis,
Pyrrhos th e M olossian to o k fro m th e fearless Celts
after defeating th e en tire arm y o f A ntigonos: no great wonder:
the A iakids are v aliant spear-fighters, no w as well as in the past.59
K allim ach os w r o te in favor o f p o e tic a l brevity by saying that ‘The
A ssyrian river (sc. th e E uphrates) has a broad stream, but carries down
m u ch filth and refuse o n its w aters’.60 T h ese lines are usually read as
purely m eta -p o etic an d p rogram m atic, b u t the Alexandrian aristocracy
58 D io d . 16 .9 2 .3 ; th e o d e s u n g b y N e o p to le m o s , cited by Diodoros, may be by
A isch y lo s, b u t th is is u n certa in ; n o t e th e u n iversalistic aims ascribed to Philip’s
im p eria lism a n d g o d lik e e x a lta tio n o f th e k in g .
59 P lu t., Pyrrh. 2 6 .5 . T h e ep ig ra m also has b een preserved in Paus. 1.13.2 and
D io d . 2 2 .1 1 . A scrip tio n to L eon id as: A . B . N e d e rlo f, Plutarchus’Leven van Pyrrhus.
H istorische co m m en ta a r (A m sterd a m a n d Paris 1 9 4 0 ) 19 0 n. 7. Aiakos is the ances
tor o f th e heros P y r r h o s-N e o p to le m o s, A c h ille s’ so n , w h o was the founder of the
M o lo ssia n d y n a sty o f E peiros; fo r P yrrhos’ ‘C e ltic ’ v icto ry propaganda see R. Strootm a n , ‘K in g s against C elts: D e liv e ra n ce fro m barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic
royal p ro p a g a n d a ’, in : K . A . E . E n e n k e l a n d I. L. Pfeijffer eds., The Manipulatm
M o d e. P o litic a l P ro p a g a n d a in A n tiq u ity (L eid en 2 0 0 5 ) 101-41, esp. 114-16. The
U tr e c h t U n iv e r sity professor a n d literary author H e le n e N olthenius shordy before
her d ea th p u b lish e d a n o v e l a b o u t th e p o e t L eon idas, Voortgeschopt als een steen
(1 9 9 9 ) — o n e o f th e v ery fe w w o rk s o f m o d er n literary fiction situated in the Hel
le n istic w o r ld (n o t c o u n tin g n o v e ls co n c er n e d w ith Alexander or Cleopatra).
60 C a ll., H y m n 2 .1 0 8 - 1 0 9 .
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
91
will no doubt have recogn ized in a d d itio n th e obviou s inherent sneer
against the Seleukids: th e w ea lth and pow er o f the P tolem ies’ military
antagonists w ere to a h ig h degree fo u n d e d o n the riches o f M esopo
tamia, just as P to lem a ic w ea lth w as to a significan t degree based on
the fertility o f th e N ile V a lle y (a m u c h better river, no doubt). T he
Seleukids were regularly cast as th e ‘N e w Persians’, viz., A siatic des
pots, in P tolem aic p ropagan da, a practice th at the R om ans w ould
later take over from th em .61 T o appreciate direct and indirect refer
ences to the Seleukids in P to lem a ic co u rt poetry, it is imperative to
understand that in g e o p o litica l term s P tolem aic-Seleukid rivalry in
the Aegean and eastern M ed iterran ean , in w h ic h th e A ntigonids usu
ally were allies o f th e S eleukids, w as th e central dynam ic force deter
mining interstate relations in th e H e lle n istic w orld until the rise o f
Rome and Parthia in th e course o f th e seco n d century BCE. This
conflict between th e tw o princip al universalistic empires o f the third
century caused no less th an six fu ll-b lo w n wars betw een the powers,
fought w ith short intervals b etw een 2 7 4 a nd 168 B C E, followed by
61 B. Funck, ‘“König Perserfreund”: die Seleukiden in der Sicht ihrer Nachbarn
(Beobachtungen zu einigen ptolemäischen Zeugnissen des 4. und 3. Jh.s v. Chr.)’,
in: B. Funck ed., Hellenismus (Tübingen 1996) 195-215; cf. A. Primo, La storiografia sut Seleucidi: da M egastene a Eusebio d i Cesarea. Studi Ellenistici 10 (Pisa and
Rome 2009) 122, using the term ‘de-Hellenization’ (‘disellenizzazione’) to describe
the depiction o f the Seleukids as Asiatic barbarians in hostile contemporaneous
historiography. S. Barbantani, ‘Attica in Syria: Persian war reenactments and reas
sessments o f the Greek-Asian relationship —a literary point o f view’, ERGAJLOGOI
2 (2014) 21-92, argues against the interpretation o f references to the Persian Empire
in Ptolemaic court poetry in the context o f Ptolemaic-Seleukid rivalry by examining
whether the Seleukids themselves created an image, o f themselves, as neo-Achaemenids (which indeed they did not) but misses the point that they were accused of
being Oriental despots in order to emphasize the Ptolemies’ own presumed role as
protectors o f Greek freedom and Hellenic culture. This is especially apparent in the
Coma Berenices, the poem that links references to ‘the Medes’ to the Third Syrian
War between Seleukids and Ptolemies: see the forthcoming article by M. Visscher,
‘Imperial Asia: Past and present in Callimachus’ Lock o f Berenice' (abstract online at
academia.edu). Presumably working from the Ptolemaic example, the Romans later
framed their own conflict with the Seleukids in the so-called Syrian War (against
Antiochos III, 191-188 BCE) in a Greek rhetoric o f ‘western’ freedom versus ori
ental despotism. O n the depiction o f the Seleukids as the ‘New Persians’ in Roman
historiography see G. Flamerie de Lachapelle, ‘L’image des rois hellénistiques dans
l’œuvre de Florus’, Arctos 44 (2010) 109-122, and id.·, ‘Les prises de parole
d’Antiochus III dans l’œuvre de Tite Live’, Paideia 67 (2012) 123-133.
THE BIRDCAGE QF THE MUSES
92
another th ree sm aller arm ed clashes in the latter half of the ,ec_.. _
omniEy·-621Ä history o f th e Ptolem aic kingdom as a major po- ^ "
th e thrteE centtiry cannot: h e w ritten w ithout taking InteEamons r-vth e SeÎenkkis irrm? πμβ^ϊ^ββγ cnnsïdcEaEËarL.
ilO raom L A E IC ^i AND» APFROFRL-OTON
T h e acominlkirtoia o f know ledge an «lie imperial center «Seaccss
powers contEEi.® T h e HeUeiiisik: kings’ e& m s to anraoi smi mx 3 Σ s a E r ^ c s ^ s a œ s ^ L ·Λ lß Λ Λ e â ^ m ά ιc l^ ü ia e a m s ^ Ώ b a s tfta Ω ΰ β S '
aÜhfi t^r&ehrdfhrtaco cosmoS tersivosy* wealth and manpoffSK,l2&
palhce ^seSses e f Alexandiia» easosk: plants and anh m k were s A
The ærhrrgak were Aow® m A t public doling the FsoSessà
FesA dl A cso ca « I conrndMoeaed A t B é ^ c A ii priese Bosse» &
wdibeatSàaejôfR A ^M sa is Gsstk? A e
andAeftd
£ûbwsd. âûsesewhagrk^rw^i é^ sÆ ^ ptiukad MaacAo^Tliefchsii
tsssKfcsdbss o f A e Toral»* A e begpnttiijg; o f A e process of eraAbôx
a / » * e«ssçàsaï: seerwesr m suemz ourndk I- î>- Gonsge#
*** X » >*«$&*
%«.
7 ^ 3 37# deaerifc* and « Â f i j e ?5«leasee
**ße *r»sft » » W Ä mtââyJ**
dwMomz ne**
*
m 25^4î A <*#****» M to , On éfo fmemeùe» *>«y
4»***** tm y & i& o m »
t?'ss* t e ïteâtâ; ym lidm tâ', IfagaMt ^so fcnow &/ay&Mfy O Meâfcti prj m
& te*M dx “j A
>
**
1«
λ '*e
eMedties, wmtetkwete/H?* <teà
*v £ e wirftf
**ttf 4# A e
A* ea**sA ef totshatf#**msp
o rn é» /
fl« enfy *50*, »
>'
*λ , y te M fk* d ïdeptep Muséum, Zsiem, OÂtw ?M.te
* # " <*&y ΑΛ M tedemte, Museums audtimbres Itetv/d Hku/fy them 'J ,
mm m d 'tetmud identities 'Munämtet W 0 ti an
‘tddsM ***** 'i esa*
■**♦***·
'
e^/
ké^/sw fis U tn Mpiéteâ, éîtJsi/âù
ô tâ te s * Μ **φ **ϊφ 'm/s Mfm, * M y Φ*%
m uam ée.% &
MM'**, *Z4* A/jt#, -ute fte 'dm d sujmMü% é q fa u m i*A ***/& ^ : Φ ,
te. >,· '/tek+jK, ^ tie p‘ é# m te*, fa d sm m '///mus tutm tti, ffe 'pédte* -m*&>
rtv MdiHte, H e /m w m V*/j H '/M ) W4~% *ψ, M%%> th L 'a&*.
m m4 fte
<4 M i'km éè^M ëdi 'tim m iim ή the/mu/m*
M ddtydA u m m rt ti/Λ HY/l/ 'Mt/-W.
PATRONS AND CLIENTS
93
chat grew to be the Septuaginta, may well have been ordered by
Ptolemy II, as tradition claims.65 It showed how far reaching and ailffrrhranng Pmlemys power was. It made the court appear as a micro
cosm. the place where the whole world came together, including the
best poets and scholars o f the entire (Greek) oikoumene, whose fame
stretched far beyond the borders o f actual, political control. Collect
ing books was yet another means o f accumulating and controlling
IbwwWge, a form of symbolic attainment o f the world. According
to Josephus, it was Ptolemy Soter’s ambition ‘to gather together all
the books that were in the inhabited world’ in the royal library at
MaandsL·66
S o cial C o h e sio n
Vim Sods us to a last, fundamental, characteristic o f court patron
age !» seemingly overall Hellenic nature.67 Generally speaking, that
k Mon-Greek artists, writers, and scholars were virtually absent
6 m die courts. And when they were present - Berossos, Manetho,
Vi. Ordi, TnAsttmos ίί. und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung*, in; H,-J, Fabry
mâ V. 0€tdma eds„ Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und
Memngdergriechischen Bibel (Stuttgart 2001) 97A 14.
Ä
12.20. Tradition ha* preserved several tales about the eagerness of the
ifatPitJetnits to obtain hooks; colorful accounts of their almost maniacal efforts to
hfémlmidsm them, for examples see Green 1990,89; cf. Africa 1968,62, and
Gjzofa, TfayrteMs of a history of ancient libraries1, in; ). König, K. OikonomoYdm i (j. V/tjtAfeds,, Ancient Lihrariet (Cambridge'. Cambridge University Press,
MT) *71-84, atpimg dm the famous pinaket compiled by KaWmmhm was not a
wrftpe tA dm Ui/tatf s actually bolding* but rather an inventory of all extant
A /j19hht4/ip (A the past decades often atg/ted die opposite, especially regarding
itohirS. win pottty, Pot instante Metkeibach 1981, T/~'ö, argued that Kalli'4i/l Vueohhr, tndeawned to develop an interpretation of Ptolemaic monm tj tm>t/nnUmd Gtetk ami hgypt'm concepts of kingship, A similar view was
Yj‘ i'/tiot4 ;-,y î'tephttis 1999, 167-89, maintaining, that Kalimachos* Hymn to
Η® when ht the celebration of the V/gj/pt'mt Meb-sed ksdvai, an annual
tA the Mirth and accession of florus, lAmeut 1984, 10-8, connects yet
-irj,ttim7te p/*.m *A’P.aiiinmhw, the Hymn to Dehn, to IEgyptian tradi■*!'>(&*ρ*η (tom one pmthle mention tA f '/gypt Ythe two tommies i as hing
sopite, the Hymn in helm contains no dir*"'» tel· tetre m
%lph s*· don* to phantoms tdeofo'/./ (((unter JtiUSA Ir.K,
94
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
perhaps Jew ish w riters — th e y w rote in Greek. Egyptian pharaonic
id e o lo g y m ay have in fo rm ed A lexandrian panegyric,68 but the influ
en ces w ere th o ro u g h ly transform ed to becom e part o f new, Hel
le n istic cu ltu re o f em pire; th e su p p osed interest in alien cultures in
e.g. A p o llo n io s’ A rg o n a u tik a can perhaps be better understood as a
form o f ‘colon ial appropriation’, claim in g Greek antecedents for the
cultural specifics o f foreign p eop les, as Susan Stephens argued,69 or
as a description o f em p ire, th an as th e result o f ‘native’ influence.
In other w ords, kings protected n o t just science and culture, but
Greek science and culture. T h e y also prom oted the study o f the Greek
past. A lexandrian p h ilo lo g ists stu d ied ‘classic’ poetry, especially
H om er, and can on ized A isch ylos, Sophokles and Euripides as the
three best tragedians. H ellen istic poets were obsessed with the Greek
m yth ological legacy. T h e m ain difference between pre-Hellenistic
and H ellen istic G reek literature, is that the latter tended to iron out
regional differences am o n g th e Greeks. T h u s Greek culture was rede
fined in th e ligh t o f a new , m ore cosm opolitan world view that was
closely con n ected w ith th e universalistic ideals o f empire.
T h e H ellen ism o f th e court was instrumental in the creadon of an
im perial elite culture, in ten sifyin g a process o f Hellenization also at
w ork in the cities o f A sia M in or, E gypt and the Middle East, where
the institutions o f th e p o lis spread through a process o f peer polity
interaction, to o .70 In w orld history, court culture often serves as a
68 O n pharaonic influences in T h eok ritos’ encom ium for Ptolemy II (Idyll 17)
see M . H eerin k, ‘M ergin g paradigm s: T ranslating pharaonic ideology in Theordtus’ Idyll 17’, in: B. G ufler, M . Lang, I. M adreiter, R. Rollinger eds., Interkulturalitä t in d er A lten W elt. V orderasien, H ellas, Ä gypten u n d d ie vielßligen Ebenen de
K o n ta k ts (W iesbaden 2 0 1 0 ) 3 8 3 -4 0 8 . In P tolem aic Egypt, non-Greek (i.e. Egyptian
language) literature w as typ ically produ ced outside o f the court in Alexandria,
cf. J. D ie le m a n and I. M oyer, ‘E gyptian literature’, in: J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers
ed s., A C om panion to H ellen istic L itera tu re (Chichester and Malden 2010) 429-447.
A n ex cellent in trod u ction to non -G reek literary production in the Seleukid Empire
is offered b y S. K nippschild, ‘Literature in W estern Asia’, also in: J. J. Clauss and
M . C uypers eds., A C om panion to H ellen istic L iteratu re (Chichester and Malden:
W iley-B lackw ell, 2 0 1 0 ) 4 4 8 -4 6 2 .
69 Stephens 2 0 0 1 .
70 See C hapter 3 , above. N o te that in the H ellenistic world beyond the world
o f th e A egean p o leis, the w ord ‘p o lis ’ d o cs n o t inevitably refer to a Greek city: in the
H ellen istic w orld, non -G reek cities, to o , could have p o lis institutions. See also my
remarks b elo w o n n o n -eth ic ‘G reekness’.
P A T R O N S A N D C L IE N T S
95
means to link dispersed local elites, creating coherence in culturally
and ethnically heterogeneous empires, a n d b in d in g these elites to the
polidcal center by 'the pow er o f m em ory, o f im agination, an d o f
language’.71 In the Macedonian empires, it was H ellenism th a t helped
define who did and who did n o t participate in th e im perial order.72
This is why in the Hellenistic period m em bers o f no n -G reek civic
elites strove after ‘the G reek w ay o f life’, signified in particular by
participation in gymnasion activities a n d th e adoption o f a second,
Greek, personal name. T h e K appadokian king Ariarathes V (c. 163-c.
130), a scion of a local dynasty closely tied to th e Seleukid im perial
house through vassalage and marriage, according to D iodoros received
a Greek education, and later him self becam e devoted to philosophy;
as king, he switched his allegiance from th e Seleukids to Rom e and
presented himself as a patron o f m en o f culture and a benefactor o f
the Greeks.73 The (partial) H ellenization o f b o th th e G reek and the
non-Greek Hellenistic elites was a form o f w h at archaeologists o f the
late Bronze Age have called ‘intern atio n al style’.74 N o n -eth n ic and
unconnected with the Aegean, this was ‘G reek’, n o t G reek, culture.
Conversely, those who did not benefit from th e imperial order, or
were exduded from it by their political opponents, reacted by accentu
ating (or inventing) ‘indigenous’ culture; this was the case in Judea in
the 160’s, where an orthodox version o f Jewish culture was constructed
in opposition to the Hellenized allies o f the Seleukids, as is apparent
71 P. Burke, H istory a n d S ocial Theory (C am brid ge 1 9 9 2 ) 57.
72 For this model in general see S trootm an 2 0 0 7 , p assim , and id ., ‘Babylonian,
Macedonian, King o f the W orld: T h e A n tio ch o s C ylin d er from B orsippa and
Seleukid imperial integration’, in: E. S tavrian op ou iou ed .. S h iftin g S o cia l Im agin ar
ia in the H ellenistic P eriod: N arration s, P ractices, a n d (Leiden an d B oston 2 0 1 3 )
67-97. Cf. A. M ehl, ‘D ie antiken G riech en : In tegration durch K ultur’, in:
K. Buraseiis and K. Zoum boulakis eds.. The Idea o f E uropean C om m u n ity in H is
tory: Conference Proceedings II (Athens 2 0 0 3 ) 1 9 1 -2 0 4 .
73 Diod. 3 1 .1 9 .7 -8 .
74 For an excellent discussion o f recent theoretical approaches to exchanges in
material culture see M . J. Versluys, ‘U nd erstan d in g Egypt in E gyp t and b eyon d ’,
in: L Bricault and M . J. Versluys eds., Isis on th e N ile : E gyptian gods in H ellen istic
and Roman Egypt. Proceedings o f th e IV th In tern a tio n a l Conference o f Isis S tu dies
(Leiden and Boston 2 010) 7 -3 6 , esp. p. 1 3 -1 4 o n th e co n ce p t o f ‘international
style’.
96
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
from 1 and 2 Maccabees75 In southern Egypt, the Ptolemies after 145
had to deal w ith ‘national’ uprisings; from 2 0 7 /6 to 186, large parts cf
U pper E gypt were under the control o f allegedly indigenous pharaohs
w ho cultivated a strong ‘Egyptian’ identity and in their propaganda
referred back to ancient pharaonic times.75767But particularistic reaction
to imperialism and die ensuing process o f globalization is not the only
background o f the rise o f local identities in the middle Hellenistic
period. A t the end o f the third century, both the Seleukids and Ptole
mies were faced w ith an established, land-owning court nobility of
Macedonians and Greeks w ho had interests and clienteles o f their own.
Attempting to bypass these elites, the Seleukids and Ptolemies in die
second century increasingly worked together with local Iranian, respec
tively, Egyptian elite fam ilies." In Ptolemaic Egypt this presumably
resulted in — or at least w ent hand-in-hand with — a process that may
be termed the Egyptianization o f Egypt, Le.·, the assumption of a pro
nounced ‘traditional’ identity by Egyptian elite families.78
T he focal point o f the imperial order was the court. It was here
th a r Greek culture was reinvented to become an universal imperial
75 R. Strootm an, *Van w etsgecrouwen en afvaHigen: religieus geweld en culturde verandering in de rijd der M akkabeeën’, in: B. Becking and G. Rouwhora
eds., R eiigies in interactie. Jodendom en Christendom in d e O udheid (Zoetermeer aid
U trecht 2 006) 7 9 -9 7 . It is often forgotten that in this context and period, the ‘Hdlenizers’ represented mainstream Judaism.
76 A.-E. V â sse , Les ‘révoltes égyptien n esR ech erch es sur les troubles intérieurs en
Égypte d u règne d e Ptolém ée Π Ι à la conquête rom aine (Leuven 2004).
77 Strootman 2011a; cf. D . Engels, ‘M iddle Eastern “Feudalism” and Seleukid
dissolution’, in: K. Erickson and G . R am sey eds., Seleucid D issolution: The Sinking
o f dsc A nchor (W iesbaden 2 0 1 1 ) 1 9 -3 6 . For d ie cooperation o f the Ptolemaic court
w ith d ites in th e Egyptian chôra, attested particularly by a conspicuous increase in
Egyptian-style grave culture, see m ost recently Rowlandson 2008 and Moyer 2011,
w ith previous literature. For th e politics o f cooperation between the court and the
Egyptian temples consult D . J. T hom pson, M em phis under the Ptolemies (Princeton
1988); T h e high priests o f M em phis under Ptolem aic rule’ in: M. Beard and
J- N orth eds.. Pagan P riests: R eligion a n d P ow er in th e A ncient W orld (London
1990) 95 -1 1 6 ; and Thebes in th e G raeco-Rom an P eriod (Leiden 1992); W. Ciarysse,
‘Ptolémées e t temples’, in: J. L edant and D . Valbelle eds.. L e D écret de Memphis
(Paris 1999) 5 4 -5 8 . See n o w also G . Gorre, Les relations du clergé égyptien et des
lapdes d ’a près des sources privées (Leuven 2 0 0 9 ), m oving away from the paradigm of
uni-directional colonial exploitation by show ing how the interests o f the dynasty
and the indigenous d ites often coincided.
TA M oyer 2 0 1 1 .
P A T R O N S A N D C L IE N T S
97
:ulture. This took place at all M acedonian courts in a very similar
manner, due to mutual influences and com petition. T he process was
æntinued at the courts o f the indigenous kingdom s o f the later H el
lenistic Age — Pontos, Bithynia, Hasm onean and Herodean Judea.
Even the Berber king Micipsa, a contemporary o f the emperor Augus
tus, ‘was the most civilized o f all the N um idian kings, and lived much
in the company o f cultivated Greeks w hom he sum m oned to his
court. He took great interest in culture, especially p h ilosop h y.79
By concerning themselves w ith Greek culture on a grand scale, in
die centers o f their kingdoms, M acedonian rulers presented them
selves as protectors and benefactors o f the Greeks. In part, they did
so because Hellenes formed the principal agents o f empire in the
Macedonian Near East. Moreover, the culture o f the court had a
distinct ‘cosmopolitan’ character that transgressed the multifarious
cultural and linguistic zones w ithin the H ellenistic empires. This may
be what the historian Menekles o f Barke m eant w hen around 200 he
boasted that Alexandria had becom e the teacher o f all the Greeks and
barbarians.80 Thus, the Hellenism o f the court potentially could cre
ate a sense o f commonwealth and thus contribute to the establish
ment of cohesion in states characterized by their political, ethnical,
and cultural heterogeneity.
C
o n c l u s io n
In this chapter we have looked at forms and functions o f artistic and
scientific patronage at the H ellenistic royal courts. T he principal
question that was raised was, what motives did rulers have for patron
izing artists and scientists?
Artistic and scientific patronage was connected w ith two o f the
basic functions o f the court: the court as a stage for the cult o f kingship and the court as the focus for com petition w ith other dynasties.
In cultural and scientific patronage these two functions merged.
The splendor o f a court’s system o f patronage was meant to increase
the glory of the king and his dynasty. Moreover, some forms o f art
79 Diod. 34.35. N ote the correlation between ‘civilized’ and ‘Greek’ in this
passage.
» Fraser 1972 I, 5 1 7 -1 8 , w ith II, 16 5 n . 3 2 4 .
98
T H E BIRDCAGE O F T H E MUSES
w ere suitable for exp licit propaganda. T h is was in particular die ca ç
w ith literature, historiography and th e visual arts.
C ou rt patronage w as useful for k ings in other ways as v/dl. By
accom m od atin g th e arts and sciences at his court, a king met severs!
o f th e requirem ents for b ein g an ideal ruler. H e proved to be liospitable, b en evolen t and generous. T h e social relevance o f court poetry
m oreover w as in part its ability to entertain the king and his courtiers
during sym posia and banquets, offering th em subjects for debate and
hence opportunities for erudite co m p etitio n , as well as binding them
together as a social group. It also offered kings a means to show-off
internationally. T h e ability o f art and know ledge to increase the cha
risma o f kings shou ld b e u n d erstood in the context o f the intense,
and often violen t, co m p etitio n betw een th e tw o main univcrsaJistic
superpowers o f the third century: the Ptolem aic and Scieukid empires.
T h e accum ulation o f art and know led ge in the house o f the king, a
form o f tryphiy n o t o n ly added to his status as a rich and wise man
by association, it m oreover d en oted universal power and control. The
Ptolem aic rulers' efforts to control and systematize culture and knowl
edge in the M useu m and Library ran parallel to their efforts to con
trol territory, w ealth and m anpow er and to humiliate their rivals.
A last benefit o f court literature w as that it, intentionally or unin
tentionally, contributed to the creation o f an ‘international style' —
an imperial form o f ‘H ellen istic’ language and culture that could be
adopted by the m em bers o f th e court, w h o were o f varied ethnic
origins. T h u s the H ellen ism o f the court was instrumental in the
creation o f an im perial elite style. B eyond the court, this Hellenism
served to create coherence in a heterogeneous empire, binding local
elites to the political center by m eans o f a shared culture and
language.
In this chapter w e have looked at the possible reasons why kings
encouraged and protected poets. In the follow ing chapter we will look
at king-poet relationship from the converse point o f view, and exam
ine for w hat reason poets (and other m en o f letters) chose to engage
in the com petition for royal favor.
CHAPTER SIX
POETS ARE A KING’S BEST FRIENDS:
THE HELLENISTIC PO ET AS ROYAL PHILOS
Poets
a n d sc h o l a r s a s c o u r t ie r s
In his seminal book on Roman imperial power networks. Personal
Patronage under the Early Empire, Richard Sailer made a strong case
for using patronage as an analytical tool for understanding power rela
tions in the early Roman empire, placing specific emphasis on broker
age and the crucial role of the individuals acting as brokers between a
patron and his clients.1 The views o f Sailer have been criticized by
Terry Johnson and Christopher Dandeker as being too hierarchical;
assuming a high degree of voluntarism on the part o f clients, they
argue instead that in patronage relations forms o f horizontal solidarity
and egalitarian forms of ideology are at least as important as vertical
bonds of dependence.2 According to Johnson and Dandeker, ‘patron
age tends to operate as a competitive and pluralistic system in which
patrons are dependent on maintaining a high level o f client support
in a situation where clients are neither owned nor entirely controlled.
That is to say, client choice is a significant dynamic in the system and
clients constitute a major resource within it’.34
Elsewhere I have shown that Hellenistic court societies, too, were
based on personalized, reciprocal exchange in terms o f a systemic
rather than a vertical relational principle. In this chapter it will be
argued that cultural and scientific patronage was an integrated aspect
of the reciprocal social system of the court. The poets, scholars, and
1 R, P, Sailer, Pertonal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982).
One of die first to use Sailer’s patronage model for understanding ancient Mff'/xnat,
viz,, literary patronage, was Ruurd Nauta in e.g. ‘Maeccnaat en ccnsuur in de vroege
Romanic Keizertijd’, Lampas 19. (1986) 34-76, and Poetry for Patrons: Literary
Cmmmication in the Age o f Domitian (PhD diss,; Leiden University, 1995).
1 Johnson & Dandeker 1989, 223.
5 Ibid. 1989, 223-224.
4 Strootman 2007; 2014a.
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
sc ie n tists w o rk in g a t th e c o u rts o r fo r th e courts did not constitutu
d is tin c t categ o ry . T h e y w e re p a rt o f th e fabric o f court society. They
w e re fo r th e m o s t p a r t n o t th e k in g ’s employees but genuine courti
ers,
tou basileôs, lik e th e o th e r friends. Some prominent men of
le tters even b e lo n g e d to th e u p p e r echelons o f the court. Conversely,
m e m b e rs o f th e sunedrion o fte n distin g u ish ed themselves as philoso
p h e rs o r (occasional) p o e ts. A seco n d , subsequent, claim I make in
th is c h a p te r, is th a t c o m p e titio n fo r (royal) favor was the principal
d riv in g force e n c o u ra g in g p o e ts a n d oth ers to be original, inventive
a n d p io n e e rin g , as w ell as, in d e e d , com petitive.
T h e la tte r p o in t o f v ie w ru n s c o u n te r to the notion in the older
lite ra tu re th a t th e re la tio n s b e tw e e n poets, scholars and artists on the
o n e h a n d , a n d k in g s a n d c o u rtie rs o n th e other hand, should be
ex p lain ed in te rm s o f v ertical p a tro n -c lie n t dyads. Until some decades
ago, th e d o m in a n t v iew w as th a t p o ets w orking for the courts were
servants o f th e k in g , w h o gave u p th e ir integrity to produce occa
sio n al se c o n d -ra te w o rk s to p lease th e ir patrons, including servile
la u d a to ry p o e m s a n d in s in c e re philo so p h ical tracts in defense of
m o n a rc h ic ru le .5 M aste rp ie c e s c o u ld still be written, but there was a
price to pay. In p rev io u s sch o larsh ip o n e therefore often encounters
p a in stak in g efforts to d is c o n n e c t w h a t is considered valuable in Hel
lenistic p o e try a n d science b y m o d e rn scholars from its courdy con
text. T h u s in a n in flu e n tia l te x tb o o k o n post-classical Greek science,
it is asserted th a t ‘th e re w ere m a n y scientists who received no help
w hatsoever fro m ric h p a tro n s. M a n y o f those who did scientific work
w ere n o d o u b t m e n o f m e a n s .’6 A lth o u g h in essence perhaps not
in co rrect (sc. th a t scientists w o rk in g fo r th e king perhaps were men
o f m eans w h o w ere n o t d e p e n d e n t o n paym ent by the king), this
statem en t is based o n th e a ssu m p tio n th a t the principal motive for
seeking p atro n ag e w as g a in in g m aterial benefit, viz., earning money.
I believe this n o tio n to b e erro n eo u s. M a n y poets and philosophers
5 S ee for in sta n c e A frica 1 9 6 8 : Ί η th e H e lle n istic age, m any scientists exchanged
in d e p e n d e n c e fo r th e p a tro n a g e o f k in g s ’ (p . 2 ) an d Team ed the arts of discretion
an d su b serv ien ce’ (p . 4 8 ) ; G r e e n 1 9 9 0 , 2 4 1 , sees o n ly ‘blatant flattery’ each time
T h e o k r ito s m e n tio n s th e n a m e o f P to le m y P h ila d elp h o s, and maintains that‘there
is alw ays a p rice to b e p a id fo r p a tro n a g e’; S ch w in g e 1 9 8 6 , 4 0 -8 2 , even holds that
k in g s a ctiv ely repressed th e fr e e d o m o f p o e ts a n d believes that the poets in revenge
cr iticise d th eir p atron s in b e tw e e n th e lin e s.
6 G . E . R . L lo y d , G reek Science a fte r A r is to tle (L o n d o n 1 973).
POETS ARE A K IN G’S BEST FRIENDS
101
who did write panegyric texts m ay have had independent sources o f
income as well. KaJlimachos boasts that he is a m em ber o f one o f the
leading families o f Kyrene, a descendant o f the heros ktistës Batto s.7
There furthermore were opportunities for them to make a living out
side the court; the increased num ber o f poleis, and the increasing
significance o f local elites w ithin these poleis, clearly offered alterna
tive opportunities for poor but talented poets — although admittedly
civic ruling families could be part o f empire-wide elite networks and
thus directly or indirecdy connected to the court. Be that as it may,
we should allow for a significant measure o f voluntarism on the part
of the clients, and subsequently for competition among the courts for
these clients. As Johnson and D andeker noted, where client loyalty
is voluntarily given, patronage rem ains a highly fluid structure,
adapted to change, driven by the twin motors o f patron competition
and client choice.’8 T hus Apollodoros (c. 180-c. 110), a student of
Aristarchos, worked both at Alexandria and Pergamon. Aratos, poet
of the Phainomena, worked for the Seleukid king, Antiochos I, as well
as the Antigonid king, A ntigonos II.
Modern depreciation o f royal patronage may in part be attributed
to the nineteenth-century ideal o f the artist as an intellectually inde
pendent individual. B ut the notion has antecedents in Antiquity.
Greek intellectuals o f the imperial period blamed their Hellenistic
predecessors for dancing attendance to kings, and praised those who
allegedly refused to do so. T hey relished in anecdotes about philoso
phers outwitting kings in private conversations.9 Athenaios for exam
ple dismisses the scholars in the Alexandrian Museum altogether as
parasites.10 Diogenes Laertius recounts approvingly how the philoso
pher Stilpo of Megara w ent into hiding when he learned that Ptolemy
Soter intended to take him to Alexandria.11 According to another
popular story, Anaxarchos o f Abdera, an expert in atomic theory,
7 See now I. Petrovic, ‘C allim achus and contemporary religion: the Hym n to
Apollo’, in: B. Acosta-H ughes, L. Lehnus, S. Stephens eds.. B rill’s Companion to
Callimachus (Leiden and B oston 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 4 -2 8 5 .
8 Johnson and Dandeker 19 8 9 , 22 8 .
9 For a comprehensive overview o f know n instances see G. Weber, ‘The Hel
lenistic rulers and their poets. Silencing dangerous critics?’, Ancient Society 29
(1998/1999) 147-174.
10 Ath. VI 240b; X V 677e.
11 Diog. Laert. 2.115.
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
b artered aw ay his scientific in te g rity b y his efforts to please the ama
te u r p h ilo so p h er A lexander th e G reat. C alled back to order by an
In d ia n w ise m an , A jiaxarchos rep e n te d a n d rigorously abandoned
c o u rt life, on ly to be to rtu re d to d ea th by som e vengeful Cypriot
p rin ce w h o m h e h a d once o ffe n d e d .12 O th e r stories, too, give the
im pression th a t th e association w ith kings was n o t only intellectually
restrictive, b u t cou ld be physically harm ful. T h e physician Chrysippos, as D iogenes L aertius inform s us, was beaten like a slave at the
P tolem aic co u rt for som e obscure affro n t.13 H is was a better fate still
th a n th a t o f th e p h ilo lo g ist Z o ilo s, w h o was crucified for having
offended P tolem y P h ilad elp h o s,14 a p u n ish m en t normally employed
to dehum anize th e dead bodies o f traitors an d rebels. But perhaps the
m o st horrifying fate o f all befell th e p o et Sotades o f Maroneia, who
h a d m ocked th e incestuous m arriage o f Ptolem y Philadelphos and his
sister, Ajrsinoe, w ith th e in d e e d infam ous designation ‘pushing the
p ro n g in to an u n h o ly fle sh p o t5.15 Sotades fled the court but was
h u n te d dow n rem orselessly b y P h iladelphos5 best admiral, Patroklos;
w hen he was finally caught, th e p o o r soul was locked up alive in a
leaden chest, w h ich w as th e n sa n k in to th e sea.16
T h e m ain message in all o f these anecdotes is rather straightfor
w ard: kings can be sh o rt-te m p e re d despots, and intellectuals should
b etter refrain from criticizing th e m or, preferably, keep their distance
from m onarchs altogether. B u t can anecdotes like these prove that
royal p atronage w as really oppressive a n d demeaning? Even if we
accept th e stories a b o u t C hrysippos, Z oilos, Anaxarchos, and Sotades
as som ehow ro o ted in h istorical reality, these are all stories about
kings taking revenge fo r personal insults, an d th at is not exacdy the
sam e as repressing freedom o f speech. T h e y are n o t about whimsical
tyrants oppressing free speech. As w e saw in Chapter 3, free speech
was a cardinal virtu e in th e ‘official5 ideology o f the phibi society.
It seems unlikely th a t kings ever forced poets to write poetry, and in
12 P lu t., A lex. 8 , 2 8 , 5 2 ; D io g . Laert. 9 .6 0 - 6 3 , 9 5 8 -9 5 9 .
13 D io g . Laert. 7 .1 8 6 .
14 V itr. 7 .8 - 9 .
15 T ra n sla tio n G r een 1 9 9 0 , 8 2 ; C a m ero n 1 9 9 5 , 18, translates more freely, but
p erh ap s m o r e to th e p o in t, ‘It’s an u n h o ly h o le h e ’s shovin g his prick in’; for a
d iscu ssio n o f th is lin e , its a u th e n ticity , a n d its various possible interpretations see
C a m ero n 1 9 9 5 , 1 8 -2 0 .
16 P lu t., M o r. 11a; H e g esa n d ro s in A th . X IV 6 2 0 f-6 2 1 a .
POETS ARE A K IN G ’S B EST F R IE N D S
103
the patronage network o f the cou rt th e in itiativ e to d o so o fte n cam e
from them. It will be hard to fin d arg u m en ts to m a in ta in th a t w h e n
poets lauded kings in encom iastic texts, th e y d id n o t them selves
believe in what they wrote. N o t o n ly because it is p erh ap s a b it p re
sumptuous to assume th at we can see th e h id d e n m o ck ery in H e l
lenistic panegyric while contem porary kings a n d cou rtiers c o u ld n o t,
but especially because the poets them selves w ere p a rt o f th e m o n a r
chic system they praised, and belonged to th e c o u rt society, deriv in g
status and privileges from it.
