Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World

University of California Press

Monarchy held no attraction for most Greeks of the classical age. It was an institution characteristically associated with Asia and with barbarism. Aeschylus' Persae represented the classic contrast between Hellenic liberty and Persian despotism. Sparta might have her kings, but they were hedged about by a host of competing institutions that defined them more as magistrates than as monarchs. Most other Greek states scorned and rejected the concept. And even the Spartan Demaratus, as portrayed by Herodotus, advised the Persian king that his fellow citizens were free men obedient only to law, not subjects of an autocrat.

The conquests of Alexander, however, burst the confines of that limited world. The expansion of Hellas opened vast realms that had not been envisioned by the polis and could not be governed by its institutions. Monarchy emerged as indispensable, no longer an alien principle but a Macedonian instrument. Alexander brought it from the homeland and sought to blend it with the traditions of the East. His successors, hesitant at first for reasons of politics and diplomacy, eventually embraced it, adopting the title as well as the prerogatives of king. They did not construe their domains in geographical terms. The diadochoi represented themselves as heirs of Alexander, claimants to the throne of a limitless empire—however restricted their holdings may have been in fact. Neither image nor ideology corresponded to reality. But they exercised compelling force in themselves.

Justification for monarchy did not await the Hellenistic age. Plato propounded its virtues and even endeavored to inculcate them in Sicily. Xenophon and Isocrates produced treatises in praise of kings. Aristotle speculated about the advantages of the good ruler, and Theophrastus composed a volume on kingship. Pamphlets then proliferated in the

post-Alexander world, a veritable industry of "mirror for princes" publications. The monarch's hold on power received legitimation not merely by right of conquest or hereditary succession but through generosity, protection, administration of justice, and maintenance of stability. Such, at least, were the formulations of intellectuals. How far the kings paid attention and how far such standards of virtue were assumed and expected by the bulk of their subjects remain doubtful. None will doubt, however, that the Antigonids, Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Attalids recognized the value of projecting a posture and promoting allegiance.

The subject of Hellenistic kingship inaugurated our conference—and properly so. The institution marked out this era as distinct from its predecessors, constituted its principal organizational feature, and exemplified the tensions generated by grafting the new world onto the old. Contributions to the conference wisely ignored the speculations of ancient political theorists on the ideals and abstract principles of monarchy. They directed attention instead to the interrelationships of kings and subjects and the mutual manipulation of images and ideology.

Two basic problems confronted Greek kings: the fact that they were Greek and the fact that they were kings. The first presented a challenge to their control of non-Hellenic peoples, the second complicated their relations with Hellenic traditions. These ambiguous and entangled matters go to the heart of Hellenistic history, the association of East and West and the combination of old and new. The papers of Professors Bringmann, Koenen, and Walbank bring important and illuminating perspectives on precisely those issues.

Proud traditions of liberty and autonomy permeated the self-definition of the Greek polis. Those traditions not only remained vital in the communities of mainland Greece and the old cities of Asia Minor, they also formed a fundamental ingredient in the new foundations established by the kings in Asia. The monarchs exhibited sensitivity to the conventions; they regularly pronounced adherence to the autonomy of individual poleis, according privileges like inviolability , freedom from taxation , exemption from garrisoning, or the right to self-government. The award of such prerogatives has generally been interpreted either as a sincere guarantee of constitutional powers or (more commonly) as a sham and meaningless facade screening the real authority of the king and the dependence of the polis. Neither approach recognizes the true meaning of the institution. Professor Bringmann does not deal with sloganeering or empty gestures. His paper explores concrete benefactions bestowed by rulers upon cities within their sphere of influence: endowments, donations, and subventions. And, more importantly, he poses the pointed question of what advantage the kings themselves derived from these gifts. The advertisement of generosity

counted for a lot in the Hellenistic world: a display of magnanimity signaled wealth and control of resources, encouraged political backing, and demonstrated international standing. As for the cities, tangible benefits do not account entirely for their motivation. Benefactors depended in turn on beneficiaries, and a relationship of mutual respect, whatever the realities of power, held high significance both for the self-image of the cities and for the reputation of the king.

No less delicate were the relations developed between the Hellenic monarchs and the native populations of Asia. The Greeks had not come to Hellenize the barbarian nor to assimilate the races. A Greco-Macedonian ruling class installed itself in the new capitals of the East, occupying positions of authority in the court, the army, and the bureaucracy. Greek was the language of government and of law, and the means of communication in the world of business. Natives had little access to status or prestige. The king's power rested on a Hellenic elite. Such is the general consensus—and fundamentally accurate. Yet it does not tell the whole story. The ruler needed assent and collaboration from the ruled. Indigenous traditions could be acknowledged and incorporated in the new system, thereby allowing a broader sense of community. The Egyptian evidence supplies our fullest testimony, deftly exploited by Professor Koenen. The king provided a focal point for two cultures in that land. Imagery as conveyed by the coinage combined Greek symbolism with Egyptian tradition. Religion supplied a means whereby Hellenes and natives could express allegiance, each in their own ways, through familiar institutions. The Ptolemies claimed descent from Dionysus and Heracles, with Zeus as ultimate progenitor, a concept comfortable for Egyptians who reckoned their ruler as son of Amon-Re. Queens as well as kings served the purpose. Brother-sister marriages derived from Egyptian conventions but could claim Hellenic precedent as allusions to Zeus and Hera. Even "Sorer" and "Euergetes," the quintessentially Greek cult names, had native equivalents and spoke to Egyptian sensibilities. And the court poet Callimachus, while directing his verses to the Greek population of Alexandria, may also reflect Egyptian royal ideology. Ptolemaic rule expropriated rather than repressed native observances. The symbolism of ritual and the finding of a place for the Egyptian...