Hellenistic Kingship

A revised version of this paper is published as Nelson, T.J. (2020) “Attalid Aesthetics: The Pergamene ‘Baroque’ Reconsidered”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 140: 176-198 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426920000087). Section 3 was revised separately as Nelson, T.J. (2020) “Nicander’s Hymn to Attalus: Pergamene Panegyric”, The Cambridge Classical Journal 66: 182-202 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S1750270519000083).

The negative judgement of Polybius (Vth book) on the Hellenistic basileis and their dynasties in comparison with the virtues of the Roman Republic exerted a strong influence upon the next generations of historians. An exception to this view was represented by the Attalids of Pergamon, who established their political propaganda on family harmony and affection.
On the contrary, the case of the Seleucid dynasty was considered as a negative model of family, where plots, hatred, treachery, greed and, sometimes, madness prevailed. By examining the evidence provided by inscriptions, coins and historical works as well, this paper aims to analyze the evolution of family dynamics among the Seleucids and to show to what extent the concepts of family, brotherhood and kinship were employed in the construction of their public image.

"Il volume propone un'edizione ampiamente commentata di Supplementum Hellenisticum 958 e 969, due frammenti in distici elegiaci databili al III - II secolo a.C. Entrambi possono essere messi in relazione con l'invasione dei Galati in Grecia e in Asia Minore, e in particolare i con la repressione della rivolta dei mercenari galati di Tolemeo II, celebrata da Callimaco nell'Inno a Delo. L'introduzione fa il punto sui precedenti dell'elegia storica e sull'ambiente socioculturale in cui si sviluppò la poesia encomiastica alessandrina; arricchisce il commento ai frammenti un'esauriente ricostruzione storica dei tormentati rapporti tra i Galati e i regni ellenistici.
-----------------------------------------------
Commented edition of two fragments of Hellenistic (most probably Ptolemaic) encomiastic elegy, Supplementum Hellenisticum 969 and 958, dealing with the Galatian invasion in Asia Minor and with the rebellion of Galatian mercenaries in Egypt suppressed by Ptolemy II Philadelphos (cf. Callimachos Hymn to Delos).
With a wide Introduction on Ptolemaic court poetry and propaganda and on the history of historical elegy.

http://www.vitaepensiero.it/
http://www.vitaepensiero.it/volumi/9788834306970
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003-02-20.html
Rev. H. Lloyd-Jones, "Classical World" 96.3 (2003), 345-346
--------------------------------------------------------"

In the article a problem of relation between Bosporian Kingdom and the Early Antigonids is analyzed. It is shown that Bosporus was in implicit confrontation with Antigonids in the early Hellenistic age because of economic policy of Antigonos the One-Eyed and his claim for "world supremacy".

This is the abstract for my MPhil thesis, 'The Presentation of Scipio Africanus: Hellenization and Roman Elite Display in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BCE' (2021), completed at the University of Queensland under the supervision of Assoc. Prof. Tom Stevenson.

French and English Abstract

"De rois d’Asie à rois de Syrie. Évolution d’un concept géopolitique dans les dernières phases de l’histoire séleucide"

La communication vise à analyser d’un point de vue géopolitique l’évolution du pouvoir des Séleucides en relation avec le rétrécissement progressif du territoire sous leur autorité. Si après sa victoire sur Antigone à Ipsos, Séleucos Ier pouvait arborer le titre de roi d’Asie et si Antiochos III pouvait avancer des prétentions sur l'Ionie et l'Éolide, ces régions ayant été auparavant en possession des rois d’Asie, après la défaite et la mort sur le champ d’Antiochos VII contre les Parthes, le royaume séleucide ne fut plus capable de récupérer les Hautes Satrapies et aspirer au pouvoir sur l’Asie. Au même temps, la Syrie définissait le pouvoir séleucide mais dans un sens plus large comme partie des possessions asiatiques de Séleucos où il avait établi sa ville d'Antioche : une telle juxtaposition géopolitique ressort clairement de certaines sources qui en effet définissent le pouvoir séleucide comme royaume de Syrie et Asie ou de Syrie et Médie. Cependant, avec les derniers Séleucides il semblerait que le terme de Syrie ne désigne plus que le territoire effectif sur lesquelles ils règnent. Une distinction ultérieure se fait quand Démétrios III est proclamé roi à Damas par Ptolémée IX, un événement qui cause la division de la Syrie séleucide en deux parties indépendantes.