As we saw earlier, in the Renaissance th e im p etu s fo r th e progress in
art and science seems to have com e fro m princely patronage. G alileo
dedicated his astronomical discoveries to C osim o II d e’ M edici, ju st as
Johannes Kepler dedicated his to th e em p ero r F e rd in a n d II.17 Yet m e n
like Galileo and Kepler, as well as m an y o th e r clients o f Renaissance
rulers, count as innovative, even u n o rth o d o x thin k ers, w hose scientific
integrity has never been in d o u b t. I t appears th a t th e early m o d ern
court did not restrict the freedom o f artists a n d scientists, b u t, o n th e
contrary, provided them w ith chances a n d encouragem ent. I t is for this
reason that Vasari advised artists in search o f artistic freedom to jo in a
prince’s court, where they w ould n o t be d e p e n d e n t o n th e dem ands
and restrictions of the public art m ark et.18
Returning to the early H ellenistic Age: a n o th e r arg u m en t against
the view of patronage being restrictive is th e fact th a t th e an cien t
sources give no hint that artists an d intellectuals at c o u rt constituted
a distinct category next to the ‘regular’ courtiers. T o all account they
were philoi of the king too. M oreover, it was n o t exceptional th a t
philosophers or other writers (bu t especially philosophers) w ere given
17 P. Findlen, ‘T h e ec o n o m y o f scie n tific ex c h a n g e in early m o d e r n I t a ly , in:
B.T. Moran ed.. Patronage a n d In stitu tion s: Science·, Technology, a n d M e d ic in e a t th e
European Court, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (R ochester, N Y , a n d W o o d b r id g e 1 9 9 1 ) 1 -2 4 ; M . B ia gioli, ‘Galileo’s system o f p atron age’. H isto ry o f Science 2 8 (1 9 9 0 ) 1 -6 1 ;
W. B. Asworth, ‘T h e H absburg circle’, in : B . T . M o r a n e d .. P atron age a n d I n stitu
tions: Science, Technology, a n d M ed ic in e a t th e E u ropean C ou rt, 1 5 0 0 - 1 7 5 0 (R o ch
ester and W oodbridge 1 991) 1 3 7 -6 7 , esp. 1 3 7 . In terestin gly, C o p e r n ic u s’ D e R evo
lutionibus orbium coelestium (1 5 4 3 ), b a n n ed b y th e C h u rc h in 1 6 1 6 b ecau se o f its
heliocentrism, was in fact d edicated to th e p o p e , P au lu s III.
18 In a similar vein, A ristod e accord in g to a later tra d itio n ad vised th e w ise m a n
to ‘fall in love, take part in p olitics an d live w ith a k in g ’ (D io g . Laert. 5 .3 1 ). For
the increasing social status o f artists in early R en aissan ce Italy see F. A m es-L ew is,
The Intellectual Lifo o f the early Renaissance A r tis t ( N e w H a v e n an d L o n d o n 2 0 0 0 ) .
104
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
p o litical, d ip lo m a tic o r m ilita ry responsibilities. For instance the
sch o lar O n e sik rito s o f A stypalaia — a p u p il o f Diogenes and the
a u th o r o f an a c c o u n t o f A lexander’s cam paigns — served Alexander
as a navigator in In d ia, a n d in 3 2 5 /4 was lieutenant to the admiral
N earchos. T h e p h ilo so p h e r a n d statesm an D em etrios o f Phaleronwas
leader o f A th en s u n d e r th e p ro te c tio n o f Kassandros and laterapolidcal advisor o f P to le m y S o ter; as a P to lem aic courder Demetrios
becam e involved in factio n co n flicts.19 H ieronym os o f Kardia served
th e A n tig o n id s as b o th an h isto rian a n d a m ilitary commander. Antigonos G o n atas a p p o in te d th e sto ic p h ilo so p h er Persaios commander
o f th e A k ro k o rin th o s citadel.20 In all kingdom s, philosophers served
as d ip lo m ats.21 T h e celeb rated a rch itect Sostratos o f Knidos, builder
o f th e P haros L ig h th o u se, served his p a tro n Ptolem y Philadelphos also
as an am bassador.2223C on v ersely th e re are also m any examples o f‘regu
lar’ courtiers w h o w ere also w riters, fo r instance Nearchos, Alexander’s
adm iral, w h o w ro te o n In d ia a n d th e In d ia n O cean, or Samos, a lead
in g philos a n d suntrophos o f P h ilip V, w h o was also a famous poet.21
In o th e r w ords, categories overlap p ed a n d can n o t be separated.
Po
etry a n d
patro n
:
th e
c a se o f
T
h e o k r it o s a n d
H
ier on
I f poets, artists a n d intellectuals w ere n o t ‘servants’ in a vertical patronclient relationship, w h a t w as th e n atu re o f their relationship with the
king? T h e re is o n e piece o f c o n tem p o rary evidence that is most illumi
n atin g in this respect. T h is is T h e o k rito s’ sixteenth Idyll, better known
19 D io g . Laert. 5 .7 7 - 7 8 ; In 1 4 5 P to le m y P h y sk o n allegedly forced all members
o f th e m ou seion w h o h a d b a ck ed th e lo s in g sid e in th e d ynastic struggle that pre
c e d e d h is rise to p o w e r to le a v e A lex a n d ria an d s e td e elsew here; m ost o f them went
to A th e n s (A th . 4 . 1 8 4 c ).
20 P lu t., A r a t. 1 8 , 2 3 ; D io g . L aert. 7 .9 .3 6 ; A th . 4 .1 6 2 b - d , XIII 607a-f. The
s to ic h o w e v e r fo iled to h o ld h is g r o u n d a g a in st G o n a ta s’ enem y, Aratos o f Sikyon.
O n P e rsa io s as a c o u rtier se e A . E rsk in e, ‘B e tw e e n p h ilo so p h y and the court: The
life o f P e rsa io s o f K itio n ’, in : A . E rsk in e a n d L. Llew ellyn-Jones eds., Creating a
H e lle n istic W o r ld (S w a n sea a n d O x fo r d 2 0 1 1 ) 1 7 7 -1 9 5 .
21 F raser 1 9 7 2 I, 5 5 7 ; P r éa u x 1 9 7 8 , 2 2 0 - 2 2 6 ; a n d L. M ooren, ‘Die diplo
m a tis c h e F u n k tio n d er h e lle n is tis c h e n K ö n ig sfre u n d e’, in : E. Olshausen ed., Antike
D ip lo m a tie (D a r m s ta d t 1 9 7 9 ) 2 5 6 - 2 9 0 .
22 A t h . 5 .2 0 3 c - e .
23 P o ly b . 5 .8 .6 .
POETS ARE A K IN G ’S BEST FR IEND S
105
as ‘The Graces’. Idyll 16 is in essence an encom ium for the Sicilian ruler
Hieran II, the tyrant and subsequently king o f Syracuse. T h e poem is
also a request for a gift and a request to be accepted by H iero n as a
philos. As a consequence, the poem provides valuable first-hand infor
mation regarding the relation o f king an d poet. Because T heokritos in
all probability came from Syracuse,24 it is usually held th a t th e poem
was written at the beginning o f his career, an d th a t he m oved to Alex
andria because Hieron turned dow n his request.25 T h a t is possible, o f
course, but the text itself does n o t w arrant this conclusion. F or all we
know, the poem may be w ritten in A lexandria w here T heokritos pre
sumably participated in an international netw o rk th ro u g h w hich he
could have easily reached a local prince like H ieron.
Idyll 16 is one o f T heokritos’ finest b u t also one o f his m ost puz
zling works.26 A striking feature o f th e p o em is its v irtuosity — a
blend of Homeric stateliness, colloquial language, folksong and m im e
— as if the poem’s very language, as G riffiths has suggested, was
meant to advertise T heokritos’ professional skills a n d versatility.27
Theokritos moreover cunningly evokes th e styles o f Bakchylides and
Pindar. Both had enjoyed the patronage o f H ie ro n ’s nam esake and
predecessor, the fifth century Syracusean ty ra n t H ie ro n I, a ruler
renowned for his protection o f th e arts.28 T heokritos n o w urges the
second Hieron to support poetry, too — a n d first o f all th e poetry o f
Theokritos. You should keep you r m oney m oving, he urges the ruler,
For what is the use o f m o n e y th a t is h o a r d e d a w a y in great p iles in
some chest? A w ise m a n uses h is w e a lth , first ta k in g care o f his o w n
24 Theocr., Epigr, 27.
25 Bulloch 1989, 30; G reen 1 9 9 0 , 2 4 0 w ith n . 5 9 .
26 Secondary literature o n T h eok ritos has exp an d ed v a sd y in th e p ast decades;
see in general, and regarding th e p resen t d iscu ssion , B u llo c h 1 9 8 9 , 2 0 5 -2 0 6 ; G rif
fiths 1979, 9-50; L.-M . H an s, ‘T h eok rits X V I. Id ylle u n d d ie P o litik H iero n s II.
von Syrakus’, Historia 3 4 (1 9 8 5 ) 1 1 7 -1 2 5 ; G o ld 1 9 8 7 , 3 0 -7 ; B u rton 1 9 9 5 ;
R. L. Hunter, Theocritus a n d th e Archaeology o f Greek Poetry (C am brid ge 1 9 9 6 ) and
id. 2003a; M. A. Harder, R. F. R egtu it, G . C . W ak ker ed s., Theocritus. H ellen istica
Groningana 2 (Groningen 1996); J. D . R eed , ‘A rsin oe’s A d o n is a n d th e P oetics o f
Ptolemaic Imperialism’, Transactions o f the A m erican Philological A ssociation 1 3 0
(2000) 319-51; M . Payne, Theocritus a n d th e In ven tio n o f F iction (C am brid ge
2007); Heerink 2010.
27 Griffiths 1979, 9. For H ellen istic literary style and aesth etics co n su lt G u tzwiller 2007, 26-49.
28 For Hieron’s I patronage o f th e arts see G o ld 1 9 8 7 , 2 1 -3 0 .
106
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
needs, a n d th e n o f those of, say, a po et. M an y dependents and relatives
c o u n t on his generosity. H e sacrifices offerings on the altars of the gods.
H e is a generous host, guests are always welcome at his table. ... But
m ost o f all he h o n o rs th e servants o f th e M uses.29
T h e ru le r as a g e n e ro u s h o s t w h o e n te r ta in s m a n y guests in his house
is a n y H e lle n is tic ru le r’s self-im ag e. T h e o k rito s asks to be invited too.
S u c h a stra ig h tfo rw a rd re q u e s t (th o u g h s u b tly form ulated), is by no
m e a n s ig n o b le , as w e sa w in C h a p te r 7. K allim achos, in the conclud
in g p ra y e r to h is H y m n to Z e u s (9 1 - 6 ), also b lu n tly asks Ptolemy
P h ila d e lp h o s fo r a re w a rd . B y a llu d in g to P in d a r, w ho had praised
th e h o s p ita lity o f th e first H ie r o n ’s h e a r th ,30 T h eo k rito s embeds his
re q u e st in th e m o ra l c o m p le x o f x e n ia w ith its ideals o f generosity,
g ift ex ch an g e, a n d re c ip ro c ity . T h r o u g h o u t th e poem , Theokritos
plays w ith th e d o u b le m e a n in g o f charités, ‘graces’, as favors and as
goddesses. T h e la tte r im p e rs o n a te p o e try , so th a t it becomes clear that
T h e o k rito s offers h is w ritin g s to H ie r o n as gifts — gifts for which he
expects gifts in re tu rn . A s w e h a v e seen (C h a p te r 7) xenia was funda
m e n ta l to th e f u n c tio n in g o f c o u r t so ciety . T h eo k rito s reminds
H ie ro n o f th e fact th a t h o s p ita lity a n d g e n e ro sity are m ore than social
o b lig atio n s: th e y are also h o n o ra b le a n d th e re fo re advantageous to
H ie ro n him self. A s e v e iy o n e k n e w , a n h o n o ra b le m a n was qualitate
q ua a m a g n a n im o u s m a n d e a lin g o u t gifts in o rd e r to gain greatness
a n d prestige.31 T h e h ig h e r o n e ’s sta tu s w as, th e g reater one’s generos
ity was expected to be. T h is v irtu e w as p a rtic u la rly im p o rtan t in aris
to cratic h o u seh o ld s, m o s t o f all ro y al co u rts.
B u t a p a rt fro m th e p restig e to be g a in e d fro m hospitality and gen
erosity, T h e o k rito s m e n tio n s y e t a n o th e r reaso n w h y H ieron should
ex ten d his xen ia to in c lu d e h im as a p o e t. T h e a rg u m e n t is as simple
as it is, b y m o d e rn stan d ard s, p re s u m p tu o u s : rew ard m e, and you’ll
b u y y o u rself im m o rtality .32 A fter all, w h o w o u ld ever have remembered
29 T h eocr., Id. 1 6 .2 8 -3 8 ; translation A . S. F. G o w , The Greek Bucolic Poets
(C am bridge 1 9 5 3 ).
30 Pyth. 1 .88, 3 .6 9 , cf. 3 .7 1 and OL 1 .1 0 -1 1 .
31 Cf. e.g. A rist, Eth.N ic. 4 .2 .
32 M odern com m entators have expressed their surprise at the apparent bluntness
o f this request; as o n e translator com m ented : ‘It is n o t easy to beg w ith dignity, but
T heocritus . . . does so w ith remarkable and unexpected success’ (G ow 1953, 63).
But T heokritos’ ‘frankness’ is in accordance w ith the unw ritten rules o f philia·. he
asks for a gift, n o t begs for it.
POETS ARE A KING’S BEST FRIENDS
107
the Jong-haired sons o f P riam , o r A c h ille s , o r w a n d e r in g O d y s s e u s ,
had not Homer p u t their d e e d s in t o w ord s? N o w , th a n k s to p o e tr y ,
not only the heroes o f o ld are rem em b e re d b u t e v en O d y s s e u s ’ s w in e
herd has become fa m o u s. H ie r o n -
‘th e A c h ille s o f o u r a g e ’, as
Theolcritos calls h im - n eed s a p o e t to im m o r ta liz e h is h e r o ic e x p lo its
and spread his glory across th e S k y th io n S e a ’ (i.e. as far as e d g es o f
the world), so that,
your name will forever live on gloriously, even w hen D eath takes you
away to deep and dark Hades, so that y o u w ill n o t languish honorless
on the shores o f cold Acheron, bewailing your fate as though you were
some common laborer w ith hands blistered by w ielding a spade, and
having inherited nothing but tears.33
However, the praise that H ie r o n a ctu a lly receives fro m T h eo k rito s is
rather commonplace. H ie r o n is a great m a n w h o v anq uishes his en e
mies and thereby ushers in a n e w G o ld e n A ge. N o particular b a ttle
or heroic feats o f th e n e w A ch illes are sp ecified .34 B u t T heokritos is
not yet finished. A s G riffiths has p o in te d o u t, in th e lin es that follow ,
the poet states that in th e G reek , sp e cific a lly H o m e r ic , n o tio n o f
reputation (kleos) th e w o rd s c o u n t as m u c h as th e d eed s.35 O n ly
praise sung by a great p o e t w ill for all p o sterity reach such a large and
wide-spread audience th a t th e p o e m ’s p r o ta g o n ist w ill be truly
immortalized; conversely, th e a m b itio u s p o e t is in need o f g rea t sub
ject matter to attain fam e. In oth er w ords: the prestige o f the p o et
will be added to the accu m u lated prestige o f th e patron and vice
33 Theocr., Id. 16. 39-44; transi. Gow. The theme is common and well-known:
Pindar (Nem. 9.1-20) spoke o f the ‘[s]ongs and stories [that] have brought down to
us the noble deeds, ... o f men o f former years’. According to the introduction to
the Histories, Herodotos, too, wrote ‘so that great deeds do not go unrecorded’;
cf. W. K. Pritchett, ‘Aristeia in Greek warfare’, in: id.. The Greek State A t War II
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1974) 276-290, esp. 287.
3* This may also be due to the feet that Theokritos wrote Idyll 16 when Hieron
was still a tyrant and had not yet routed the Mamertines in the Batde at the Longanos River, the victory which made him a king in c. 265, after which indeed fol
lowed a long and exceptionally peaceful reign. However, the absence o f the word
βασιλεύς in itself is no proof for Hieron not yet being a king and thus for an early
date of this poem; on this problem see further Hunter 1996a, 83.
35 And vice versa·. Homeric society may not have been a shame-culture but
rather a ‘results-culture’, as A. W. H. Adkins, From the Many to the One (Ithaca
10701 43 out it, and the highest honor and the greatest feme were to be won in
i S d u a l combat on the field of battle; cf. Pritchett 1974, 287-8.
108
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
versa?6 T h e y h a v e a c o m m o n g o a l - w h ic h as w e saw, is one of the
b a sic c h a ra c te ris tic s o f p h ilia . T h e ir p h il ia th erefo re must be estab
lis h e d b e fo re t h e a c tu a l d e e d s o f h e ro is m ta k e place.
S ev eral c o n c lu s io n s c o n c e r n in g th e a im s o f literary patronage may
b e in f e rre d f r o m I d y l l 16 . F irs t, t h a t th e h o sp ita lity and generosity
o ffe re d to a p o e t is in its e lf h o n o r a b le a n d m a y boost a kings cha
rism a . B e n e fic e n c e a fte r all w as a c e n tra l v irtu e in th e ideal of Hel
le n is tic k in g s h ip . S e c o n d , t h a t p o e tr y is th e m ean s p a r excellence to
m a k e th e d e e d s o f k in g s k n o w n a n d s p re a d h is n am e to the farthest
re a c h e s o f th e e a rth .37 T h ir d , t h a t th e p a tr o n h im se lf may benefit
fr o m th e r e p u ta tio n o f th e p o e t w ith w h o m h e m ain tain s a patronage
re la tio n s h ip . A n d la stly , a n d p e r h a p s m o s t im p o rta n d y . Idyll 16
sh o w s th a t th e b o n d b e tw e e n p a tr o n a n d p o e t w as defined in terms
o f x e n ia a n d th a t th e re la tio n s h ip w as reciprocal?8
36
G riffiths 1 9 7 9 , 14, argues th a t T h e o k r ito s alludes to Pindar and other poets
o f o ld because th eir relation w ith A rch a ic tyrants w as likew ise characterized by
m u tu al benefit: ‘Pindar’s v icto ry in so n g s m irrors th at o f h is patrons in sports; both
parties are im m ortalized eq u ally th ro u g h th eir p o e tic relationship.’ A comparable
n o t io n o f m u tu a lity w as c o m m o n to o in R enaissance literary patronage,
cf. J. P. G u ép in , ‘A rio sto , d e id eale h o fd ic h te r ’, in : J. T . P. d e Bruijn, W. L. Idema,
F. P. van O o stro m eds.. D ichter en hof. Verkenningen in veertim culturen (Utrecht
1 9 8 6 ) 9 3 -1 1 3 , esp. 112: ‘D e p o ë z ie a d elt d e g eschiedenis, d e geschiedenis verleent
ernst aan d e p o ëzie’ (‘P oetry en n o b les history, h isto ry gives relevance to poetry ).
T h e T urkic p o e t Fuzuli {c. 1 4 9 5 -1 5 5 6 ) in addressing h is patron, the Ottoman gov
ernor o f Baghdad w rote: ‘T h is is m y goal: th at y o u r nam e w ill be immortal in this
w orld, so that . . . both me and you, w ill be sp ok en o f by everybody’; cited after the
D u tc h translation in B. F lem m in g, ‘T urkse dichters en h u n patroons in de vijftiende en zestiende eeu w ’, in: J. T. P. d e Bruijn, W . L. Idem a, F. P. van Oostrom
eds.. Dichter en hof. Verkenningen in veertien culturen (U trecht 1986) 167-181, at
171. G reek authors o f the R om an periodlikew ise equated the prestige gained by the
w riting o f literature w ith the glory earned by political and m ilitary achievements,
e.g. A ristid. Or. 5 0 .4 9 and Arr., Anab. 1 .1 2 .5 ; o n this ph en o m en o n see J. J. Flinterm an. Power, Paideia and Pythagoreanism (Am sterdam 19 9 5 ) 4 5 -5 1 , esp. 51.
37 L ines 1 2 1 -1 2 2 : ‘A n d let poets take up the great glory o f H ieron and proclaim
it abroad past th e Skythian sea’.
38 W h e n P to le m y V I P h ilo m e to r w as d riv e n fr o m A lex a n d ria an d fled to Rome,
th e k in g to o k u p re sid e n c e in th e h o u s e o f th e p a in ter, D e m e tr io s th e Topographer,
w h o h a d b e e n h is g u e s t in A lexan d ria (D io d . 3 1 .1 8 .2 ; V al. M a x . 5 .1 .1 ): k in g and
artist w e r e ea c h o th e r ’s xenoi, an d th is p resu p p o sed a mutual m ora l obligation to
o ffer h o sp ita lity a n d assistan ce. D io d o r o s cla im s th a t P h ilo m e to r liv ed in hum ble
circu m sta n ce s b u t it is u n lik e ly th a t a re n o w n ed artist w h o h a d g iv e n up the Ptole
m a ic co u r t fo r a b etter p o sitio n in R o m e w as a p o o r m an .
109
POETS ARE A K IN G’S BEST FR IEND S
R e c ip r o c it y
The reciprocal nature o f patronage is stressed repeatedly in Theokritos’ Idyll 16. Whatever it was th a t T heôkritos h o p ed to get from
Hieran, apart from his friendship, he expected it to com e as a g ift or, to be more precise, as a return gift, since he first had offered the
ruler a poem. The m orality o f xenia prescribed th a t if H ieron
accepted, he would be obliged to reciprocate. In the same vein Era
tosthenes dedicated his mathematical treatise On the Duplication o f
the Globe to Ptolemy III and another, untitled, treatise to Arsinoe
II.39Archimedes, upon visiting Alexandria, offered his host Ptolemy
Philadelphos the design o f a new w ater screw, w hich was successfully
employed to improve the fertility o f the N ile Valley.40 Favor could
however be refused. T he poet A ntiphanes once read a passage from a
new comedy of his to the Seleukid king, Alexandras Balas, ‘who,
however, made it plain th at he did n o t like it altogether’.41 This
apparently was exceptional enough to be recorded — non-acceptance
in all probability came normally in the form o f non-adm ittance into
the king s presence; refusal o f the poem aßer it had been recited, was
outrageous.
What were the benefits for the poets, scholars and scientists who
offered their work to kings? O f course one m ust first think o f material
rewards, as gift exchange can also function as a form o f economic
exchange42 But gift exchange moreover was a mechanism to deter
mine the social status o f both giver and recipient. The value o f
rewards was in part immaterial. Hegesianax received a gift o f money
and a court title from Antiochos the Great as a reward for having
entertained the king and his p h ih i by reciting his work.43 The Epi
curean philosopher Diogenes received status gifts, including the
39 Ath. 27b.
40 Diod. 1.34.2; Strabo 17.1.52; Vitr. 10.6.1-4.
41 Ath·555a.
,
c .L
,
42 Ptolemy Soter gave Strato o f Lampsakos the astronomical sum o f eighty tal
ents in return for tutoring his son (D iog. Laert. 5.58); Aristode was richly rewarded
for his services to the Argeads (Athen. 398e; Sen., D ial. 27.5; D iog. Laert. 5.12-6;
Gell i ’ nem etrlos o f Skepsis ap. Ath. 155b. T h e same Hegesianax served Antiochos
!
. . . envoy; he was sent to Greece in 196 to negotiate with the Roman comf S n in in u s (Prfyb. 18.50.4-5, A PP., S ,n 6).
110
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
c o s tu m e ( a n d th u s title ) o f a p h ilo s, fro m A lexandras Balas.44 In his
case th e r e c le a rly is n o s u b s ta n tia l d iffe re n c e w ith regular philoi. The
P to le m a ic ti d e o f epistates, th e h e a d o f th e mouseion,45 was an aulic
title , n o t u n lik e o th e r re a l a u lic titu la tu r e ’ su ch as chamberlain, epi
tropos, o r M a s te r o f th e (H u n tin g ) D o g s.
T h e p r o d u c tio n o f lite r a tu re a n d sch o larsh ip could be instrumental
in o b ta in in g access to th e p re s e n c e o f th e k in g , o r more precisdy, in
b e in g a d m itte d to ro y a l feasts. T h e re , statu s, favors and privileges
c o u ld b e o b ta in e d , n o t o n ly fo r o n e s e lf b u t also for one’s family and
frie n d s. G a in in g access to ro y a l b a n q u e ts to m a n y may have been
m o re im p o r ta n t th a n a c q u ir in g m a te ria l w ea lth as such. This in all
lik e lih o o d is th e b a c k g ro u n d to a w e ll-k n o w n saying o f Ktesibios of
C halkis. W h e n ask ed w h a t h e h a d g a in e d fro m w orking for the Ptole
m ies, K tesib io s iro n ic a lly re p lie d . Tree m e a ls!’46
C
o m p e t it io n a n d
in n o v a t io n
T h e c o u rt w as th e e p ic e n te r o f p o w e r. I t w as a place where the lines
se p aratin g th e h iera rc h ic a l layers o f so c ie ty co u ld be crossed. But to
w in th e favor o f th e k in g (o r th e q u e e n , a p rin ce, o r an important
philos) o n e h a d to a ttra c t a tte n tio n a n d d ispose o f a network o f per
so n al co n tac ts.47 O th e r p h ilo i a c te d as b ro k ers betw een the king (and
his in n e r circle) a n d th o se w ish in g to o b ta in favor. T h is set-up chal
lenged m e n to pro v e th e ir w o rth a n d d e m o n stra te their skills, in one
44 A th. 21 Id .
45 Strabo 1 7 .1 .8 .
46 A th. 4 .1 6 2 e —f. T h e centrality o f (ritualized) feasting at the Macedonian royal
courts is archaeologically attested by th e central place o f banqueting rooms
Candrones,) in H ellenistic palaces (N ielsen 1 994; H oepfn er 1996). That ‘symposia’,
viz., court feasts, w ere the principal (or at least initial) venues for the presentation
o f poetry has been stressed m ost em phatically by Cam eron 1995 and Barbantani
2 0 0 1 . O n courtly feasting at Alexandria see n o w Elena Calandra’s, The Ephemeral
an d the Eternal: The Pavilion o f Ptolem y Philadelphos in the court o f Alexandria.
Translated from the Italian by S. A . Buigess. Tripodes 13 (Athens 2011).
47 Kallim achos’ Victory ofSosihios is an interesting example o f a poem dedicated,
n o t to the king, but to a courtier o f high rank; Kallimachos furthermore wrote his*
Victory ofB erenikefot queen Berenike II, sister and w ife o f Ptolem y III. It is possible
that T heokritos w rote Idyll 15 for queen Arsinoe II, w ho had organized the Ad Festival that the poem describes.
on,a
POETS ARE A K IN G ’S BEST FR IE ND S
111
word, to distinguish them selves. A n d as th e fo cal p o in t fo r th e p res
entation of w ork was th e royal feast — th e b a n q u e t o r th e ‘sym posium’ __one also h a d to p ro v e th a t o n e w as able to entertain. A naxarchos of Abdera used his k n o w le d g e o f a to m is m to g ain access to
Alexander, who claim ed to be in te re ste d in th eo ries a b o u t in fin ity an d
enjoyed discussing th ese w ith A n a x a rc h o s, p ro b a b ly in p u b lic .48
Rivalry may have caused th e m a n n e ris m a n d e ru d itio n o f H ellenistic
literature, w ith its le a rn e d a llu sio n s a n d its p a rtia lity fo r obscure
myths and rare w ords. C o u r t p o e ts n e e d e d to d istin g u ish themselves
before an audience th a t w as c ritic a l a n d p ercep tiv e an d longed to be
confirmed in its self-im age as a n e d u c a te d u p p e r class.4950T h u s, even
‘propaganda’ texts like T h e o k rito s ’ e n c o m iu m fo r P to lem y Philadelphos or Kallimachos’ H y m n to Z e u s h a d to be literary masterpieces.
The entire set-up p re d ic a te d o n c o m p e titio n . H en ce th e envy that
according to som e sources sp o ile d th e a tm o sp h ere at th e mouseion,
including the n o to rio u s e n m ity b e tw een K allim achos a n d Apollonios. Rivalry could b e fo rm aliz e d as o p e n co n test w hen poets and
courtiers com peted, fo r in stan ce , b y w ritin g epigram s o n a given sub
ject.51 H ellenistic p o e ts e x p lic a te d th is rivalry in th e ir w ork; as
Jacqueline K looster has p o in te d o u t, ‘a lth o u g h this phenom enon
is not unique for A lexandrian p o ets, it is tu rn e d in to a central theme
of Hellenistic p o etry to an u n u su a l degree [and] continually empha
size how they are engaged in c o m p e titio n w ith th eir contemporaries,
their fellow-poets w o rk in g in th e co n tex t o f th e M ouseion and the
Ptolemaic co u rt.’52 C o m p e titio n also in d u ced technicians to invent
ingenious m irabilia to en tertain a n d amaze courtiers at symposia or
to impress th e k in g ’s subjects d u rin g festivals. F or instance D em o
chares designed a m agnetic device th a t could make a cult image o f
Arsinoe P h ilad elp h o s flo at in th e air, a p lan th a t was actually
48 D io g . Laert. 9 .6 0 - 3 ; P lu t., A lex. 8 , 2 8 , 5 2 .
49 W eb er 1 9 9 3 , 1 5 4 -1 6 4 , 1 6 6 -1 6 7 50 S trootm an 2 0 0 1 ; cf. 2 0 0 7 , 2 2 5 -2 2 7 - A lso see J. Klooster, T w isten over smaak.
D e p o sitio n erin g van d e d ich ter in hellen istisch e programmatische p o ëzie, in:
R. M van d en Berg, C . d e Jon ge, R . Strootm an eds., Alexandrie. Lampas 4 4 .4 (H il
versum 2 0 1 1 a ) 3 9 3 -4 0 8 , arguing persuasively that th e Alexandrian poets’ engagement
w ith th e w o rk o f b o th earlier a n d contem porary poets — either praising or criticizing
7 ' „ sh o u ld b e seen as a striving for cultural ‘distinction (in Bourdieu s terms).
51 p o r th e ev id e n c e see C am eron 1 9 9 5 , 8352 K lo o s t e r 2 0 1 1 , 3 9 3 .
112
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
e x e c u te d .53 In F ro m A le x a n d e r to A c ttu m Peter Green has collected
m a n y su ch m arvels, a list w o rth q u o tin g to give some impression of
w h a t w e n t o n at th e P to lem a ic court:
K tesibios’ w ater clock ... was clearly splendid entertainment: puppets
em erged, propelled by rack an d pin io n , black and white cones were
tu rn ed to show th e tim e, pebbles o r balls were dropped into a bronze
basin to co u n t th e hours, an d a t n o o n horns were blown by some kind
o f pneum atic device. Even m o re astonishing was the presentation, in
H ero ’s autom atic p u p p e t theatre, o f the dram a Nauplius, with dolphins
playing ro u n d a ship th a t sank in a storm , lured onto the rocks by
wreckers, leaving Ajax to swim ashore and be greeted by an epiphany
o f A thena am id th u n d e r an d lightning.54
T h ro u g h th e successful d e m o n s tra tio n o f su c h thaum ata., a technician
c o u ld w in esteem a n d p ra ise fr o m c o u rtie rs a n d king, which in turn
im p ro v e d h is statu s. F ro m th is c o n te x t ste m s a n epigram by the Alex
a n d ria n c o u rtie r H e d y lo s o f S a m o s (c. 2 7 0 ) p raisin g Ktesibios for
m a k in g a rh y to n in th e fo r m o f th e E g y p tia n g o d Bes which pro
d u c e d a tr u m p e t-s o u n d w h e n it w as u se d ; in th e poem , Hedylos
invites his fello w -co u rtiers to go a n d see th e rh y to n in the temple of
A rsinoe Z e p h y ritis, w h e re th e d evic e h a d been exhibited.55
C o m p e titio n fo r fav o r w as th u s in all lik e lih o o d a significant driv
in g force b e h in d tech n ical in n o v a tio n , a n d can h elp us explain the
ex p erim en tal n a tu re o f A le x a n d ria n lite ra tu re a n d a rt.56 T he court
53 Fraser 1 9 7 2 II, 16 8 . See also th e reconstruction o f the device in M. Pfromm er, Königinnen vom N il (M ainz am R hein 2 0 0 2 ), 6 1 -7 5 .
54 Green 1 9 9 0 , 4 7 9 .
55 W . Sw in nen, O v e r technologie in A lexandrie’, Hermeneus 5 7 (1985) 152161, esp. 153.
56 T h e com petitive nature o f H ellenistic science is emphasized by R. Netz, The
Transformation o f M athem atics in the Early M editerranean W orld: From Problems to
Equations (Cam bridge 2 0 0 4 ) 6 2 , w h o sees an inten se and sudden rise o f competi
tion at the beginning o f the H ellenistic A ge in th e field o f mathematics: ‘the space
o f [written] com m unication [became] an arena for confrontation, rather than for
solidarity. T h e relation envisaged between works is that o f polem ic. A Greek math
ematical text is a challenge’ (p. 62, cited from the review by A n n e M ahoney for
Bryn M aw r Classical Review 0 4 .1 0 .2 5 ); on poetic com petition at the Ptolemaic
court see further S. Barbantani, ‘C om petizioni poetiche tespiesi e mecenatismo tolem aico. U n gemellaggio tra l’antica e la nuova sede delle M use nella seconda metà
del III secolo a.C. Ipotesi su SH 9 5 9 ’, Lexis 18 (2000) 1 27-73, and T K W rer
Poetry as W indow an d M irror: H ellenistic Poets on Predecessors, Conter*
·
j
Themselves (P h D dissertation; University o f Amsterdam, 200?}
W
POETS ARE A K IN G ’S BEST FRIENDS
113
provided, on a regular basis, an educated audience that was both
receptive md influential. A t banquets and symposia poetry and trea
tises were read, inventions were demonstrated, new ideas proposed.
O f coarse, not all court poetry aimed exclusively at court circles.57
Some o f it may have been written for a broader audience o f (Greek)
politai. We can be sure however th a t m ost o f it was in the first
instance written for an elite circle o f educated royal friends, who were
eager for new things and who would return the most prestigious gifts,
and in the second instance for the members o f local (civic) elites all
over the Hellenistic world.58 H onor was a major driving force in the
life o f a Greek poet, and to be associated w ith such an elite milieu
increased one’s status more than success among lower levels o f soci
ety. The members of the upper level o f the court society each had
their own networks o f xenoi and maintained relations with their fami
lies cities of origin. The court as a result was the nucleus o f an inter
national elite infrastructure through which poems or ideas could cir
culate throughout the entire Hellenistic world.
C o n c l u sio n
In this chapter, I have argued that the place of artists, scholars, and
scientists at the royal court did not fundamentally differ from that of
other courtiers. They were not forced to become the ‘servants’ of
kings; there remained various other opportunities for them to work
and make a living. They voluntarily flocked to the courts for the same
reason other courtiers did too: because at court status, power and
privileges could be obtained, with inspiring artistic stimulus to boot.
An additional advantage for writers and scientists was the fact that
the court was the nexus of an international elite network through
which ideas and writings could spread. Although the court supplied
artists with subjects, there was only limited patron guidance, and
57
Griffiths 1979 and Zänker 1987 identify only Ptolemaic royal philoi as the
intended audience for Alexandrian poetry; as Zänker^ says, Alexandrian poetry
because o f its complexity obviously was not written for ‘the urban masses o f Alex-
^ ^ S e e ’th feen eral approach to the sociology o f reading in the Greek world by
ψ Johnson, Ancient Literacies: The Culture o f Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford
2009).
114
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
c lie n ts w e re le f t fre e to p u r s u e th e ir o w n goals. F or many of these
m e n , t h e i r ro le s as c o u rtie r s w a s in te g ra l to th e ir science or art, and
th e s e tw o a sp e c ts c a n n o t b e se p a ra te d .
A p p r e c ia tio n b y k in g s a n d th e ir p h ilo i gave authority to works of
lite r a tu r e o r p h ilo s o p h y .59 P h ilo i, a n d n o ta b ly th e king himself, were
c e rtifie d a rb ite rs o f ta ste . B e c a u se o f th e ir ra n k an d education they
q u a lifie d as ju d g e s o f q u a lity a n d m e rit, a n d th e ir approval contrib
u te d to th e a c c e p ta n c e o f n e w id e a s a n d a r t form s. As everyone knew,
A le x a n d e r h a d h is p o r tr a its m a d e b y L ysippos, w ho therefore must
h a v e b e e n th e g re a te st s c u lp to r alive. C onversely, th e fame of artists
a n d sc h o lars w as a d d e d to th e a c c u m u la te d prestige o f the patron.
W ritin g s a n d w o rk s o f a r t w e re o ffe re d to k in g s a n d courtiers as gifts
a n d su b s e q u e n tly b e c a m e th e ir p e rs o n a l possessions.
T h e b est p o e m to g iv e as a g ift to a k in g w as n o t necessarily lauda
to ry o f even c o n n e c te d w ith th e c o u r t d irectly. B u t such poems of
co u rse w ere m a d e . I n w h a t fo llo w s w e w ill ex am ine the contents of
p o e try th a t w as e x p lic id y c o n c e rn e d w ith th e em pire, the monarchy
o r th e c o u rt.
59 S tr o o tm a n 2 0 0 7 , cf. S. H o n ig m a n , ‘T h e n arrative fu n c tio n o f th e king and
th e library in th e L etter o f A ristea s’, in : T . R ajak, S . P earce, J. A itk en , J., Dines,
ed s., J e w ish P erspectives on H e lle n istic R u lers (B e r k e le y a n d L o s A n g e le s 2 0 0 8 ) 128'
1 4 6 , arg u in g th a t in th e L etter o f A risteas th e in v o lv e m e n t o f P to le m y Philadelphias
a n d th e R o y a l L ib rary at A lex a n d ria in th e tran slation o f th e P en ta teu ch were
in str u m e n ta l in th e e sta b lish m en t o f th e S e p tu a g in t as a p e rfec t an d, ultimately,
sa cred , text. O n Jew ish literatu re in H e lle n istic A lexan d ria see n o w S. H onigm an,
‘“Jew s as th e b est o f all G reek s”: C u ltu ral c o m p e titio n in th e literary w ork s o f Alex
a n d rian Ju daeans o f th e H e lle n istic P e rio d ’, in : E . S ta v ria n o p o u lo u , S h iftin g Social
Im a gin aries in th e H e lle n istic P e rio d : N arration s, Practices, a n d Im ages (L eiden and
B o s to n 2 0 1 3 ) 2 0 7 - 1 3 1 , cf. E. S. G ru en , H e rita g e a n d H ellen ism : T h e R einven tion o f
J ew ish T ra d itio n (B erkeley an d L os A n g eles 1 9 9 8 ) an d id ., J e w ish literature’, in:
J. J. C lau ss a n d M . C uyp ers ed s., A C om pan ion to H ellen istic L itera tu re iC h irh ^ rer
a n d M a ld e n 2 0 1 0 ) 4 1 5 - 4 2 8 .
