Classics

The extant 10 fragments of Appian’s Macedonian book, concerning Philip V of Macedonia, and their sources are analysed. It has been observed that often Appian’s books on Syrians, on Illyrians, on Macedonians include information alien to the Roman point of view, as it is attested in the historiography of Polibian traditions. The non-Polybian source for these fragments is investigated and its peculiarities are singled out. It appears that Appian attempts to counterbalance Polybius’ Roman standpoint with a more Macedonian-Greek perspective, which often transmits the defeated’s point of view. This source, basically Greek, is hostile to the Aetolians, critical of the Attalids, and unbiased to the Macedonians; it has certainly read Polybius, and is well informed on the 3rd/2nd-century politics.

This study reconsiders both the historiographical and documentary evidence related to Achaeus the Elder and to his son Alexander of Sardis according to the recent development of the research on Seleucid history and political structures. I attempt to characterise the rule of Achaeus over Caria and Lydia and its relation with the central Seleucid power. Achaeus is likely an ἑταῖρος of the king, who, given lands in Asia Minor, in the first quarter of the 3rd century develops a personal power through protecting the people of his area against the Galatians. Consequently he roots and structuralises his rule, probably stimulating the Hellenization of the people of his given lands. Moreover, I compare the structure of the Achaeus’ power to that of his son Alexander, governor of Sardis, who according to inscriptions, appears to be far less independent from the Seleucid central power than his father. The overall impression is that around the mid 3rd century BC, Antiochus II strengthens his cooperation with the local Macedonian ruler of Caria and Lydia, thus reducing the independence of the area from the central power, and gaining a more structured and direct control over the region.

When reading the long fragment of Polybios 8.15.1-21.11, about Antiochos III’s siege of Sardis, it is impossible not to be amazed by the favourable attitude of the historian towards Laodike, the wife of the Seleukid usurper Achaios. Contrary to what might be expected from an historian who tends to be markedly indifferent towards women, Polybios gives us more information about Laodike than about any other Seleukid woman. Achaios’ Laodike is an exemplar of the loyal and brave wife and her portrait has clear epic echoes. As Polybios was no newcomer to associating Homeric topoi with unexpected situations and portrayals, it is indeed possible to detect in the words of Polybios on Achaios and Laodike a clear reference to the well-known Homeric couple, Hektor and Andromache.

In the 3rd century the Seleukids faced the first significant fracture in the dynasty. This dynastic crisis originated in 246 with the death of Antiochos II and caused the Third Syrian War between the king Seleukos II and the Egyptian monarch Ptolemy III. The sudden power void left by the death of Antiochos II brought the “secondary” members of the basileia to the attention of the ancient sources, compelling them to inquiry in the power-mechanics of the Seleukid monarchy: indeed, the ancient sources attribute a pivotal role in the events to the two wives of Antiochos II, Laodike and Berenike. The abundant evidence on the female members of the basileia provides information on the role of the basilissa in the absence of male representatives of the dynasty, as well as on the agency of the queen-mother of the new king.

Based mainly on ancient historiographical sources, this chapter reconsiders the evidence on Berenike and Laodike, wives of Antiochos II, in order to shed light on the role of royal Seleukid women, as far as the literary representation allows. Answering important questions about female military and diplomatic agency, this study re-opens the debate of Seleukid royalty, demonstrating that Seleukid women were neither “shadow women” nor “tokens”, but they had their own complex political identity and played a key role in the political and economic administration of the Seleukid Empire, as well as in Hellenistic diplomacy.

Résumé
Au IIIe siècle, les Séleucides connaissent la première crise dynastique importante de leur histoire. Cette crise trouve son origine dans la mort d’Antiochos II et provoque la Troisième Guerre de Syrie, qui oppose Séleucos II au roi lagide Ptolémée III. La soudaine vacance du pouvoir créée par la mort d’Antiochos II conduit les sources antiques à tourner leur attention vers les membres « secondaires » de la famille royale (la basileia) et à s’intéresser à la mécanique du pouvoir monarchique séleucide. Or, les sources antiques accordent un rôle central dans ces événements aux deux veuves d’Antiochos II, Laodice et Bérénice. Grâce à cet intérêt pour les membres féminins de la basileia, nous disposons d’informations sur le rôle de la basilissa en l’absence de représentants mâles de la dynastie, et sur l’action de la reine, mère du nouveau roi.
Essentiellement basée sur les sources historiographiques antiques, cette contribution revisite les témoignages relatifs à Laodice et à Bérénice, les veuves d’Antiochos II, dans le but de clarifier le rôle des femmes de la maison royale séleucide autant que le permet la documentation littéraire. Tout en répondant à d’importantes questions sur l’action féminine dans le domaine militaire et diplomatique, cette étude relance le débat sur la royauté séleucide en démontrant que les femmes séleucides n’étaient ni des « femmes de l’ombre » ni des « pions » mais qu’elles avaient une identité politique propre, complexe, et qu’elles jouaient un rôle clé dans l’administration politique et économique du royaume séleucide, ainsi que dans la diplomatie hellénistique.