From kings of Asia to kings of Syria. Evolution of a geopolitical concept in the final phases of Seleucid history

This talk aims to analyze from a geopolitical point of view the evolution of the Seleucid authority in relation with the progressive decrease of the territory under its rule. If Seleucos I could take the title of king of Asia after his victory over Antigonus at Ipsos, and if Antiochus III could claim Ionia and Aeolis on the basis that these regions had been previously ruled by the kings of Asia, after the defeat and death on the battlefield of Antiochos VII against the Parthians the Seleucid kingdom was no longer capable of taking back the Upper Satrapies and aspiring to rule Asia. At the same time, Syria defined Seleucid power in a broader sense as the area of the Asian possessions where Seleucos I had established the city of Antioch: such a geopolitical juxtaposition is evident in certain sources that define the Seleucid power as kingdom of Syria and Asia or Syria and Media. However, it seems that under the last Seleucids the term Syria designated only the effective territory upon which they ruled. An ulterior distinction occurred when Demetrius III was proclaimed king at Damascus which led to a further division of Seleucid Syria into two independent parts.

Justin’s notice about the murder of the Cappadocian princes at the hands of their mother Nysa (mistakenly called Laodice) was a real fact. Upon the death of Ariarathes V, Antiochus VII would have tried to seize Cappadocia, and Nysa (who was a Seleucid) intervened to help him. The 'feudal' situation in the kingdom and Antiochus’ kinship with the Ariarathids may have favoured this plot. The coins bearing the king’s face issued in Cappadocia since 130 BC initially formed part of the plan. After Antiochus’ death, these tetradrachms may have been issued to pay mercenary troops. Presumably, the successors of Antiochus Sidetes did not give up their aspirations to the Cappadocian throne. Rome founded the province of Cilicia in order not only to combat piracy but also to protect Cappadocia.

The Seleukid Empire is conventionally seen as the successor state of the Achaemenid Empire. But there is in fact nothing in the Seleukids’ self-presentation to suggest that they themselves thought so, too. On the contrary, in the third century BCE, their attitude towards the Achaemenids—as well as Alexander, for that matter—was one of damnatio memoriae. Yet because of repeated intermarriage with (non-Achaemenid) Iranian dynasties and the large-scale recruitment of Iranian troops for the imperial armies, it can be said that the Seleukid Empire was to a large extent an Iranian polity. This was not lost on their enemies, the Ptolemies and subsequently the Romans, who in their propaganda presented the Seleukids as the "New Persians". Perhaps in reaction to this, the memory of Persian kingship attained a more positive slant in the context of the gradual "vassalization" of the Seleukid Near East. This is expressed e.g. by the Persianism of (former) Seleukid vassal dynasties such as the Arsakids of Parthia, the Fratarakā of Persis and the Orontids of Kommagene.

This paper takes into account the contribution of Theodor Mommsen, in his Roman History, to assess  the significance of Caesar's expedition to Gallaecia in 61 BC. Moreover, the author compares the naval expedition of Caesar to Brigantium (La Coruña) with the first landing of the Roman proconsul in Britain (55  BC).

Agathokles of Syracuse’s coinage is a usually arranged into three periods, as originally proposed by Head (1874) and modified by Gabrici (1927), Jenkins (1968), Buda (1969/70), and Ieradi (1995-1996). This periodisation is based on the procession of Agathokles’ coin legends from ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΩΝ to ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΙΟΣ to ΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΕΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ. Freeman (1894) called this the “despot’s progress”, a process suggested by the literary sources. In this progress, Agathokles’ iconography appears to grow gradually more absolutist and/or Hellenistic over the course of his reign (recently Lehmler (2005) 65-68; Zambon (2006) 77-94).

I suggest that this progress has been overstated, and that the value of the legends as a dating criterion has been overly rigidly applied. Instead I propose a two period chronology which better fits the hoard and weight data, the evidence for the duration of issues, and the wider Mediterranean context. I further argue that the iconography of Agathokles’ coinage did not move from Sicilian models to Macedonian ones, but that he consistently chose types with both a Sicilian and a Macedonian resonance throughout his reign. Finally, my analysis of the geographic distribution of Agathokles’ coinage as evidenced by small finds and hoards indicates that Agathokles’ different issues have different distributions, opening the possibility that his coinage should be understood not as a single iconographic programme but as several different programmes aimed at different audiences.