C H A PTER SEVEN
P O W E R PO ETR Y :
IMAGES OF EMPIRE IN A LEX AN DRIA N C O U R T PO ETR Y
P r a is in g
t h e k in g a n d q u e e n
Most literature produced by the courts seems to be n o t concerned
with kingship in a very direct m anner. T his has often led scholars to
the conclusion that most court literature was n o t connected with the
monarchy or the court, viz., th at only panegyric poetry like Theokritos’ Encomiumfor Ptolemy (.Idyll 17) or epinician poetry such as Kallimachos’ Victory o f Sosibios counts as court poetry p u r sang. This o f
course is particularly true o f the older literature. For instance Fritz
Taeger in his magnum opus on G reek and Roman ruler worship,
Charisma, defends at length the view th a t nowhere in the works of
the Alexandrian poets and Aratos reference to ‘official ruler cult’ can
be found.1 However, aspects o f the deification o f rulers can be found
for instance in Kallimachos’ H ym n to Delos, where Ptolemy II Philadelphos is put on a par w ith Apollo as a divine sôtër. The divine
nature of kingship is also apparent in Theokritos’ Idyll 17 and in
Kallimachos’ Lock o f Berenike. In the latter poem. Queen Berenike
cuts off a lock o f her hair and dedicates it to Aphrodite in return for
the save return o f her husband, Ptolem y III, from a campaign against
the Seleukids. After Ptolemy’s return, the lock has mysteriously disap
peared from the temple. It then reappears in the sky as a constella
tion, still known as Coma Berenices. T he text has to be recon
structed from papyrus fragments, w ith the help o f a Latin version that
Catullus later made.2 Steven Jackson has pointed out how several
features of the original poem evoked aspects of Ptolemaic ruler cult,
1 F Taeger, Charisma. Studien z u r Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes. Band
1: Hellas (Stuttgart 1957) 3 7 3 -3 8 0 .
, t ,, .
2 For the textual tradition see P. Bing, ‘Reconstructing Berenikes L ock , in:
G W M ost, ed.. Collecting Fragments (Gottingen, 1997) 78-94, and N . Maxinone,
Berenice daC allim aco a Catullo. Testo critico, traduzione e commento (2nd edn Bolo
gna 1997).
116
T H E B IR D C A G E OF T H E MUSES
a rg u in g t h a t th e m o t i f o f th e lo c k m a y refer to the act o f ritual hair
c u ttin g c o n n e c te d w ith th e c u lt o f Isis a n d O siris.3
B u t th e basic n o tio n t h a t th e p ro d u c tio n o f co u rt poetry is some
h o w to b e d is c o n n e c te d fr o m th e c re a tio n o f official’ royal ideology
— th a t a t b e st it m e re ly conveys th is id eo lo g y — continued to be the
p re v a le n t o p in io n in sc h o la rsh ip u n til th e late tw entieth century.4It
is n o w m o re o fte n a c c e p te d th a t c o u rt p o etry , an d in particular pan
egyric, c o u ld be in s tru m e n ta l in c re a tin g im perial and royal ideology
ra th e r th a n m e re ly re fle c tin g it .5
A s w e have seen in a p re v io u s c h a p te r, n on-laudatory poetry can
still be co n sid e re d c o u rt p o e tr y becau se it usually tended to concen
tra te o n to p ic s fa v o re d a t c o u rt, fo r exam ple etiological myth or
b u co lic fantasy, o r b ecau se i t re fe rre d im p lic itly to court life. Mean
w hile, e n o u g h ru le r p ra ise h a s b een preserved to be certain that this
w as a card in al th e m e in A le x a n d ria n c o u rt p oetry. In this chapter we
w ill have a lo o k a t th e su b sta n c e o f th e la tte r category o f texts.
M u c h o f th e m o s t o u tr ig h t p a n eg y ric p o e try m ay have been lost
since it w as o fte n o ccasio n al p o e try , p e rh a p s never m ean t to be writ
te n d o w n a t all.6 S till, e n o u g h o f it h a s survived to descry some
3
S. Jackson, ‘C allim achus, Coma Berenices: O rigins’, in id.. Mainly Apollonius.
Collected Studies (Am sterdam 2 0 0 4 ); cf. L. Llewellyn-Jones and S. Winder, A key
to Berenike’s Lock? T h e H ath oric m o d el o f queenship in early Ptolemaic Egypt,
in: A . Erskine and L. L lew ellyn-Jones eds.. Creating a H ellenistic World (Swansea
and O xford 2 0 1 1 ) 2 4 7 -2 7 0 , em phasizing the role o f the iconography o f the goddess
H athor (herself a precursor o f Isis) in the creation o f the royal image o f Berenike.
O n the identification o f Ptolem aic queens w ith Isis in general see D . Seiden, Ali
bis’, Classical A ntiquity 17.2 (1 9 9 8 ) 2 9 0 -4 2 0 , esp. 3 2 6 -5 4 ; D . Plantzos, ‘The ico
nography o f assimilation: Isis and royal imagery on Ptolem aic seal impressions, in:
P. Io ssif, A . S. C h a n k o w sk i, C . C . L orb er e d s.. M o r e th a n M e n , Less than Gods:
S tu d ies on R o y a l C u lt a n d I m p e r ia l W orship. Proceedings o f th e In tern a tio n a l Confer
ence o rg a n ize d b y th e B elgian S ch ool a t A th en s, 1 - 2 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 (Leuven 2011)
3 8 9 - 4 1 6 ; an d H . H a u b e n , ‘P to lé m é e III e t B érén ice II, d iv in ité s cosm iq u es’, in:
Iossif, C h a n k o w sk i ed s. (2 0 1 1 ) 3 5 7 - 3 8 8 . F or in terpretation s o f th is p o em see fur
th er G u tzw iller 1 9 9 2 . S ee also b elo w . C h ap ter 8.
4 S ee e.g . W e b e r 1 9 9 2 a n d 1 9 9 3 .
5 G elzer 1 9 8 2 ; H u n te r 1 9 9 6 a a n d 2 0 0 3 a ; S eid en 1 9 9 8 ; S tep h e n s 1 9 9 9 and
2 0 0 3 ; B arb an tani 2 0 0 1 .
6 I u se ‘p an egyric’ o r e n c o m iu m ’ as general term s to d e n o te a p o e m in praise o f
a p erson , v iz ., a k in g or q u een . F or a d iscu ssion o f th e tech n ical d ifferen ce between
various form s o f G reek lau d atory p oetry — praise (έπαινος), e n co m iu m (έγκω νιηον)
p a n e g y ric (π α ν η γ υ ρ ικ ό ς ) , e p id e ic tic (επ ιδ εικ τικ ός) — see j ) R usse]|
POWER POETRY: IM AGES O F EM PIRE
117
returning motives. T he m ost n o ta b le o f these is th e im age o f the
entire world as a single em p ire.7 E p ig ram s co u ld celebrate m ajor
events of the courts or successes o f th e dynasty o r be dedicated to
deities associated w ith th e m o n a rc h y o r w ith deified m onarchs.8
There are for instance several epigram s connected w ith the sanctuary
ofArsinoe Aphrodite on C ape Z ep h y rio n . T h e y were w ritten by vari
ous poets, among them Poseidippos an d Kallim achos.9 T hree dedica
tory epigrams by Poseidippos, com m issioned by th e Ptolem aic adm i
ral Kallikrates, exalt the deified A rsinoe II Philadelphos and are
perhaps to be associated w ith th e d edication o f a statue o f A phroditeArsinoe by Kallikrates. T h e second o f these reads:
Both on land a nd o n sea k eep in y o u r prayers
this o f A p h ro d ite A r sin o e P h ila d elp h o s.
She it was, ruling over th e Z ep h y r ia n p ro m o n to ry .
W hom Kallikrates, th e adm iral, w a s th e first to consecrate.10
Ruler praise and im perialist propaganda was often incorporated in
poetry dealing w ith mythological subjects. Theokritos, for instance,
wrote poems on the ‘royal gods’ H erakles and Dionysos (Idyll 24
panegyrists and their teachers’, in: M . W h itb y ed .. The Propaganda o f Power. The
ole o f Panegyric in L ate A n tiq u ity (L eiden, B oston , C ologn e 1998) 17-49, esp.
8-21. For the courtly con text o f th e A rgonau tika see R. L. H unter, The Argonau
tica o f Apollonius (C am bridge 1 9 9 3 ) 1 5 2 -1 6 9 .
R. Strootman, ‘H ellenistic imperialism and the ideal o f world unity’, in: C. Rapp
and H. Drake eds., City-Empire-Christendom : Changing Contexts o f Power a n d Identity
in Antiquity (Cambridge 2 0 1 3 ), and id. 2 0 0 7 , 2 3 6 -2 4 6 . T h e same theme is also
noticeable in (late) R om an panegyric, cf. U . Asche, Roms Weltherrschafisidee undAussenpolitik in der Spätantike im Spiegel der Panegyrici Latini (Bonn 1983); and R Rees,
Layers o f Loyalty. Latin Panegyric, A D 2 8 9 - 3 0 7 (Oxford 2002) 88-89.
8 O n the monarchical dim ensions o f Alexandrian epigram see A. Ambiihl, “‘Tell,
all ye singers, m y fame”: Kings, queens and nobility in epigram’, in: P. Bing and
J. S. Bruss eds., B rills Companion to Hellenistic Epigram (Leiden and Boston 2007).
9 See M . Fantuzzi and R. L. H unter, Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic
Poetry (Cambridge 2 0 0 4 ) 3 7 7 -3 9 1 , and A m biihl 2 0 0 7 , w ith the references collected
in note 16.
10 Poseidippos 11 9 .1 -4 AB; transi. A m biihl; on these poems see S. Stephens,
‘Posidippus’ poetry book: W here M acedon meets Egypt’, in: W . V. Harris and
G. Ruffini eds.. Ancient Alexandria Between Egypt and Greece (Leiden and Boston
2004); M . Fantuzzi, ‘Posidippus at court: T h e contribution o f the Hippika o f
PM irh Vod. VIII 3 0 9 , to the Ptolem aic kingship’, in: K. J. Gutzwiller ed., The
New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford and N ew York 2005) 249-268;
and A m biihl 2 007.
118
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
a n d 2 6 ) . In th e A i t i a , K a llim a c h o s’ c o lle c tio n o f poems on origins
(b u t a lso o n e v o lu tio n a n d p ro g ress), H erakles figures prominently
a n d th e p o e t e m p h a siz e s H e r a k le s ro le as a savior and culture hero
w h o sp read s cu ltu r e in th e barbaric p e r ip h e r y ; exte n d in g the limits
o f c iv iliz a tio n .11 A p o lio n io s* d e p ic tio n o f Jason as p rim u s inter parts
a m o n g th e A r g o n a u ts p e r h a p s r e fle c te d th e p o sitio n o f the early
P to le m ie s vis-à -v is th eir p h ilo i, in p articu lar th e members o f the sumd r io n .12 A m o r e o b v io u s c o n n e c tio n w ith im perial ideology in Apol
io n io s ’ w o r k is th e im a g e o f th e A r g o n a u ts’ travelling to the ends of
th e earth, lea v in g a trail o f sacred o b jects an d rituals wherever they
g o , an d th e cru cial th e m e o f te n s io n b etw een order and chaos.13
11 A . H a rd er, ‘R o n d o m d e iv o r e n to r e n : H e lle n is tis c h e poëzie als l’an pour
l ’art?’, Lam pas 3 8 .3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) 2 3 9 - 2 4 8 , esp . 2 4 6 ; cf. id . T h e invention o f past, pre
s en t a n d fu tu re in C a llim a ch o s’ A itia ’, H erm es 13 1 (2 0 0 3 ) 2 9 0-306. Also see Zänker
1 9 8 7 , arguing th a t A lex a n d ria n p o e ts c o n s c io u sly e m p lo y e d in the context o f myth
enargeia (‘v iv id n e ss’), a n d references to ev ery d a y life, in order to make myths seem
m o re ‘real’. O n ‘realism ’ in H e lle n is tic p o e tr y see N . O tto , Enargeia. Untersuchun
gen zu r C harakteristik alexandrinischer D ich tu n g (S tu ttg a rt 2 0 0 9 ), pointing out how
banality a n d th e c o m ic a lly lo w are e m p lo y e d particularly in heroic contexts to create
enargeia (cited after J. K lo o ster in Bryn M a w r C lassical R eview 2010-03, No. 09).
A ll evid en ce a ttestin g to th e en orm ou s im p o rta n c e o f th e figu re o f Herakles in Hel
len istic royal id e o lo g y is co lle cted a n d d iscu ssed b y U . H ü ttn er, D ie politische Roue
der H eraklesgestalt im griechischen H errschertum . H isto r ia Einzelschriften 112 (Stutt
gart 1 9 9 7 ).
12 H o se 1 9 9 7 , 6 0 . A lso see A M o ri, The P olitics o f Apollonius Rhodius’Argonau
tica (C am b ridge and N e w Y ork 2 0 0 8 ) , e x a m in in g h o w th is retelling o f heroic
adventure set in th e m ythical p ast reflects th e p o litica l, religious, and ethical dynam
ics o f its o w n day: according to M o ri, A p o llo n iu s characterizes the Ptolemies as
piou s, civilized rulers and relates the ‘civ ilizin g m is s io n ’ o f th e A rgonauts to the
ideological construction o f H e lle n ic id e n tity in th ird -cen tury Egypt. T h e monarchic
in ten t o f th eA rgonauttka non etheless rem ains a m atter o f debate; A p olion ios’ Jason
at any rate d o es n o t provide a very in sp irin g hero ic m o d el, cf. R. L. H unter ‘Le
“A rgonautiche” di A p o llo n io ', in: M . Fantuzzi and R . H u n ter, M use e modelli. La
poesia ellenistica da Alessandro M agno a d Augusto (R o m e and Bari 2002) 121-75»
esp. 1 3 0 -1 3 7 , unless he is supposed to be presented as a prim u s in ter pares. But
perhaps w e shou ld n ot lo o k for a m onarchical bu t rather for an im perial subtext, as
is don e by S. A . Stephens, ‘W riting E pic for the P tolem aic C ourt', in: M . A . Harder
et al. eds., Apolionios o f Rhodes (Leuven 2 0 0 1 ) 1 9 5 - 2 1 5 .
13 S te p h e n s 2 0 0 1 . N o ta b ly th e p e o p le s liv in g a ro u n d th e B la c k S ea are presented
b y A p o lio n io s as b e in g far re m o v e d ‘fr o m Z e u s ’ (th a t is, fr o m c iv iliz a tio n ) · this is
sig n ifie d m o s t clea rly b y th eir reje ctio n o f x e n ia in th eir d e a lin g s w it h r h l
n a u ts, cf. B . P a v lo ck , ‘T h e B la c k S ea P e o p le s in A p o llo n iu s ’ Artronai»».- » ?
G . R . T s e ts k h la d z e e d ., G re ek a n d R o m a n S ettlem en ts on th e B la c k S e a ^ C ^
POWER POETRY: IMAGES O F EMPIRE
119
The A m too includes tales a b o u t (political and cultural) expansion,
as well as the p rom ise o f a Golden Age12*14, all o f which are subjects
typically connected w ith e m p ire.
Four encomiastic p o e m s o f T h e o k r it o s h a v e stood the test o f
time,15 as well as encomiastic passages dedicated to Ptolemy II in
Idyll 15 and n otably in Id yll 1 4 , a p o e m concerned w ith sympotic
culture, emphasizing th e s y m p o s io n s fu n c tio n as a locus for royal gift
distribution w hile pra isin g Ptolemy s generosity:
Kindly a lover o f cu ltu re, am o ro u s, e x c e e d in g ly p leasan t;
Knowing w ho loves h im an d , ev e n m o r e , w h o d o e s n ’t;
giving generally to m an y, a n d w h e n ask ed n o t refu sin g,
he is a m odel o f k in gsh ip — b u t y o u s h o u ld n ’t a lw a y s b e asking,
Aischines.16
By Kallimachos w e fu rtherm ore h a v e (fra g m en ts of) seven p an egyric
poems, three panegyric in tertex ts in h y m n s, a n d ep in icia n o d es fo r
two courtiers and a q u e e n .17 K a llim a ch o s a n d T h e o k r ito s w ere active
( radford 1994) 14: In the case o f Aeëtes, the im piety towards Zeus is most per
vasive, and his implicit challenge to Zeus’s authority is portrayed in the narrative by
a significant cluster o f images o f Giants and Gigantomachy.’ The images o f Gigantomachy and Titanomachy were employed to propagate the ideal o f the king as
vanquisher o f barbarians and champion o f order and civilization; on Giants/Titans
m Hellenistic poetry, esp. the Hymn to Delos, see Mineur 1984, 171-185; cf. Hunter
993, 162-9. A systematic analysis o f the itinerary o f the Argos is offered by
. J. Clare, The Path o f the Argo. Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argonau
tica ofApollonios o f Rhodes (Cambridge 2002) 33-83, and 119-172 for the home
ward journey; on order-disorder as a theme in the Argonautika see pp. 231-60;
cf· J· J- Clauss, ‘Cosmos w ithout imperium: the Argonautic journey through time’,
in: M. A. Harder et al. eds., Apollonius o f Rhodes (Leuven 2000) 11-32. Mori 2008
stresses the implicit depiction in the Argonautika o f Ptolemaic monarchy as a civiliz
ing project.
14 Harder 2005, 246.
15 To Hieron (Id 16), To Ptolemy Philadelphos (Id. 17), Hymn to Berenike (fr. 3
G), and Marriage o f Arsinoe (SH 961; this poem has also been ascribed to Poseidippos). All of Theokritos’ encomiastic texts are comprehensively discussed in
W. Meincke, Untersuchungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedichten Theokrits (PhD dis
sertation; University of Kiel, 1965).
16 Theocr., Id. 14, 11. 61-65; transi. Gow. On this passage see Burton 1995,
12^ Panegyric: The Lock o f Berenike (fr. 110 Pfeiffer), The W edding o f Berenike
(fr 392 P) The Deification o f Berenike (fr. 228 P.), Elegy to Magas a nd Berenike
(fr 388P) the Charités Epigram (Ep. 51, in praise of Berenike the wife of Ptolemy
120
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
at th e P to lem a ic co u rt u n d er P to le m y II Philadelphos and PtoiemyM
E u ergetes. E u p h o r io n , c o u r t librarian o f A n tioch os III, wrote an
e u lo g y o f S eleu k os N ik a to r ,18 a n d a p o e m for a certain Hippomedon,
perhaps th e k n o w n co u rtier o f P to le m y II I.19 Epigrams written by
P o se id ip p o s for th e p r o m in e n t P to le m a ic p h ilo i Kallikrates and
Sostratos have su rvived ,20 as w e ll as anagrams o f the names PtoJem aios and A rsinoe b y L y k o p h ro n .21 F or sure, panegyric was no minor
genre.
W
orld
Em
p ir e a n d
G
olden
A
ge
T h e c o u rt su p p lie d p o e ts a n d p h ilo so p h e rs w ith a plethora of aulic
topics a n d fo rm s — etio lo g y , d y n a stic h isto ry , pastoral fantasy, urban
m im e , p an eg y ric, e p ig ra m , ‘F ü rs te n s p ie g e f. A n d o f course mytho
logical su b jects th a t c o u ld be d ire c tly o r in d ire c tly associated with
k in g sh ip o r em p ire: th e b a ttle b e tw e e n th e G o d s and the Titans (or
G iants) as a m e ta p h o r fo r m ilita ry v ic to ry o v er barbarians; the pri
m o rd ial go ld en age as a p a ra d ig m fo r im p e ria l ru le; Z eus, Apollo, and
A rtem is (th o u g h su rp risin g ly h a rd ly D io n y so s, w h o figures so proniin en tly in P to lem y P h ila d e lp h o s’ G ra n d Procession); an d the civilizing
III), H y m n to D e b s , a n d H y m n to Z e u s (th e la tte r tw o in p ra ise o f P to lem y II). The
in ter tex ts are in H y m n s 1, 2 , a n d 4 . E p in ic ia n o d e s : V ictory o f Sosibios (fr. 3 8 4 and
P .O x y 1 7 9 3 , 2 2 5 8 ) , V ictory o f P o ly k b s o f.A ig in a (fr. 1 9 8 P .), a n d Victory o f Berenike
(S H 2 5 4 - 2 6 9 ) ; cf. T . F ü h rer, ‘C a llim a c h u s ’ e p in ic ia n p o e m s ’, in : M A . Harder et
a l. ed s., C allim ach u s. H e lle n is tic a G r o n in g a n a 1 (G r o n in g e n 1 9 9 3 ) 7 9 -9 7 , and
S . B arb an tan i, ‘H e lle n is tic e p in ic ia n ’, in : C . C a rey , R . R a w ies, P. A g o cs eds.,
R eceivin g th e K o m o s: A n c ie n t a n d m o d e m R eception s o f th e V ictory O de. B IC S Sup
p le m e n t 1 1 2 (L o n d o n 2 0 1 2 ) 3 7 - 5 5 . F o r th e p o e m s a n d fra g m en ts o f Kallimachos
c o n s u lt n o w th e e d itio n w ith c o m m e n ta r y b y M . A . H a r d e r, C allim achu s: Aetia
(2 vols; O x fo r d 2 0 1 2 ) . O n m o n a rch ic a l id e o lo g y in th e w ritin g s o f K allim achos and
o th er H e lle n istic p o e ts also s ee S . B arb an tan i, ‘I d é o lo g ie royale e t littératu re d e cour
d a n s l ’É g y p te la g id e’, in : I. S avalli-L estrad e a n d I. C o g ito r e ed s.. D e s rois a u prince:
p r a tiq u e s d u p o u v o ir m o n a rch iq u e d a n s l ’O r ie n t h ellén istiq u e e t ro m a in (Γ / e siècle
a v a n t J .-C . - I l e siècle après J - C . ) (G r en o b le 2 0 1 0 ) 2 2 7 - 2 5 1 , an d id ., ‘C allim achus
o n k in gs a n d k in g sh ip ’, in : B. A c o sta -H u g h e s, L. L eh n u s, S. S tep h e n s ed s.. B rill’s
C o m pan ion to C allim ach u s (L eid en an d B o sto n 2 0 1 1 ) .
18 S u da, s.v. ‘E u p h o r io n ’.
19 E u p h o r io n , fr. 1 7 4 P feiffer (C A 5 8 ), a n d fr. 3 0 P. (C A 3 6 ) .
20 Fraser 1 9 7 2 I, 5 5 7 ; W eb er 1 9 9 3 , 4 2 4 . O n th ese texts s ee A m b ü h l 2 0 0 7
21 ‘O f H o n e y ’, an d ‘V io le ts o f H era’ (M in e u r 1 9 8 5 , 1 2 8 ).
POW ER PO ETRY: IM A G E S O F E M P IR E
121
söter Herakles, a u n iv e r s a l G r e e k h e r o a r o u n d w h o m a ll p a r t ic ip a n t s
in Greek cu ltu re c o u ld u n i t e ’.22
The diversity o f to p ic s f a v o r e d a t c o u r t c a n b r o a d l y b e p u t t o g e t h e r
in two m ain th e m e s : t h e id e a l o f u n iv e r s a l e m p i r e a n d t h e p r o m i s e
of a golden age.
Claims to u n iv e r s a lity c a n b e s e e n f ir s t o f a ll i n t h e a s s o c ia t io n o f
terrestrial m o n a r c h y w i t h t h e h e a v e n l y k i n g s h i p o f Z e u s , a n d i n t h e
comparison o f r o y a l r u le w i t h t h e p o w e r o f t h e s u n . T h e m o t i f o f
universal e m p ir e , v iz ., s o la r i m a g e r y , w a s a ls o a l e i t m o t i f i n t h e r itu a l
and icon ograp h ie r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f t h e P t o l e m a i c m o n a r c h y .23 C lo s e ly
associated w it h t h e d r e a m o f w o r l d e m p i r e is t h e p r o m i s e o f a g o ld e n
age o f peace a n d p r o s p e r it y , a n o t i o n a ls o c e n t r a l t o p u b l i c r o y a l r itu a ls
such as th e G r a n d P r o c e s s i o n o f P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h o s a n d t h e la te
Ptolemaic D o n a t i o n s o f A le x a n d r ia ’ c e r e m o n y , w h e r e K le o p a t r a V I I
daim ed ru le r sh ip o v e r t h e c o m b i n e d P t o l e m a i c a n d S e le u k i d e m p ir e s
at their g r e a te s t e x t e n t s . A s i n e a r lie r N e a r E a s t e r n , v iz ., E g y p tia n ,
cultures, P t o le m a ic k i n g s h i p w a s b e l i e v e d t o b e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e
prosperity a n d f e r t ilit y o f t h e l a n d . 24 M o r e o v e r t h e r u le r w a s p r e s e n te d
as a d iv in e o r s e m i - d i v i n e s a v io r w h o s e m il it a r y p r o w e s s s a fe g u a r d e d
peace a n d t r a n q u ilit y . I n p o e t i c a l f i c t i o n t h e s h e p h e r d s y m b o liz e s th e
peaceful life , a n d p a r t ic u la r ly i n b u c o l i c p o e t r y t h e w o r ld is id e a liz e d
as a p la c e o f b lis s w h e r e t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f l o v e a re t h e m a in w o r r y o f
J· h- L ig h tfo o t, ‘C a llim a c h u s ’, J o u r n a l o f H e lle n ic S tu dies 1 3 3 (2 0 1 3 ) 1 4757, at 1 5 2 . T h e w id e s p r e a d a d o p tio n s o f a G r eek -sty le H erak les in ‘in d ig en o u s’
contexts in th e H e lle n is tic a n d R o m a n N e a r E ast su g g est th at th e hero w as able to
go across cu ltu ral b o u n d a r ie s a n d sp e a k to th e in terests o f n o n -G ree k p eop les as
well.
23 O n th e im p o r ta n c e o f u n iv ersa l em p ir e in H e lle n istic , viz., P tolem aic, royal
ideology see S tr o o tm a n 2 0 0 7 , 3 4 9 - 3 5 7 , 2 0 1 0 a , a n d 2 0 l 4 d ; an d B an g 2 0 1 2 ; o n the
significance o f u n iv ersa lism fo r em p ir es in gen eral see B an g 2 0 1 1 , B an g & K olodziejczyk 2 0 1 2 , a n d S tr o o tm a n 2 0 1 0 b . F o r th e P to le m a ic state as a universal em p ire see
above, C h a p ter 1. E x a m p le s o f P to le m a ic u n iversalistic id eology, an d th e centrality
o f A lexan d ria in th e w o r ld , in P to le m a ic co u rt p oetry have also b een com p iled b y
I. P etrovic, ‘P o s id ip p u s an d A c h a e m e n id royal prop agand a’, in: R . H u n ter, A. R en gakos, E . E . S ista k o u e d s ., H e lle n istic S tu dies a t a Crossroads: E xplorin g Texts, Con
texts a n d M e ta te x ts (B er lin 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 3 0 0 .
.
.
24 A C o p p o la , T m is te r i e la p o litic a d ei prirni T o le m e i, in : C . B o n n et,
T R ü o k e P S carp i e d s .. R eligion s orientales - cu lti m isterici: N eu e Perspektiven - nonJ‘ „ /
’f i kt i ve s - p ro sp e ttive nuove. I m R ah m en des trilateralen Projektes ‘L es religions
i f ^ Z T d Z l e m o n d e g re c o -ro m a in . A ltertum swissenschaftliche Beiträge 1 6 (Stutt
gart 2 0 0 6 ) 2 1 1 - 2 1 8 .
122
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
m e n a n d g o d s a lik e .25 I n th e A rg o n a u tik a , to o , herdsm en are associated
w ith a n id y llic w o r ld o f o r d e r a n d p ea c e ; th e pastoral communities
t h a t th e A rg o n a u ts e n c o u n te r d u r in g th e ir voyage are sometimes delib
e ra te ly r e m in is c e n t o f H e s io d ’s d e s c rip tio n o f th e mythic Golden
A g e.26 T h e p ro m is e o f a g o ld e n age is also p ro m in e n t in Theokritos’
Id y ll 16 a n d 17, a n d in K a llim a c h o s’ H y m n to Delos.
I n o th e r lite ra ry te x ts th e o p p o s ite o f th e royal o rd er is put to the
fo re: th e b a rb a ria n , p e rip h e ra l ‘o th e r ’ w h o th re a te n s civilization but
is v a n q u is h e d b y H e ra k le s o r th e k in g , o r v o lu n ta rily adopts Hellenic
c u ltu re . A c a rd in a l tr a it o f m u c h c o u r t lite ra tu re is its emphasis on
th e p ro g ress a n d e x p a n sio n o f c iv iliz a tio n . T h is is th e case with Kalli
m a c h o s ’ c o lle c tio n o f p o e tr y , th e A itia . I n th e A itia, Kallimachos’
p o e m s a b o u t H e ra k le s c o n c e n tra te o n th e h e ro ’s role as savior and
civilizer; H e ra k le s d e fe a ts m o n s te rs a n d pacifies barbaric peoples by
in tro d u c in g G re e k c u ltu re , o fte n in th e fo rm o f th e establishment of
(G reek) cu lts.27 A sim ila r ro le is p la y e d b y H e rak les in the Argonau
tika; th e H e ra k le s o f A p o llo n io s, as S u sa n S te p h e n s has pointed out,
rep resen ts ‘a fig u re w h o b e lo n g s to [...] a c o n c e p tu a l fram e in which
th e M e d ite rra n e a n is p o p u la te d b y m o n s te rs w h o need to be removed
before th e co u rse o f c iv ilizatio n ca n p ro c e e d . A n d i t is fo r this activity
th a t H eracles u ltim a te ly is elev ated to O ly m p u s, “to dwell with the
im m o rta ls” (1 .1 3 1 9 )’.28 I t is po ssib le, I w o u ld argue, to go one step
fu rth e r, a n d c o n te n d th a t th is is w h a t m a d e H erak les into such a
su ita b le p a ra d ig m fo r d iv in e k in g s h ip : H e ra k le s is a m ortal who
becom es an O ly m p ia n g o d afte r d e a th because in life h e d id the work
o f th e gods: creating p eace a n d o rd er b y d efe a tin g chaos. Herakles,
like th e k in g , is a sôtêr, a n d th e re fo re d iv in e .29 L ik e Herakles, the
25 O n the genre o f pastoral poetry consult M . Fantuzzi and T. Papanghelis eds..
B rills Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral (Leiden 2006), and K. J. Gutzwilier,
Theocritus’Pastoral Analogies : The Formation o f a Genre (M adison 1991).
26 H . BernsdorfiF, H irten in der nicht-bukolischen Dichtung des Hellenismus.
Paiingenesia 7 2 (Stuttgart 2 0 0 1 ) 66-89; cf. e.g. Argon. 2 .6 4 9 -6 6 0 ; 4.964-978.
27 Harder 2 0 0 5 , 2 4 6 .
28 Stephens 2 0 0 1 , 161.
29 Strootm an 2 0 0 7 ; cf. S. H itch , ‘H ero cult in A pollon ius R hodius’, in:
M . A . Harder, R. F. R egtuît, G. C . W akker eds., Gods and Religion in Hellenistic
Poetry. H ellenistica G roningana 16 (Leuven 2 0 1 2 ) 1 3 1 -162, n otin g the connection
between the heroization and deification o f the protagonists o f the Argonautika in
the poem ’s hym n ic endin g w ith Ptolem aic ruler cult.
POWER POETRY: IM AGES OF EM PIRE
IZ c
iorkine, Ptolemy Soter, too, is elevated to O lym p o s to dw ell w ith
hi immortals, as Theokritos’ describes in his seventeenth Idyll. In
Ms poem, Theokritos equates the king rather explicitly w ith H erak
les, as well as with the likewise deified Alexander, as we will see below.
Fro m Z eus
to
Ptolem y
The comparison o f Zeus, the principle o f divine harm ony, with the
king, the principle of world order, was n o t only popular in philo
sophical, particularly Stoic, writing, but is present in court poetry as
well. It is for instance a pivotal element o f Aratos’ poetic cosmology.
It is also an essential feature o f Theokritos’ seventeenth Idyll, which
gives a lot of attention to Philadelphos’ birth and the deification o f
his parents. Idyll 17, an encomium for Ptolemy Philadelphos, was
perhaps written for the king’s birthday or coronation anniversary, or,
more likely, the anniversary of the apotheosis o f Ptolemy Soter and
Berenike, viz., the celebration of the Ptolemaia Festival.30 In the
opening lines of Idyll 17 Theokritos says:
With Zeus let us begin and w ith h im . M u ses, le t us end,
for in our song and praise h e is sup rem e a m o n g th e im m ortals.
But when singing o f m en let P to lem y b e n am ed first,
last and throughout, for h e is th e m o st excellent o f m en .31
Zeus is K ing o f H e a v e n , P to le m y is K in g o f th e W o r ld . F u rth er o n in
the poem , T h e o k r ito s refin es th is n o tio n . W h e n P to le m y w a s b orn ,
he says, th e h eaven s o p e n e d a n d a great eagle d escen d ed : ‘a b ird o f
omen, a sign fro m Z e u s’. T h r e e tim e s th e eagle cries ab ove th e cradle,
prodaim ing th a t P to le m y is Z eu s’ ch o sen o n e .32 A t th at p o in t T h eo k ri
tos has already d escrib ed h o w h is father, P to le m y S oter, has acq u ired
a place a m o n g th e go d s o n M o u n t O ly m p o s after h is ap oth eosis:
N o w the Bather has even made h im equal in honor to the blessed
Immortals and a golden throne in the house o f Zeus
mΛ
most of all the introduction to R. L. Hunters edition and
nm«itarySEncomium o f Ptolemy Philadelphus (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London
2003>) Theocr„ Id. 17.1-4.
33 Ibid.. 79-84.
124
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
was m ade for him .33 Beside him in friendship sits Alexander,
destroyer o f the Persians, the god o f the glittering crown.
Facing him the seat o f Herakles the Kentaur-slayer
has been established, made from solid adamant;
here he joins in feasting w ith the heavenly ones,
rejoicing above all in the sons o f his sons
from whose limbs the son o f Kronos has lifted old age,
and his own descendants are called immortals now.34
P to le m y S oter has b eq u e a th e d to h is son a limitless empire and inex
h austible w ealth, tu rn in g th e P to lem aic oikos into the symbolic center
o f th e w orld:
[ . . . ] A ll th e sea a n d all th e la n d
a n d th e r u s h in g rivers are s u b je c t to P to le m y .
H u g e n u m b e r s o f h o r s e m e n g a th e r a r o u n d h im ,
h u g e n u m b e r s o f s h ie ld -b e a r in g w arriors cla d in glittering bronze.
H e is m o r e w e a lth y th a n a ll o th e r k in g s tog eth er,
su c h rich es arrive e a c h d a y a t h is s u m p tu o u s oikos
fr o m all d ir e c tio n s [ . . . ] . 35
W h ere P hiladelphos h olds sway, peace rules:
( . . . ) H is p e o p le ca n w o r k th eir fie ld s in p eace,
fo r n o e n e m y crosses th e te e m in g N ile b y la n d
to raise th e b a td e cry in to w n s th a t are n o t his,
n o e n e m y ju m p s ash ore fro m h is sw ift sh ip
to seize w ith w e a p o n s th e c a ttle o f E g y p t.
33 Δ όμος έν Δ ιος οίκωι as a reference to M o u n t Olym pos (Hunter 2003,
112-113).
.
34 Theocr., Id. 17.16-25; transi. Verity. For the significance o f Herakles in
Ptolemaic ruler cult see Huttner 1997, 124-145; cf. Hunter 2003, 116-117.
35 Theocr., Id. 1 7 .9 1 - 9 6 ; later on, Theokritos sums up lands and peoples under
Ptolem aic control: Libya, Ethiopia, Pamphylia, Kilikia, Lykia, Karia and the
Cyclades. In a newly published papyrus scroll with poem s by Poseidippos, the first
section, the Lithika, or gem-poems, encouraged readers to reflect upon the geo
graphical reach o f the Ptolemaic seaborne empire, referring in particular to the Red
Sea, Arabia, and India; see A. Kuttner, ‘Cabinet fit for a queen: The Λιθικά as
Posidippus’ gem museum’, in: K. Gutzwiller ed.. The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic
Poetry Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) 141-163 , esp. 1 5 9 - 1 6 1 . Bing
2 0 0 5 , too, noted the imperial overtones o f the Lithika : ‘The section on Stones
explores and maps out a political landscape reflecting certain aspirations o f sover
eignty that set the tone for the whole work’ (p. 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 ) . O n the theme o f univer
sal empire in the Lithika see now also Petrovic 2 0 1 4 .
POWER POETRY: IMAGES OF EMPIRE
125
Too great a man is settled in th o se broad fie ld s,
golden-haired Ptolem y, sk illed w ith th e sp ea r.36
tte image of the king as a ‘spear-fighter was central to th e ideology
of all Hellenistic kingdoms; the king was an H om eric hero, w hose
personal bravery as apromachos brought his kingdom peace and secu
rity.37In lines 5-8 Theokritos declares that he will celebrate the ‘mar
velous deeds’ of Ptolemy like earlier poets have honored the deeds o f
heroes. In lines 53-56 Ptolemy is even directly com pared w ith D io
medes and Achilles, both o f them great spear-fighters too, and the
latter once was like Ptolemy is now, the best o f men.
In die Hymn to Zeus, Kallimachos, too, associates the rule o f Ptolemy
Philadelphos with the rule o f Zeus.38 Kallimachos presents Philadelphos as the only real king on earth because he is Zeus’ chosen one:
From Zeus come kings. . .. You [Zeus] gave th em cities to protect. A n d
you yourself are seated in the citadels o f th e cities to ju d g e those w ho
rule their people badly, and th ose w h o rule w ell. Y ou have bestow ed
on them wealth and abundant prosperity - o n all o f th em , bu t n o t in
equ measures. This you can clearly ju dge from our ruler, for he far
outweighs all the others. In the even ing he accom plishes w hat h e has
ought o f in the m orning. Indeed, th e greatest things in the evening
ut the lesser as soon as he thinks o f them . B ut the others need a w hole
year to accomplish such things, and som e other things n o t even in one.
