The Birdcage of the Muses: Patronage of the Arts and Sciences at the Ptolemaic Imperial Court, 305-222 BCE 904293350X, 9789042933507

Citation preview

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