The article deals with the problem of assumption of kingship by Ptolemy I. Analyzing the fragment of the historical work in P. Köln 247 and documental evidences, the author considered the date and circumstances of coronation of Ptolemy I and
concluded that this event took place more than year after the coronation of Antigonos the One-Eyed, during the siege of Rhodes by Demetrios Poliorketes in late 305 — early 304
BC. Aggression against Rhodes has been used by Ptolemy as a precedent for his own proclamation of an alternative king in the former empire of Alexander the Great.

Powerpoint of the conference given on Nov. 14th, 2013

Longtemps, les spécialistes des portraits royaux hellénistiques sont partis de la sculpture, pourtant pauvrement documentée, pour se tourner vers le document miniature, monnaie, pierre gravée ou sceau en argile, le plus susceptible de confirmer leurs identifications. Cette manière de procéder ne rend justice ni à la quantité des témoignages conservés ni à leur variété. On s’attachera dans cette conférence à mettre en lumière les particularités du témoignage numismatique en puisant largement à travers les effigies royales hellénistiques (Alexandre le Grand, les Ptolémées, les Séleucides, les rois de Pergame, du Pont et de Cappadoce, sans oublier les rois gréco-bactriens et indo-grecs).

This study argues that the so-called Sicilian Slave Wars are best understood as two differing instances of civic disquiet, social disorder and provincial revolt in Sicily, rather than as slave wars. Both events are reconnected to their Sicilian context geographically, politically and socially, and shown to have arisen from those contexts. This thesis is demonstrated in seven chapters. Chapter I reassesses the principle evidence for the kingdom established by the rebels in the first war: their numismatic issues. This evidence is best understood in the context of contemporary Sicilian numismatics and emphasises the Sicilian nature of the uprising. It is argued that the insurgency was contingent on the support of certain parts of the (free) Sicilian populace. Chapter II presents a reinterpretation of Diodorus’ text from a narratological point of view. The text is shown to be highly rhetorical and constructed with a view to demonise the leaders of the first war, Eunus and Cleon, through reference to Hellenistic stereotypes of femininity, cowardliness, magic and banditry. Chapter III argues that Diodorus’ explanation of the origin of the war is anachronistic and shows evidence of narratorial intervention and invention, thereby rendering his interpretation unreliable. Chapter IV considers Cicero’s Verrine Orations and shows that his engagement with the two wars in the text cannot be used as a reliable indicator of historical fact because of the text’s continual engagement with history. Chapter V argues that the two leaders of the so-called Second Slave War, Salvius/Tryphon and Athenion, were described using the same matrix of ideas that were present for Eunus and Kleon, for the same rhetorical and narratological effect. Chapter VI analyses Diodorus’ narrative of the origin of the war, and shows that Diodorus only provides a chronology of coincidental events, and beyond a single connective narrative line, demonstrates no connection between these events. Finally, Chapter VII suggests that the best context in which to understand this war is that of a general breakdown of social order on Sicily at the end of the second century B.C. caused by internal political problems in the cities of Sicily. Further, the insurgency led by Salvius/Tryphon and Athenion is shown to be only part of a broader crisis on Sicily that stretched from 106-93 B.C., part of an extended stasis for the island. In sum, I argue that the events typically referred to as the Sicilian Slave Wars are better understood through a focus on the historical contexts provided by the Hellenistic milieu in which the wars arose and the development of the Roman provincial system – rather than through the (preconceived) lens of slavery: instead of servile unrest, there was civic disquiet, social disorder and provincial revolt on Sicily in the 2nd century BC.

Diodorus Siculus’ account of the First Sicilian Slave War in book 34/5 of his Bibliotheke is dominated by the figure of Eunus, the wonder-working king. Modern discussions of this colourful character have typically sought to understand how his wonder-working and religious manias allow us to understand better the development and nature of the insurrection. The contention in this paper is that this focus on the wonder-working has led modern scholars to ignore another, vitally important facet of Eunus’ character in the narrative: his cowardly nature.