Others, again, you prevent from accom plishing anything at all, and you
utterly frustrate their am bitions.39
In the Hymn to Delos K a llim a ch o s lik en s h is k in g to A p o llo .40 In th e
Hymn, Kallimachos relates how the pregnant Leto is moving towards
36 Theocr., Id. 17.97-103.
37 Strootman 2007, 31-52.
38 J. J. Clauss, ‘Lies and allusions. T he address and date o f Callimachus’ Hymn to
Zeus, CA 5.2 (1986) 155-157, argues that Kallimachos presented this poem — which
focuses on Zeus’ birth and enthronement — to Philadelphos on (the anniversary of)
his accession as co-regent in 285/4. Extensive discussions o f the monarchical aspects
of the Hymn to Zeus, and the poem’s possible courdy context, are offered by Barban«ni 2011 and S G. Caneva, ‘Raccontare Zeus. Poesi e cultura di corte ad Alessandria,
apartire dalT Inno I di Callimaco’, Pallas 83 (2010) 295-311.
«
«U Tolom eo II Filadelfo m T eocm o, I M j XVII
,
Λ; Aoollo in Callimaco, Inno a D elo\ in: G. Arnghecu and M. Tulh
e la nascita di P
sulUi letteramra nella cultura classica (Pisa 2000)
eds., Letteratura e j
126
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
th e isle o f K os to give b ir th to A p o llo , w h e n suddenly a voice rises
u p fro m h e r w o m b :
M other, do n o t give birth to m e there. I am not displeased with the
island, n o r do I begrudge it, as it is beautiful and has good pasture
grounds, like any other; b u t another god [sc. Philadelphos] has been
prom ised to her by Fate, one o f the sublime lineage of the Saviors:
under his power, n o t unw illing to be ruled by a Macedonian, will be
the two lands and the countries th at lie on the sea, as far as the ends of
the earth, where the swift horses always carry Helios.41
T h a t, o f course, is A p o llo ta lk in g — p ro p h e sy in g th a t on Kos the god
P to le m y w ill be b o rn , th u s asso ciatin g th e b irth m y th o f Apollo with
th e b irth m y th o f P to lem y . O f im p o rta n c e fo r th e current argument
is m oreover th e fact th a t P to le m y ’s e m p ire is described as limitless: it
stretches fro m su n rise to su n se t.42
1 5 7 -7 0 . O n th e Hymn to Delos in general see th e com m entary by W. H. Mineur,
Callimachus, Hymn to Delos (Leiden 1 9 8 4 ). K allim achos w rote the poem between
271 and 2 6 5 , perhaps for P to lem y P h iladelphos’ birthday or the anniversary of his
accession; the tw o occasions were o n ly tw o w eeks apart and may have been cele
brated sim ultaneously in o n e feast, as M in eu r 1 9 8 4 , 1 0 -1 8 suggests; W. W. Tarn,
Antigonos Gonatas (O xford 1 913) 2 1 1 -2 4 1 , speculated that the Hym n was not com
m issioned by Philadelphos, b u t b y his qu een A rsin oe as a ‘birthday present.
E. Cahen, Les hymnes de Callimaque (Paris 1 9 3 0 ) 2 8 1 -2 8 3 , followed by C. Meillier,
Callimaque et son temps. Recherches sur la carrière et la condiùon d un écrivain à
l'époque des premiers Lagides (Lille 19 7 9 ) 1 8 0 -1 9 1 , argues that the hymn was com
m issioned by the D elians, to be perform ed o n D elo s.
41 Callim ., Hymn 4 .1 6 2 -1 7 0 . T his H ellenistic literary technique o f employing
mythological spokespersons in encom iastic contexts, perhaps an invention o f Kalltm achos, persisted in Rom an panegyric: K. C olem an, ‘A p ollo’s speech before the
Battle o f Actium : Propertius 4 .6 .3 7 -5 4 ’, in: A F. Basson and W . J. Dom inik eds.,
Literature, Art, History. Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition. In Honour of
W. J. Henderson (Frankfurt am M ain 2 0 0 3 ) 3 7 -4 5 ; o n Kallimachos’ influence on
early Roman panegyric in general see A . G osling, ‘Political A pollo: From Callima
chus to the Augustans’, Mnemosyne 45.4 (1992) 5 0 2 -5 1 2 ; W . W im m el, Kallimachos
in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit (Wiesbaden
1960); cf. R. Hunter, “Epilogo romano’, in: M . Fantuzzi and R. Hunter, Musee
modelli. La poesia ellenistica da Alessandro Magno ad Augusto (R om e and Bari 2002)
533-65.
42 H u n te r 2 0 0 3 , 1 6 8 , n o tes th at th e referen ce to ‘th e tw o la n d s’ (ά μ ΦΟτέρη
μ εσ ό γεια , presu m ably U p p er and Low er E gyp t, th o u g h it m a y also b e a reference
to E ast/S u n rise and W e s t/S u n « t) is ‘o n e o f th e fe w n o w c o m m o n ly accepted
E gyp tiam zin g references in T h e o k m o s Hymn to Philadelphos, as it Ι ΰ Γ
derived from th e E gyptian title M aster/L ord o f th e T w o L an d s’ {nb t j wj)
° y 15
POWER POETRY: IMAGES OF EMPIRE
Pe a c e
127
a n d p r o s p e r it y
,
Another significant theme in the H ym n to Zeus is the connection o f
monarchy and the fertility o f the land. T his was a wide-spread notion
in the Ancient World before as weil as after the H ellenistic Age.
Kallimachos places the birth o f Zeus n o t on Crete, but gives prefer
ence to a myth according to which Z eus’ birthplace was Arkadia.
Arkadia, until then a dry and inhospitable land, enjoys instant fertil
ity when Zeus is born. The country becomes a land o f bliss.43 Peter
Bing has noted that in Kallimachos’ H ym n to Delos, too, the disor
derly world before Apollo is contrasted w ith the peace and harm ony
that follow upon the birth o f the god;44 the parallel presentation o f
the birth myths of the two gods, Apollo (on Delos), and Ptolemy (on
Kos), suggests that peace and harm ony will likewise follow upon the
birth of Ptolemy.
In Theokritos encomium for Philadelphos, images o f fertility and
good fortune abound:
Wealth and good fortune are his in abundance;
vast is the land he rules and vast the sea.
Countless countries and countless races o f m en
raise their crops thanks to the rain sent b y Zeus,
but none is so fruitful as Egypt’s broad p lain.«;
where the flooding N ile drenches and breaks up the soil.45
normally skeptical o f such interpretations, accepts an Egyptian origin also
on the ground o f the sun imagery used in the poem . T hat is less com pelling; the
sun is a rather commonplace symbol o f universal rule that is also found in Seleukid
Asia and in Macedonia (in the form o f the so-called Star o f Vergina). I f anything,
it is a Near Eastern (including Greece) symbol o f kingship. For a comprehensive
overview o f cosmic and solar imagery in the pre-Hellenistic, Hellenistic en postHellenistic empires o f the N ear East see H . P. L’Orange, Studies in th e Iconography
of Cosmic Kingship in the A ncient W orld (Oslo 1953).
43
Callim., Hymn 1.18-35. Cf. Stephens 1999, 174-177, drawing attention to a
possible adaptation o f Egyptian m ythology in this passage though perhaps too
forcefully associating the rather commonplace connection o f kingship and fertility
with the annual flooding o f the N ile in particular: Kallimachos is n ot speaking
about Egypt specifically here (and presumably neither about Greece — he uses
Arkadia’ in a much more generic way to underline the commonplace association o f
monarchical rule and prosperity).
44 Bing 1988, 30-3545 Theocr., Id. 17.77-83.
128
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
T h e o k r ito s’ six te e n th I d y ll (‘T o H ie r o n ’) emphasizes the causai con
n e c tio n b etw een k in g sh ip o n th e o n e h an d , and the prosperity, peace,
and h a r m o n y o f th e la n d o n th e other, even m ore explicidy. The poet
first describes a c o n fu sed , v io le n t w o rld in w h ich greed prevails over
h o n o r, w ar over p eace, a n d th e barbaric Carthaginians have the better
o f th e civilized G reeks. T h e c o m in g o f H iero n , Theokritos prophesizes, w ill ch an ge everyth in g. H e w ill restore peace and order to Sicily
— see h o w th e C arth agin ian s already trem ble for fear as the warrior
H iero n girds h im s e lf fo r battle, ‘w ith a crest o f horsehair shadowing
his g leam in g h e lm e t.’ O n ly a h a n d fu l o f barbarians will be left alive
to return to A frica a n d spread th e w o rd o f H iero n ’s victory with
tidings o f th e death s o f lo v e d o n es to m oth ers and wives.’ When this
w ork has been d o n e, T h eo k rito s beseeches the gods to,
G ran t th a t th e original in h ab itan ts m ay repossess their cities, and
restore w hat has been destroyed by the hands o f foes. May the soil be
tilled again an d bring fo rth crops, w hile bleating sheep in countless
num bers grow fat u p o n th e pastures. ... M ay fallows be ploughed and
become fertile, w hile th e cicada, w atching the shepherds in the midday
sun, makes m usic in th e foliage o f th e trees. M ay weapons rust under
cobwebs and m ay th e batde-cry becom e a forgotten sound.46
T h e idyllic, p a sto ra l w o rld th a t T h e o k rito s con ju res u p is reminiscent
o f th e G o ld e n A g e a t th e b e g in n in g o f tim e in G re e k mythology, an
e a rth ly p a ra d ise also k n o w n fr o m M e s o p o ta m ia n a n d Israelite
m ythologies.
T o bring peace, first w ar m u s t be w aged. C haos has to be defeated
to secure order. A co m m o n th e m e in royal ideology was the presenta
tio n o f th e k in g as v anquisher o f barbarians. A lth o u g h in Idyll 16 the
C arthaginians are b ro u g h t u p as th e barb arian foes,47 th e archetypal
enemies o f the H ellenistic o rder were th e Celts. A n tigonos Gonatas used
his victories over the Celts to legitim ize his u su rp atio n o f the Macedo
nian throne, an d b o th A ntiochos I a n d A ttalos I styled themselves sôtëres
w hile claim ing to have defeated th e A sian G alatians in battle.
46 T heocr., Id. 16.88-97.
47 O n anti-Carthaginian topoi in Idyll 16 see H ans 19 8 5 , w h o traces Theokritos
im ages back to official’ Syracusean propaganda. N o te that Pindar, to whom
Theokritos continually alludes, related the Syracusean defeat o f the Carrha ' ■
to the m yth o f the T itans (Pyth. 1), the Greek paradigm tale o f the batde
Order and Chaos.
oetween
POWER PO ETRY : IM A G E S O F E M P IR E
129
I„ 276 Celts had invaded G re e c e b u t w e re d e fe a te d a t D e lp h i.
The victory was attrib u ted to th e in te rv e n tio n o f A p o llo h im self.
The mythic saving o f G reece figures in K a llim a c h o s’ H y m n to Delos,
but Kallimachos manages to give P to le m y P h ila d e lp h o s p a rt o f th e
honor, even though the P to lem a ic k in g h a d n o p a rt in it a t all, w h e n
Apollo, still speaking fro m in sid e L e to , p ro p h e c ie s th a t,
A time will come when both he [re. Philadelphos] and I shall fight the
same battle, when against the Greeks a barbaric sword is raised, a Celtic
Ares, the later born T itans, w ho will approach fast as snow and in
numbers equal to the stars from th e edge o f the earth.49 [...] T he
strongholds and villages o f the Lokrians and the Delphic heights and
the Krissaian plains and the gorges o f the m ainland will be trampled
underfoot from all directions. [The Delphians] shall see thick smoke
coming from their neighbors; and n o t just from hearsay, b u t from the
temple they shall see from afar the bands o f enemies, and then beside
my iripod the swords and th e shameless necklaces and the hatefid
shields ... Part o f those shields shall be m y price, whereas the other
uxm
saw dieir masters perish in the fire, shall be placed by
me Nile, as the great booty o f a king w ho did all he could. Future
tolemy, I give you these prophecies, and you will praise in the days
that are yet to come the prophet, w ho was still in his mother’s womb.50
What Apollo is referrin g to h ere , is th e suppression o f a m u tin y o f
Celtic mercenaries in Philadelphos* o w n arm y d u rin g th e F irst Syrian
War (274-271). P to lem aic forces h a d m an ag ed to isolate the m u ti
neers on an island in th e N ile , a n d th e n destroyed them by setting
the island’s v egetation o n fire.51 T h u s, K allim achos was able to equate
Philadelphos’ tr iu m p h in E g y p t w ith A pollo’s victory in Greece. Both
were savior gods w h o delivered th e w o rld from th e barbarians. Simul
taneously, P h ilad elp h o s b etters his rival A ntigonos G onatas, whose
victory over th e C elts in th e B attle o f Lysim acheia (277) had given
him the prestige to b eco m e m aster o f M acedonia; in the H ym n to
Delos, only A pollo is credited w ith th e victory in Greece, and Gonatas
«
O n ‘C e ltic ’ p rop agan d a, particularly in relation to th e saving o f D elp h i see
Strootm L 2 0 0 5 a ; referTnces to th e C elts a n d victory over th e C elts « exam m ed by
B arb an tani 2 0 0 1 .
49 L itera lly ‘fr o m th e u tte r m o st w e s t .
50 C a llim ., H ym n 4 .1 7 1 - 9 0 .
51 P au s. 1 .7 -2 .
130
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
n a m e is n o t m e n tio n e d . M o re o v e r, in th e H y m n to Apollo Kaliimadios
w rite s:
W hoever fights against th e blessed gods, fights with my king;
w hoever fights against m y king, fights w ith Apollo.52
T o b e su re, th e p re s e n ta tio n o f th e k in g as th e earthly champion
o f th e g o d s w as n o t th e p riv ileg e o f th e Ptolem ies. Philip V used a
fa m o u s p o e m o n Z e u s b y h is suntrophos Sam os, son o f Chrysogonos,
to claim th e sam e. I n 2 1 8 th e A n tig o n id k in g h a d demolished Ther
m o s, h o ly p lace o f th e A ito lia n s, in re ta lia tio n o f a sacrilegious act of
th e A ito lia n L eague. W h e n th e a rm y d e p arted , a line from Samos’
p o e m w as le ft b e h in d as g raffito o n a ru in e d wall:
Seest thou how far the divine bolt h ath sped? 53
T h is sim p le lin e h as fa r-re a c h in g im p licatio n s. I t compares Philip’s
m ilitary fast-m o v in g c a m p a ig n w ith th e lig h tn in g striking down, and
th e re b y im p lic itly associates P h ilip w ith Z eus. I t presents Philip’s
p o w er as b o undless, re a c h in g even to th e rem o test o f places. It show
h o w P h ilip is a ju s t ru le r w h o p u n ish e s th e w rongdoers on behalf of
th e su p rem e g od , fo r w h o se w ra th n o -o n e can h id e anywhere.
H e lle n is m a n d
e m p ir e
D esp ite th e em phasis o n universafism in H ellen ism imperial ideology,
n o n -G re e k artists, w riters, a n d scholars w ere conspicuous by their
relative absence fro m th e courts. N o ta b le exceptions such as Berossos,
M an eth o , a n d perhaps Seleukos o f Seleukeia,54 prove the rule. They,
52 C a llim ., H ym n 2 .2 6 -2 7 .
53 P o ly b . 5 .8 .5 - 6 .
54 F o r th e S ele u k id Instan ces see R . J. van d er SpeJc, ‘T h e o p a is B abylon: een
m u ltic u ltu r e le stad in d e H e lle n istisc h e tijd ’, L am pas 3 8 .3 (2 0 0 5 ) 1 9 8 -2 1 3 , esp.
p p . 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 , w h e re several eth n ic ‘C h ald ean s’ are listed w h o b ecam e fam ous among
th e G reek s as astron om ers an d p h ilosop h ers; th e m o s t n o ta b le o f these was D io
g en es o f S eleu k eia o n th e T igris, a B ab ylon ian w h o b ecam e h ea d o f the Athenian
S to a in th e m id d le o f th e seco n d ce n tu ry B C E (S trab o 1 6 .1 .1 6 ; P lu t., M ar.
1 .5 .3 2 8 d ); h is B ab ylon ian n am e perhaps w as U b allissu -B ël. T h e others are the
astron om ers N a b u ria n o s (N ab u -rim an n i), K idenas (K id in n u ) and S o u d in o s (Strabo
1 6 .1 .1 6 ), and m ayb e th e sto ic A p o llo d o ro s o f Seleukeia (N abu -id d in ?). W hether
th ese m en , to o , w ere co n n ected w ith a royal cou rt is u n k n ow n .
POWER POETRY: IM A G ES O F E M P IR E
131
„ used the Greek language fo r th e ir w ritin g s. ‘A lie n w is d o m ’, su c h
too, onian astronom y, was n e a tly in c o rp o ra te d in to G re e k p h iJiaM
as
The^early Ptolemaic kings actively p ro m o te d th e stu d y o f th e G re e k
past. Alexandrian poets were intensely in te re ste d in th e (m ythic) origins
o f Greek culture. T hey in teg rated in th e ir w o rk s a n e n o rm o u s variety
of mythological, geographical, historical, a n d religious m aterial, ben efit
ing from the vast know ledge collected in th e royal library. I n th e Alex
andrian mouseion, philologists m e tic u lo u sly stu d ie d th e p o e ts o f th e
Greek past, notably H o m e r, a n d estab lish ed literary can o n s still in use
today. O f course, it w ould b e an ach ro n istic to u n d e rsta n d th e obsession
of the Alexandrians w ith th e G re e k legacy as a fo rm o f nationalism .
It would also be facile to a ttrib u te it to so m e idealist c o n cern o n th e
part of the m onarchy for a su p p o se d feelin g o f hom esickness o r culture
shock among Greeks living ‘a b ro a d ’. W e d o n o t k n o w w h o , o r w hat,
these Greeks really w ere. C o u r t p o e try w as defin itely n o t aim ed a t th e
whole of the G reek p o p u latio n , b u t o n ly a t w ell-educated u p p er classes,
irst of all royal philoi. T h e p h ilo i w ere o f m ix ed origin, b u t they were
united by a shared ‘high* c u ltu re . M o re im p o rta n tly , if co u rt poetry
111 ,e . în
second instance reach ed a n ed u cated audience o f regional
an civic upper classes, th is is inclusive o f H ellenized non-Greeks, w ho
had generally speaking a m u ltip le — e.g. G reek-E gyptian, G reek-Babyonian, G reek-Jew ish — id e n tity because th e ir elite status in p art
depended on th eir loyalty to th e em p ire. I n different w ords, if Alexan
drian poetry in d eed , as a m o d e rn p o e t once said,55 was ‘hardcore
G reek, then this G reekness m u s t have b een a non-eth n ic k in d o f cul
tural identity, a n d to a large ex ten d artificial.
U nlike C lassical G re e k lite ra tu re , H ellen istic literature tended to
iron o u t n atio n al a n d trib a l differences a m o n g th e G reeks, and rein
vented G reek c u ltu re in th e lig h t o f a new , cosm opolitan w orld view
in w hich th e re w as also place fo r H ellenized non-G reeks. It became
a form o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t y l e ? 6 A t th e sam e tim e, the H ellenism o f the
55
I. L . P fe ijffer, D e A n tie k e n . E en k o rte litera tu u rg esch ied m is (A m sterdam and
^ M ^ a b o v e / c h a p t e r 4 , a n d S tro o tm a n 2 0 0 7 , 1 8 -2 2 ; cf. M . A sper ’D im e n c
_r. C a llim a c h e a n g e o p o e tic s an d th e P to lem a ic e m p ir e , in : B. A costasions o f p o w e ·
S te p h e n s ed s.. B r ills C om pan ion to C allim achu s (L eiden and
H u g h e s , L. t .e n n ' * s h o w in g h o w th r o u g h o u t K allim achos’ A e tia , geographical
B o s to n 2 0 1 V rgfer e n c e s are e m p lo y e d to ap peal to , or ev e n create, P an h ellen ic
a n d cu ltu ra l
132
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
c o u r t w a s a n o tic e a b le e litis t c u ltu re . T h e c o m b in a tio n o f these two
asp ects m a y h e lp to c la rify th e p u r p o r t o f th e p ro m o tio n of Hellen
istic c u ltu re a t th e ro y a l c o u rts .
F ir s t o f all H e lle n is m w as in s tr u m e n ta l in th e creation of group
c o h e sio n a n d id e n tity a m o n g th e ro y a l p h ilo i. Particularly the courti
ers a t th e ea rly A n tig o n id , P to le m a ic , a n d S eleu k id courts had dispa
ra te o rig in s. T h e y w e re e th n ic M a c e d o n ia n s , vario u s types of Greeks,
as w ell as E g y p tia n s a n d o th e r n o n -G re e k s . A shared elite culture
b o u n d th e m to g e th e r. T h is c u ltu re n ecessarily h a d to be Pan-Hellenic,
a c cep tab le a n d u n d e rs ta n d a b le f o r all. M o re o v e r, b y their apprecia
tio n o f d if fic u lt a n d e r u d ite m a tte r s in lite ra tu re an d philosophy,
co u rtie rs d is ta n c e d th e m se lv e s f r o m o th e r social groups — more or
less a n a lo g o u s to th e w a y t h a t p a la c e a rc h ite c tu re accentuated the
aloofness o f k in g a n d c o u r t b y th e p h y sic a l sep a ra tio n o f the palace
fro m th e c ity in w h ic h i t sto o d , a n d th e u se o f fo rm s borrowed from
religious a rc h ite c tu re .57 T h e u tiliz a tio n o f k n o w led g e and taste as a
m ean s o f d is ta n c in g is n o tic e a b le in m o s t c o u r t societies in world
h isto ry : ‘T h e c o u rt, sh ie ld e d fr o m th e o u ts id e w o rld , f...] projects an
im age o f itse lf as m y s te rio u s a n d in acc essib le; its p o w er is enhanced
b y [the] d o u b le a im o f se e m in g b o th v e ry le a rn e d a n d very glorious.58
A t th e sam e tim e c u ltu re serv ed as a n in s tru m e n t to create cohe
sion. Im p e ria l states n o rm a lly a d m in is te r te rrito rie s a n d populations
in d irectly , viz., th r o u g h c o n ta c ts w ith re g io n a l a n d local elites, and
th e H e lle n istic e m p ire s w e re n o e x c e p tio n . J u s t like th e Austrian
em perors favored H ig h G e rm a n c u ltu re to u n ite th e ir Vielvölkerstaat
a t th e to p level o f society, a n d th e m u lti-e th n ic elite in th e Ottoman
E m p ire w as u n ite d b y O tto m a n c u ltu re a n d la n g u ag e — Turkic
cu ltu re b le n d e d w ith P ersian , A ra b ia n , a n d B y zan tin e influences so.
id e n tity . F o r th e ‘g eo p o etica T d im e n s io n s o f A le x a n d r ia n litera tu re, particularly in
th e A rg o n a u tik a , also see S. R u b io , G eograph y a n d th e R ep resen ta tio n o f S pace in the
A rg o n a u tica o f A p o llo n iu s o f R h odes ( P h D d iss. U C -S a n D ie g o , 1 9 9 2 ) ; R . L. Hunter,
‘T h e d iv in e a n d h u m a n m a p o f th e A r g o n a u tic a ’, S y lle c ta C la ssica 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 113-27;
A . M o r i, ‘N a m e s a n d p laces: m y th in A lex a n d ria ’, in : K . D o w d e n a n d K. Living
s to n e ed s., A C om p a n io n to G reek M yth o lo g y (M a ld e n , O x fo r d , N e w Y ork 2 011);
a n d W . G . T h a lm a n n , A p o llo n iu s o f R h odes a n d th e S paces o f H e lle n ism (O x fo rd and*
N e w Y o rk 2 0 1 1 ) .
57 S tr o o tm a n 2 0 0 7 , 5 4 - 9 0 .
58 S . B ertelli, ‘T h e c o u r d y u n iverse’, in : S. B erteili, F. C a rd in i, E . G arbero 7
'
ed s., T h e C o u rts o f th e I ta lia n R en aissan ce (M ila n 1 9 8 6 ) 7 - 3 8 , a t 1 7 .
ΟΓΖ1
POWER POETRY: IMAGES O F EMPIRE
233
did Hellenistic kings em ploy a generic, n o n -n a tio n a l form o f
Greckness as a culture o f empire. It was specifically H ellenism that
m promoted, partly because the kings a nd m ost o f th eir courtiers
had Macedonian or Greek roots, partly because G reek cities form ed
the cornerstone of Macedonian imperial rule. Silvia Barbantani has
drawn attention to a fragmentary papyrus from H eidelberg dating to
the late third/early second century,59 carrying the rem ains o f a poem
written in elegiac distiches in ‘a high poetical style’. T h e context o f
its production is the court o f P tolem y IV an d A rsinoe III. B ut
although produced in Alexandria, the text clearly is intended for an
audience in mainland Greece, praising the m unificence o f Arsinoe III
during the Ptolemaic-Seleukid W ar o f 202-195 BCE, shordy before
the collapse o f the Ptolemaic overseas empire. In this poem, the
Ptolemies are presented as the protectors o f culture, while the Seleuldds are implicidy branded as (Persian?) barbarians.
By concerning themselves w ith G reek culture on a grand scale,
rulers presented themselves as philhellenes, and th at m eant by exten
sion the protectors and benefactors o f cities. Moreover, the Hellenism
o the court had a distinct cosm opolitan character that transgressed
e multifarious cultural and linguistic zones o f the Hellenistic world,
and could also be adopted by non-Greeks. In a state that despite the
central prominence o f Egypt was characterized by political, ethnical,
and cultural heterogeneity, Hellenism thus contributed to the estab
lishment of a certain sense o f imperial commonwealth. Royal patron
age of Greek art, poetry, and scholarship made it manifest that the
royal court was the heart o f this unifying culture.
C
o n c l u s io n
As we have seen, poets writing at the court o f Ptolemy II Philadelphos — Kallimachos, Theokritos, Apollonios and others — are
remarkably consistent in their absorption o f Ptolemaic ideals of
59
P .H eid. 189, inv. 43 5 verso, first published by E. Siegmann, Literarische grie
chische Texte der H eidelberger Papyrussam m lung (Heidelberg 1956) 25S; cf. S. Bar.
. T n m n etizion i poetiche tespiesi e mecenatismo tolemaico: un gemellaggio
bantan ,
, P
sede delle muse nella seconda metà del III secolo a.C. ipotesi
® S H » 9 '!
U*
1 8 <2 0 0 0 > 1 2 7 - 1 7 2 ' κ ρ · U 7 ·
134
T H E BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
e m p ire. T h e y all underline th e universality of empire and imperial
c u ltu re , a n d present em pire under Ptolemy as a Golden Age of peace
a n d prosperity. T h e y also accentuate the connection between military
v icto ry , preferably over barbarians, and the installment of peace. The
k in g is presented as a sôtër, a divine savior who together with the gods
save th e w o rld from chaos and barbarism. As we will see in die fol
lo w in g chapter, similar images existed in court-based philosophy, and
in P tolem aic geography and other scholarly descriptions of the struc
tu re o f th e w orld; here the m ain emphasis was on the, ultimately
im perial, idea th a t th e w orld can be conceptualized as a single inter
connected, coherent whole.
C H A PTER E IG H T
crOM p o u s t o o i k o u m e n e ·. t h e i m p e r i a l w o r l d
VIEW IN SCHOLARSHIP A N D P H IL O S O P H Y
Many ‘academic’ disciplines were practiced at co u rt: philosophy,
astronomy, medical science, historiography, natural history, ethnogra
phy and geography - genres th at in themselves were n o t typical court
genres, but nevertheless flourished at the courts. T h ey reveal the efforts,
characteristic of this period, to develop views o f th e universe and the
world as an integrated whole, an idea closely related to the ideologies
of boundless empire characteristic o f the M acedonian kingdoms. In this
chapter, four fields o f study and their relevance for H ellenistic imperial
rule will be briefly discussal — philosophy, astronom y, historiography,
e nography, and geography — as well as the im pact o f these discip mes on poetry. The examination will take us also beyond Alexandria,
to the courts of the Seleukids and the Antigonids.
P h il o s o p h y
The most obvious gift a philosopher could present to a king, was a
P osophical tract on kingship.1 T h e G reek n otion o f ideal rulership
was developed by writers such as Plato, X enophon, Aristotle, and
Isokrates. But the treatise Περί βαςσιλείας, O n Kingship’, flourished
especially in the Hellenistic age, integrating m any Persian and other
Near Eastern influences.2 T he aim o f such texts was twofold. First,
1 O n the relations betw een kings and philosophers see H.-J· Gehrke, ‘T heorie
und p olitische Praxis der P h ilosop h en im H ellen ism u s’, in: W . Schüller ed..
Politische Theorie u n d P raxis im A ltertu m (D arm stadt 1998) 1 0 0 -121.
2 Again it m u st be em phasized that the detachm ent o f ‘Greece’ from the N ear
East is artificial, or rather, that the Greeks related to the N ear East just like the
Phoenicians or th e Babylonians related to the N ear East. It should also be remem
bered here that the pre-H ellenistic Greek world even after the Greelc-Persian wars
to a significant degree integrated in the A chaem enid imperial system through
WaSal
tronage, friendship bonds and the presence o f indigenous agents o f empire
136
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
th e y w e re m e a n t to in s tr u c t (f u tu re ) k in g s in th e a rt o f ruling, or in
th e a r t o f g iv in g th e im p re s s io n t h a t o n e w as a wise, ju st and legiti
m a te ru le r. S e c o n d , th r o u g h t h e d is s e m in a tio n o f such texts among
a w id e r a u d ie n c e , k in g s h ip it s e l f w as p ro p a g a te d .
U n su rp risin g ly , m a n y , i f n o t all, o f th ese texts were written in a
p a tro n a g e ’ c o n te x t. O n e o f th e firs t to d o so w as A ristode, who wore
tw o treatises o n k in g s h ip a t th e c o u r t o f k in g P h ilip II for the instruc
tio n o f A lex a n d e r.3 T h e life o f A le x a n d e r h im s e lf becam e an example
fo r later kin g s.4 T h u s , O n e s ik rito s o f A stypalaia, a philosopher who was
a m e m b e r o f A le x a n d e r’s c o u rt, w ro te a n idealized life o f the king mod
eled a fter th e C yropaedia, X e n o p h o n ’s m o ra l biog rap h y o f the world
c o n q u e ro r C y ru s th e G re a t. A n e x ta n t fra g m e n t o f this lost work in
S trab o — d e a lin g w ith A le x a n d e r’s c o n v e rsa tio n w ith th e Indian gymn o so p h ists — p re se n ts A le x a n d e r as th e id eal philosopher-king.5
R epresentativ es o f th e m a jo r p h ilo so p h ic a l schools w rote treatises on
k ingship. M o s t are n o w lo s t (in c lu d in g th o se w ritte n by Zeno, Kallisthenes, K leanth e s, S p h a iro s, P e rsaio s) a n d o f o th ers o n ly fragments
have survived (E k p h a n to s, D io to g e n e s , S th e n id a s).6 S t o i c philosophers
w o rk e d m o s t fe rv e n d y o n th e th e m e o f ideal k in g sh ip , and indeed
kings seem to h av e fav o red sto ic p h ilo s o p h y m o re th a n other philo
sophical schools. T h e sto ic im a g e o f a c o sm ic o rd e r h e ld together by a
single d iv in e p o w e r w as a p e rfe c t m o d e l fo r th e rule o f kings, and may
in th e G r e e k c itie s , as w e ll a s t h e in t e g r a tio n o f G r e e k tr o o p s in P ersian armies. To
p u s h th is p o in t s o m e w h a t fu r th e r : m e n s u c h a s K te s ia s o r X e n o p h o n w ere both
G r e e k s a n d A c h a e m e n id s w h i le t h e y s e r v e d m e m b e r s o f th e P ersia n imperial
d y n a sty , a n d th e ir w r itin g s c o n tr a d ic t th e c lic h é th a t th e A c h a e m e n id E m pire did
n o t p r o d u c e h isto r io g r a p h ic a l n a rratives.
3
A r is e , fr. 6 4 6 / 8 , 6 5 8 R o s e . C f. P lu t ., M o r. V I 3 2 9 b ; S tra b o 1 .4 .9 ; V ita A ris
to te lis M a rc ia n a fr. 4 3 0 , 15 R o se . A r is to d e a lle g e d ly p r o d u c e d treatises fo r Alexan
d er, t o o , t id e d O n K in g sh ip a n d I n P r a is e o f C olon ies', h e fu r th e r m o r e p o ss ib ly wrote
a w o r k c a lle d A le x a n d e r’s A ssem bly', fo r th e e v id e n c e s e e M . B ro c k e r, A risto te les als
A le x a n d e rs L e h re r (B er lin 1 9 6 6 ) 3 0 . T h e q u e s tio n w h e t h e r A r is t o t le ’s biological
s tu d ie s w e r e b ased o n m a teria l s e n t t o h im b y A le x a n d e r is a n sw er ed n eg a tiv e ly by
J . S . R o m m , ‘A r is to d e ’s e le p h a n t a n d th e m y th o f A le x a n d e r s s c ie n t if ic patron age’,
A m e rica n J o u rn a l o f P h ilo lo g y 1 1 0 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 5 6 6 - 5 7 5 , b u t th is r e m a in s a n o p e n ques
tio n . A r is to d e ’s in flu e n c e o n A le x a n d e r w a s n o t a s s ig n ific a n t as is o fte n assu m ed .
4 H a d o t 1 9 7 2 , 5 8 9 . B esid es A le x a n d e fs life , th e life o f H e ra k le s w a s reworked
b y p h ilo s o p h e r s to b e c o m e a n e x a m p le fo r k in g s ( D io g . Laert. 6 .1 6 .1 0 4 ) .
5 S trab o 1 5 .6 3 .6 5 .
6 C o lle c te d in L . D e la tte , L es tr a ité s d e la ro y a u té d eep h a n te, D io to g è n e e t S th én id a s (L ièg e a n d Paris 1 9 4 2 ).
fro m t o u s t o
o i k o u m e n e ·. t h e i m p e r i a l w o r l d
v ie w
137
have been influenced by th e in tro d u c tio n in to G re e k c u ltu re o f a
Hdlenized version o f the them e o f universal em p ire. In th e S to ic cosmology, Zeus was the central, active p rin cip le o f c o sm ic h a rm o n y .
A similar role was ascribed to th e k in g o n earth. T h e k in g w as th e p iv o t
of terrestrial order, whose task it w as to g uarantee peace, justice, a n d
prosperity. The fundam ental stoic principle th a t th e a rran g em en t o f th e
world was divinely ordained, w as useful to o , as w as th e conceptualiza
tion of the civilized w orld as a single oikoum ene. T h e ideal state as
perceived by Zeno, the fo u nding father o f Stoicism , was alm o st in d is
tinguishable from the official royal view o f th e w o rld as em pire.7 Z e n o
was a philos of Demetrios Poliorketes, w hose son, th e later k in g A ntigonos Gonatas, he educated.8 G o n atas h im self allegedly discussed m at
ters of state with Stoic advisors a n d it w as said th a t th ey actually influ
enced his decisions.9 A t least tw o o f these, Persaios a n d K leanthes,
wrote tracts on kingship for G o n atas.10 A t th e later A n tigonid court,
the philosopher and tragedian E u p h an tes o f O ly n th o s was tu to r and
su sequendy philos o f A nrigonos II I D o so n , to w h o m he dedicated a
treatise On Kingphip.ll T h e Stoic Sphairos, an o th er author o f propa
ganda tracts, enjoyed th e patronage o f th e Spartan king Kleomenes,
and subsequendy o f P tolem y III a n d P tolem y IV .12 Even Cynic phitrophy accepted a n d defended kingship as p art o f a fixed arrangement
o social and political roles in society, a view th a t was propagated for
uismnce by Bion o f Borysthenes, an o th er courtier o f G onatas.13
The concept o f parrhësia again is o f significance here. From the
Classical period dow n to th e Im p eria l age, ritualized frankness o f
speech defined th e p h ilosop h er’s a ttitu d e tow ards those wielding
power, at least in stories.14 I f indeed genuine, this made them valuable
7 See H . C . B ald ry, ‘Z e n o ’s id eal state’. Journal o f Hellenic Studies 7 3 (1 9 5 9 )
3-15.
8 T am 1913, 223.
9 D io g . Laert. 2 .1 4 3 .
10 H a d o t 1 9 7 2 , 5 8 9 .
12 D io g . 7 Λ 7 7 ,21 8 5 ϊ H u t., Cleom. 11. C f. H a d o t 1972, 589; Africa 1968, 62.
η D io c . Laert. 2 .4 6 -5 7 .
.
, .
14 T T P I interm an, ‘Sophists and emperors: A reconnaissance o f sophistic atti,
Fi p B o re ed , Paideia: The World o f the Second Sophistic (Berlin and
tudes , m : » . k j 3 5 9 .3 7 6 , esp. 3 6 1 -3 6 4 , w ith p. 3 6 2 n. 10 for an overview o f lit N e w Y ork 2 0 W
^ d efin in g aspect o f philosophers’ attitudes vis-à-vis kings and
erature o n parrnesiu
R om an em perors.
138
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
as c o u n s e lo rs f o r ru le rs. B u t m o s t o f all p a rrh ê sia was important to
u p h o ld th e h o n o r o f th e p h il o s o p h e r s as fre e m e n , a n d the honor of
k in g s as a v ir tu o u s a n d lib e ra l ru le rs.
A str o n o m y
T h e h o lis tic S to ic v ie w o f th e c o s m o s w a s d e e p ly in flu en ced by a sci
e n c e th a t f lo u ris h e d e s p e c ia lly in th e H e lle n is tic age: astronomy.
F ro m th e first I o n ic p h ilo s o p h e r s to A ris to tle , th e G reeks, like any
p e o p le , h a d alw ays b e e n in te r e s te d in th e h e a v e n ly bodies, but in the
la te f o u r th a n d e a rly t h i r d c e n tu r ie s th e s tu d y o f th e heavens acquired
a n e w im p e tu s w h e n i t c a m e u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f Babylonian
a s tro n o m y .1516R o y a l c o u rts p la y e d a c ru c ia l ro le in th is development.