La pubblicazione di questo volume ha ricevuto il contributo finanziario dell'Università Cattolica ed è stata realizzata grazie al contributo del Progetto PRIN 2010-2011 del Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca. www.vitaepensiero.it Le fotocopie per uso personale del lettore possono essere effettuate nei limiti del 15% di ciascun volume dietro pagamento alla SIAE del compenso previsto dall'art. 68, commi 4 e 5, della legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633. Le fotocopie effettuate per finalità di carattere professionale, economico o commerciale o comunque per uso diverso da quello personale possono essere effettuate a seguito di specifica autorizzazione rilasciata da CLEARedi, Centro Licenze e Autorizzazioni per le Riproduzioni Editoriali, Corso di Porta Romana 108, 20122 Milano,

When approaching the study of Asia Minor during 3rd cent B.C.., every scholar must confront the dearth of primary and secondary material regarding a family which reappears intermittently on the stage of Anatolian history: the House of Achaeus. The most renowned member, both to ancient and modern scholars, is Achaeus the Younger: featured prominently in Polybius, the lieutenant of Seleucus III and later governor-turned-rebel under Antiochus III made an unsuccessful bid for proclaimed himself king, only to be defeated in 214/13. While on the surface he appears to be just another military usurper, upon closer examination it becomes clear that he was the last representative of an ancient and powerful family that had spent the 3rd century cultivating connections and bonds with other potentates in the region – most notably the Seleucids themselves. Starting with this observation, this paper digs into the patchy and fragmentary testimonies about the many representatives of this family. We begin by collecting and analyzing what extant sources remain, and then aim to reconstruct a stemma of the house. Beginning with the family’s progenitor, Achaeus ‘the Elder,’ we postulate a possible link of marriage to the family of Seleucus I and then track the interaction of Achaeus and his progeny with the Seleucids and other dynasts in Anatolia during the first half-century of Seleucid rule. Examining their place within the larger Seleucid power structure and their standing in the smaller arena of Asia Minor, we aim to contextualize the acts of this influential family in the complex political situation of both Asia Minor and the broader Seleucid Empire.

Through the collection of 24 documents from the 18th century, this volume illustrates the personal and scholarly relations between Filangieri and Franklin at a time which was crucial in the United States, as well as in the rest of the modern world. Tracing down the evidence of this intense exchange of books, ideas, letters, and gifts, this work investigates  the intellectual network behind the American Constitution and the French Revolution. It ultimately shows how the two events that originated modern democracy were indeed the outcome of an international intellectual unrest involving philosophers and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.

The relationship between the kingdom of Pontus and the kingdoms of the successors in 4th-3rd c. B.C. had the appearance of an intricate web of ambiguous ties, propagandist, dynastic and political, and culminated in the wedding of Antiochus III with Laodice, the daughter of Mithridates II: in this occasion Polybius (V 43.1-4) highlights the Mithridatids’ nobility with reference to the Seven Persians that established Darius I. Nevertheless, Diodorus and Plutarch also link the Mithridatids with a dynasty of Cyus in Mysia, and attribute to the Macedonian Demetrius Poliorcetes a major role in the foundation myth of the Pontic kingdom.

Through the comparison of the literary sources, this work shows that Hieronymus of Cardia concocted the whole tradition promoting the Iranian origins of the dynasty together with the Antigonid support to the creation of the Basileia. While the link with the Achaemenids implied prestige even beyond the days of Alexander the Great, the Mysian connection was designed to explain the Mithridatids’ political interactions with the Hellenistic dynasties. Showing that the earliest evidence of the promotion of the dynasty’s multicultural ties originated during the reign of Mithridates II, the paper ultimately provides a new perspective on the agenda conceived by the king: Mithridates II is also known for the opening of the royal family to the Graeco-Macedonian through interdynastic marriages (epigamiai) with the Seleucids.

Recently, the history of Alexander and his Successors has attracted growing attention of modern academia. The Hellenistic world is not viewed anymore as a moment of decadence after the splendour of the Greek Classical age, enlightened by Athens' bright star, but as an engaging example of ante litteram globalization, the essential premise to the development of the Roman Empire. We have consequently considered opportune and significant to organise a conference meeting devoted to Alexander' s Legacy.

We would like to thank all of the Italian and foreign Colleagues who have so valuably contributed to the success of our project. We would also like to thank the young scholars who have promptly examined through their posters some specific matters. A heartfelt thanks to the Dipartimento di Storia, Archeologia e Storia dell' Arte of our University, as well as to the Department Chair, Professor Giuseppe Zecchini. Without the support of the Department, nothing would have been possible.
Finally, we are grateful to our Colleague Alberto Barzanò and to Dr. Monica D' Agostini, who have effectively helped us to overcome the unavoidable linguistic difficulties.