It will be shown that Diodorus’ narrative aimed, at vital moments of Eunus’ career as leader of the rebels, to undercut his achievements with carefully aimed barbs that linked his insufficiencies as a leader to a strong Hellenistic ideology about kingship. Two episodes in particular will be discussed: Eunus’ acclamation to kingship, and his capture at the end of the war. Both incidents will demonstrate that not only in relation to Hellenistic ideology, but especially within Diodorus’ Bibliotheke, Eunus’ personal attributes were shown to be completely inappropriate for a king. Furthermore, it will be argued that the method by which these traits are imparted on Eunus by Diodorus suggests that they cannot be firmly attributed to Eunus as a historical figure, merely as a literary figure in Diodorus’ narrative. It follows that we should question not just the presentation of Eunus by Diodorus, but, moreover, the characterisation of other figures or aspects in the story – even that of the event in question being a slave rebellion.

This paper examines Numidian and Mauretanian elites, highlighting their concepts of representation and visual memorialization under changing political conditions in pre-Roman North Africa between 3rd century BC and 1st century AD.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the Numidian kingdom’s elite, which displaced Carthage’s North African hegemony following the battle of Zama in 202 BC, had a complex self-image that derived from ‘hellenistic’ norms of aristocratic behavior. The latter were ruler cult, coins and reliefs showing idealistic portraiture and tombs or victory monuments exposing activity-related architectural decor and symbols. The same media, paradoxically, memorized traditional local elements of culture. The result was a highly heterogeneous conglomeration of motifs joined together by their creators’ perception of what constituted the ‘current fashion’. The interplay between individual representation and collective memorialization is well documented by buildings erected in particular moments and places of Numidian history.
As Rome expanded into Africa from the 1st century BC onwards, the aristocracy’s self-representation changed. An increasing ‘romanization’ can already be noticed in late Numido-Mauretanian kingdoms. Following Augustus’ transplantation of the Numidian dynasty into Mauretania as a client state, ruler portraits emulated Augustan prototypes, cities imitated latest Roman urbanism and royal coinage reproducted imperial one. Due to the deliberate preservation of above-mentioned forms of self-representation these updates gave the elite’s image an extremely hybrid appearence.
In sum, contrary to colonial and postcolonial researchers’ claims that bipolar cultural rivalries played the crucial role in both cases, I maintain that they should be interpreted as compatible union of established structures and innovative trends.

A king does not need a queen to rule successfully; yet after the death of Alexander not only did a new type of king emerge, the Hellenistic basileus , but also at the same time  the Hellenistic basilissa. The manner in which Seleukos Nikator presented his two wives Apama and Stratonike as queens at his side, the way they were perceived by his subjects, and how they represented themselves are treated in this paper. By analyzing the constellation of king and queen as part of the representation of the ruler, the difficulties as well as the new possibilities for the legitimization of monocratic rule after Alexander are highlighted.

In 135 b.c., unable to endure the treatment of their master Damophilus, a group of slaves, urged on by the wonder-worker Eunus, captured the city of Enna in Eastern Sicily in a night-time raid. The subsequent war, according to our sources the largest of its kind in antiquity, raged for three years, destroying the armies of Roman praetors, and engaging three consecutive consuls in its eventual suppression. The success of the rebels in holding out for years against a progression of Roman armies indicates the importance of the event, and the capabilities of their leaders. One expects the man capable of leading such a revolt to have been exceptional, and in this respect the ancient accounts do not disappoint: in a narrative replete with larger-than-life characters, ranging from the depraved slave-owner Damophilus (Diod. Sic. 34/5.2.10, 35–8) to the restrained Roman consul Calpurnius Piso (Val. Max. 4.3.10), one figure stands out in Diodorus…

Building on the work of Scheid and Svenbro (Craft of Zeus, 1996) regarding the political significance of weaving in Greek literature, this essay attempts to proffer the Odyssey’s political teaching through an interpretation of Penelope’s wily weaving of the burial shroud for the former king, Laertes. Homeric scholars have often noted the multiple oddities surrounding the shroud; few critics have noted the peculiarity of the dethroned Laertes. In spite of recent attempts by scholars such as Halverson, ‘The Succession Issue in the Odyssey’ (1986), to discredit political interpretations of the Odyssey as well as Homer’s understanding of kingship, I contend that Homer is presenting the institution in a state of transition. The shroud for Laertes will thus provide an interpretive key for narrating both the change of office enacted by Odysseus’ rule and the new political order formed at the end of the Odyssey.