G re e k in te re s t in B a b y lo n ia n a s tr o n o m y w as p a r t o f a broader interest
in th e w o rld re s u ltin g fr o m th e G re e k s ’ w id e n in g h o rizo n , creating
n e w fo rm s o f g e o g ra p h y a n d e th n o g r a p h y . K in g s to o k a keen interest
in a s tro n o m y a n d s tim u la te d re s e a rc h in th is field . Follow ing the
ex am ple o f A le x a n d e r, th e S e le u k id s o p e n e d u p B ab y lo n ian knowl
edge to th e G re e k w o rld b y th e ir p a tr o n a g e o f ‘C h a ld e a n ’ wise men.
T h e m o s t fa m o u s — a n d m o s t le g e n d a ry — o f th e se w as the Baby
lo n ia n p riest, a s tro n o m e r a n d h is to ria n B erossos, w h o w ro te his main
w o rk , th e B a b ylo n ia k a , fo r A n tio c h o s I. T h e S e le u k id policy of
15 F. B oll, ‘D ie E ntw ick lu n g der A stro lo g ie a u f klassischen B o d e n ’, in: C. Bezold,
F. B oll, W . G u n d el, Stem glaube u n d Stem deutung. D ie Geschichte u n d das Wesen der
Astrologie (4th edn; L eipzig a nd B erlin 1 9 3 1 ) 1 5 -2 8 , esp. 2 1 -2 3 ; for the Babylonian
origins o f w estern astronom y see F. R ochberg, The H eavenly W riting. Divination,
Horoscopy, an d Astronom y in M esopotam ian C ulture (C am b ridge 2 0 0 8 ). I prefer the
w ord ‘astronom y’ to ‘astrology’: th e a n cien t G reeks and B abylonians saw n o discrep
ancy b etw een a scientific and a m etaphysical approach to th e stars; even Aristotle
expressed his b e lie f in the divinity o f th e heavenly bod ies {M et. 8 .1 0 7 4 b ). Babylonian
astronom ical science w as m etaphysical as w ell. T o b e sure, even in th e early modern
age, C opernicus and G alileo, the acknow ledged fo u n d in g fathers o f scientific mod
ern astronom y, hardly distinguished astronom y from w h a t w e w o u ld n o w call astrol
og y (Africa 1 9 6 8 , 6 5 ). O n the entan glem en t o f a stron om y and astrology in the
G reco-R om an w orld see A . A . L ong, ‘Astrology: pro a nd contra’, in id .. From Epi
curus to Epictetus: Studies in H ellenistic an d Roman Philosophy (O xford 2 0 0 6 ).
*
16 D io d . 2 .3 1 .2 ; A p p ., Syr. 5 8 . A s w as acknow ledged already b y S. K . Eddy
The K ing is D ead: Studies in N ear Eastern Resistance to H ellenism 3 3 4 -3 1 B C (T ’ _
coin, N ebr. 1 961) 115 n. 3 0 .
m
FROM PO U S t o
O IK O U M E N E : T H E IM P E R IA L W O R L D V I E W
promoting Babylonian
139
astronomy laid the foundations o f Hellenistic
^Soon other royal houses en co u ra g e d a s tro n o m y as w ell. T h e P to le
maic court became the h o m e o f so m e o f th e m o re ‘sc ie n tific ’ m a n i
festations of astronomy. O f im p o rta n c e w e re n o ta b ly A rista rc h o s o f
Samos, who theorized a sh o rt-liv e d h e lio c e n tric v ie w o f th e so lar sys
tem, and Hipparchos o f N ik aia , w h o se sy ste m a tic s tu d y o f th e m o v e
ment of the stars laid th e fo u n d a tio n s o f th e g ra n d a s tro n o m ic a l sy n
thesis of Claudius P tolem aios in th e se c o n d c e n tu ry C E .
From the harm onious arra n g e m e n t o f th e heavens in astro n o m ical
theory, via Stoic cosm ology, to royal id eo lo g y is o n ly a sm all step. O n e
of the most intriguing cases o f k in g s h ip a n d a stro n o m y c o m in g
together, was the alleged discovery, b y P to le m y E uergetes’ c o u rt astro n
omer Konon, o f a new constellatio n n e a r L eo. A s w e have seen in th e
previous chapter, K allim achos w ro te a p o e m in w h ic h th e constellation
was presented as literally a n e w o n e — a lo c k o f h a ir th a t Euergetes’
^ en berenike had prom ised to offer in exchange fo r th e safe retu rn
? ^ Γ us° an<^ from th e T h ir d S yrian W a r. T h e dep o sitio n o f th e h a ir
m e temple o f A phrodite-A rsinoe a t Z e p h y rio n in all probability h ad
een a public cerem ony. K o n o n th e n fo u n d a litd e k n o w n constellation
"
^ Ct k een in co rp o ra te d in G re e k astro-m ythology, a n d
imachos thereupon p ro d u c e d his panegyric, in w hich it was related
ow the lock h a d m iraculo u sly d isap p eared fro m th e tem ple a n d
rough divine intervention h a d b een placed am o n g th e heavenly stars.
The constellation was n am ed th e L ock o f Berenike (and is still know n
today as Coma Berenices) a n d becam e a crucial aspect o f the cult o f
Berenike th at subsequendy developed. K athryn Gutzwiller has draw n
attention to the fact th a t th e constellation ‘discovered’ by K onon had
in fact already been described b y A ratos (Phaenomena 146), a poem
well-known in A exandria; b u t K o n o n m ay as well have draw n on even
older Babylonian know ledge.1718 G utzw iller has a rather sceptical view o f
17 A n apocryphal tradition said that Berossos later m oved to K os where he gave
lectures in astronom y; th e A thenians allegedly honored h im w ith a statue, and tradi•
. c r-redited h im w ith th e in ven tion o f the co m m o n sundial, cf. S. M . Burscem,
5; o n the
of
.
a m o n g th e G reeks an d his inventions see Kuhrt 1987w a n d en n g ,
J
‘C allim ach u s’ L o ck o f B erenice: Fantasy, rom ance, and
h f Z e r i c à n Journal o f P h ib h g , 1 1 3 (1 9 9 2 ) 3 5 9 -3 8 5 . For the cu lt o f
Ο
Γ
A n d r i a * H a u b en 2 0 1 1 .
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
K allim a c h o s’ a n d K o n o n ’s c o n trib u tio n s to Ptolemaic propaganda·
‘C o n o n ’s p a rt in th e h o a x w as sim p ly to find a suitable place for the
lo c k in th e sky; h e d e cid e d u p o n a cluster o f stars that Aratus had a few
years earlier p ro claim ed nam eless. C allim achus had the more difficult
task o f fleshing o u t th e m y th in a n appealing literary form’.19
E lsew here I have em p h a siz e d th e p reoccupation with astral phe
n o m e n a in H e lle n istic ro y al ideology, in particular the comparison of
th e k in g w ith th e su n , as a n expression o f universalistic kingship.20
A stro n o m y c o u ld be e m p lo y e d to u n d e rp in th e philosophical notion
th a t e m p ire a n d k in g sh ip w ere p a rt o f a divine, cosmic order. This
ideology is ev id en t fro m th e P hainom ena o f Aratos o f Soli, the literary
show piece o f th e A n tig o n id c o u rt u n d e r G onatas.21 This long didac
tic p o e m offers a n a ll-e m b ra c in g view o f th e universe as a wello rdered, balanced u n ity . T h e p o e m is m o re philosophical than scien
tific, a n d c o n ta in s m a n y m y th o lo g ic a l elem ents. Aratos does not
explicidy refer to his p a tro n G o n a ta s in th e text, b u t in the allegorical
in tro d u c tio n h e describes Z e u s in term s o f universal rule - not only
in th e heavens, b u t o n e a rth as w ell:
From Zeus let us begin, he, whom we mortals never leave unmen
tioned; full o f Zeus are all the roads, all city squares, full the oceans
and the harbors: in every way we all have need o f Zeus.22
T h e praise o f Z eus K o sm o k rato r is follow ed by a long poetical cele
b ratio n o f th e G o ld en A ge a n d th e rule o f Justice.23 T hus the asso
ciation w ith m o n arch y is clear fro m th e start, even though monarchy
does n o t retu rn as a th em e explicidy in th e subsequent parts of the
poem .
19 G u tzw iller 1 9 9 2 , 3 7 3 .
20 S trootm an 2 0 0 7 an d 2 0 1 3 ; see also M . B ergm an n , D ie S trah len des H err
schers. Theom orphes H errsch erb ild u n d p o litisc h e S ym b o lik im H ellenism us u n d in der
röm ischen K a iserzeit (M ain z 1 9 9 8 ).
21 A ratos is also k n o w n to h ave w ritten an e n co m iu m and a m arriage hym n for
G on atas (G reen 1 9 9 3 , 1 4 1 -1 4 2 ).
22 A rat., P h aen . 1-4.
23 L in es 9 8 -1 3 6 . C f. H o s e 1 9 9 7 , 62 : ‘der Z eu s d es A rat ist [ . . . ] ein absoluter
G ötterm on arch , d er sein ganzes R eich vo llstä n d ig beherrscht - u n d durch eine
u nüberbrückbare D ista n z v o n d en Beherrschten g etren n t ist.’ T h e m onarchical
im p lication s o f th e gold en age im agery in P h ain om ena 1 -1 8 w ere first p oin ted mir
to m e b y C hristiaan Caspers in an u n p u b lish ed paper enrirl#»^
Z a
,
G o u d en E eu w in ’ (L eiden U niversity, 1 9 9 9 ).
P ?
^
M e t A ratus <Ie
FROM tous TO
OIKOUMENΕ·. THE IMPERIAL WORLD VIEW
141
HISTORIOGRAPHY, G E O G R A P H Y , E T H N O G R A P H Y
As * have seen, T heokritos says in Id y ll 1 6 th a t th e b e s t th in g a p o e t
can do for a king is to im m ortalize h is n a m e a n d g lo rify h is h e ro ic
deeds. It has been argued in th e p a st th a t H e lle n is tic p o e try ex iste d
for a large part o f (now lost) epic, d e a lin g n o t o n ly w ith m y th o lo g ic a l
and legendary subjects, b u t also w ith th e a c h ie v e m e n ts o f c o n te m p o
rary kings. However, o nly o n e e p ic p o e m su rv iv e d in its e n tire ty ,
Apollonios’ Argonautika, a n d th is is a m y th ic tale, n o t a b o u t c o n te m
porary Hellenistic kings a t all, a lth o u g h its in d ire c t relev an ce fo r
Ptolemaic im perialism a n d m o n a r c h y is n o w b e tte r u n d e rs to o d .24
The theory that epic p o etry c e le b ra tin g th e d e ed s o f H e lle n istic k ings
was a prom inent genre, first p u t fo rw a rd b y Z ie g le r in 1 9 3 4 , w as
therefore later rejected b y m an y .25 M o re rec e n d y , how ever, n ew p apyrological evidence suggests th a t Z ie g le r m a y h av e b e e n p a rd y rig h t
after all,26 and th a t su ch o n c e -fa m o u s w o rk s like C h o irilo s’ epic o f
Alexander, w ritten in th e k in g ’s life tim e ,27 o r S im o n id e s’ G alatika,
celebrating A ntiochos I ’s v ic to ry o ver th e C elts, m ay b e o n ly th e to p
of the iceberg.28 S u ch e p ic te x ts c re a te d a n im ag e o f th e k in g as
a Homeric hero, b le n d in g m y th a n d h isto ry .
A more subde w ay to h ero ize th e d eed s o f c o n tem p o rary kings was
through the p ro d u c tio n o f h isto rio g ra p h y . E specially in th e late
fourth and th ird cen tu ry , m a n y h isto rian s fo u n d em p lo y m en t at the
royal courts; in this respect th e P to lem ies h a d n o decisive advantage
over their rivals.29 K allisthenes o f O ly n th o s w rote a histo ry o f Alex
ander, w hich was strongly p ro p a g a n d is ts . It lau d ed A lexander as th e
champion o f H e lle n ic c u ltu re , glorified his m ilitary achievem ents,
and defended his claim s to div in e patern ity . Kallisthenes also w rote a
history o f th e p receding p erio d for A lexander; it was called Hellenika
and en ded w ith A lexander’s b ir th in 356. Such histories m ixed
24 S ee ab ove, C h a p ter 725 E .e . b y C a m ero n 1 9 9 5 ; it is accep ted b y Z än k er 1 9 8 7 , 1-2.
26 e R arb antan i Φ ά τ ις Ν ικ η φ όρ ος. Frammenti d i elegia encomiastic*, nelleta
p o ets o f A ^
^
Cen ts rem ain , cf. R an k in 1 9 8 7 , 9 9 ; Barbantani 2 0 0 1 , passim.
W h29h M e iß n e r 1 9 9 2 .
142
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
h is to ry w ith m y th . I n a sense, c o u rt h isto rian s w ere the real epinicians
o f th e H e lle n istic A ge.
C h a ra c te ristic o f c o u rt h is to rio g ra p h y w as m oreover the interest in
o th e r cu ltu res a n d far-aw ay c o u n trie s.30 A lth o u g h n o t a new phenom
e n o n a t all, a relativ e a b u n d a n c e o f travel accounts by Nearchos,
P ytheas a n d M eg asth en es b e a r w itn ess to a grow ing interest in geog
ra p h y a n d e th n o g ra p h y in th e early H ellen istic period. According to
S trabo, th e exten sio n o f g eo g rap h ical k n ow ledge characterized Greek
h isto ry after A lex an d er.31 C o u rd y in te re st in geography and ethnog
ra p h y is m an ifest fro m th e e x p e d itio n s th a t w ere sent o ff by kings to
explore strange n e w lan d s, a n d fro m th e presence o f geographers and
n o n -G re e k scholars a t c o u rt. B erossos has already been mentioned.
H is Babyloniaka w as a ch ro n o lo g ic a l a c c o u n t o f the mythic and his
torical p ast o f th e w o rld th ro u g h a B abylonian lens, and a general
in tro d u c tio n to B ab y lo n ian c u ltu re .32 Its th ree books were written in
G reek a n d ded ica ted to A n tio c h o s I S o te r in c. 2 8 1.33 Following the
Seleukid exam ple, P to le m y I S o ter o r P to lem y II Philadelphos encour
aged th e E g y p tian p rie st M a n e th o to w rite a n Aegyptiaka., also in
G reek, a n d likewise m a k in g E g y p tia n know ledge available to Greeks
(and m o d ern E gyptologists as w ell, since M a n e th o ’s arrangement of
th e h isto ry o f E g y p t in th irty dynasties is still in use as a chronological
fram ew ork).34
30 F or a gen eral d isc u ssio n o f th e n e w in ter est in th e w o rld , especially during
A lexan d er’s reign , see K . G e u s ‘S p a c e a n d g eo g r a p h y ’, in : A . E rskine ed., A Com
p a n io n to th e H e lle n istic W o rld (O x fo r d 2 0 0 3 ) 2 3 2 - 2 4 6 ; fo r a com prehensive over
v ie w o f geograph ers w o r k in g in P to le m a ic A lexan d ria see Fraser 1 9 7 2 , I 520-53;
II 7 5 0 -7 9 0 .
31 Strabo 1.2 .1 C . 14. C f. J. E n g els, A u gu steisch e O iku m en egegraph ie u n d Uni
versa lh isto rie im W erk S trabon s von A rsa m eia (S tuttgart 1 9 9 9 ).
32 A . K u h rt, ‘B erossu s’ B a b yh n ia ca an d S ele u c id ru le in B a b y lo n ia ’, in A . Kuhrt
an d S. S h e rw in -W h ite ed s., H ellen ism in th e E a st (L o n d o n 1 9 8 7 ) 3 2 -5 6 , discusses
th e id eo lo g ica l aspects o f th e B a b ylo n ia k a in v ie w o f th e estab lish m en t o f Seleukid
rule in B ab ylon ia (besides d o u b tin g th e h isto ric ity o f G reek m y th s a b o u t Berossos).
F or translations see B u rstein 1 9 7 8 an d V erb ru ggh e and J. M . W ickersham , Berossus
a n d M a n e th o : N a tiv e T ra d itio n in A n c ie n t M esopotam ia a n d E g yp t (A nn Arbor
1 9 9 6 ); th e m o s t c o m p le te e d itio n o f all th e fragm ents to d ate (w ith D u tc h transla
tion s) is G . E. E. D e B reucker, D e B abylon iaca va n Berossos van B abylon. Inleiding,
e d itie en com m en taar (P h D thesis; U n iversity o f G r on in gen , 2 0 1 2 ).
33 B u rstein 1 9 7 8 , 534 F or th e p riority o f B erossos to M a n eth o see B urstein 1 9 7 8 , 4 n . 2 . Like Ber
ossos, M a n e th o b ecam e a legen d ary figu re in d u e course. T h a t th e A egyptiaka was
M M M U S T O om O U M BN E·. T H E IMPERIAL W O R L D V IE W
143
Hdkaistic geography and ethnography were n o t ent,'reiy autonomous genres but were often integrated in historical writing. I his is true
le d é y of ethnography. Hieranym os o f Kardia used his experience
asa military commander for a digression in his Histories about Arabia.35
In particular the regions least affected by M acedonian im perialism
attracted the attention o f Hellenistic scholars. Inform ation ab o u t
unJoiown lands was sometimes even invented.36 K. Geus has pointed
out the lack of distinction between empirical knowledge, legend, and
even fiction that characterized Hellenistic geographical writing, and
that moreover ‘there grew a sizeable body o f utopian literature: the
writings of such authors as Hekataios o f Abdera, Euhemeros o f Iam boulos, and the legends about the fantastic voyages o f Alexander.
[...] Fictitious travelogues and ethnographic accounts about peoples
living at the edges of the world [are] characteristic o f this literature.’37
The Ptolemies were interested particularly in Arabia, Africa and
the Inchan Ocean. They m ade efforts to explore sea routes, and to
obtain knowledge o f the earth and o f the customs, wildlife, and flora,
m araway ands. In the second century Agatharchides o f Knidos,
Historian and geographer, worked at the court o f Ptolemy VI, where
e wrote is amous book On the Red Sea. Private traders, royal expe
ditions, and embassies brought back knowledge and in Alexandria the
p ace gardens were filled w ith exotic beasts and plants.
reoccupation with exotic, rare and stupendous things from far
away countries, evidently had a political dimension. By bringing
written for the court can be conjectured from the fact that six books o f didactic
hexameters on astrology, the Α ποτελεσματικά (‘Forecasts’), written probably in the
second and third centuries CE by various authors, were dedicated ‘to Ptolem y’ to
support the false claim that these were written by M anetho and thereby enhance
their authority.
35 A. B. Bosworth, The Legacy o f A lexander. P olitics, W arfare, a n d Propaganda
Under the Successors (Oxford 2002) 169-209.
36 Geus 2 0 0 3, 242; both Strabo and Arrian claim that the Macedonians delib
erately falsified geographical information in order to promote the glory o f Alexander
(Strabo 11.7.4; A ir., A n ab. 5 3 .2 -3 ; Ind. 5.10). In the 280s BCE, the Seleukid
admiral, and former governor o f Babylonia, Patrokles, explored tire Caspian Sea
,
m |, fleet o n ly to con firm u p o n his return the prior co n v ictio n that the
w ith a sm all
(M e m n o n 2 2 7 a ), thus providing e n d o w m e n t for
S o f f i c K e o l o g y that the Seleu kid E m pire’s northern border c o in cid ed w ith the
edge o f the earth itse lf (Strootm an
37 Geus 2 0 03, 242.
144
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
to g e th e r th in g s fro m th e e n tire k n o w n w orld, preferably from its
fringes, m o n a rc h ie s d e m o n s tra te d h o w far th e ir power reached and
th a t th e ir c o u rt w as th e w o r ld s c en te r.38 In th e Hellenistic world, this
to o k place m o s t o f all in A lex an d ria. E ven in th e Roman period the
im age p ersisted o f A lex a n d ria as th e cen tral h u b holding the fabric of
th e w o rld to g e th e r, as D io C h ry so sto m w rote, adding that to him the
city seem ed to b e a n ‘a n agora c o n n e c tin g all peoples and turning
th e m in to a single n a tio n .’39 M arv elo u s thin g s were m ost wanted and
these w ere associated w ith th e p e rip h e ry o f th e know n world; when
p erip h eral m arvels w ere b ro u g h t to A lexandria and displayed, Alex
an d ria as a co n seq u en ce b ecam e th e g reatest m arvel.40 In his descrip
tio n o f th e G ra n d P ro cessio n o f P to le m y Philadelphos, Kallixeinos
m e n tio n s th e p resen ce o f p a rro ts, zebus, an d antelopes from India,
an d fro m in la n d A frica leopards, lions, ostriches, various exotic birds,
a rhinoceros, a n d a giraffe.41
C o llectin g books, to o , co u ld be a m eans o f accum ulating and con
trolling know ledge.42 A cco rd in g to Josephus, it was Ptolemaios Soter s
38 M . L iveran i, ‘T h e id e o lo g y o f th e A ssyrian E m p ir e ’, in : M . T. Larsen ed..
P o w er a n d P ro p a g a n d a . A S ym posiu m on A n c ie n t E m p ires (C openh agen 1979) 2973 1 7 ; P. F in d le n , P ossessin g N a tu r e : M u seu m s, C o llectin g a n d S cien tific Culture in
E a rly M o d e m I ta ly (B er k e ley a n d L o s A n g e le s 1 9 9 4 ); J. M . M acK enzie, M useum
a n d E m p ire : N a tu r a l H isto ry , H u m a n C u ltu res a n d C o lo n ia l Id en tities (Manchester
2 0 0 9 ) . C o m p a r e th e ic o n o g r a p h y o f th e reliefs o f th e G reat A padana in Persepolis,
w h e re am b assad ors o f th e p e o p le s o f th e en tire w o rld b rin g regional products and
an im a ls as trib u te to th e A c h a e m e n id k in g; see M . C o o l R o o t, The K in g an d Kingsh ip in A ch a em en id A r t: E ssays on th e C rea tio n o f a n Icon ograph y o fE m p ire (Leiden
1 9 7 9 ).
39 D io C h r y so s to m 3 2 .3 6 ; fo r th e early P to le m ie s ’ co n s c io u s p o lic y o f turning
A le x a n d r ia in to a s y m b o lic m ic r c o s m re p r e se n tin g th e to ta lity o f th e earth see
R . S tr o o tm a n , ‘A lex a n d rie , e e n w er e ld sta d ’, in : B . van d e n B erg, C . de Jonge,
R . S tr o o tm a n e d s ., A le x a n d r ie (H ilv e r su m 2 0 1 1 ) 2 9 2 - 3 1 0 , w ith English
su m m a ry .
40 A fter V . N a a s, ‘Im p erialism , m ira b ilia an d k n ow led ge: so m e paradoxes in the
N a tu ra lis H isto ricΐ , in: R . K. G ib so n an d R M o r ello ed s., P lin y th e E lder: Themes
a n d C on texts. M n e m o s y n e S u p p le m en ts 3 2 9 (L eiden an d B o sto n 2 0 1 1 ) 57-70,
argu in g th at in im p erial R o m ea sim ilar p rocess to o k place.
41 K allixein os o f R h o d es in A th . 2 0 0 f; cf. S trootm an 2 0 0 7 , 3 2 1 -3 2 3 . There
fu rth erm ore w ere A frican tribute-bearers bearing ivory tusks, e b o n y logs, and mix
in g -b o w ls filled w ith g o ld d u st a n d silver; a train o f cam els b rin g in g frankincense,
m yrrh, saffron , cassia, and cin n a m o n from Arabia.
’
42 S tro o tm a n 2 0 0 7 , 2 1 4 .
fr o m p o lis to o ik o u m e n e ·. t h e i m p e r i a l w o r l d
v ie w
145
a m b itio n 'to gather together all th e b o o k s th a t w e re in th e in h a b ite d
world’ at the Library o f A lexandria.43 T r a d itio n h a s p re s e rv e d several
tales about the eagerness o f th e first P to le m ie s to o b ta in b o o k s: c o lo r
ful accounts of their ,alm ost m a n ia c a l effo rts to la y th e ir h a n d s o n
them.44 The indigenous h isto ria n M a n e th o m a d e k n o w le d g e o f th e
history and culture o f a n o n -G re e k p e o p le in a c o re re g io n s o f th e
empire, Egypt, available to G reeks. M a n e th o ’s A eg y p tia k a , like B ero ssos’ Babyloniaka in the S eleukid c o n te x t, sy m b o lically in te g ra te d c o n
quered peoples in the G re e k -M a c e d o n ia n im p e ria l c o m m o n w e a lth .
In the Hellenistic em pires, th e a p p ro p r ia tio n o f fo re ig n k n o w led g e in
part served a similar p u rp o se as o rie n ta l stu d ie s d id fo r E u ro p e a n
colonialism in the n in e te e n th a n d tw e n tie th c e n tu rie s; it w as in a
comparable m anner ch aracterized b y a m ix o f v e rita b le in te lle c tu a l
interest and political leg itim iz a tio n .
C onclusion
Alexandria was abu n d an tly a d o rn e d w ith spoils th a t h a d been b ro u g h t
ere om nearby E gypt: sphinxes, obelisks, a n d o th e r p haraonic statuary connoted P tolem aic d o m in a n c e over w ealth y E gypt, a n d in te
grate Egypt in th e new P to le m a ic w o rld ord er, o f w h ich A lexandria
was t e center.45 G eographers like th e g reat E ratosthenes o f K yrene
meanwhile strove to b rin g to g e th e r th e to ta lity o f th e earth, w ith all its
Jos., A J 1 2 .2 0 . R . S . B a g n a ll, ‘A le x a n d r ia : L ib rary o f d rea m s’. P roceedin gs o f
the A m erican P h ilo so p h ic a l S o c ie ty 1 4 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) 3 4 8 - 3 6 2 , esp . 3 6 0 - 3 6 2 , em p h a sizes
that even i f it is u n lik e ly th a t th e P to le m ie s s u c c e e d e d in really b r in g in g to g eth er
all b ooks ever w r itte n in G r e e k (le t a lo n e c r e a tin g a c o m p r e h e n siv e c o lle c tio n o f
books w ritten in o th e r la n g u a g e s as w e ll), th e library’s en d u r in g le g a cy is th e id ea
that universal k n o w le d g e c o u ld b e , a n d s h o u ld b e, c o lle c te d , an d stu d ie d in its
entirety.
44 E xam p les are c o lle c te d in G r een 1 9 9 0 , 8 9 ; cf. A frica 1 9 6 8 , 6 2 , b u t see th e
critical n o tes b y B a g n a ll 2 0 0 2 o n m o d ern h istorian s’ eagerness to accep t all such
Stories as h isto rica l reality rather a cc ep tin g th at so m e later trad ition m ay h ave b een
expressions o f an id ea lized im a g e o f th e u m versah sm o f th e A lexandrian library.
P« U n d er w a te r arch aeologists h ave in recen t years recovered o b e h ste o f S et. I,
co lu m n s o f R a m esses I I , sp h in x e s o f S e s o stn s III a n d P sa m m etich o s II; see
T r a v a u x récen ts d ans la cap itale d es P tolém ées’, in: A lexan drie. U ne
Y. Empereur,
- 1 9 9 9 ) 2 5 - 2 9 , an d id ., A lex a n d ria R ediscovered (L on don
égapole cosm opolite (Paris VJJJ)
1 9 9 8 ).
146
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
aspects, in to a single scientific system .46 E ratosthenes, a real homo uni
versalis, w ro te p h ilo so p h ical, m a th em atical, a n d philological tracts, as
well as a Geography in th re e books, in w h ich h e divided the earth on a
m athem atical basis in to areas called sphragides, literally seals’, a term
borrow ed fro m la n d m e a su re m e n t term inology. H aving easy access to
in fo rm atio n , b ein g th e h e a d o f th e M u se u m , Eratosthenes compiled
lists, a typical A lexandrian g en re’.4748H is m easurem ent o f the circumfer
ence o f th e earth, p u b lish e d in O n th e M easurem ent o f the Earth,® still
counts as a stu n n in g feat as it gave fo r th e first tim e scientific proof that
th e earth ’s fo rm is spherical.49 I f a n y H ellenistic scientific project was
universalistic, it w as th is one. M naseas o f Patara (or Patrai), perhaps a
stu d e n t o f E ratosthenes w h o w as active in A lexandria around 200, like
wise w rote a g ra n d synthesis o f geographical, ethnographical, historical
an d m ythological subjects covering th e entire w orld.50
T h e am b itio n a n d scale o f su c h endeavors reveal the massive pre
tensions o f H ellen istic im p e ria lism a n d its influence on science and
scholarship. P a tro n ag e o f th is ty p e o f w o rk show ed th a t the court was
th e cen ter o f an all-e m b ra c in g universal o rd e r w here knowledge of
th e en tire w o rld w as g a th e re d a n d co n tro lled .
46 G eus 2 0 0 3 ; cf. K. G eus, ‘U to p ie u n d G eographie. Z um Weltbild der
Griechen in Frühhellenistischer Z e it’, O rbis Terrarum 6 (2000) 55-90, and id.,
Eratosthenes von Kyrene. Studien zu r hellenistischen K ultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte
(M unich 2 0 0 2 ). For P to lem y I l l ’s patronage o f Eratosthenes consult Agosti 1997.
For a general discussion o f geography in Alexandria, see Fraser 1972 I, 520-552.
47 J. Pàm ias I M assana and A . Z ucker, Ératosthène de Cyrène: Catasrérismes
(Paris 2 0 1 3 ), Ixiii, discussing the Κ ατασττερισμοί, a catalogue o f stars and constel
lations, and their m ythical origins, com piled b y Eratosthenes w hich presumably
served as a source for Aratos’s Phainomena. M . El A bbadi, ‘T h e ancient library and
its w orld-w ide connections: T h e m aking o f a w orld m ap’. Proceedings o f the First
Annual Bibliotheca Alexandrina Symposium, 1 7 -19 October, 1998 (Alexandria, n.d.)
2 2 -2 6 , argues that the Ptolem aic attem pt to collect universal knowledge enabled
Eratosthenes to m ap the world in its entirety.
48 D . W . Roller ed., Eratosthenes’ Geography. Fragments Collected and Translated
W ith Commentary an d A ddition al M aterial, ed. by D . W . Roller (Princeton and
O xford 2 0 1 0 ).
49 G. Aujac, Ératosthène de Cyrène, le pionnier de la géographie: sa mesure de la
circonférence terrestre (Paris 2 0 0 1 ); N . N icastro, Circumference: Eratosthenes and the
A ncient Quest to Measure the Globe (N e w York 2 0 0 8 ).
50 P. C appelletto, Ifram m enti d i M nasea: Introduzione testo e commento. Univer-
sità degli S tu di d i M ilano, Pubblicazioni della Facoltà d i Lettere e Filosofia 209, Sezione d i filologut classica (M ilano 2 0 0 3 ).
CHAPTER N IN E
CONCLUSION: PATRONAGE, C O U R T A N D E M P IR E
This book is not the first attem pt at considering P tolem aic p o e try in
the context of the court. Neither is it the first pub licatio n to associate
Ptolemaicpolitics of artistic and scientific patronage w ith th e P tolem aic
imperial enterprise. Notably the discovery o f th e ‘N e w P oseidippos’poems, with their obvious universalistic overtones, has com pelled literaiy historians to reconsider Ptolem aic c o u rt p o etry in th e lig h t o f
empire rather than continue working from th e m o d ern ist conceptual
ization of the Ptolemaic court as the adm inistrative center o f a n atio n
state of sorts. What I hope to have achieved, is explaining th e connec
tion between the court as an instrum ent o f im perial integration a n d th e
function of the court as a locus o f artistic an d scientific pro d u ctio n .
Awareness of the court’s crucial position at th e center o f an in tern a
tional network of personal connections — the place w here th e face-toce negotiations between global empire an d local elites for a large p art
took place, where power and status could be obtained, an d w here elite
integration was pursued through the developm ent o f a com m on elite
ture
can help us to better understand b oth the logic o f cultural
patronage as well as the preferred subject m atter o f court writings. T his
interpretation goes beyond the mere identification o f them atic links
between specific texts and specific elements o f Ptolemaic m onarchy,
ruler cult, or state religion. It hopefiilly can bring us further in under
standing how premodern empire works, how political and ideological
unification was achieved in a politically and culturally heterogeneous
hegemonial system over large geographical distances. Conversely, the
application of novel approaches to empire in current historiographical
research to literary studies may shed new light on the m eaning o f
Hellenistic poetry.
In this last chapter I will summarize the m ost im portant findings
of this study, focusing on (1) the place o f scholars, scientists, artists
and writers within the social milieu o f the court, viz., the dynastie
household and (2) the place of the court and court patronage in the
wider context of empire.
148
T H E BIRDCAGE OF T H E MUSES
T h e artists, scholars, and poets w ho worked for the Ptolemies at the
Ptolem aic court were courtiers: they w erephiloi o f the king and their
position at court was essentially similar to th at o f the other philoi, of
varying status, who surrounded the m onarch. T heir relations with the
king, his family, and other courtiers, was ruled by the same general
mechanisms o f gift exchange and honor-driven behavior that charac
terized court society as a whole. T his had consequences for the prac
tice o f literature and science. T hus, the innovative nature of Hellen
istic literature and science can be explained from the competition
am ong courtiers for status and royal favor. T he contents and direc
tion o f literary works furtherm ore can be associated with various
imperial themes, particularly the idea th at the civilized world was, or
ought to be, a single unified oikoumene, and the idea that the emer
gence o f empire ushered in a G olden Age o f peace and prosperity.
T he remarkable success o f Ptolem aic court patronage as compared
to their m ain rivals — th e Seleukids and Antigonids — can be
explained from the fact th a t the court o f the Ptolemies was the most
stable, being rather firmly established at Alexandria instead of being
relocated continuously, as was the case w ith the households of the
powerfiil Seleukids and, to a lesser degree, the Antigonids (who in
terms o f wealth were no m atch for the Ptolemies). W ith their vast
wealth, and the stable establishment o f the imperial court at Alexan
dria, the early Ptolemies had a decisive advantage over their itinerant
Seleukid and A ntigonid antagonists. T his enabled them to attract
scholars and scientists from all over the Hellenistic world. It was in
the context o f Ptolemaic-Seleukid competition and warfare that Alex
andria developed to be the Hellenistic world’s principal center of art
and learning. T he m ost conspicuous consequences o f the Ptolemaic
court’s stability and prosperity were the M useum and Library of Alex
andria. A direct connection between the M useum and the royal
household may have been the fact that the institution o f the royal
mouseion m ost likely served first o f all the purpose o f educating the
royal children and other royal pages attached to the king.
T he close connection between artistic and scientific patronage and
the court as a political and social institution compels us to understand
artistic and scientific patronage within the broader significance of the
early Ptolemaic court as the central hub in the personalized web of
relations that constituted the Ptolemaic Empire. Like other philoi, writ
ers and scientists competed with each other in the courtly arena for
CONCLUSION: patronage,
court and empire
149
« a n d especially W , th a t is, access to th e p e rs o n o f t h e k in g .
Hiecourtsociety was the locus o f a co m p le x a n d fa r-re a c h in g n e tw o r k
ofpatronage relations. Because pow erfu l p h ilo i a c te d as in te rm e d ia rie s
between monarchy and city, poets a n d o th e r in se a rc h o f a n a u d ie n c e
benefited from having access to th is n e tw o rk a t its p rin c ip a l h u b .
Relationships between individ u als a t c o u r t w a s to a la rg e e x te n t
determined by ritualized behavior, a n d th is b e h a v io r w a s m o r e o r less
controlled by the moral com plexes o f p h ilia a n d xe n ia . O f c e n tr a l
importance was the reciprocal sy ste m o f g ift e x c h a n g e t h a t h ie r
archized in practice w hat in th e o ry w e re h o riz o n ta l b o n d s o f fo rm a l
quality between peers. O n an in fo rm a l level, c o u rtie rs in o rd e r to
acquire favor, were dependent o n b ro k e rs: ro y a l w o m e n o r p o w e rfu l
office-holders of the household (like th e k in g ’s p h y sic ia n ) w h o c o u ld
help others gain access to th e k in g . P o e ts gave p o e m s as g ifts, a n d
tried to impress others by recitin g th e m , in o rd e r to g a in access to
important people and m em bers o f th e d y n a sty a n d th r o u g h th e m w in
the favor of the king.
Court poets were n o t outsid ers a t c o u rt a n d ro y al p a tro n a g e m a y
wen have been beneficial fo r a rtis tic a n d sc ie n tific d e v e lo p m e n t,
oems, treatises, or inventions c a n b e s t b e u n d e rs to o d as gifts p reSent€X ?
k*n S* I f accepted b y h im (o r h is q u e e n , his h eir, o r a
powerful courtier), a re tu rn gift w o u ld likely follow . T h e re tu rn gift
co be immaterial or p ard y im m a te ria l, b o o stin g o n e ’s status rath er
at one s purse: privileges o r c o u rt titles, o fte n acco m p an ied by gifts
o honor expressing royal ‘favor’, p articu larly clo th in g an d tableware,
tiiits of money of course filled purses, b u t these gifts, too, constituted
symbolic capital. A p o et w h o w as allow ed to a tte n d a royal feast and
recite there in public a new ly w ritte n w o rk c o u ld w in h o n o rs for
himself, and privileges n o t only for h im se lf b u t presum ably also for
his family and his ow n clientele. H e w o u ld m oreover benefit from
the status o f the kin g an d his en tourage as arbiters o f art, and from
the international netw orks em anating fro m th e co u rt th rough w hich
written texts and ideas could spread th ro u g h the H ellenistic koinë.
Status presumably could be derived fr o m the royal authorization o f
one’s work. B u t in order to gain access to the king, an d be a llo w ed
r
a royal b an q u et or sy m p o siu m , one had to create
pef ^
ώ Ι Γ ϋ conspicuous, som ething astonishing or ju st
r S
v e r y gen'd. H e n c e ]the mcUnation in H e U e n ts c tc
poetry and science
to ex p erim en t a n d to b e original.