CINZIA BEARZOT
FRANCA LANDUCCI

Tra il 1781 e il 1788, anno della sua scomparsa, Filangieri intrattenne un intenso carteggio con lo statista e filosofo americano Benjamin Franklin e Luigi Pio, segretario di legazione a Parigi per il Regno delle Due Sicilie. Ventiquattro documenti sono sopravvissuti alle vicende del tempo e sono oggi visibili al museo Filangieri di Napoli, alla Library of Congress di Washington, all’American Philosophical Society e alla Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania di Filadelfia.
Attraverso la corrispondenza tra Gaetano Filagieri e Benjamin Franklin il contributo ripercorre la relazione privata e accademica tra i due pensatori in un momento storico fondamentale per l’Europa e gli Stati Uniti. Rintracciando le testimonianze sopravvissute di questo intenso scambio di lettere, libri, idee e doni, il lavoro indaga il fermento intellettuale che sfociò nella Costituzione americana e nella Rivoluzione francese. Mettendo in relazione la corrispondenza con il coevo contesto storico, si scopre un esempio concreto di quella connessione culturale internazionale che coinvolse le due sponde dell’Atlantico nella creazione della democrazia moderna.

The successors of Alexander the Great engaged in shaping their image of Basileis. Hellenistic rulers and statesmen became increasingly aware of the relevance of self-representation to convey political and social messages for their audience. Unique among them is the case of the Basilissa Amastris of Herakleia, currently the first woman, at least in the history of the Greek Mediterranean and Near East, publicly identified through agency and appearance as the political, economic, and administrative royal authority.
 
Comparing the local tradition from Memnon of Heraklea with the numismatic evidence from the area, the paper shows that Amastris not only crafted her own Basileia but she also shaped her own fame. The peculiarity of her background and the metamorphic historical context allowed her to move between cultures and manipulate the social conventions to create a new political profile. To grant support and confer legitimacy on the new Hellenistic institutions, she made herself and her Basileia vessels of innovations that reflected the interests not only of the conqueror but also those of the native cultures, which had to accept them.

Cleopatra, named after her Seleucid grandmother, was the daughter of the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI Philometor. She is known also by the epiclesis Thea, attested in the region of Ptolemais epigraphically in the 130s and numismatically after 126/ 5. 1 She was active in the Seleucid basileia from 150 until her death in 121 during the reign of four kings, Alexander I Balas, Demetrius II, Antiochus VII, and Antiochus VIII, and three usurpers, Diodotus Tryphon, Seleucus V, and Alexander Zabinas. A Ptolemaic princess by birth, she entered the Seleucid dynasty marrying three of these male rulers and leaders contending for the throne at the end of the second century. 2 All of the unions, that with Balas and those with the Seleucid brothers Demetrius II and Antiochus VII, sprang from the need to achieve political and military stability in the Seleucid kingdom; nevertheless, they showed diverse features relative to the power dynamics of the couple, the role of the male and female monarchs in home and foreign management of the basileia, and the promotional image of the couple. The present study takes into account Cleopatra's marriages between 151 and 129, because after the latter date the evidence on the queen is not related to her role as royal wife, but rather to her rule or corule as queen mother. Moreover, after 129, I believe, we cannot refer anymore to a Seleucid Empire but instead to a local rule of the Seleucid dynasty, whose political, military, and economic life is deeply influenced by the civic elites of Antioch and the Tetrapolis. 3

OPEN ACCESS: https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/20775#text

In the 3rd century the Seleukids faced the first significant fracture in the dynasty. This dynastic crisis originated in 246 with the death of Antiochos II and caused the Third Syrian War between the king Seleukos II and the Egyptian monarch Ptolemy III. The sudden power void left by the death of Antiochos II brought the “secondary” members of the basileia to the attention of the ancient sources, compelling them to inquiry in the power-mechanics of the Seleukid monarchy: indeed, the ancient sources attribute a pivotal role in the events to the two wives of Antiochos II, Laodike and Berenike. The abundant evidence on the female members of the basileia provides information on the role of the basilissa in the absence of male representatives of the dynasty, as well as on the agency of the queen-mother of the new king.

Based mainly on ancient historiographical sources, this chapter reconsiders the evidence on Berenike and Laodike, wives of Antiochos II, in order to shed light on the role of royal Seleukid women, as far as the literary representation allows. Answering important questions about female military and diplomatic agency, this study re-opens the debate of Seleukid royalty, demonstrating that Seleukid women were neither “shadow women” nor “tokens”, but they had their own complex political identity and played a key role in the political and economic administration of the Seleukid Empire, as well as in Hellenistic diplomacy.