It has long been noted that the book of Daniel is fascinated with empires and kings, be it the courts of the rulers of Babylon and Persia or the logic of imperial succession that seems to dictate historical change. The book’s portrayal of kings and empires is often interpreted as an attempt to denounce human kingship in the expectation that, following Antiochos IV’s attack on Jerusalem and religious persecution in 168–167 BCE, worldly empires would disappear in favor of divine rule. This paper challenges this interpretation by exploring the positive role that kingship and imperial rule play in the discursive process of elite identity formation in Daniel’s court tales. Through a focus on key passages dealing with the Judean courtiers’ rise in the court hierarchy, their role as trusty advisors to rulers, and the royal acknowledgment of their god (e.g., Dan 2:46–48; 4:15; 6:27), I show how the court tales put forward a benign account of past kings and empires. I then explore how such tales might have served their redactor as literary instruments in fashioning a historiography of imperial rule over Judea that positioned his group of Judean literati as essential to maintaining the political order established in the wake of the Maccabean revolt. Arguably, Judean historiography of empire and the image of the relationship between courtier and king it promoted became a fertile ground for group identification, and elite groups that competed for influence under the Hasmoneans could anchor their social status in their alleged past proximity to foreign rulers and their markedly essential role in making those kings follow some of the ideals of Judean righteous kingship. The paper concludes by exploring the implications of these findings for the common interpretation of Daniel as anti-imperial resistance literature concerned with the Hellenization of Judea.

Commencing with Homer and throughout the whole of Greco-Roman antiquity, the metaphor of the herdsman is commonly employed by poets and philosophers to qualify gods, kings, magistrates, and all kinds of authority figures and political leaders. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the meaning and function of this political figure as it is featured in the works of Virgil. Although the main focus of analysis will be on the Aeneid, a preliminary survey of Virgil’s earlier works shall allow us to understand the values and expectations against which the shepherd of the people and his actions were later to be evaluated, while also presenting us with several figures of nonliteral shepherds in their own right and political significance. The first two sections focus on key passages of the Eclogues and Georgics to argue that the peaceful existence of the agropastoral world, itself a signifier for the whole of human life and deeds, is constructed as subordinate to the soterial and beneficial agency of exceptional figures of shepherds, who are drawn from politics and history into the metaphorical frame of the poems. The remaining sections will suggest that this optimistic perspective, wherein war progresses to peace through the actions of exceptional individuals, is disproved and reversed in the characterization of the metaphorical shepherds of the Aeneid. Rather, the shepherds’ actions are directed toward the destruction of the same pastoral world that Virgil’s earlier poems imagined as existing by virtue of the shepherd’s soterial agency. [From the article's introduction.]

Building on the work of Scheid and Svenbro (Craft of Zeus, 1996) regarding the political significance of weaving in Greek literature, this essay attempts to proffer the Odyssey’s political teaching through an interpretation of Penelope’s wily weaving of the burial shroud for the former king, Laertes. Homeric scholars have often noted the multiple oddities surrounding the shroud; few critics have noted the peculiarity of the dethroned Laertes. In spite of recent attempts by scholars such as Halverson, ‘The Succession Issue in the Odyssey’ (1986), to discredit political interpretations of the Odyssey as well as Homer’s understanding of kingship, I contend that Homer is presenting the institution in a state of transition. The shroud for Laertes will thus provide an interpretive key for narrating both the change of office enacted by Odysseus’ rule and the new political order formed at the end of the Odyssey.

Discusses the many coins of the 'Alexander-type' in the names of all the other issuers known to the author. The 'Alexander-type' usually shows the head of Herakles on the obverse, and the figure of seated Zeus holding an eagle and scepter on the reverse, and typically bears the name of 'Alexander' (the Great). It is the ones that are not in the name of Alexander that are the subject of this article.

The negative judgement of Polybius (Vth book) on the Hellenistic basileis and their dynasties in comparison with the virtues of the Roman Republic exerted a strong influence upon the next generations of historians. An exception to this view was represented by the Attalids of Pergamon, who established their political propaganda on family harmony and affection.
On the contrary, the case of the Seleucid dynasty was considered as a negative model of family, where plots, hate, treachery, greed and, sometimes, madness prevailed. By examining the evidence provided by inscriptions, coins and historical works as well, this paper aims to analyze the evolution of family dynamics among the Seleucids and to show to what extent the concepts of family, brotherhood and kinship were employed in the construction of  their public image.