150
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
I f scholars, scientists, artists a n d w riters had good reasons to seek the
patronage o f kings o r pow erful courtiers — fame, status, fortune —
th en w h at m otivation d id kings have to protect so conspicuously the
arts an d sciences? G enerally speaking, th e production o f works of an
o r invention coincided w ith tw o o f th e basic ‘functions’ o f the court:
the co u rt as a stage for th e cu lt o f kingship and the court as the focus
for com petition w ith o th e r dynasties. A rtistic and scientific patronage
n o d o u b t increased the prestige o f th e k ing and his dynasty, but also
were a w ay to com pete w ith rivals: it was a continuation o f war with
o th er m eans. M oreover, som e form s o f a rt were suitable for rather
explicit propaganda, w hile all co n trib u ted to the creation o f an image
o f the court as very splendid, a n d c o u rt society as very learned and very
sophisticated. T h e cultural (pan)H ellenism developed through court
poetry moreover contributed to th e creation o f an international ‘culture
o f em pire’ th a t could be partially ad opted by members o f local (civic)
elites w ho cooperated w ith th e em pire, an d derived status and power
from their cooperation w ith th e em pire. C o u rt poems o f course not
always lauded the king, th e queen o r courtiers directly. As for as we can
say, they were n o t overwhelm ingly concerned w ith daily life at court.
B ut the subject m atter o f m u ch H ellenistic court literature — pastoral
fantasy, heroic tales, a certain fondness o f obscure myths and rare words
— did reflect th e tastes o f a self-proclaimed courtly leisure class and
m ost o f it can be term ed typically aulic in its preferences. In its choice
o f subjects, in other words, it was very clearly court poetry.
O f course som e o f th e preserved A lexandrian poetry does have
rather straightforw ard ideological dim ensions. Wie see this both in
encom iastic poetry as well as in p o e try w ith a secondary political
subtext, such as the Argonautika o f Apollonios. Tw o recurring themes
stand o u t in these w ritings: (1) the universalistic pretensions o f Ptole
m aic im perial ideology, and (2) the conceptualization o f the world
em pire as a final, and timeless. G olden Age. T h is fo u n d expression
for instance in Herakles’ role as the vanquisher o f chaos who extends
the lim its o f civilization, o r the image o f the shepherd as a symbol of
a peaceful, and indeed timeless, life. A nother im p o rtan t theme, sec
ondary to both o f the two m ain themes o u dined above, is the pres
entation o f the king as a victorious spear fighter who secures peace
and prosperity under the aegis o f Zeus.
Poets such as Kallimachos, Theokritos, and Apollonios n o t merely
reflected in their works existing notions o f m onarchy and empire, but
CONCLUSION: P A T R O N A G E , C O U R T A N D E M P IR E
151
mayhave actively helped to develop su c h n o tio n s b y fin d in g th e rig h t
mythic images to go along w ith th e m o re g e n e ric c o n c e p tio n o f
empire as peaceful, universal a n d e v e rla stin g . T h e P a n -H e lle n ic
nature of much Alexandrian w ritin g c o n tr ib u te d to th e d e v e lo p m e n t
of a homogeneous co u rt cu ltu re , a n d su b s e q u e n tly a c u ltu re o f
empire, that could potentially rise above local a n d e th n ic differences
and could attach local elites to each o th e r a n d to th e c o u rt.
The Ptolemies did w hat th e y c o u ld to create a n im age o f A lexan
dria as the cultural and academ ic c e n te r o f th e H e lle n istic M e d ite r
ranean, attracting not only poets to th e ir c o u rt b u t also scientists a n d
philosophers. This policy, to o , h a d im p erial overtones. R oyally sp o n
sored geography contributed to th e u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e w o rld as an
ordered whole while Stoic p h ilo so p h y p ro p a g a te d th e idea th a t m an
kind constituted a single oikoum ene.
The court meanwhile was perceived as th e un ify in g center o f this
oikoumene. It was th e cultural z e n ith fro m w h ic h civilization ema
nated and the central h u b w here all lines o f com m unications came
together. The collections a t A lexandria o f (preferably exotic) plants
and animals, m iraculous objects fro m th e w o rld ’s periphery (India,
Ethiopia), and knowledge o f an d from th e entire world, enhanced the
imperial notion o f the w orld as a single coherent whole which was
held together at its center by th e will o f Zeus and the supreme power
of a victorious and benevolent king.
bibliography
■i
y ed., The P rincely C ourts o f E urope, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (L ond on 1999).
making o f the A n cien -R ég im e court, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 0 0 ’, in: id . e d .,
’ The Princely C ourts o f E u rope, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (L o n d o n 1 999) 7 -4 2 .
A costa-H u gh es, B., Baumbach, M ., K osm etatou, E., eds., L a b o red in p a p y
rus Leaves: Perspectives on an E pigram C ollection A ttrib u te d to P osidippus
(PM ilV ogl V III3 0 9 ) (W ashington, D .C ., 2 0 0 4 ) 2 1 2 -2 2 4 .
Adkins, A. W. H ., From th e M a n y to th e O ne (Ithaca 1970).
Africa, T. W., Science a n d the S ta te in G reece a n d R om e (N e w York, L on don,
Sydney 1968).
Agosti, G., ‘Eratostene sulle M use e il re’, H erm es 125 (1997) 118 -1 2 3 .
Ambiihl, A .,‘“Tell, all ye singers, m y fam e”: Kings, queens and nobility in
epigram’, in: P. Bing and } . S. Bruss eds.. B rill’s Com panion to H ellen
istic Epigram (Leiden and B oston 2 0 0 7 ) 2 7 5 -2 9 4 .
Ames-Lewis, E, The In tellectu a l L ife o f th e early Renaissance A rtist (N ew
Haven and London 20 0 0 ).
Asch, R. G., Court and household from the fifteenth to the seventeenth
—
The
Cf ntA ^ / · ^n:
■^sc^1 an<I A. h l. Birke eds., Princes, Patronage, a n d
N o b ility: T he C o u rt a t th e B egin n in g o f th e M o d em A ge, c. 1 4 5 0 1650 (London and Oxford 1 9 9 1 ) 1 -38.
Asche, U., Rom s W eltherrschaftsidee u n d A u ssen politik in der S pätan tike im
Spiegel der P anegyrici Latini (B on n 1983).
Ashton, S.-A, and W alker, S., C leopatra (L ondon 2 0 0 6 ).
A sper, M ., D im en sion s o f pow er: C allim achean geopoetics and th e P to le
m aic em p ire’, in : B. A co sta -H u g h es, L. Lehnus, S. S teph en s ed s..
B r ill’s C om pan ion to C a llim a ch u s (L e id en an d B o sto n 2 0 1 1 )
1 5 5 -1 7 7.
Asworth, W . B., ‘T h e H absburg circle’, in: B. T. Moran ed.. Patronage a n d
In stitu tion s: Science, Technology, a n d M edicin e a t the European Court,
1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (Rochester and W oodbridge 1991) 137-67.
Augoustakis, A ., ed., F lavian P oetry a n d its Greek Past. M nem osyne Supple
ments 3 6 6 (Leiden and Boston 2014).
Aujac, G ., É ratosthène de Cyrène, le pion n ier de la géographie : sa mesure de la
circonférence terrestre (Paris 2001).
Austin, C ., Bastianini, C ., Gallazzi, G., P ostdippi quae supersunt om m a
*
^M iÎ f 1M2 ° T h e Seieukids and Asia’, in: A. Erskine ed., A Companion
AXiSnto'the Hellenistic World (Maiden and Oxford 2003) 121-133.
154
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
Badian, E., ‘G reeks a n d M a c e d o n ia n s’, in : B. Barr-Sharrar and E.N. Borza
eds., M acedonia a n d Greece in L a te Classical a n d Early Hellenistic Times
(W ash in g to n 1982) 3 3 -5 1 .
Bagnall, R. S., ‘D ecolonizing P tolem aic E g y p t’, in: P. Cartledge, P. Gamsey,
E. G ru e n eds., H ellenistic C onstructs: Essays in Culture, History, and
H istoriography (Berkeley 1997) 2 2 5 -2 4 1 .
— , ‘A lexandria: Library o f dream s’, Proceedings o f the Am erican Philosophical
Society 146 (2002) 3 4 8 -3 6 2 .
Baldry, H . C ., ‘Z e n o ’s ideal state’, J H S 73 (1959) 3-15.
Bang, P. R, ‘Lords o f all th e world: T h e state, heterogeneous power and hege
m ony in the Rom an and M ughal empires’, in: C. A Bayley and P. F. Bang
eds.. Tributary Empires in G lobal H istory (N ew York 2011) 17T192.
Bang, P. R, ‘Between A ioka a n d A ntiochos: A n essay in world history on
universal kin g sh ip a n d c o sm o p o lita n c u ltu re in the Hellenistic
ecum ene’, in: P. E B ang a n d D . K olodziejczyk eds., Universal Empire:
A Com parative Approach to Im p eria l C ulture a n d Representation in Eur
asian H istory (C am bridge a n d N ew Y ork 2012) 60-75.
Bang, P. F., and Kolodziejczyk, D ., ‘“E lep h an t o f In d ia’: Universal empire
th ro u g h tim e an d across c u ltu re ”, in : id . eds.. U niversal Empire:
A C om parative Approach to Im p eria l C ulture a n d Representation in
Eurasian H istory (C am bridge a n d N ew Y ork 2012) 1-40.
Barbantani, S., ‘C om petizioni poetiche tespiesi e mecenatism o tolemaico.
U n gemellaggio tra l’antica e la n uova sede delle M use nella seconda
m età del III secolo a.C . Ipotesi su S H 9 5 9 ’, Lexis 18 (2000) 127-173.
— , Φ άτις Νικηφόρος. F ram m enti d i elega encom iastica nelTetà delle Guerre
Galatiche. Supplem entum H ellenisticum 958-969 (M ilano 2001).
— , ‘Goddess o f love and mistress o f th e sea. N otes on a Hellenistic hymn
to A rsinoe-A phrodite (P.L it.G oodsp. 2, I-IV )’, A n cien t Society 35
(2005) 135-165.
— , ‘Arsinoe II Filadelfo nell’interpretazione storiografica m oderna, nel culto
e negli epigram m i del P.M il.Vogl. V III 3 0 9 ’, in : L. Castagna and
C. Riboldi eds.. A m icitiae Tem pla Serena. S tu d i in onore d i Giuseppe
Aricb (M ilano 2008) 103-134.
— , ‘Idéologie royale et littérature de cour dans l’Égypte lagide’, in : I. SavalliLestrade and I. C ogitore eds., Des rois au prince: pratiques du pouvoir
m onarchique dans V O rient hellénistique et rom ain (IV e siècle avant
J.-C . - Ile siècle après J.-C .) (G renoble 2010) 227-251.
— , ‘Callimachus on kings and kingship’, in: B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus,
S. Stephens eds., BrilTs Companion to Callimachus (Leiden and Boston
2011).
— , ‘Hellenistic epinician’, in: C. Carey, R. Rawles, P. Agocs eds.. Receiving
the Komos : A n cien t a n d m odem Receptions o f the Victory Ode. BICS
Supplem ent 112 (London 2012) 37-55.
b ib l io g r a p h y
. 'Attica in Syria: Persian
’ Greek-Asian re la tio n s h ip
155
and reassessments o f th e
war reen actm en ts
- a literary p o i n t o f view’, ERGA/LOGOI2
Barber, E. A., ‘Alexandrian literature’, in:
E E . A dcock, M. P. C h a r le s Cook eds., The Cambodge A ncient History. Volume / : T h e
H ellenistic Monarchies and the Rise o f Rome (Cambridge 1928) 249-83.
worth, S. A
Barkey, K., Empire o f D ifferen ce: T h e O tto m a n s in C o m p a ra tiv e P e rsp e c tiv e
(Cambridge 2 0 0 8 ).
Beaulieu, P.-A., ‘De l’Esagil au M o u s e io n : l’organisation de la recherche
scientifique au IV e siècle avant J.-Ci, in: P. B riant and F. Joannès eds.,
La transition entre l ’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques. Persika 9 (Paris 2 0 0 6 ) 1 7 -3 6 .
—, Nabu and A pollo: T h e tw o faces o f S e le u c id religious policy’, in:
F. Hoffmann and K. S. S c h m id t eds.. O rien t u n d O k zid en t in hellenis
tischer Zeit. Beiträge zu r Tagung »O rien t u n d O kziden t —Antagonism us
oder Konstrukt? M achtstrukturen, Ideologien u n d K ulturtransfer in hel
lenistischer Z eit (Vaterstetten 2 0 1 4 ) 1 3 -3 0 .
ßelfiore, E S., M urder Am ong Friends. Violation o fP h ilia in Greek Tragedy
(New York and O xford 2 0 0 0 ).
Bergmann, M ., D ie Strahlen des Herrschers. Theomorphes H errscherbild u n d
P °ffsc e Symbolik im H ellenism us u n d in der römischen K aiserzeit
(Mainz 1998).
BernsdorfF, H ., H irten in der nicht-bukolischen D ichtung des Hellenismus.
Palingenesia 7 2 (Stuttgart 2 0 0 1 ).
ate i, S., Cardini, R , Garbero Zorzi, E., eds., The C ourts o f th e Ita lia n
emissance. Translated from the Italian by M . Fitton and G. Culverwell (Milano 1986).
BerteUi, S., T h e courdy universe’, in: S. Bertelli, R Cardini, E. Garbero
Zorzi eds., The Courts o f the Italian Renaissance (M ilano 1 9 8 6 ) 7 -3 8 .
Berve, H ., Das Alexanderreich a u f prosopografischer Grundlage (2 vols;
München 1926).
Beschi, L., ‘L’organ o idraulico (hydraulis): u na in v en zio n e ellen istica dal
grande futuro’, in: M . C. M artinelli ed ., La musa dimenticata: aspetti
dell’esperienza musicale greca in età ellenistica (Pisa 2 0 0 9 ) 2 4 7 -2 6 6 .
Bertazzoli, V ., ‘A rsinoe II e la protezione della poesia. U n a n uova tesrim onianza d i Posid ip p o’, A R F 4 (2 002) 145-153Bevan E R-, The House o f Seleucus (2 vols; L ondon 1902).
B iagioli, M ., ‘G a lile o ’s sy ste m o f p a tr o n a g e ’. History o f Science 28 (1990)
_ _ Galiûo, Courtier: The Practice o f Science in the Culture o f Absolutism
9to y zl patrons and Indian swords’, J H S 115
156
T H E BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
Bing, P., The W ell-Read M use. Present a nd Past in Callimachus and the Hel
lenistic Poets (Göttingen 1988).
— , Bing, P., ‘T he politics and poetics o f geography in the Milan Posidippus,
Section O ne: O n Stone (AB 1-20)’, in: K. Gutzwiller ed., The New
Posidippus: A H ellenistic Poetry Book (Oxford 2005) 119-140.
— , The Scroll and the M arble: Studies in Reading Reception in Hellenistic
Poetry (Ann Arbor 2009).
Bonelli, G., Decadentismo antico e modemo : un confronte fra l'estetismo alessandrino e Tesperienza poetica contemporanea (Torino 1979).
— , ‘Reconstructing Berenike’s Lock’, in: G. W . Most, ed.. Collecting Frag
ments (Göttingen 1997) 78-94.
Borza, E. N., ‘T he symposium at Alexander’s court’, in: Ancient Macedonia
3 (Thessaloniki 1983) 45-55.
— > In the Shadow o f Olympus: the Emergence ofM acedon (Princeton 1990;
2nd rev. edn. 1992).
Bosworth, A. B., Alexander a nd the East: The Tragedy o f Triumph (Oxford
1998).
— , The Legacy o f Alexander. Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda Under the
Successors (Oxford 2002).
Brands, G., and Hoepfner, W , eds., Basileia. D ie Paläste der hellenistischen
Könige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis
20.12.1992 (Mainz am Rhein 1996).
Braunert, H ., ‘Hegemoniale Bestrebungen der hellenistischen Großmächte
in Politik und Wirtschaft’, H istoria 13 (1964) 80-104.
Bringmann, K., ‘The king as benefactor: Some remarks on ideal kingship in
the age of Hellenism’, in: A . W. Bulloch etal. eds.. Images and Ideologies:
Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London
1993) 7-24.
— , ‘Rhodos als Bildungszentrum der hellenistischen W elt’, Chiron 32
(2002) 71-82.
Brocker, M ., Aristoteles als Alexanders Lehrer (Berlin 1966).
Brosius, M., Women in Ancient Persia (559-331BC) (O xford and New York
1996).
Bruijn, J. T. P. de, Idema, W. L., Oostrom, F. P. van, eds.. Dichter en hof.
Verkenningen in veertien culturen (Utrecht 1986).
Bulloch, A. W , ‘Hellenistic poetry’, in: P. E. Easterling and B. W. Knox
eds.. The Cambridge History o f Classical Literature. Volume 1, Part 4:
The Hellenistic Period and the Empire (Cambridge etc. 1989) 1-58.
Burke, P., The Fabrication o f Louis X IV (New Haven and New York 1992).
— , History and Social Theory (Cambridge 1992).
Burney, C., and Lang, D. M., The Peoples o fth e Hills : Ancient Ararat and
Caucasus (London 1970).
— , The Babyloniaca ofBerossus (Malibu 1978).
b ib l io g r a p h y
157
M obility, Gender, Patronage (Berke1995).
Cahen E., les hymnes de Callimaque (Paris 1930).
Calandra, E.j The Ephemeral and the E ternal: The P avilion o f Ptolem y P hiladelphos in the court o f Alexandria. T ran slated from th e Italian by
S. A. Burgess. Tripodes 13 (Athens 2011).
Cameron, A., Callimachus and his Critics (Cam bridge 1995).
Campbell, D. B., Greek and Roman Siege M achinery, 3 9 9 B C -A D 3 6 3 (Lon
don 2003).
Caneva, S. G., ‘Raccontare Zeus. Poesi e cultura di corte ad Alessandria, a
partire diali' Inno I d i C a llim a c o ’, Pallas 8 3 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 2 9 5 - 3 1 1 .
η
T ft Theocritus’ Urban M imes.
^ k y ’Los Angeles, L o n d o n
—, ‘Courdy love, stars a n d p o w er: T h e q u e e n in 3 r d -c e n tu r y ro y a l c o u p le s ,
through poetry and e p ig r a p h ic te x ts ’, in : M . A . H a r d e r , R . R R e g tu it ,
G. C. Wakker eds., Hellenistic Poetry in Context. Tenth International
Workshop on Hellenistic Poetry, Groningen 25th-27th A ugust 2010. H e l
lenistic» G roningana 2 0 (L e u v e n 2 0 1 4 ) 2 5 - 5 8 .
Canfora, L , The Vanished Library. A W onder o f the A ncient World. H e lle
nistic Culture and S o c ie ty 7 (L o n d o n 1 9 8 9 ) .
pdetrey, L., Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, adm inistration, finances d ’un
royaume hellénistique (312-129 avant J. C.) (R e n n e s 2 0 0 7 ) .
appe etto, P., ed., I fram m enti di Mnasea: Introduzione testo e commento,
ntventtà degli Studi di M ilano, Pubblicazioni della Facoltà d i Lettere e
rilosofta 209, Sezione di filologia classica (M ila n o 2 0 0 3 ).
Lard^cia, G . , ‘La ceinture d e Parysatis’, in: D . C h a rp in a nd F. Joann ès eds..
Marchands, diplom ates e t em pereurs (Paris 1 9 9 1 ) 3 6 3 -3 6 9 .
arsson, S., H ellenistic D em ocracies : Freedom , Independence a n d P o litica l
Procedure in Some E ast Greek C ity-S tates. H isto ria E inzelschriften 2 0 6
(Stuttgart 2 0 1 0 ).
Carney, E. D ., “‘W h a t’s in a nam e?” T h e em erg en ce o f a title fo r royal
w om en in the H e lle n istic P eriod ’, in: S. B . P om eroy ed., W om en’s H is
tory and A ncient H istory (C hap el H ill and L ondon , 1 9 9 1 ) 1 5 4 -1 7 2 .
— , Women and M onarchy in M acedonia ( N o r m a n 2 0 0 0 ) .
— , ‘Elite E d u cation a n d H ig h C u ltu re in M a c ed o n ia ’, in: W . H e ck el and L. A .
eds., Crossroads o f H istory: The Age o f Alexander (C larem on t 2 0 0 3 ) 4 7 - 6 3 .
— , ‘W o m e n an d dunasteta in C aria’, A m erican Journal o f Philology 1 2 6 .1
(2005) 6 5 -9 1 .
.
A _ . .
__ ‘B eine royal a n d fem a le in th e early H e lle n istic p eriod , in : A . E rskine
a n d L. L lew elly n -J o n es ed s.. C reating a Hellenistic W orld (S w an sea an d
r
^Le dirigenze cittadine nello stato seleucidico (C o m o 1 9 9 6 ).
C arsana, C ., L a a g
h u n tin g o f A frican elephants Transactions
Philological Association 1 2 3 (1 9 9 3 ) 2 4 7 -2 6 0 .
Haven 2001)·
158
T H E BIRD C AG E O F T H E MUSES
C h u a , A ., D a y o f E m p ir e : H o w H y p e rp o w e rs R ise to G lo b a l D om in an ce - A nd
W h y T h ey F a ll ( N e w Y o rk 2 0 0 9 ) .
C la re , R . J ., T h e P a th o f th e A rg o . L a n g u a g e , Im a g ery a n d N a rra tiv e in the
A rg o n a u tic a o fA p o llo n io s o f R h o d e s (C a m b rid g e 2 0 0 2 ).
C la rk e , G . W ., ‘T h e g o v e rn o r’s p a la c e , a c ro p o lis , Je b e l K h a lid ’, in: I. Nielsen
e d ., T h e R o y a l P a la c e I n s titu tio n in th e F ir s t M ille n n iu m B C . M ono
g ra p h s o f th e D a n is h I n s titu te a t A th e n s 4 (A th e n s 2 0 0 1 ) 215-247.
C la ry sse , W ., ‘G re e k s a n d E g y p tia n s i n th e P to le m a ic a rm y a n d administra
t i o n ’, A e g y p tu s 6 5 (1 9 8 5 ) 5 7 - 6 6 .
— , ‘P to le m a e ïsc h E g y p te . E e n m a a ts c h a p p ij m e t tw e e g e zich te n ’, H an delin
g e n v a n d e K o n in k lijk e Z u id n e d e r la n d s e M a a tsc h a p p ij vo o r T a a l- en Let
te rk u n d e en G e sc h ie d e n e 4 5 (1 9 9 1 ) 2 1 - 3 8 .
— , ‘P to lé m é e s e t te m p le s ’, in : J . L e c la n t a n d D . V a lb elle eds., L e D écret de
M e m p h is (P aris 1 9 9 9 ) 5 4 -5 8 .
— , ‘T h e P to le m ie s v is itin g th e E g y p tia n c h o r a ’, in : L. M o o re n ed., P olitics,
A d m in is tr a tio n a n d S o c ie ty in th e H e lle n is tic a n d R o m a n W orld. Studia
H e lle n is tic a 3 6 (L e u v e n 2 0 0 0 ) 2 9 - 5 3 .
C la u ss, J . J ., ‘L ies a n d a llu s io n s. T h e a d d re ss e e a n d d a te o f C allim achus’
H y m n to Z e u s ’, C A 5 .2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) 1 5 5 -1 7 0 .
— , ‘C o s m o s w ith o u t im p e r iu m : th e A r g o n a u tic jo u rn e y th ro u g h tim e’, in:
M . A . H a rd e r, R . F. R e g tu it, G . C . W a k k e r ed s., A p o llo n iu s o f Rhodes.
H e lle n is tic a G r o n in g a n a 4 (L e u v e n 2 0 0 0 ) 1 1 -3 2 .
C la u ss, J . J ., a n d C u y p e rs, M . P., e d s., A C o m p a n io n to H e lle n istic L iteratu re
(M a ld e n , M A , a n d O x f o r d 2 0 1 0 ; 2 n d e d n 2 0 1 3 ).
C la y m a n , D . L ., T im o n o f P h liu s : P y rrh o n ism I n to P o e try (B erlin a n d New
Y o rk 2 0 0 9 ).
C o h e n , A ., A r t in th e E ra o f A le x a n d e r th e G r e a t: P a ra d ig m s o f m an h o o d a n d
T h e ir C u ltu r a l T r a d itio n s (C a m b rid g e 2 0 1 0 ).
C o le m a n , K ., ‘A p o llo ’s sp e e c h b e fo re th e B a ttle o f A c tiu m : P ropertius
4 .6 .3 7 - 5 4 ’, in : A . F. B asso n a n d W . J . D o m in ik eds.. L ite ra tu re , A rt,
H is to r y . S tu d ie s o n C la ss ic a l A n tiq u ity a n d T r a d itio n . I n H o n o u r o f
W .J. H en d erso n (F ra n k fu rt a m M a in 2 0 0 3 ) 3 7 -4 5 .
C o n s ta n ta k o p o u lo u , C ., ‘I d e n tity a n d re sista n c e : T h e Isla n d ers’ League, the
A e g e a n isla n d s a n d th e H e lle n is tic k in g s ’, M e d ite r ra n e a n H isto ric a l
R e v ie w 2 7 Λ (2 0 1 2 ) 5 1 -7 2 .
C o p p o la , A ., Ί m is te ri e la p o litic a d e i p r im i T o le m e i’, in : C . B onnet,
J . R ü p k e , P. S c a rp i ed s.. R elig io n s o rie n ta le s - c u lti m is te ric i: N e u e P ers
p e k tiv e n - n o u velles p e rsp e c tiv e s - p r o s p e ttiv e n u ove. Im R a h m en d es tr ila te ra le n P ro je k te s L e s re lig io n s o rie n ta le s d a n s le m o n d e g ré c o -ro m a in .
A lte rtu m s w is se n sc h a ftlic h e B eiträg e 16 (S tu ttg a rt 2 0 0 6 ) 2 1 1 -2 1 8 .
— , ‘A le x a n d e r’s C o u r t’, in : B. Ja c o b s a n d R . R o llin g e r eds.. D e r A ch arn en id e n h o f. A k te n d es 2 . I n te rn a tio n a le n K o llo q u iu m s z u m T h em a „ V order
a sie n im S p a n n u n g sfe ld k la ssisch er u n d a lto rie n ta lisc h e r Ü b erlieferu n g en ",
bib lio g raph y
159
Landgut Castelen b ei Basel, 2 3 .-2 5 . M a i 2 0 0 7 . C la ss ic a e r O r ie n ta lia 2
(Wiesbaden 2 0 10)
1 3 9 -1 5 4 .
.
,
Cribiore, R , Gym nastics o f th e M in d . G reek E d u c a tio n in H e lle n is tic a n d
Γ Roman Egypt (P rin ceton 2 0 0 1 ).
De Breucker, G. E. E ., D e B abylon iaca va n B erossos v a n B a b ylo n . I n le id in g ,
editie en com m entaar (P h D thesis; U n iv ersity o f G ro n in g e n , 2 0 1 2 ).
De Jonge, C ., ‘D e A le x a n d tijn se b ib lio th e e k e n d e g e s c h ie d e n is v o n d e
klassieke filologie’, in: R. M . van d e n Berg, C . d e J o n g e , R . S tr o o tm o n
eds., Alexandrie. Lampas 4 4 .4 (H ilv ersu m 2 0 1 1 ) 3 3 1 -3 4 8 .
Dehtte, L , Les traités d e la ro ya u té deeph an te, D io to g b ie e t S th én id a s (L iè g e
and Paris 1942).
Delia, D ., ‘AU Army Boots a n d U niform s? E th n ic ity in P to le m a ic E g y p t’,
in: Alexandria a n d A lexan drian ism . P a p ers D e liv e r e d a t a S ym posiu m
Organized by the J. R G etty M useum , A p r il 1 9 9 3 (M a lib u 1 9 9 6 ) 4 1 -5 2 .
—, A History o f A ntioch in Syria. F rom Seleucus to th e A ra b C on qu est (Prince
ton 1961).
^
—, Ancient Antioch (Princeton 1 9 6 3 ).
Ddeman, J., and M oyer, I., ‘E gyp tian literatu re’, in : J. J. C lau ss a n d
w 'ii uyPers ec“ ->A Com panion to H ellenistic L iteratu re (C hich ester and
Malden 2010) 4 2 9 -4 4 7 .
‘P?rinth’
DlX° w o"
G reek freedom , and th e D ia d o ch o i, 3 2 3 -3 0 1 B C ’, in:
W. Heckel, L. T ride, P. W h eatley eds., A lexan der’s E m pire: Form ula2007)^ 1
^ QmPa n *°n t0 Crossroads o f H istory (C larem ont, C A,
Duindam, J., M yths o fP ow er : N o rb e rt Elias a n d the Early M o d em European
Lourt (Amsterdam 1994).
—» Vienna an d Versailles. The Courts o f Europe’s D ynastic Rivals, 1 5 5 9 -1 7 8 0
(Cambridge 2003).
Eade, J. C., Kent, W . R , Sim ons, P. eds.. Patronage, A rt, a n d Society in
Renaissance Italy (Oxford and N ew York 1987).
Eamon, W ., ‘C ou rt, academ y, a n d p rin tin g h o u se: Patronage and scien tific
careers in late R enaissance Italy’, in: B . T . M o ra n e d .. Patronage a n d
Institutions (R ochester, N Y , and W o o d b rid g e 1 9 9 1 ) 1 2 5 -1 5 0 .
Eckstein, A. M ., M editerranean Anarchy, Interstate War, a n d the Rise o f Rome.
H ellenistic C ulture and Society 4 8 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2 007).
Eddy, S. K., The K in g is D e a d : Studies in N e a r Eastern Resistance to H ellenism 334-31 B C (Lincoln, Nebr. 1 9 6 1 ).
.
. .
.
effu R ‘vMnccik als Provokation. Tradition und Innovation in der atexan’dri^ iscÎn Dichtung’, in: W. Vosskamp ed., Klassik im Vergleich. N o r
m a tiv itä t u n d H istorizität europäischer Klassiken (Stuttgart and Weimar
199
^ 3 17-330·
Philometor - ein “Sonderling” auf dem Thron?’,
En6SS Æ . Æ o 4 ) 66-82.
160
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
El Abbadi, M., ‘The ancient library and its world-wide connections: The
making of a world map’, P ro ceed in g s o f th e F irst A n n u a l Bibliotheca
A le x a n d rin a S ym p o siu m , 1 7 -1 9 O cto b er, 1 9 9 8 (Alexandria, n.d.) 22-26.
Elias, N., D ie h öfisch e G esellsch aft. U n tersu ch u n gen z u r Soziologie des König
tu m s u n d d e r h öfisch en A ris to k r a tie (Neuwied and Berlin 1969; 7th edn.
Frankfurt am Main 1994).
Empereur, J.-Y.» A le x a n d ria R ed isc o v ere d (London 1998).
—, ‘Travaux récents dans la capitale des Ptolémées’, in: A lexandrie. Une
m é g a p o le c o sm o p o lite . Cahiers de la Villa Kérylos 9 (Paris 1999)
25-29.
Engberg-Pedersen, T., ‘The relationship between intellectual and political
centres in the Hellenistic World’, in: P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen,
L. Hannestad, J. Zahle eds.. C e n tre a n d P erip h ery in th e H ellenistic
W o rld . Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3 (Aarhus 1994) 285-315.
Engels, D., ‘Middle Eastern “Feudalism” and Seleukid dissolution’, in:
K. Erickson and G. Ramsey eds., S e le u c id D isso lu tio n : The Sinking o f
th e A n ch o r. Philippika 50 (Wiesbaden 2011) 19-36.
Engels, J., A u g u steisch e O ik u m en eg eg ra p h ie u n d U n iversa lh isto rie im Werk
S tra b o n s v o n A rsa m e ia . Geographica Historica 12 (Stuttgart 1999).
Erickson, K., ‘Apollo-Nabü: The Babylonian policy of Antiochus Γ, in:
K. Erickson and G. Ramsey eds., S e le u c id D isso lu tio n : The Sinking o f
th e A n ch o r (Wiesbaden 2011) 51-66.
Errington, R. M., ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’, C lassical Quar
te rly 19 (1969) 233-242.
Erskine, A., ‘Culture and power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and
Library of Alexandria’, G & R 4 2 (1995) 38-48.
—, ed., A C om pan ion to th e H e lle n istic W o rld (Oxford 2003).
—, ‘Between philosophy and the court: The life of Persaios of Kition’, in:
A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones eds.. C rea tin g a H ellen istic W orld
(Swansea and Oxford 2011) 177-95.
Erskine, A., and Llewellyn-Jones, L., eds.. T h e H e lle n istic R o ya l C ourt
(Swansea and Oxford 2014).
Fantuzzi, M., and Hunter, R. L., M u se e m o d elli. L a p o e sia ellen istica da
A lessa n d ro M a gn o a d A u gu sto (Rome and Bari 2 0 0 2 ).
—, ‘The structure of the H ip p ik a in P .M iL Vogl. VIII 309’, in: B. AcostaHughes, M. Baumbach, E. Kosmetatou eds.. L a b o red in p a p yru s Leaves:
P ersp ectives on a n E p ig ra m C o llectio n A ttr ib u te d to P o sid ip p u s (P M il.
Vogl. V II I 3 0 9 ) (Washington, D.C. 2004) 212-224.
— , T ra d itio n a n d In n o va tio n in H ellen istic P o etry (Cambridge 2004).
—, Fantuzzi, M-, ‘Posidippus at court: The contribution of the Ιππικά of
P.Mich. Vogl. VIII 309, to the Ptolemaic kingship’, in: K. Gutzwiller
ed.. T h e N e w P o sid ip p u s: A H ellen istic P oetry B ook (Oxford and New
York 2005) 249-68.
b ib lio g r a ph y
161
_ and P a p a n g h e l i s , T., eds., B rill’s Com panion to G reek a n d L a tin P a storal
' (Leiden and Boston 2 006).
, .
Findlen, P, ‘The economy o f scientific exchange xn early modern Ita ly , in:
B.T. Moran ed„ Patronage a n d In stitu tio n s: Science, Technology, a n d
Medicine a t the European C ourt, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (Rochester, NY, and
Woodbridge 1991) 1-24.
—, Possessing N ature: M useums, C ollecting a n d S cientific C ulture in E arly
Modem Italy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994).
Fischer-Bovet, G , and Clarysse, W ., ‘A military reform before the battle o f
Raphia?’, Archiv fu r Papyrusforschung 58 (2012) 26-35.
Flamerie de Lachapelle, G., ‘L’image des rois hellénistiques dans l’œ uvre de
Florus’, Arctos 44 (2010) 109-122.
—, Les prises de parole d ’A ntiochus III dans l’œuvre de Tite Live’, Paideia
67 (2012) 123-133.
Flemming, B., Turkse dichters en hun patroons in de vijftien d e en zes"ende eeuw>· in·· J· T. P. de Bruijn, W . L. Idema, F. P van O ostrom
eds., Dichter en hof. Verkenningen in veertien culturen (Utrecht 1986)
167-181.
Flmrerman, J. J., Power, Paideia a n d Pythagoreanism (Amsterdam 1995)
’
^tS ancl em Perors: A reconnaissance o f sophistic attitu des’, in:
κτ · ° Ψ e<^*’ Taideia: The W orld o f the Second Sophistic (Berlin and
New York 2004) 35 9 -3 7 6 .
Fössmeier, C , Ich bin Ägypten”. Selbstinszenierung und Fremdstilisierung
der Kleopatra im Film ’, A n tike W elt 32 (2001) 285-288.
°StTa JÜA> ,'<^rS^noe ® ^ ePic 9 ueen: Encomiastic allusion in Theocritus,
idyll 15 , Transactions o f the American Philological Association 136
(2006) 133-148.
Frame, G., and A.R. George, ‘The royal libraries o f Nineveh: N ew evidence
for king Ashurbanipal’s tablet collection’, Iraq 67 (2005) 265-284.
Fraser, P. M ., Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols; Oxford 1972).
Führer, T., ‘Callimachus’ epinician poems’, in: M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit,
G. C. Wakker eds., Callimachus. Hellenistica Groningana 1 (Groningen
1993) 79-97.
Fulinska, A., ‘Arsinoe Hoplismene: Poseidippos 36, Arsinoe Philadelphos
and the Cypriot cult o f Aphrodite’, SAAC16 (2012) 141-156.
Funck B., “‘König Perserfreund”: die Seleukiden in der Sicht ihrer N ach
tern (Beobachtungen zu einigen ptolemäischen Zeugnissen des 4. und
3 Jh s V Chr.)’, in: B. Funck ed., Hellenismus (Tübingen 1996) 195p «The sacred circle o f Mantua’, in: S. Bertelli, F. Cardini, E. GarGardini, r.,
Courts o f the Italian Renaissance (Milano 1986)
bero Z-orzi c“ ·’
77-126-
162
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
Garlan, Y., ‘Hellenistic science: Its application in peace and war. War and
Siegecraft. In E W. Walbank ed., T h e C a m b rid g e A n c ie n t H istory. Vol
u m e 7 .1 : T h e H e lle n is tic W o rld (2 n d rev. edn; Cambridge 1984) 353362.
Gauthier, R, L es c ité s g recq u es e t le u rs b ie n fa ite u rs (IV e -Ie r siècle a v a n tJ -C ).
C o n trib u tio n à l'h isto ire d e s in s titu tio n s (Paris 1985).
— , N o u v e lle s in sc rip tio n s d e S a rd e s IL D o c u m e n ts ro ya u x d u tem ps d'Antiochos
3 : D é c r e t d e sa rd es en l'h o n n e u r d 'H é lio d ô ro s. Archaeological Explora
tions of Sardis: Études du monde gréco-romain 15 (Geneva 1989).
— , É tu d e s d 'h isto ire e t d 'in s titu tio n s g rec q u e s: c h o ix d 'é c rits (é d ité e t indexé par
D e n is R o u sset). École pratique des hautes études, sciences historiques et
philologiques III. Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 47 (Genève
2011 ).
Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Theorie und politische Praxis der Philosophen im Hellenis
mus’, in: W. Schuller ed.. P o litisc h e T h eo rie u n d P ra x is im A ltertu m
(Darmstadt 1998) 100-121.
—, ‘Prinzen und Prinzessinnen bei den späten Ptolemäern’, in: Victor Alonso
Troncoso ed., ΔΙΑΔΟΧΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ. L a fig u ra delsucesor en
la rea leza h elen lstica . Geriôn Anejos 9 (Madrid 2005) 103-117.
