Pyrrhus

The acquisition by the Royal Library of Belgium of an astonishinlgy heavy "octobol" of Pyrrhus (7.83g instead of 5.5-5.7g) struck at Syracuse in 278-276 BC but overstruck on a Corinthian stater from Anactorion in the second hal of the 4th c. BC provides the opportunity to give a die-study for these silver issue (19 obverses and 34 reverses for 61 specimens). In the light of this overstike, we may wonder if these so-called "octobols" were not estimated at a higher value. Among the peculiarities of this coinage is the fact to find many control marks on the obverse. In addition, a (rather preliminary) die-study is provided for the tetradrachms ("Head of Zeus r./ Enthroned Dione seated l." - 5 obverses, 12 reverses for 33 coins) and the didrachms ("Head of Achilles l./Thetis seated r. on a seahorse" - 2 obverses, 3 reverses for 12 coins) which are both supposed to have been struck at Lokri Epizephyri. For all these silver issues ("octobols", tetradrachms and didrachms) as well as for the staters and hemistaters struck at Syracuse, an estimate of the original number of obverses is provided and the results are put into perspective (enough to pay in fresh coins c. 20,000 soldiers for one year). In this particular case, the issued coinage by Pyrrhus at Syracuse seems to have been approximately correlated with his military expenditures (c. 10,000 soldiers during two years - 278-276 BC).

This chapter considers the heroic topoi in the character speech of Quintus’ Neoptolemus as markers of heroic characterization and development. As two epigones of the Iliadic tradition, the speeches by and about his ancestors Achilles and Ajax strongly focus on personal excellence, whereas new-comer Neoptolemus engages in a heroic discourse marked by general bravery and value. This places him on the same line as several of his newly arrived friends and foes. Moreover, Neoptolemus goes through a process of personal development, learning how to shape his own heroic identity out of his father’s legacy and in line with the modern heroic ‘fashions’ of his peers. This progressive development is traceable in the evolution of the heroic topoi used by Neoptolemus in his speeches. Earlier conclusions about his modesty can, this way, be framed in the larger plot developments that cumulate in the dream appearance of deified Achilles in Book 14.

Nella storia degli studi solo alcune delle componenti delle panoplie di epoca ellenistica hanno ricevuto un esame dettagliato. Parlando di corazze ellenistiche questa assenza è ancor più sorprendente, in quanto la corazza è un elemento fondamentale del corredo di un guerriero. Le fonti scritte la collegano a personaggi storici di spicco e l’archeologia afferma una diversità tipologica specifica per ogni area culturale. Il problema (o parte di esso) è molto probabilmente il modo in cui è stata sviluppata la ricerca delle armi: archeologicamente, da un approccio tipologico e, storicamente, con scarsa attenzione per l’oggetto in sé in quanto non descritto nelle fonti letterarie. Inoltre entrambi i filoni della ricerca partono da un punto di vista principalmente ellenocentrico. Questo è un approccio che è necessario abbandonare, suggerendo invece uno studio più ampio delle armi ellenistiche, che le consideri come la sintesi di un processo storico condizionato dalla dimensione tecnologica e dello scambio culturale. L’obbiettivo principale del contributo riguarda, da un lato, discutere la provenienza etnica specifica di queste armi e, contemporaneamente, mostrare il loro potenziale comunicativo e simbolico volto ad esprimere identità sociale e politica.

This paper offers a summary of past research in quantifying Hellenistic coinages. Beyond the methodological debate and the shift of mentalities between c. 1975 and now, we compare results got by many authors, focusing on the more substantial coinages of the time (Alexander the Great, Seleucids, Philip II, Athenian stephanephoroi, Lysimachus, Demetrios Poliorketes, Miletus and Chalcis. We opt for an average value of 20,000 coins per obverse die (because that is a value we could possibly divide or multiply by two, but not by three) and for the equivalent of Attic weight drachm as the standard of comparison. Nothing absurd emerges from the comparison of the hundreds of die-studies already produced for Hellenistic coinages. Quite the contrary. And the same is true when comparing the Hellenistic results with what has been tempted for the Roman world (Duncan-Jones). The issues of Taras, Case-studies for civic coinages include the issues of Rhodes, Phaselis, Maroneia and Athens, and for royal isues, Philip II, Alexander the Great (Lampsakos [Lampsacus]), Demetrius Poliorketes, Pyrrhus, the Attalids and Mithridates Eupator. The final paradox of these quantitative studies is the following: while the general tendency of quantitative studies of ancient coinages is clearly to calculate larger number of struck coins than those hitherto postulated, at the same time these large numbers will often appear as inadequate if placed within the hypothetical perspective of a highly monetized society.

‘Aspect and subordination in Plutarchan narrative’. In R. Ash, J. Mossman and F. Titchener (edd.), Fame and Infamy: essays for Christopher Pelling on characterization in Greek and Roman biography and historiography (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015), 129-148.

ПИРР (др. греч. Πύρρος) (319–272 до н.э.), царь Эпира (307–302, 297–272). Из династии Эакидов. После первого недолгого периода правления был изгнан из Эпира. В 297 при поддержке диадоха Птолемея I (ок. 367–283, царь с 305) вернулся на родину, устранил своего соперника и соправителя Неоптолема и стал единоличным царем. В 290–280-х гг., воспользовавшись ослаблением Македонии, значительно расширил границы своего царства. В 280 отправился в Италию для оказания помощи жителям г. Тарент в войне против Рима. В 280–279 одержал победы в битвах при Гераклее и Аускуле; однако, несмотря на поражения, Рим сохранил свою воен. мощь. Отсюда происходит понятие «Пиррова победа», связанное, видимо, с битвой при Аускуле и обозначающее победу, достигнутую слишком дорогой ценой и оказавшуюся бесполезной. Попытки П. провести переговоры с римлянами оказались неудачными. После этого П. оставил Италию, отправившись на Сицилию под предлогом помощи местному греч. населению против Карфагена. Возможно, П. планировал включить Сицилию и юж. Италию в состав своей державы. Несмотря на первоначальные успехи, не смог вытеснить карфагенян с Сицилии. Утратив поддержку сицилийских греков, недовольных его авторитаризмом, вернулся в Италию; возобновил войну с Римом, но в 275 был разгромлен в битве при Беневенте (ныне г. Беневенто). Возвратившись в Эпир, П. в 274 совершил вторжение в Македонию и одержал победу над Антигоном II Гонатом (ок. 319–239, царь с 283, в Македонии ок. 276; см. Антигониды). Не сумев укрепиться в Македонии, П. вмешался в конфликт за власть в Спарте на стороне одного из претендентов – Клеонима. Попытался захватить Спарту, но был вынужден отступить. Погиб в 272 в Аргосе во время сражения с жителями города и войсками помогавшего им Антигона II Гоната. Со смертью П. начался упадок Эпира.

Лит.: Lévêque P. Pyrrhos. P., 1957; Казаров С.С. История царя Пирра Эпирского. СПб., 2009.

RESUMEN En el presente artículo se analizan los rasgos literarios que presenta la tradición historio-gráfica sobre la guerra de Pirro con Roma. A pesar del carácter fragmentario de la mayoría de los textos, se observa en la narración una interpretación herodotea de los acontecimientos, cuyo origen parece situarse en la primitiva tradición literaria romana.