Résumé
Au IIIe siècle, les Séleucides connaissent la première crise dynastique importante de leur histoire. Cette crise trouve son origine dans la mort d’Antiochos II et provoque la Troisième Guerre de Syrie, qui oppose Séleucos II au roi lagide Ptolémée III. La soudaine vacance du pouvoir créée par la mort d’Antiochos II conduit les sources antiques à tourner leur attention vers les membres « secondaires » de la famille royale (la basileia) et à s’intéresser à la mécanique du pouvoir monarchique séleucide. Or, les sources antiques accordent un rôle central dans ces événements aux deux veuves d’Antiochos II, Laodice et Bérénice. Grâce à cet intérêt pour les membres féminins de la basileia, nous disposons d’informations sur le rôle de la basilissa en l’absence de représentants mâles de la dynastie, et sur l’action de la reine, mère du nouveau roi.
Essentiellement basée sur les sources historiographiques antiques, cette contribution revisite les témoignages relatifs à Laodice et à Bérénice, les veuves d’Antiochos II, dans le but de clarifier le rôle des femmes de la maison royale séleucide autant que le permet la documentation littéraire. Tout en répondant à d’importantes questions sur l’action féminine dans le domaine militaire et diplomatique, cette étude relance le débat sur la royauté séleucide en démontrant que les femmes séleucides n’étaient ni des « femmes de l’ombre » ni des « pions » mais qu’elles avaient une identité politique propre, complexe, et qu’elles jouaient un rôle clé dans l’administration politique et économique du royaume séleucide, ainsi que dans la diplomatie hellénistique.

Corrupted by a thirst for power, degenerated courtiers, cruel appetite, and bloody imperialistic ambition, Philip V of Macedonia has been for a long time the paradigm of Hellenistic kingship. Moving beyond the surface of vice, rivalry and murder, this book follows a web of alliances and conflicts between the ruler and other political actors vying for power or fighting for independence from it. Their aspirations become increasingly interwoven: a struggle in the Macedonian court for control of the military and political leadership; the threat of the Aitolians, the Dardanians and the Illyrians, who dwell in north and central Greece; and the goals of the Achaian leader Aratos and the exiled dynast Demetrios of Pharos.
The rise to the throne of Philip V of Macedonia offers a unique case study for a situational, synthetic, and holistic study of the fluid Hellenistic political system. The abundance and quality of the literary and documentary evidence close or contemporary with the events are a magnifying glass with which to approach the shifting relations between the expression and the exercise of authority. Considering Philip V’s dynastic ties, court politics, military innovations, diplomatic relations and administrative reforms, the volume collects and examines information, details, and names in order to investigate the king’s agenda. It provides an event-based analysis of the power management in Macedonia, Greece and the Balkans in the crucial years that changed the history of the Mediterranean (229-212 BC). Ultimately the aim of this analysis of Philip V’s agency is to contribute to a new understanding of the first collision between Rome and the Hellenistic East, fostering the discussion on the political and military dialogue in the Mediterranean of the following years.

Although the ancient sources are well informed on the claim, employment and meaning of the title of basileus by the successors of Alexander, this does not hold true for the public assumption and significance of the title of basilissa, or Greco-Macedonian queen. Until the fourth century the term appears in the sources to generally indicate the female kin of the king owing to their familial relationship with the ruler. However, by the end of the third century basilissa eventually designated specific members of the dynasty as the female public representatives of the post-Alexander empires.
During the third century the status of the queen is increasingly attested throughout the Hellenistic monarchies, suggesting the existence of a phenomenon that crossed the geographical and political boundaries of the time. The innovations in the institutional role and terminology developed transversally through the Mediterranean and the Near East.
Building on literary and documentary evidence this paper focuses on third-century Hellenistic queenship and its relation with coeval monarchic institutions. It considers the An-tigonid instances of queenship, from Phila I to Phthia of Macedonia, to explore the history of the status of the Hellenistic basilissa as well as of the title used to identify it. Stressing the cross-familial and cross-cultural nature of the phenomenon, the study eventually shows that the condition of basilissa altered its meaning according to the spatial and chronological context, owing to the diversity of institutional answers given to specific cultural and administrative requirements.

Despite Daniel Ogden’s and Alex McAuley’s work in collecting, organizing, and rationalizing the often contradictory information delivered by the ancient sources, the Seleukid genealogy still appears to be the most complex and chaotic maze of marital relations in the Hellenistic world. This chapter offers a fresh look at the matter by approaching the royal dynasty holistically as an ensemble of familial forces, which fluidly interacted with diverse geographical and chronological contexts, rather than as a line of rulers hypothetically matched with concurrent consorts. In so doing, I will use the term dynastic politics as embracing the alliances— and ruptures— created through marriage and all that royal marriage implies: inheritance, legitimation, regency, interdynastic blood relationships, and dynastic continuity.