Geizer, T., ‘Kallimachos und das Zeremoniell des ptolemäischen Königs
hauses’, in: J. Stagl, ed., A sp e k te d e r K u ltu rso zio lo g ie (Berlin 1982)
13-30.
Geus, K., ‘Utopie und Geographie. Zum Weltbild der Griechen in Früh
hellenistischer Zeit’, O rb is T e rra ru m 6 (2 0 0 0 ) 5 5 -9 0 .
— , E ra to sth en es vo n K yren e. S tu d ie n z u r h ellen istisch en K u ltu r- u n d W issen
sch aftsgesch ich te (Munich 2002).
—, ‘Space and geography’, in: A. Erskine ed., A C o m p a n io n to th e H ellenis
tic W o rld (Oxford 2003) 232-246.
Gingerich, O., T h e B ook N o b o d y R e a d : C h a sin g th e R evo lu tio n s o f N icolaus
C opern icu s (New York 2 0 0 4 ).
Giovannini, A., ‘Greek cities and Greek commonwealth’, in: A. W. Bulloch,
E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, A. Stewart eds.. Im ages a n d Id eologies: S e lf
D e fin itio n in th e H e lle n istic W o rld (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London
1993) 265-286.
Gold, B. K., L ite ra ry P a tro n a g e in G reece a n d R om e (Chapel Hill and Lon
don 1987).
Goldhill, S., R ea d in g G reek T ra g ed y (Cambridge 1986).
Gorre, G., L es rela tio n s d u clerg é ég yp tien e t d es L tgides d 'a p rès d es sources
p riv é e s. Studia Hellenistica 45 (Leuven 2009).
Gorteman, A., ‘Médecins de cour dans l’Égypte du IHe siècle avant J.-C.’,
C h ro n iq u e d 'É p ip te 32 (1957) 313-336.
Gosling, A., ‘Political Apollo: From Callimachus to the Augustans’, M n e
m osyn e 45.4 (1992) 502-512.
b ib l io g r a p h y
163
a c P The Greek B ucolic P oets (C am bridge 1 9 5 3 ).
G0%aÏ ' Z Z to Actium . The H isto rica l E vo lu tio n o f th e H e lle n istic A g e
(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990).
GraingerJ . D., The Syrian Wars. M nem osyne S u p p lem en t 3 2 0 (L eid en a n d
Boston 2010).
_
,.
W. S., T h e production o f coinage from A rchelaus to F erdiccas
III and the evolution o f Argead M acedon ia’, in: I. W o rth in g to n e d .,
Ventures into Greek H istory. Essays in H on ou r o f N .G .L . H a m m o n d
(Oxford 1994) 103-134.
Grieb, V., Hellenistische D em okratie: p o litisch e O rgan isation u n d S tru k tu r in
freien griechischen Poleis nach A lexander dem G roßen. H istoria E in zel
schritten 199 (Stuttgart 2 0 0 8 ).
Griffin, D., Literary Patronage in England, 1 6 5 0 -1 8 0 0 (Cam bridge 1 9 9 6 ).
Greenwalt,
Gr*^979)F T” The0CritUS a t C oun- M nem osyne Su pplem ent 55 (L eiden
~
kefore lunch: T he em ancipated w om an in T heocritus’, in:
07aley ed*’ Ref lections o f W omen in A n tiq u ity (N ew York 1981)
Gmei .?·^:’ heritage a n d H ellenism : The R einvention o f Jewish Tradition.
Hellenistic C ulture and S o cie ty 3 0 (B erkeley an d L os A n geles 1998).
’
lteratlire ’ *n: J* J· Clauss and M . Cuypers eds., A Companion
Γ, 4 · Helf n
f tt<j lite r a tu r e (Chichester and M alden 2010) 4 1 5 -4 2 8 .
W T μ
AriOSt° ’ d e id eale h o fd ich ter’> ώ : J· T. P. d e B m ijn ,
• dema, R P. van O ostrom eds.. D ich ter en hof. Verkenningen in
veertien culturen (U trecht 1 986) 9 3 -1 1 3 .
Ut2rx!r €|Γ’
Theocritus Pastoral Analogies: The Form ation o f a Genre
(Madison 1991).
» Callimachus Lock o f Berenice·. Fantasy, R om ance, and Propaganda’,
American Journal o f Philology 113 (1992) 35 9 -3 8 5 .
, ed., The N ew Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book (O xford 20 0 5 ).
■ . A Guide to Hellenistic Literature (London 2007).
Habicht, C., ‘D ie herrschende Gesellschaft in den hellenistischen Monarchien’,
Vierteljahrschriftjiir S ozial-u n d Wirtschaftsgeschichte 45 (1958) 1-16.
Hadot, P., ‘Fürstenspiegel’, REC 8 (1970) 555-82.
Hammond, N . G. L., and Griffith, G. T., A History o f Macedonia. Volume
II: 5 5 0 -3 3 6 (Oxford 1979).
Hammond, N . G. L., ‘Royal Pages, personal pages, and boys trained in the
Macedonian manner during the period o f the Tememd monarchy’,
WUtnria 39 3 (1990) 261-290.
Hans L M ‘Theokrits XVI. Idylle und die Politik Hierons II. von Syra______ __
34 (1985) 117-125.
.
kus ’
I f Pergamon (Ithaca and London 19 4 6 ; 2 n d rev.
Han and enlarged edn. 1972).
164
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
H a n s e n , Μ . H . , a n d S h ip p le y , G ., ‘T h e p o lis a n d fe d e r a lism ’, in: G . R. Bugh
e d .. T h e C a m b rid g e C o m p a n io n to th e H e lle n is tic W o rld (Cambridge
2 0 0 6 ) 5 2 -7 2 .
H a r d e r , M . A ., R e g tu it, R R , W a k k e r , G . C ., e d s ., C allim ach u s. Hellenistica
G r o n in g a n a 1 (G r o n in g e n 1 9 9 3 ).
H a r d e r , M . A ., R e g tu it, R . E , W a k k e r , G . C ., e d s ., T h eocritu s. Hellenistica
G r o n in g a n a 2 (G r o n in g e n 1 9 9 6 ) .
H a r d e r , M . A ., R e g tu it, R . E , W a k k e r , G . C ., e d s., A p o llo n iu s o f Rhodes.
H e lle n is tic a G r o n in g a n a 4 (L e u v e n 2 0 0 0 ) .
H a r d e r , A ., ‘T h e in v e n t io n o f p a s t, p r e s e n t a n d fu tu r e in C allim achos’
A itia ’, H erm es 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) 2 9 0 - 3 0 6 .
— , ‘R o n d o m d e iv o r e n to r e n : H e lle n is t is c h e p o ë z ie als l ’art p ou r l’art?’,
L am pas 3 8 .3 (2 0 0 5 ) 2 3 9 -2 4 8 .
— , C a llim a c h u s : A e tia (2 v o ls ; O x fo r d 2 0 1 2 ) .
H a r d e r , A , ‘F r o m te x t t o te x t: T h e im p a c t o f th e A lex a n d ria n library on
th e w o r k o f H e lle n is t ic p o e t s ’, in : J . K ö n ig , K . O ik o n o m o p o u lo u ,
G . W o o l f e d s .. A n c ie n t L ib ra r ie s (C a m b r id g e 2 0 1 3 ) 9 6 - 1 0 8 .
H a z z a rd , R . A . Im a g in a tio n o f a M o n a rc h y : S tu d ie s in P to lem a ic Propaganda.
P h o e n ix S u p p le m e n ts 3 8 ( T o r o n t o 2 0 0 0 ) .
H a u b e n , H ., ‘P t o lé m é e III e t B é r é n ic e II, d iv in ité s c o sm iq u e s ’, in : P. Iossif,
A . S. C h a n k o w sk i, C . C . L o rb er e d s ., M o re th a n M en , Less th a n G ods:
S tu d ie s on R o y a l C u lt a n d I m p e r ia l W orsh ip. P ro ceed in g s o f th e Intern atio n a l C on feren ce o rg a n ize d b y th e B elg ia n S ch o o l a t A th en s, 1 -2 N ovem
b e r 2 0 0 7 . S tu d ia H e lle n is tic a 5 1 (L e u v e n 2 0 1 1 ) 3 5 7 - 3 8 8 .
H e c k e i, W , ‘R esistance to A lex a n d er th e G rea t’, in : L . A T rid e ed.. The Greek
W o rld in th e F ou rth C en tu ry: F rom th e F a ll o f th e A th e n ia n E m pire to the
Successors o f A lex a n d er th e G re a t (L o n d o n a n d N e w Y ork 1 9 9 7 ) 189-227.
— , ‘K in g a n d “C o m p a n io n s ”: O b s e r v a tio n s o n th e n a tu r e o f p o w e r in the
r eig n o f A le x a n d e r ’, in : J. R o is m a n e d .. B r ill’s C o m p a n io n to A lexan der
th e G re a t (L e id e n 2 0 0 3 ) 1 9 7 - 2 2 6 .
H e e r in k , M ., ‘M e r g in g p a r a d ig m s: T r a n s la t in g p h a r a o n ic id e o lo g y in
T h e o c r it u s ’ Id y ll 1 7 ’, in : B . G u fle r , M . L a n g , I. M a d r eite r, R . R ollin g e r e d s ., I n te r k u ltu r a litä t in d e r A lte n W elt. V o rd era sien , H ellas,
Ä g y p te n u n d d ie v ie lfa lig e n E b en en d e s K o n ta k ts (W ie s b a d e n 2 0 1 0 )
3 8 3 -4 0 8 .
H e in r ic h s , J ., a n d M ü lle r , S ., ‘E in p e r sisc h e s S ta tu s sy m b o l a u f M ü n z e n
A lex a n d ers I. v o n M a k e d o n ie n ’, Z P E 16 7 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 2 8 3 - 3 0 9 .
H e ld , W ., ‘D i e R e sid e n z s tä d te d er S e le u k id e n : B a b y lo n , S e le u k e ia am
T ig r is, A i K h a n u m , S eleu k eia in Pieria, A n tio c h e ia a m O r o n te s ’, J a h r
b ü ch er des deu tsch en arch äologisch en I n stitu ts 1 1 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) 2 1 7 - 2 4 9 .
H ek ster, O ., a n d F ow ler, R , ‘Im a g in in g K ings: F rom Persia to R o m e ’, in:
O . H ek ster a nd R F ow ler eds, Im agin ary K ings. R oyal Im ages in th e A n cien t
N e a r E ast, G reece a n d R om e. O riens e t O ccid en s 11 (Stuttgart 2 0 0 5 ) 9 -3 8 .
165
b ib l io g r a p h y
u il M The M yth of.'Absolutism : C hange a n d C o n tin u ity in E a rly M o d G
f t» * »
r °ri
I9921
‘The “frien d s’ o fth e ea rly h e lle m stic ru lers: se rv a n ts o r o f f i-
d è \ Talanta 12-3 (1 9 8 0 ) 1 0 3 -1 4 9 .
- , Ritualised Friendship a n d th e G reek C ity (C a m b rid g e a n d N e w Y o rk
’ 1987).
- , ‘Friendship’, in: S. H o r n b io w e r a n d A . S p a w fo r th e d s., T h e O x fo rd
Classical Dictionary (3rd edn ; O x fo rd a n d N e w Y o rk 1 9 9 6 ) 1 1 6 -1 1 7 .
—, ‘The court society o f th e H e lle n is tic age’, in : P. C a rd e d g e , P. G a rn sey,
E. S. Gruen eds., H ellenistic C onstructs. Essays in C ultu re, H istory, a n d
Historiography (B erkeley, L os A n g e le s , L o n d o n 1 9 9 7 ) 1 9 9 -2 2 4 .
Hirschbiegel, J„ ‘H o f als soziales S y ste m . D e r B e itr a g d e r S y s te m th e o r ie
nach Niklas L u h m an n fu r e in e T h e o r ie d e s H o f e s ’, in : R . B u tz ,
}. Hirschbiegel, D . W illo w e it ed s., H o f u n d Theorie. A n n ä h e ru n g en a n
em historisches Phänomen (C o lo g n e , W e im a r , V ie n n a 2 0 0 4 ) 4 3 -5 4 .
—, Hof. Zur Ü b erzeid ich k eit e in e s z e itg e b u n d e n e n P h ä n o m e n s ’, in :
ß. Jacobs and R . R o llin g er e d s .. D e r A ch äm enidenhofi A k ten des 2 .
Internationalen Kolloquium s zu m Them a „ Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld
ktostscher und altorientalischer Ü berlieferungen“, L an dgu t Castelen b ei
13-38 2 3 ~2 ^’ M a t 2 0 0 7 · C lassica e t o rien ta lia 2 (W ie sb a d en 2 0 1 0 )
HkCîî;.S ^ H^ r0w.Uit,in A P ° U° n i ^ R h o d iu s’, in : M . A . H arder, R. F. R egtakker eds., G ods a n d Religion in H ellen istic Poetry. H e llem sucaG roningana 16 (L euven 2 0 1 2 ) 1 3 1 -1 6 2 .
0Cp
'J 7 u m T yp u s der Basileia u n d d er kön iglich en A nd ron es’, in:
f ° rands
W . H o e p fn er ed s., B asileia. D ie P aläste d er hellenis\r\u n
Köni5 e (M ainz am R hein 1 9 96b ) 1-43.
° k -τ’ ^ History o f the Ptolemaic Empire. Translated from the German
by T. Saavedra (London and N e w York 2 0 0 1 ).
Holden, A., Greek Pastoral Poetry (H arm ondsw orth 1974).
Honigman, S., ‘T h e narrative fu nction o f the king and the library in the
Letter o f Aristeas’, in: T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken, J., D ines, eds.,
Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2008)
128-146.
— , “‘Jews as the best o f all Greeks”: Cultural com petition in the literary
works o f Alexandrian Judaeans o f the H ellenistic Period’, in: E. Stavrianopoulou. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the m h n istic Period: Narra
tions, Practices, and Images. M nemosyne Supplements 363 (Leiden and
H o r sS Â o S HT u
(1985) 142-151
?S«ctie en anatomie in Alexandrie",
_ nische ^
57
Zur SteIlung der Dichtkunst im Reich
HOSdw e r s S ï Ptolemäer’, Philologus l 4 l (1997) 3-20.
166
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
H u e b n e r , S. R ., ‘“B ro th e r-siste r ” m arriage in R o m a n E gypt: A curiosity of
h u m a n k in d o r a w id e sp r e a d fa m ily strategy?’. J o u rn a l o f Rom an Studies
9 7 (2 0 0 7 ) 2 1 - 4 9 .
H u g h e s -H a lle tt, L , C le o p a tra : H isto ries, D rea m s, a n d D isto rtio n s (N ew York
1 9 9 0 ).
H u n te r , R . L , T h e A r g o n a u tic a o f A p o llo n iu s (C a m b rid g e 19 9 3 ).
— , ‘T h e d iv in e a n d h u m a n m a p o f th e A r g o n a u tic a ’, S yllecta Classica 6
(1 9 9 5 ) 1 1 3 -1 2 7 .
— , T h eo critu s a n d th e A rch a eo lo g y o f G reek P o e try (C am b rid ge 1996a).
— , ‘M im e a n d m im esis: T h e o c r itu s, I d y ll 1 5 ’, in : M . A . H arder, R. E Regtu it, G . C . W a k k er e d s., T h eo critu s. H e lle n is tic a G ron in gan a 2 (Gro
n in g e n 1 9 9 6 b ) 1 4 9 - 1 6 9 .
— , ‘Le “A r g o n a u tic h e ” d i A p o llo n io ’, in : M . F a n tu zzi a n d R . H unter, Muse
e m o d elli. L a p o e sia e lle n istic a d a A lessa n d ro M a g n o a d A ugusto (Rome
a nd Bari 2 0 0 2 ) 1 2 1 - 1 7 5 .
— , ‘E p ilo g o r o m a n o ’, in : M . F a n tu z z i a n d R . H u n te r , M u se e m odelli. La
p o e sia ellen istica d a A lessa n d ro M a g n o a d A u g u sto (R o m e and Bari 2002)
5 3 3 -5 6 5 .
— , E n co m iu m o f P to le m y P h ila d e lp h u s (B erk eley , L os A n g eles, London
2 0 0 3 a ).
— , ‘Literature a n d its c o n te x ts ’, in : A . E rsk in e e d ., A C om pan ion to th e H el
le n istic W o rld (O x fo r d 2 0 0 3 b ) 4 7 7 - 4 9 3 .
H u tc h in s o n , G . O ., H e lle n istic P o e try (O x fo rd 1 9 8 8 ).
H ü ttn e r , U ., D ie p o litisc h e R o lle d e r H era k lesg esta lt im griechischen Herrschertu m . H isto r ia E in z e lsc h r iften 1 1 2 (S tu ttg a rt 1 9 9 7 ).
Jackson, S ., ‘C a llim a ch u s, C o m a B eren ices: O r ig in s ’, in id .. M a in ly A pol
lonius. C o llected S tu d ies (A m sterd a m 2 0 0 4 ) .
Jacob, C . ‘N a v ig a tio n s alexandrines’, in: M . Baratin a n d C . Jacob eds., L e pou
v o ir des biblioth èqu es. L a m ém oire des livres en o ccid en t (Paris 1996) 47-83.
— , ‘Fragm ents o f a h isto r y o f a n c ie n t lib raries’, in : J. K ön ig, K. O ik onom o p o u lo u , G . W o o l f e d s .. A n c ie n t L ib ra rie s (C a m b rid g e 2 0 1 3 )
5 7 -8 4 .
Jansen, J. J., ‘H e t g e sc h e n k des k o n in g s ’, in: H . J. M . C laessen ed., M ach t
en m a jesteit. Id ee en w erk e lijk h e id va n h e t vroege konin gschap (U trecht
1 9 8 4 ) 5 1 -5 9 .
J o h n so n , T ., a n d D a n d e k e r , C ., ‘P atron age: R e la tio n a n d sy ste m ’, in:
A . W a lla ce-H a d rill ed .. P a tro n a g e in A n c ie n t S ociety (L o n d o n and N e w
Y ork 1 9 8 9 ) 2 1 9 -2 4 2 .
J o h n so n , W ., A n c ie n t L itera cies : The C u ltu re o f R ea d in g in G reece a n d R om e
(O x fo rd 2 0 0 9 ).
K a llett-M a rx , L ., ‘A c c o u n tin g fo r c u ltu re in fifth -c e n tu r y A th e n s ’, in:
D . B o ed ek er a n d K. R aaflaub eds.. D em ocracy, E m p ire a n d th e A rts in
F ifth -C en tu ry A th en s (C am b ridge, M A , 1 9 9 8 ) 4 3 -5 8 .
B IB L IO G R A P H Y
167
- t a b , A„ Μ ο^έων « ταλάρω. D ich ter u n d D ic h tu n g tun Ptolem äeru p AfirA 43 (1997) 124 -1 4 4 .
Brokers, a n d C lien ts in S even teen th -C en tu ry F ran ce
fe ig ,
- , ' G i v i n g a n d patronage in E arly M o d e r n F r a n c e , F rench F listm y 2
’ (1988) 133-51.
Kienast, D., Philipp I I von M akedonien u n d das R eich d er A ch aim eniden.
Abhandlungen der M arburger G e lelirten G esellsch aft 6 (M u n ic h 1 9 7 1 ).
Klaoster,}., Poetry as W indow a n d M irror: H ellenistic Poets on Predecessors, Con
temporaries and Themselves (dissertation U n iversity o f A m sterdam , 2 0 0 9 ).
—, Twisten over smaak. D e p o sitio n erin g v a n d e d ich ter in h ellen istisch e
programmatische p o ëzie’, in : R . M .. v a n d e n B erg, C . d e Jonge,
R. Strootman eds., Alexandrie. Lam pas 4 4 .4 (H ilversu m 2 0 1 1) 3 9 3 -4 0 8 .
Knippschild, S., ‘Literature in W estern A sia’, in : J.J. C lauss an d M . C uypers
eds., A Companion to H ellenistic L iteratu re (C h ich ester an d M a ld e n
2010) 448-462.
Koenen, L.,^ Die Adapdon ägyptischer Königsideologie am P tolem äerh of, in:
E. van t Dack ed., Egypt and the Hellenistic W orld Proceedings o f the Interrational Colloquium, Leuven 2 4 -2 6 M ay 1982 (Leuven 1983) 143-190.
- , The Ptolemaic king as a religious fig u r e / in : A . W . B u lloch e t al. eds..
Images an d Ideologies: Self-definition in th e H ellenistic W orld (B erkeley
and Los Angeles 1993) 2 5 -1 1 5 .
Konstan, D ., Friendship in the Classical W orld (C am bridge 1997).
Kosmetatou E., ‘Lycophron’s Alexandra Reconsidered. T h e A ttalid C on
nection , Hermes 128 (2 0 0 0 ) 3 2 -5 3 .
Kosmin, P. J., The L a n d o f the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, a n d Ideology
m the SeleucidEm pire (Cambridge, M A , 2 0 1 4 ).
, Seeing double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder
o f Antiochus Γ, in: A . M oreno and R. T hom as eds., Patterns o f the
Past: Epitêdeumata in the Greek Tradition (O xford and N e w York
2014) 173-198.
Kramolisch, H ., ‘Demetrias’, in: S. Lauffer ed., Griechenland. Lexikon der
historischen Stätten. Von den Anfiingen bis zu r Gegenwart (M ünchen
1989) 190-191.
Kruedener, J. von. D ie Rolle des Hofes im Absolutismus (Stuttgart 1973).
Kuhrt, A., ‘Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylona’, in
A Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-W hite eds., Hellenism in the East (London
„ . λ and Sherwin-White, S., From S a m arkhand to Sardis: A N e w
Kuhrt, h - ' * T j T f f eleuci d Em pire (London 1993).
Approach
fit for a queen: The Λιθικά as Posidippus’ gem
Kuttner, Λ-, >
Gutzwiller ed., The N e w Posidippus: A Hellenistic
r ^
Ä
^ rd2005) 141'163·
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
Lanciers, E., ‘D ie V ergöttlichung u n d die Ehe des Ptolemaios IV. und der
A rsinoe III.’, A P F 2 4 (1988) 27-32.
Lang, P., M edicine a n d Society in Ptolem aic Egypt. Studies in Ancient Medi
cine 41 (Leiden and Boston 2012).
Legras, B., ‘Les experts égyptiens à la cour des Ptolémées’, Revue Historique
307.4 (2012) 963-991.
Lightfoot, J. L., ‘C allim achus’, JH S 133 (2013) 147-157.
Liverani, M ., ‘T h e ideology o f th e Assyrian E m pire’, in: M . T. Larsen ed.,
Power a n d Propaganda. A Sym posium on A ncient Empires (Copenhagen
1979) 297-317.
Livrea, E., ‘Polittico Callim acheo: C o n trib u ti al testo della Victoria Beren
ices’, Z eitschrift fu r Papyrobgie u n d Epigraphik (1977) 1-50.
— , Ί cavalli di Berenice’, in: S tu d i in onore d i A ristide Cobnna (Perugia
1982) 199-202.
Llewellyn-Jones, L., ‘C elluloid C leopatras o r D id the Greeks ever get to
Egypt’, in: D . O gden ed.. The H ellenistic W orld: N ew Perspectives (Lon
don 2002) 275-304.
Llewellyn-Jones, L., and W inder, S., ‘A key to Berenike’s Lock? The
H athoric model o f queenship in early Ptolemaic Egypt’, in: A. Erskine
and L. Llewellyn-Jones eds.. Creating a H ellenistic W orld (Swansea and
O xford 2011) 247-270.
Lloyd, G. E. R., Greek Science after A risto tb (London 1973).
Long, A. A., ‘Astrology: pro and contra’, in id.. From Epicurus to Epictetus:
Studies in H ellenistic a nd Roman Phibsophy (Oxford 2006).
L’Orange, Η . P., Studies in the Iconography o f Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient
World (Oslo 1953).
Lytle, G. E, and Orgel, S., eds.. Patronage in the Renaissance (Princeton 1981).
M a, J., Antiochos II I and the Cities o f Western A sia M inor (Oxford and New
York 2000).
— , ‘Fighting poleis o f the Hellenistic world’, in: H . van Wees ed., War and
Violence in A ncient Greece (London 2000) 337-376.
— , ‘Peer polity interaction in the Hellenistic Age’, Past and Present 180.1
(2003) 9-39.
M acDonald, S., ed., The Politics o f D ispby: Museums, Science, Culture (Lon
don 1998).
MacKenzie, J. M., Museums and Empire: N atural History, H um an Cultures
a nd C obnial Identities (Manchester 2009).
— , The Last Pharaohs: Egypt Under the Ptolemies, 305-30 B C (Princeton.
Oxford, New York 2009).
Macurdy, G. H „ ‘Queen Eurydice and the evidence for woman-power in
early Macedonia’, American Journal ofP h ibb g y 48 (1927) 201-207
— , H ellenistic Queens: A Study o f Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid
Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Baltimore 1932).
b ib l io g r a p h y
169
Mairs R., ‘H ellenistic India’, N e w Voices in C la ssica l R ecep tio n S tu dies 1
i^co^G.fLes m édecins de cour à ί ’ép o q u e h e llé n istiq u e , R E G 109
(1996) 435-466.
Marinone, N ., Berenice d a C allim aco a C atu llo. Testo critico , traduziorie e
commento (2nd edn Bologna 19 9 7 ).
Manden, E. W., Greek a n d R om an A rtillery. V olum e I : H isto rica l D evelop
ment (O xford 1969).
—, Greek and Roman A rtillery. Volum e 2 : T echnical Treatises (O x fo rd 1 9 7 1 ).
Martinez-Sève, L , ‘Peuple d’A ntioche e t dynastie séleu cid e’, in : B. Cabouret,
P.-L. Gatier, C. Saliou eds., A n tioch e d e Syrie. H istoire, im ages e t traces
de la ville antique. T op oi Supplem ent 5 (2 0 0 4 ) 2 1 -4 1 .
McLeod, R., The L ibrary ofA lex a n d ria . C enter o f L earning in th e A n cien t
World (London 2000).
Mehl, A., Zwischen W est und O st / Jenseits von W est und Ost: das Reich
der Seleukiden’, in: K. Brodersen ed.. Zwischen Ost und West. Studien
zur Geschichte des Seleukidenreiches. Studien zur Geschichtsforschung
des Altertums 5 (Hamburg 1999) 9 -44.
- , ‘Die antiken Griechen: Integration durch K ultur, in: K. Buraselis and
• Zoumboulakis eds.. The Idea o f European Community in History.
Conference Proceedings II (Athens 2 003) 191-204.
’ ç 1 af r f n zur H errsch en d en G esellschaft” und zu d en U ntertanen im
jOeleukidenreich1, H istoria 5 2 .2 (2 0 0 3 ) 1 4 7 -1 6 0 .
ei ter, C., Callimaque et son temps. Recherches sur la carrière et la condition
w
duf Verwarn à l ’époque des premiers Lagides (Lille 1979).
eincke, W ., Untersuchungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedichten Theokrits
(diss. Kiel 1965).
Meißner, B., Historiker zwischen Polis und Königshof: Studien zur Stellung
der Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschafi in spätklassischer
und hellenistischer Z eit (G öttingen 1992).
Merkelbach, R., ‘D as K önigtum der Ptolem äer und die hellenistischen
Dichter’, in: N . H inske ed., Alexandrien. Kulturbegegnungen dreier Jahr
tausende im Schmelztiegel einer mediterranen Großstadt. Aegyptiaca
Treverensia 1 (M ainz am Rhein 1981) 27-35.
Michels, C., ‘The spread o f Greek polis insritudons in Hellenistic Cappadocia
and the peer polity interaction model’, in: E. Stavtianopoulou ed., ShtJHng
Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and linages.
Mnemosyne Supplements 363 (Leiden and Boston 2013) 283-307.
Mineur, W. H., Callim achus’H ym n to Delos. Introduction a n d Com mentary
bibliotheek", Hermeneus 57 (1985) 125-129.
Mousei <Transrnicters and representatives o f power: Royal women in
Mir°Ancienc Macedonia’, A n cient Society 30 (2000) 35-52.
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E MUSES
M itc h e ll, L ., ‘B o r n to R ule? S u c c e ss io n in th e A rgead Royal H ou se, in:
W . H e c k e l, L. T ritle , P. W h e a d e y ed s., A le x a n d e r’s E m pire. Formulation
to D eca y. A C o m p a n io n to C rossroads o f H isto ry (C larem ont, CA, 2007)
6 1 -7 4 .
M o o r e n , L ., ‘Ü b e r d ie p to le m ä isc h e n H o fr a n g tite l’, in: A n tidoron W. Pen
m an s sexagen ario a b a lu m n is o b la tu m . S tu d ia H ellen istica 16 (Leuven
1 9 6 8 ).
— , T h e A u lic T itu la tu re in P to lem a ic E g yp t. In tro d u c tio n a n d Prosopography.
V e r h a n d e lin g e n v a n d e K o n in k lijk e A c a d e m ie v o o r W etenschappen,
L ette re n e n S c h o n e K ü n ste n v a n B elg ië, K lasse der Letteren 37.78
(B russels 1 9 7 3 ).
— , L a h iéra rch ie d e co u r p to lé m a ïq u e . C o n trib u tio n à l ’étu d e des institutions
e t d es classes d irig e a n te s à l ’ép oqu e h éü en istiq u e. Stu d ia Hellenistica 21
(L eu v en 1 9 7 7 ).
— , ‘D ie d ip lo m a tisc h e F u n k tio n d er h e lle n istisc h e n K önigsfreunde’, in:
E. O lsh a u se n e d ., A n tik e D ip lo m a tie . W e g e der F orsch ung 4 6 2 (Darm
sta d t 1 9 7 9 ) 2 5 6 - 2 9 0 .
— , ‘T h e P to le m a ic C o u r t S y ste m ’, C h ro n iq u e d ’É gypte 6 0 (1 9 8 5 ) 214-222.
— , ‘K in gs a n d courtiers: P o litica l d e c isio n -m a k in g in th e H ellenistic states’,
in : W . S ch u ller e d .. P o litisc h e T h eo rie u n d P ra x is im A ltertu m (Darm
stadt 1 9 9 8 ) 1 2 2 -1 3 3 .
M o ra n , B . T ., e d .. P a tro n a g e a n d In stitu tio n s: Science, Technology, a n d M ed
ic in e a t th e E u ropean C ou rt, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (R ochester, N Y , and W oodbridge 1 9 9 1 ).
— , ‘P atron age a n d in stitu tio n s. C o u rts, un iversities, a n d academ ies in Ger
m an y: A n overview , 1 5 5 0 - 1 7 5 0 ’, in: id . ed .. P a tro n a g e a n d Institution s:
Science, Technology, a n d M ed ic in e a t th e E uropean C ou rt, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0
(R och ester, N Y , a n d W o o d b r id g e 1 9 9 1 ) 1 6 9 -1 8 3 .
M o ri, A . ‘Person al favor a n d p u b lic in flu en ce: A rete, A rsin oe II, and the
A rg o n a u tica ’, O ra l T ra d itio n 1 6 (2 0 0 1 ) 8 5 -1 0 6 .
— , The P o litic s o f A p o llo n iu s R h o d iu s’ A rg o n a u tica (C am b ridge and N ew
Y ork 2 0 0 8 ).
— , ‘N a m e s a nd places: m y th in A lexandria’, in: K. D o w d e n and K. Living
sto n e ed s., A C om pan ion to G reek M yth ology (M ald en , O xford, N ew
Y ork 2 0 1 1 ).
M o y e r , I., ‘C o u rt, chora and cultu re in L ate P to lem a ic E g y p t’, A m erican
J o u rn a l o f P h ilology 1 3 2 (2 0 1 1 ) 1 5 -4 4 .
M u e lle r, K ., S ettlem en ts o f th e P to lem ies: C ity F ou n dation s a n d N e w Settle
m e n t in th e H e lle n istic W orld. Studia H ellen istica 4 3 (L euven 2 0 0 6 ).
M ü ller, S ., M a ßn ah m en d e r H errschaftssicherung gegen über d e r m akedonischen
O p p o sitio n b e i A lex a n d er dem G roßen (Frankfurt am M ain 2 0 0 3 ).
M urray, O ., ‘H ellenistic royal sym posia’, in: P. Bilde e t al. eds.. A spects o f H el
len istic K in g h ip . Studies in H ellenistic Civilization 7 (Aarhus 1996) 15-28
b ib lio g r a p h y
171
M M R. R·» ‘Maecenaat en censuur in d e V ro eg e R o m e m se K e iz e r u jd ,
- Portyfor Patrons: Literary C om m unication in th e A g e o f D o m itia n . M n e ’ mosyne Supplem ents 2 0 6 (L eiden and B o sto n 2 0 0 2 ).
Mededof, A. B., Plutarchus’ Leven van P yrrh u s. H isto risch e c o m m e n ta a r
(Amsterdam and Paris 1940).
Netz, R., The Transformation o f M ath em a tics in th e E a rly M ed iterra n ea n
World: From Problems to E quation s (C am bridge 2 0 0 4 ).
Netz,R., The Shaping o f D eduction in G reek M a th em a tics. Ideas in C o n te x t
51 (Cambridge and N ew York 1999).
—, Ludic Proof: Greek M athem atics a n d th e A lex a n d ria n A esth etic (C a m
bridge and N ew York 2 0 0 9 ).
Nielsen, I., Hellenistic Palaces : T radition a n d R e n e w a l (Aarhus 1 9 9 4 ).
—, Royal banquets: T he developm ent o f royal banquets and ban quetin g
halls from Alexander to the T e tra d is/ in: H . S. N ie lse n and I. N ielsen
eds.. Meals in a Social C ontext: A spects o f th e C om m un al M e a l in th e
Hellenistic and Roman W orld (Aarhus and L ondon 19 9 8 ) 1 0 2 -1 3 3 .
icastro, N., Circumference: Eratosthenes a n d th e A n cien t Q uest to M easure
the Globe (New York 2008).
NOef,L S;,ilAP l lonius> ArSonautika and Egyptian solar m ythology’, C W 9 7
(2003/2004) 123-136.
Nourse, K. L , Women a n d the early developm ent o f royal p o w er in th e H ellenishc East (PhD dissertation; University o f Pennsylvania, 2 0 0 2 ).
8 don 1999)
^
P ™ stitutes a n d D eath : The H ellenistic D ynasties (Lon-
Olbrycht, M. J., Macedonia and Persia’, in J. Roisman and I. W orthington
(eds.), A Companion to A ncient M acedonia (M alden and Chichester
2010) 342-369.
ONeil, J. L„ ‘The ethnic origins o f the friends o f the Antigonid kings o f
Macedon’, Classical Quarterly 53 (2003) 510-522.
—, ‘Places of origin o f the officials o f Ptolemaic Egypt’, H istoria 55.1
(2006) 16-25.
Orth, W ., ‘Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung’, in: H.-J. Fabxy
and U. Offerhaus eds.. Im Brennpunkt: D ie Septuaginta. Studien z u r
Entstehung u n d Bedeutung der griechischen B ib e l (Stuttgart 2 0 0 1 )
97-114.
Otto N Enargeia. Untersuchungen zur Charakteristik alexandrinischer Dich’tung Hermes Einzelschriften 102 (Stuttgart 2009).
n > · O ‘Hellenistic art’, in: R. Lane Fox ed.. B rills Companion to
Palagia,
·,
edon; Studies in the Archaeology and History o f Macedon,
RC 300 AD (Leiden and Boston) 477-493.
• 1 Massana, J·, and Zucker, A., Ératosthine de Cyrène: Catasrérismes
Pàm (Paris 2013).
172
T H E B IR D C A G E O F T H E M U SE S
P a rp o la , S ., ‘A ssy r ia n lib ra r y r e c o r d s ’, J o u r n a l o f N e a r E a stern Stu dies 42
(1 9 8 3 ) .
— , ‘T h e ro y a l a r ch iv e s o f N i n e v e h ’, in : K . R . V e e n h o f ed ., Cuneiform
A rc h iv e s a n d L ib ra rie s. U itg a v e n v a n h e t N e d e r la n d s H istorisch-Archaeo lo g is c h I n stitu u t te Ista n b u l 5 7 (L e id e n 1 9 8 6 ).
P a rso n s, P. J ., ‘C a llim a c h u s: V ic to r ia B e r e n ic e s ’, Z e its c h r ift f u r Papyrlogie
u n d E p ig ra p h ik ( 1 9 7 7 ) 1 -5 0 .
— , ‘Id e n titie s in d iv e r sity ’, in A . W . B u llo c h e t a l. e d s.. Im ages a n d Ideolo
g ies. S e lf D e fin itio n in th e H e lle n is tic W o rld (L o n d o n , Berkeley, Los
A n g e le s 1 9 9 3 ) 1 5 2 - 1 7 0 .
P a v lo c k , B ., ‘T h e B la c k S e a P e o p le s in A p o llo n iu s ’ A rg o n a u tic d , in:
G . R . T se tsk h la d z e e d ., G reek a n d R o m a n S e ttle m e n ts on th e B lack Sea
C o a st (B ra d fo rd 1 9 9 4 ).
P a y n e, M ., T h eo critu s a n d th e In v e n tio n o f F ic tio n (C a m b rid g e 2 0 0 7 ).
P fro m m er, M ., K ö n ig in n e n vo m N i l (M a in z a m R h e in 2 0 0 2 ) .
P etey -G ira rd , B ., L e scep tre e t la p lu m e . Im a g es d u p r in c e p ro te c te u r des lettres
d e la R en a issa n ce a u G ra n d S tie le . T r a v a u x d ’H u m a n is m e e t Renais
sa n ce 4 6 6 (G e n e v a 2 0 1 0 ) .
P etro v ic, I., ‘C a llim a c h u s a n d c o n te m p o r a r y r elig io n : th e H ym n to A pollo',
in : B . A c o s ta -H u g h e s , L. L e h n u s, S . S te p h e n s ed s.. B r ills C om panion
to C a llim a ch u s (L e id e n a n d B o s t o n 2 0 1 1 ) 2 5 4 - 2 8 5 .
— , ‘P o sid ip p u s a n d A c h a e m e n id r o y a l p r o p a g a n d a ’, in : R . H u n te r, A . Reng a k o s, E . E . S ista k o u e d s ., H e lle n is tic S tu d ie s a t a C rossroads: E xploring
T exts, C o n tex ts a n d M e ta te x ts (B e rlin 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 3 0 0 .
— , ‘H e lle n is tic p o e tr y a n d P to le m a ic c o u r t c er e m o n ia l’, in : A . E rskine and
L. L le w e lly n -J o n e s e d s .. T h e H e lle n is tic R o y a l C o u rt (S w an sea and
O x fo r d , in press).
Pfeiffer, R ., H isto ry o f C la ssic a l S ch o la rsh ip fr o m th e B e g in n in g to th e E n d o f
th e H e lle n istic A g e (O x fo r d 1 9 6 8 ).
Pfeijffer, I.L ., D e A n tie k e n . E en k o rte litera tu u rg esch ied en is (A m sterdam and
A n tw e r p e n 2 0 0 0 ) .
P la n tzo s, D ., ‘T h e ic o n o g r a p h y o f a ssim ila tio n : Isis a n d royal im agery on
P to le m a ic seal im p re ssio n s’, in : P. Io ssif, A . S. C h a n k o w sk i, C . C . Lorb er e d s.. M o re th a n M en , L ess th a n G o d s: S tu d ie s on R o ya l C u lt a n d
Im p e ria l W orship. P roceedin gs o f th e In te rn a tio n a l C onferen ce o rg a n ized
b y th e B elg ia n S ch o o l a t A th en s, 1 -2 N o v e m b e r2 0 0 7 . S tu d ia H ellen istica
5 1 (L eu v en 2 0 1 1 ) 3 8 9 - 4 1 6 .
P o tts, D . T , ‘B efo re A lex a n d ria : L ibraries in th e A n c ie n t N e a r E a st’, in
R . M a c L e o d e d .. T h e L ib ra ry o f A le x a n d ria : C en tre o f L e a rn in g in the
A n c ie n t W o rld (L o n d o n a n d N e w Y ork 2 0 0 7 ) 1 9 -3 3 .
P o z z i, S ., a n d R a m p ich in i, E , P o sid ip p o , E pigram m s (R o m e 2 0 0 8 ) .
P réaux, C ., L e m o n d e h ellén istiq u e. L a G rèce e t l ’O rie n t (3 2 3 - 1 4 6 a v . J .C .)
(2 v o ls.; Paris 1 9 7 8 ).
BIBLIOG RAPH Y
i, R., ‘La nascita
173
d i T o lo m eo II F ik d e lfo in T e o c r k o , I d iilio X V I I
C allim aco, I n n o a D e là , in : G . A r r ig h e m a n d
M Tulli eds., Letteratura e riflessione su lla le tte ra tu ra n e lla c u ltu ra c la s
sica (Pisa 2000) 157-170.
Primo, A., La storiografia sut S eleu cid i: d a M eg a sten e a E u seb io d i C esarea.
StudiEllenistici 10 (Pisa and R o m e 2 0 0 9 ).
Pritchett, W. K., ‘Aristeia in Greek w arfare’, in: id .. T h e G reek S ta te a t W a r
II (Berkeley, Los A ngeles, L o ndon 1 9 7 4 ) 2 7 6 -2 9 0 .
Quaegebeur, ]., ‘Kleopatra VII u n d der K u lt d er p to le m ä isc h e n K ö n ig in
nen, in: D . W ilding and S. S ch o sk e e d s., K le o p a tra (M a in z 1 9 8 9 )
45-58.
Radner, K., ‘The Assyrian king and his scholars: T h e Syro-A natoiian a n d
the Egyptian schools’, in: M . L uukko, R . M a ttila , S . Svärd ed s.. O f
God(s), Trees, a n d Scholars: N eo-A ssyrian a n d R ela ted S tu d ies in H o n o u r
ofSimo Parpola. Studia O rientalia 1 0 6 (H elsin k i 2 0 0 9 ) 2 2 1 -2 3 8 .
Ramsey, G., The queen and the city: Royal fem ale intervention and patro51^27 HeIlenistic civic com m un m e s \ G ender a n d H isto ry 2 3 .3 (2 0 1 0 )
Reed, J. D., Arsinoe s Adonis and the Poetics o f P tolem aic Im perialism ’,
transactions o f the A m erican P h ilological A ssociation 130 (2 0 0 0 ) 3 1 9 ReeSMR·’ 1f m ° f Loyalty: L atin Panegyric, A D 2 8 9 -3 0 7 (O xford 2 0 0 2 ).
° ·6
^ e v e n ly W riting. D ivin a tio n , Horoscopy, a n d A stronom y
m Mesopotamian Culture (Cambridge 2 0 0 8 ).
° T* J 3 * ’,e<R’ ^ ratostbenes’ Geography. Fragm ents C ollected a n d Trans2 Ά \0 )™ ^ °mmentary and A d d itio n a l M a teria l (P rin ceton and O xford
Romm, J. S., ‘A ristotle’s elep han t an d th e m y th o f A lexan d er’s scien tific
patronage, Am erican Jou rn al o f Philology 110 (1 9 8 9 ) 5 6 6 -5 7 5 .
Rowlandson, J., ‘T h e character o f P tolem aic aristocracy: Problem s o f d efin i
tion and evidence’, in: T . Rajak, S. Pearce, J. A itk en , J. D in es, eds.,
Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley and Los A ngeles 2 0 0 8 )
29-49.
Roy, J., ‘T h e m asculinity o f th e H ellen istic k in g’, in: L. Foxhall and
J. Salmon eds.. When M en W here M en : M asculinity, Pow er a n d Iden tity
in Classical A n tiqu ity (London and N ew York 1998) 111-135.
Rubio S Geography an d the Representation o f Space in the Argonautica o f
R
Russell,
D .,
^
P
Propaganda o j i o
and B o sto n l Jf {
teenth cenruiy >
ff
_
·
T
^ Ro[e 0f Panegyric in Late Antiquity f (Leiden
revjsited: France’s boun daries sin ce tire seven (1990) 1423-1451.
174
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E M USES
Sailer, R . P., P e rso n a l P a tro n a g e u n d e r th e E a rly E m p ire (C am bridge etc
1 9 8 2 ).
S a n cisi-W e e r d e n b u r g , H . W .A . Μ ., ‘Π ε ρ σ ικ ό ν δε κα ρ τα ο στρατός δωρον:
A ty p ica lly P ersian g ift (H d t. I X 1 0 9 ) ’, H isto ria 3 7 .3 (1 9 8 8 ) 372-374.
— , ‘G ifts in th e P ersian e m p ir e ’, in : P. B ria n t a n d C . H errenschm idt eds.,
L e tr ib u t d a n s V em p irep erse (Paris 1 9 8 9 ) 2 8 6 - 3 0 2 .
Savalli-L estrade, I., ‘C o u r tisa n s e t c ito y e n s: le cas des phxloi attalides’, Chi
ro n 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 1 4 9 -1 8 1 .
— , L es ‘p h ilo i ro ya u x * d a n s PA sie h e llé n istiq u e . É tu d es d u M o n d e GrécoR o m a in 2 5 (G e n e v a 1 9 9 8 ).
S c h ü rm a n n , A ., G riech isch e M ec h a n ik u n d a n tik e G esellschaft. Stu dien zur
sta a tlic h e n F örderu n gen e in e r tech n isch en W issenschaft (Stuttgart 1991).
S c h w in g e , E .-R ., K ü n stlic h k e it vo n K u n st. Z u r G esch ich tlich k eit d er alexand rin isch en P o esie (M ü n c h e n 1 9 8 6 ).
Seager, R . J., a n d T u p lin , C . J ., ‘T h e fr e ed o m o f th e G reeks o f Asia: On
th e o rig in s o f a c o n c e p t a n d th e c re a tio n o f a s lo g a n , J o u rn a l o f H ellenic
S tu d ie s 1 0 0 (1 9 8 0 ) 1 4 1 - 5 4 .
S e id en , D ., ‘A lib is ’, C la ssica l A n tiq u ity 1 7 .2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) 2 9 0 -4 2 0 .
S in o p o li, C .M ., ‘T h e A r c h a e o lo g y o f E m p ir e s’, A n n u a l R eview o f A nthropo
lo g y !? , ( 1 9 9 4 ) 1 5 9 -1 8 0 .
S ista k o u , E ., T h e A esth etics o f D a rk n ess: A S tu d y o f H ellen istic Rom anticism
in A p o llo n iu s, L ycoph ron a n d N ic a n d e r. H e lle n is tic a G ronin gana 17
(L eu v en 2 0 1 2 ) .
S p a w fo rth , A . J. S ., ‘T h e c o u r t o f A le x a n d e r th e G reat betw een Europe and
A sia ’, in : id . e d .. T h e C o u rt a n d C o u rt S o ciety in A n c ie n t M onarchies
(C a m b rid g e 2 0 0 7 ) 8 2 -1 2 0 .
S ta d en , H . v o n , H ero p h ilu s. T h e A r t o f M ed ic in e in E a rly A lex a n d ria (Cam
b rid g e 1 9 8 9 ).
S ta v ria n o p o u lo u , E ., e d .. S h iftin g S o c ia lIm a g in a rie s in th e H ellen istic P eriod:
N a rra tio n s, P ra ctices, a n d Im ages. M n e m o s y n e S u p p lem en ts 3 6 3 (Lei
d e n a n d B o sto n 2 0 1 3 ) .
S te p h e n s, S ., ‘C a llim a c h u s a t c o u r t’, in : M . A . H a rd er, R . E R egtuit,
G . C . W a k k er ed s.. G en re in H e lle n istic P o etry. H e lle n istic a G ronin
g a n a 3 (G r o n in g e n 1 9 9 9 ) 1 6 7 -8 5 .
— , ‘W r itin g E p ic fo r th e P to le m a ic C o u r t’, in : M . A . H arder, R . E Regt
u it, G . C . W a k k er ed s., A poU onm s R h odiu s. H e lle n istic a G ronin gana 4
(L eu v en 2 0 0 1 ) 1 9 5 -2 1 5 .
— , S eein g D o u b le : In te rc u ltu ra l P o etics in P to lem a ic A le x a n d ria (Berkeley
a n d L o s A n g e le s 2 0 0 3 ).
— , ‘P o sid ip p u s’ p oetry b ook: W h ere M a ced o n m eets E gypt’, in: W . V. Harris
a n d G . R u ffin i eds.. A n c ie n t A lex a n d ria B etw een E g yp t a n d Greece.
C o lu m b ia Stu d ies in th e C lassical T ra d itio n 2 6 (L eiden and B oston
2 0 0 4 ).
b ib l io g r a p h y
„ ,
175
. , ,Y/ v„ttte n e u rs a n d E m p ire (L eid en a n d B o s to n 1 9 8 5 ).
aan de h d iem stisc h e h o v e n ’. L a m p a s 3 4 .3 (2 0 0 1 )
190-206.
f
_ 'De vrouweliike koning. M ä ch tig e v ro u w en m d e h e lle n is tis c h e v o r s te n ’ dommen, 323-31 v .C h r.’, G ron iek 1 5 8 1 1 5 9 (2 0 0 2 ) 4 5 -6 2 .
—, ‘Kings against C elts. D eliverance from barbarians as a r h e m e in H e J ’ jenisticroyal propaganda, in : K . A . E . E n en k el a n d I. L . P fe ijffe r e d s ..
The M anipulative M ode. P o litic a l P ro p a g a n d a in A n tiq u ity (L e id e n
2005a) 101-141.
—, ‘De vrienden van de vorst. H e t k o n in k lijk h o f in d e H e lle n is tis c h e
rijken’, Lampas 38.3 (2 005b ) 1 8 4 -1 9 7 .
—, ‘Van wetsgetrouwen en afvalligen: religieus g e w eld e n c u ltu reie v era n dering in de tijd der M akkabeeën’, in: B. B eck in g a nd G . R o u w h o r st
eds., Religies in interactie. Jodendom en C h risten d o m in d e O u d h e id
(Zoetermeer and U trecht 2 0 0 6 ) 7 9 -9 7 .
- , The Hellenistic R oyal C ourts: C o u rt C ultu re, C erem o n ia l a n d Ideology in
Greece, E p p t and the N ear E ast, 3 3 6 -3 0 B C E (P h D dissertation; U n i
versity o f Utrecht, 20 0 7 ).
- De gouden kooi: mecenaat van kunst en w etenschap pen aan h e t P to lemaeïsche h o f, G roniek 17 7 (2 0 0 8 ) 2 3 -3 8 .
-, ‘Literature and the kings’, in: J. Clauss and M . Cuijpers eds., A C o m panwn to H ellenistic L itera tu re (M alden, M A , and O xford 2 0 1 0 a)
* S T °u ^ nj=s: C leop atra V II an d th e D o n a tio n s o f A lex a n d ria ’, in :
M. racella and T . Kaizer ed s., K in gdom s a n d P rin cip a lities in th e R o m a n
„^a r,^ ast‘ D ecid en s e t O r ien s 19 (S tu ttgart: Franz S tein er V erla g ,
2010b) 1 4 0 -157.
- , Hellenistic court society: T h e Seleuk id im perial co u rt u n d er A n tio c h o s
the Great, 2 2 3 -1 8 7 B C E ’, in: J. D u in d a m , M . K u n t, T . A rtan ed s..
Royal Courts in D ynastic States a n d E m pires: A G lo b a l Perspective. R ulers
and Elites 1 (Leiden 2 0 11a) 6 3 -8 9 .
—, ‘Kings and cities in th e H e lle n istic A ge’, in: R . A lsto n , O . van N ijf,
C. "Williamson eds.. P olitical Culture in the Greek C ity A fte r th e Classi
cal Age. G roningen-R oyal H ollow ay Studies on th e G reek C ity A fter
the Classical A ge 2 (Leuven 2 0 11b ) 1 4 1 -1 5 3 .
—, ‘Alexandrie, eenw ereldstad’, in: B. van den Berg, C . de Jonge, R. Strootman eds., Alexandrie (Hilversum 2011c) 292-310^
— ‘Dvnastic courts o f the H ellenistic empire , in: H . Beck ed A Compan’ ton to Ancient Greek Government (M alden, M A , and O xford, 2 0 1 2 c) ·
· r^ „rr’ in- R S. Bagnail, K. Brodersen, C. B. C ham pion,
— » ‘Hellenistic C
^ uebner eds., The Encyclopedia, o f Ancient History
A. ErsKine,Oxford,
o. · N ew,v™-W20
York 2012d) 1818-1820.
(Malde
176
THE BIRDCAGE OF THE MUSES
— , ‘T he Seleukid Empire between O rientalism and Hellenocentrism: Wri
ting the history o f Iran in the T h ird and Second Centuries BCE’,
N ä m e -y e I r ä n -e B ä stä n : T h e I n te r n a tio n a l J o u r n a l o f A n c ie n t Iranian
S tu d ie s 11.1/2 (2012e) 17-35.
— , ‘Babylonian, Macedonian, King o f the W orld: T h e Antiochos Cylinder
from Borsippa and Seleukid imperial integration’, in: E. Stavrianopoulou ed.. S h iftin g S o c ia l Im a g in a rie s in th e H e lle n is tic P e rio d : N arration s,
P ra ctices, a n d Im a g es. M nem osyne Supplements 363 (Leiden and Bos
ton 2013) 67-97.
— , C o u rts a n d E lite s in th e H e lle n is tic E m p ire s: T h e N e a r E a st A fte r the
A ch a em en id s, 3 3 0 - 3 0 B C E (Edinburgh 2014a).
— , ‘T he dawning o f a G olden Age: Images o f peace and abundance in
Alexandrian court poetry in relation to Ptolemaic imperial ideology’,
in: M . A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G. C. W akker eds., H elle n istic Poetry
in C o n tex t. T e n th I n te r n a tio n a l W o rk sh o p on H e lle n istic P o etry, G ronin
g e n 2 5 th - 2 7 th A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 . H ellenistica G roningana 20 (Leuven
2014b) 325-341.
— , ‘Hellenistic imperialism and the idea o f world unity’, in: C. Rapp and
H . D rake eds.. T h e C ity in th e C la ssic a l a n d P o st-C la ssic a l W orld:
C h a n g in g C o n te x ts o f P o w e r a n d I d e n tity (Cambridge and New York
2014c) 38-61.
— , ‘Eunuchs, renegades and concubines: T he “paradox o f power” and the
prom otion o f favorites in the Hellenistic empires’, in: A. Erskine and
L. Llewellyn-Jones eds.. T h e H e lle n is tic R o y a l C o u rt (Swansea and
Oxford 2016).
Stroup, A., ‘T he political theory and practice o f technology under
Louis XIW, in: B. T. M oran ed.. P a tro n a g e a n d I n stitu tio n s: Science,
T echnology, a n d M e d ic in e a t th e E u ro p ea n C o u rt, 1 5 0 0 -1 7 5 0 (Rochester,
NY, and W oodbridge 1991) 211-234.
Stylianou, P.J., ‘T he Pax macedonica and the Freedom o f the Greeks o f Asia
(with an appendix on the chronology o f the years 323-301)’, E peteris
to u K e n tro u E p istem o n ik o n E reu n o n 2 0 (1993/1994) 7 1 -8 4 .
Swinnen, W., ‘Over technologie in Alexandrië’, H erm en eu s 57 (1985) 152-161.
Szastynska-Siemion, A., ‘Victoria Berenices (254-269 Lloyd-Jones, Parsons)
as a victory ode’, E os 76 (1988) 259-268.
Taeger, F., C h a rism a . S tu d ie n z u r G esch ich te d es a n tik e n H errsch erku ltes.
B a n d 1 : H e lla s (Stuttgart 1957).
Tam m , B., ‘Aula regia, “aulë” und aula’, in: G. Säflund ed.. O pu scu la C aro lo K e re n y i d e d ic a ta . Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology 5
(Stockholm 1968) 135-242.
Tarn, W. W A n tig o n o s G o n a ta s (Oxford 1913).
Teegarden, D . A., D e a th to T y ra n ts! A n c ie n t G reek D em ocracy a n d th e S tru g "1* a a a in st T yra n n y (Princeton and Oxford 2013).
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thalmann, W. G., A pollom us o f R hodes a n d th e Spaces o f H ellen ism (O x fo rd
and N ew York 2011)·
Thompson, D. )., M em phis un der th e P tolem ies (P rinceton 1 9 8 8 ).
—, ‘The high priests o f M em phis under P tolem aic rule5 in: M . Beard and
’ j North eds., Pagan P riests: R eligion a n d P o w er in th e A n c ie n t W o rld
(London 1990) 9 5 -116.
—, Thebes in the Graeco-Roman P erio d (L eiden 1 9 9 2 ).
—, ‘Posidippus, poet o f the P tolem ies’, in: K. G utzw iller ed.. The N e w
Posidippus: A H ellenistic P oetry B ook (O xford 2 0 0 5 ).
Tourraix, A., ‘La femme et le pou voir chez H érodote. Essai d 'h isto ire d es
mentalités antiques’. D ialogues d ’h istoire ancienne 2 (1 9 7 6 ) 3 6 9 -3 8 6 .
Tucci, P., ‘La democrazia di Polibio tra eredità classica e fédéralism e’, in :
C. Bearzot et al. eds., GU sta ti territoriali n el mondo antico (M ilano
2003) 45-86.
Tuplin, C. J., The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors: A Persian
inheritance?, in: S. M. R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi eds.. A n cien t
Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-cultural Encounters. 1st International
Conference (Athens, 11-13 N ovem ber2006) (Athens 2 0 0 8 ) 109-136.
^ c»er e ’
Honomics o f Friendship: Changing Conceptions o f
Reciprocity in ClassicalAthens (P h D thesis: U n iversity o f Leiden, 2012).
311« Cr.
V
P,
J·’ Theopais Babylon: een multiculturele stad
in d e H e l-
“
e U| d ’ LamP as 3 8 ·3 (2 0 0 5 ) 1 9 8 -2 1 3 .
innen, P., D ie K ön igin n en der Ptolem äerdynastie in papyrologischer
und epigraphischer E vid en z,’ in: A . K olb ed., Augustae. M ach tbew u ßte
rauen am römischen Kaiserhof? Herrschafisstrukturen u n d Herrschafispraxis II. A kten der Tagung in Zürich, 1 8 .-2 0 .9 .2 0 0 8 (Berlin) 3 9 -5 4 .
Van Wees, H ., Status W arriors: War, Violence a n d Society in H om er a n d
History (Amsterdam 1992).
Veenhof, K. R., ed., Cuneiform Archives a n d Libraries. Uitgaven van her Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituur te Istanbul 5 7 (Leiden 1986).
Véisse, A.-E., Les ‘révoltes égyptiennes’: Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en
Égypte du régne de Ptolémée I II à la conquête romaine. Studia Hellenistica 41 (Leuven 2004).
Versluys, M . J., O p jacht in her land van de zwaite mensen. Her jachtfries
van een graftombe in Marissa’, Hermeneus 66.5 (1994) 314-319.
— , ‘U nderstanding Egypt in Egypt and beyond’, in: L. Bricauit and
M T Versluys eds., Isis on the Nile: Egyptian gods m Hellenistic and
an
Roman Egypt. Proceedings o f the IVth International Conference o f Isis
Studies Michel Malaise in honorem (Leiden and Boston 2010) 7-36.
ow
.
es omnia Tyrancs against tyranny: Isis as a
VerSn ’ riiorn o f Hellenistic rulership’, in id.. Ter Dnus. Isis Dionysos,
p a r a d i g m f f Stt{dies in Henotheism. Studies in Greek and Roman
Î S f e t o o l (L eid » 1990) 39-95.
178
T H E BIR D C A G E O F T H E M U SES
W albank, R W , ‘Monarchies and monarchic ideas’, in: id. ed.. The Cam
bridge A ncient History. Volume 7.1 : The H ellenistic World (2nd rev. edn;
Cambridge 1984) 62-100.
Wenzel, D ., Kleopatra im Film . E ine Königin Ägyptens als Sinnbild fur
orientalische Kultur. Filmstudien 33 (Remscheid 2005).
Weber, G., ‘Poesie und Poeten an den Höfen vorhellertistischer Monarchen’,
Klio 74 (1992) 25-77.
— , D ichtung und höfische Gesellschaft. D ie Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte am
H o f der ersten drei Ptolemäer (Stuttgart 1993).
— , ‘Herrscher, H o f und Dichter. Aspekte der Legitimierung und Repräsen
tation hellenistischer Könige am Beispiel der ersten drei Antigoniden’,
Historia 44 (1995) 283-316.
— , ‘Interaktion, Repräsentation und Herrschaft. D er Königshof im Hel
lenismus’, in: A. W interling ed.. Zwischen H aus und Staat (München
1997) 27-71.
— , ‘The Hellenistic rulers and their poets. Silencing dangerous critics?’
Ancient Society 29 (1999) 147-174.
— , ‘The court of Alexander the Great as social system’, in: W. Heckel and
L. A Tride eds., Alexander the Great: A New History (Malden 2009) 83-98.
— , ‘The reliability o f Ptolemy as an historian’, in: Miscellanea d i studi alessandri in memoria d iA . Rostagni (Turino 1963) 101-116.
Wehrli, C., ‘Phila, fille d ’A ntipater et épouse de Démétrius, rois des Macé
doniens’, Historia 13 (1964) 140-146.
White, K. D., “‘T he base mechanic arts”? Some thoughts on the contribu
tion o f science (pure and applied) to the culture o f the Hellenistic Age’,
in: P. Green ed., H ellenistic H istory a nd Culture (Berkeley and Los
Angeles 1993) 220-232.
White, P., Promised Verse: Poets in the Society o f Augustan Rome (Cambridge,
Mass., and London 1993).
Whitehorne, J., Cleopatras (London and New York 1994).
Will, É., ‘The Succession to Alexander’, in: F. W. Walbank ed.. The Cambridge
Ancient History. Volume 7.1: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1984) 23-61.
Wiliam owitz-Moellendorf, U., Hellenistische D ichtung in der Z eit von Kallimachos (Berlin 1924).
W immel, W , Kallimachos in Rom. D ie Nachfolge seines apologetischen
Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit (Wiesbaden I960).
W inter, E., ‘Formen ptolemäischer Präsenz in der Ägäis zwischen schrift
licher Überlieferung und archäologischem Befund’, in: F. Daubner ed.,
M ilitärsiedlungen u nd Territorialherrschaft in tier A ntike (Berlin and
New York 2011).
Wormel, D. E. W., ‘Alexandrian poetry’, in: D.R. Dudley and D.M. Lang
eds.. The Penguin Companion to Classical and Byzantine, Oriental and
African Literature (Harmondsworth 1969) 22-23.
BIBLIOG RAPH Y
G
‘The
179
nature and origin of realism in Alexandrian poetry) A&A
& (1983) 125-145.'
____ fyalism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature a n d its A udience (London
^ 1987).
—, Modes o f Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry an d A rt (M adison, W I, 2 0 0 4 ).
in d e x o f p e r s o n a l n a m e s
A rchim edes (scientist) 2 , 83, 109.
Adonis (deity) 82.
Aemilius Paullus 40.
Ariarathes V o f Kappadokia 95Aristarchos o f Samos (astronomer)
Agathokles o f S y rac u se (k in g )
Agathokles (c o u rtie r)
64.
61.
Agathon (poet) 31.
Agis of Argos (poet) 33.
Aischylos (playwright) 90, 94.
Alexander III the Great 20, 25-26, 32-3,
56-57,70-71, 8 5 ,1 0 2 , 104, 111, 114,
136,141.
Alexandras I Balas 109-110.
Alexandras the Aitolian (poet) 35.
Anaxandrides (playwright) 32.
Anaxarchos o f Abdera (philosopher) 33,
101- 102, 111 .
Anaximenes of Lampsakos (historian) 33, 57.
Antagoras o f Rhodes (poet and cook) 35.
Antigonos I Monophthalmos 51.
Antigonos II Gonatas 8, 33, 34, 35, 57,
85, 87, 90, 101, 104, 137.
Antigonos III Doson 85, 137.
Antiochos I Soter 18, 35, 87, 101,
141-142.
Antiochos III the Great 3 5 ,3 6 ,6 1 ,9 1 ,1 0 9 .
Antiochos IV Epiphanes 36, 61.
Antiochos VIII Grypos 57, 86.
Antiochos DC Kyzenikos 37.
Antiphanes (poet) 109.
Antonius (‘Marc Antony’) 39-40,
Apellikon o f Teos (book collector) 37.
Aphrodite (deity) 82, 115, 117, 139.
Apollo (deity) 115, 125-126, 127,
129-130.
Apollodoros (astronomer) 101.
ApoUonios (poet) 3, 57, 80, 94, 111, 118,
^
122.
“r : r s (r
(p“ i 3 , ' 3 5, 8 6,8 7 , .o .,
!39-140-
x a i _„_
2, 4,
57, 89, 139.
Aristom enes (courtier) 61.
Aristonikos (courtier) 58, 60.
A ristophanes o f Byzantion (philologist)
87.
Aristotle (philosopher) 32, 36, 38, 56-57,
103, 135-136, 138.
Arkesilas o f Kyrene 31.
Arrian (historian) 85-86.
A rsinoe II Philadelphos 45, 48, 82, 86,
102, 109-112, 117.
Arsinoe III Philopator 133.
Artavazdes II o f Armenia 86.
Artemis (deity) 78.
Ashurbanipal II 29, 38.
Athenaios 102.
Attalos II Philadelphos 85.
Attalos III Philometor Euergetes 85.
Augustus 38.
Bakchylides (poet) 31, 105.
Berenike I 68,
Berenike II 9, 48, 79, 110, 115-116,
139-140.
Berossos (historian) 35, 92-93, 130-131,
138-139, 142.
Bindusara (Mauiyan king) 87.
Bion o f Borysthenes (philosopher) 35, 36,
81, 137.
Caesar, Caius Julius 19-20, 38.
Castiglione, Baidassare 84.
Catullus 115.
Charles d ’Orléans 85.
C hrysippos (physician) 102.
C opernicus, N icolaus 89, 103.
C osim o XI d e ’ M edici 103.
C yrus the G reat 136.
182
T H E BIRDCAGE O F T H E MUSES
D einochares (engineer) 111.
D em etrios I Poliorketes 4 6 , 137.
D em etrios o f Phaleron 3 0, 3 7 -38, 6 0 , 85D em etrios the Topographer (painter) 108.
D em osthenes (politician) 86.
D iades (engineer) 33.
D iod oros the Sicilian (historian) 53.
D iogen es (philosopher) 109.
D iogen es Laertius 87, 101-102.
D ionysios (courtier) 60.
D ion ysos (deity) 84, 117.
D iotogenes (philosopher) 136.
D ositheos (general) 60.
Droysen, Johann Gustav 7.
Elias, N orbert 4 , 2 0 -1 , 4 2 , 67, 72,
Erasistratos (physician) 89.
Eratosthenes (geographer) 1, 2, 75, 109,
145-146.
Euclid (mathematician) 2.
Euhemeros o f Messene (philosopher) 88-89.
Eulaios (courtier) 61.
Eum enes o f Kardia (historian) 33.
Euphantes o f Olynthos (philosopher) 8 5 ,1 3 7 .
E uphorion (poet) 3 5 , 120.
Euripides (playwright) 3 1 , 32, 94.
Euthychides o f Sikyon (sculptor) 35.
G alen (physician) 86.
Galilei, Galileo 4 , 7 5 , 103.
G elon o f Syracuse (tyrant) 31.
H edylos o f Samos (poet) 112.
Hegesianax o f Alexandria (poet) 109.
Herakles 83, 117-118, 121-123, 136.
H ero o f Alexandria (technician) 3 6 , 77,
8 3, 112.
H erophilos (physician) 89.
H ieran I o f Syracuse 31, 105-106.
H ieron II o f Syracuse 105-108, 128.
H ieronym os o f Kardia (historian) 104.
Hipparchos o f A thens (tyrant) 31.
H ipparchos o f N ikaia (astronomer) 139.
H om er (epic poet) 32, 75, 87, 90, 94, 107.
H yrkanos (courtier) 58.
Isis (deity) 116.
Jan I, D uke o f Brabant 85.
Joseph, son o f Tobias 68.
Kallikrates o f Samos (admiral) 117, 120.
Kallimachos (poet) 2, 9, 17, 30, 48, 57,
7 8 , 80, 86, 93, 101, 106, 111, 115120, 139-140.
Kallisthenes o f O lynthos (historian) 33,
57, 85, 136, 141.
Kassandros (king) 57, 88, 104.
Kepler, Johannes 103.
Kineas (courtier) 61.
Kleanthes (philosopher) 57, 89, 136.
Kleom enes (Spartan king) 65-66, 137.
Kleopatra III Euergetes 60, 68.
Kleopatra VII Philopator 12, 19-18, 121.
Komanos (courtier) 61.
K onon (astronomer) 139-140.
Kruedener, Jürgen von 4, 20.
Ktesibios o f Alexandria (technician) 77,
83, 110-111.
Lenaios (courtier) 61.
Leonidas o f Taras (poet) 33, 86, 90.
Leonidas (Molossian noble) 56.
Leonidas (Spartan king) 65-66.
Lorenzo de’ M edici, ‘ii M agnifico’ 4, 85,
92.
Lykophron o f Chalkis (poet) 80.
Lysianas (philologist) 36.
Lysimachos (king) 51, 72.
Lysippos (sculptor) 35, 114.
Machiavelli, N iccolb 84.
M anetho 92-93, 130-131, 142.
Megasthenes (geographer) 142.
Menekles o f Barke (historian) 97.
M enedemos o f Eretria (philosopher) 35.
Micipsa (N umidian king) 97.
M oschos (poet) 36.
Nearchos (admiral) 104, 142.
N eoptolem os (actor) 90.
Nikandros (poet) 86.
Odysseus 107.
Olympias 56.
IN D E X O F P E R S O N A L N A M E S
Onesikretos of Astypalaia (p h ilo so p h er)
33,104.
Onias (general) 60.
Osiris (deity) 116.
Pan (deity) 81.
Patroklos (admiral) 102.
Persaios (philosopher) 3 5 , 57, 8 5 , 8 7 , 1 0 4 ,
136-137.
Perseus (king) 40.
Petosarapis (courtier) 6 0 .
Phila, d. o f Antipatros 4 6 .
Philemon (playwright) 3 4 .
Philip II 25, 32, 5 6 -7 , 5 8 , 8 6 , 9 0 , 1 3 6 .
Philip V 53, 86, 130.
Philippos o f Akarnania (physician) 3 3 .
Philo o f Byzantion (technician) 3 6 , 7 6 .
Philostratos (philosopher) 3 4 .
Pindar (poet) 3 1 , 3 2 , 1 0 5 -1 0 8 , 1 2 8 .
Plato (philosopher) 3 8 .
Polybios (historian) 5 3 .
Polykrates o f Samos (ruler) 3 1 .
Polykrates (courtier) 6 1 .
Poseidippos 7 8 -7 9 , 117.
Ptolemaios, C laudius (geographer) 139.
Ptolemy I Soter 3 4 -3 5 , 3 7 , 5 1 , 5 7 , 8 5 -8 6 ,
87, 93, 101, 1 0 4 , 10 6 , 1 2 3 -1 2 5 .
Ptolemy II Philadelphos 4 , 7 -8 , 3 4 -3 5 , 3 7 ,
69, 57, 7 5 , 7 9 , 7 9 , 8 2 -8 9 , 9 3 , 10 2 ,
109, 114, 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 -1 2 6 , 1 2 7 130, 137.
Ptolemy III Euergetes 3 4 -3 5 , 6 6 , 7 5 , 8 6 ,
109, 115, 137.
Ptolem y IV Philopator 6 1 , 7 5 .
Ptolem y V Epiphanes 5 8 , 6 1 , 68.
Ptolem y V I Philom etor 6 0 , 6 1 , 7 2 , 10».
Ptolem y Keraunos 5 3 .
Pyrrho (philosopher) 33.
Pyrrhos o f Epeiros 3 3 , 68, 90.
183
S a m o s (p o e t) 1 0 4 .
S ele u k o s I N ik a to r 3 5 , 5 1 .
S eleu lcos o f S e le u k e ia (a stro n o m er) 8 9 ,
1 3 0 -1 3 1 .
S im o n id e s o f M a g n esia (p oet) 14 1 .
S o p h o k le s (p layw righ t) 9 4 .
S o sib io s (cou rtier) 6 1 .
Sostratos o f K n id o s (architect) 104.
S otad es o f M aron eia (p oet) 10 2 .
S ph airos (p hilosop her) 1 3 6 -1 3 7 .
S th en id as (p hilosop her) 136.
S tilp o o f M egara (philosopher) 8 7 , 101.
Strabo (geographer) 3 7 -8 .
Strato o f L am psakos (philosopher) 3 0 , 3 4 ,
87.
S ü leym an I ‘T h e M agn ificen t’ 4 , 8 5 .
T h eo d o ro s o f Kyrene (philosopher) 88.
T h eok ritos (poet) 2 , 17, 30, 69, 81-82, 93,
1 0 4 -1 0 8 , 111, 115, 117-120, 123-125.
T heophrastos (philosopher) 30, 34, 36, 87.
T illy , Charles 4.
T im o n (poet) 7 -8 , 89.
T im o th eo s (poet) 31.
T lep olem os (courtier) 61.
T ryp h o (jester) 58.
Vasari, G iorgio 103.
W illam ow itz-M oellendorf, U . von, 6-7.
Xenarios (architect) 35.
X enophon 136-137.
Z eno (philosopher) 34, 57, 87, 136-137.
Zenon the Karian 70.
Zeus (deity) 121, 123-125, 137, 140.
Zeuxis (painter) 31.
Zoilos (philologist) 102.
INDEX OF PLACE N AM ES
Jebel Khalid 43.
Alexandria 3, 5-6, 14-15, 19, 29, 35-6,
Kos 126.
37-38, 82, 97, 144.
Kyrene (Libya) 31, 101.
Basile!a (Royal District) 38.
Laodikeia on the Sea (Syria) 35.
Library 29, 37-39, 92-93, 98,
Memphis (Egypt) 19, 36, 68, 85.
144-145.
Nineveh (Mesopotamia) 29.
Lighthouse 104.
Museum 7, 22, 35, 37-40, 57, 92-93,
Olympia 79.
98, 101, 110, 111, 131.
Pella (Macedon) 32.
Serapeion 38.
Pergamon (Mysia) 36, 39-40.
Antioch on the Orontes (Syria) 35, 36,
Rhodes 36.
37, 39.
Rome 36.
Athens 3, 32, 34, 36, 38, 57, 87.
Samos (Aegean) 31.
Babylon 30, 142.
Syracuse (Sicily) 31, 105.
Corinth 79.
Thebes (Egypt) 36.
Delos 126.
Vergina 43.
Delphi 129.
Demetrias (Thessaly) 43.
Hiera Agora 43.
IN D E X O F A N C IE N T W R IT IN G S
ApoJIonios
Argonautica 94, 118, 141.
Aratos o f Soli
Phaenomena 86, 123, 1 3 9 -1 4 0 .
Berossos
Babyloniaka 92, 142.
Kallimachos
Coma Berenices 91, 115-6, 1 3 9 -1 4 0 .
Epigram 59: 9.
Hymn to Artem is 78.
Hymn to Delos 93, 115, 117, 125-126,
127, 129.
Hymn to Zeus')?), 106, 111, 125, 127,
129.
Victory ofBerenike 4 8 -4 9 , 11.
Victory ofSosibios 80, 110.
Lykophron
Alexandra 80.
M anetho
Aegyptiaca 92, 142.
Poseidippos
H ippika 79.
Sim onides
G alatika 141.
Theokritos
i d y i i y z v 119.
/ 4 / / X V (‘T h e A donia’) 82.
Id yll Υ Ν Ι (‘T o H ieron’) 75, 104-108,
117, 128.
/^ // X V I I (‘T o Ptolemy’) 69, 94.
«Syrt«* 81.
X enophon
Cyropaedia 13 6.
Keep reading this paper — and 50 million others — with a free Academia account
Used by leading Academics
Pasquale Terracciano
"Tor Vergata" University of Rome
Mercedes Gamero Rojas
Universidad de Sevilla
Alejandra B Osorio
Wellesley College
José Manuel Santos
University of Salamanca
