[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
The book under review is based on lectures given at Penn State University in April 2015. The eleven contributions, which represent the 24 papers presented at the conference, and the editor’s introduction all revolve around the fundamental question: to what extent the Hellenistic monarchies represent a new world order and how they specifically dealt with existing structures, forms of organization, and traditions. By doing this partly in overarching thematic areas and partly in special studies, a broad spectrum emerges that can be insightful for the question of “old” and “new.” This assumes that the various kingdoms of the era can be subsumed under a definition with common characteristics.[1] The fact that numerous authors refer to the Ptolemaic kingdom in their guiding considerations is due not least to the corresponding source situation, but it does create a slight imbalance, which could, of course, be remedied by future studies on other monarchies.
The introduction not only outlines the content of the individual contributions, but also develops the research question: it relates to the influence of Greek at various levels, in terms of language and culture, but also in terms of the forms of organization in different social structures, i.e., it deals with fundamental concepts such as acculturation and cultural encounters.[2] However, neither are the terms defined nor is the state of research presented; only Johann Gustav Droysen, William Murray, and Jacob Burckhardt (spelled “Burkhardt”) are mentioned. This already points to a fundamental problem with the volume, which will be discussed further below.
In a thoughtful and well-researched article, Andrew Erskine reminds us that the focus on intellectual life at royal courts—with the king as patronus, of course—has so far failed to take sufficient account of the enormous influence on Greek thought that emanated directly from the polis context. This applies not only to poets, such as Hegesianax of Alexandria in Troas and Philippides, but above all to philosophers. Erskine, who also points to the fundamental problems of anecdotal tradition, attempts above all to use banquets and symposia to take a closer look at those situations that could be considered potential contact zones at various courts, but he also sheds light on influences that extend beyond this. Reference is also made to the development whereby indigenous influences at the Ptolemaic and Seleucid courts, represented by Manetho and Berossus, were increasingly supplanted by Greek culture, but also influenced the Greek poleis.
Sabine Müller’s contribution analyzes the handling of cultural property, both in terms of the functions of valuable dedications in sanctuaries and their appropriation as spoils by kings. This was not least intended to preserve the memory of victories, and it also allowed them to distinguish themselves as civilized saviors of cultural assets that had been stolen by the Persians at the time. Müller draws on epigrams by Poseidippus of Pella, among other sources, and is able to identify an Argead tradition that was further developed by the kings.
The cult of Tyche is one of a number of personifications whose worship experienced a particular boom in the Hellenistic period, but whose origins date back to archaic times. In a strongly source-focused contribution, Sylvana Katsounou outlines the general characteristics of the goddess and then highlights the specific innovations: these begin with her attributes, extend to her close connection to cities, especially Antioch-by-Daphne, and culminate in her understanding as a universal deity, “that directs this new world order and has authority over every aspect of human experience” (90). The discussion about understanding Hellenistic culture as one of “anti-individualism” (84) shows, of course, how difficult it is to apply modern concepts to ancient circumstances.
In a case study, Salvatore Vacante examines the conditions in Pisidian cities, which were divided in their support for Alketas, the brother of Perdiccas, and for Antigonos Monophthalmos, based on the age criterion (presbyteroi/neoteroi), which was also characteristic of cities in other regions. Drawing on literary, epigraphic, and archaeological sources, the study also focuses on cultural interactions and political opposition in the region in the period that followed, revealing how the Diadochi were able to make politics by stirring up staseis. However, this is hardly a new form of politics; Greek cities were already exposed to targeted external influences in classical times.[3]
It is undisputed that the federal states played an important role in the Hellenistic period. However, not least because of their involvement in Rome’s Macedonian wars, the entities in Achaea, Aetolia, and Acarnania have traditionally been the focus of attention. When Jeremy LaBuff now turns his attention to Caria, he addresses the question how the Carian koinon relates to the Chrysaorian koinon, another confederation in the same region: his argument is that the Chrysaorian koinon did not owe its creation to Ptolemaic initiative, but rather represented an identity-forming institution of several Carian cities that was primarily religious and ethnic in nature, rather than political. It also served to dispel what was apparently perceived as a barbarian image. This innovation could well have been an effective means of achieving this, especially for the complex urban landscape of Asia Minor.
Timothy Howe highlights how Ptolemy I succeeded in winning over the powerful Egyptian priests, whose acceptance was necessary for his rule: with strong references to Alexander the Great,[4] Ptolemy wrote himself into Egyptian history, in which the priesthoods had—and retained—an appropriate place. This was done both in steles and foundations and in the Alexander story of the first Ptolemy himself, between which Howe sees remarkable connections that ultimately served only one purpose: Ptolemy wanted to present himself as the restorer of the old order in Egypt in a new guise.
Gilles Gorre’s remarks follow on from this to some extent and, using the example of Tanis, located in the northeastern Nile Delta, examine how the Ptolemies’ policy toward priests and temple organization changed. He bases this on the changed design of architecture and space since Ptolemy IV, but above all on the popularity of child gods and the introduction of Horus with an important temple. This promoted their relevance, possibly with the involvement of the dynasty itself, which not only brought about significant changes for the priests, but also demonstrated the Ptolemies’ freedom to interfere in the internal affairs of the temples.
Jennifer Carrington focuses on a remarkable topic, namely diplomatic sightseeing tours of Egypt by foreign envoys. These are all the more unusual given that there is no evidence of such a practice in other dynasties, let alone in the earlier polis context. The main question is what was shown to the visitors and what the intention behind it was. Carrington assumes that the visible heritage from the Pharaonic period along the Nile was intended to gain prestige and that officials and priests also benefited from this: she bases this assumption on statements from the the middle of the 3rd century (P.Lond. VII 1973) to late 2nd century BC (P. Tebt. I 33. Diod. 33.28b etc.). This is not disputed for the Late Period, but for the 3rd century it should be remembered that Egypt, with its pharaonic characteristics, played no role in the poetry associated with the Ptolemaic court, for example.[5] It therefore seems more plausible to assume a development in objectives rather than continuity.
The perspectives developed by Joseph Manning in his contribution, in which he distinguishes between the terms “monarchy” and “kingship” and applies them to theory and practice, prove to be extremely stimulating: he draws attention to the need for a Ptolemaic king to provide considerable resources for the royal household and warfare, which in turn were to be used to acquire new resources. Manning points to the difficulties that kings repeatedly faced, despite various institutional arrangements:[6] rebellions, environmental problems such as floods and droughts, which resulted in famines. All of this undoubtedly disrupted the ideal image of the divine king, but nevertheless also offered opportunities to raise his profile. However, it also becomes clear what kind of dependencies existed, how complex the demands on a king were, and how much research still needs to be done in this area.
The volume contains many important considerations and ideas, but it suffers from a fundamental problem, namely that it does not adequately reflect the current state of research: with the exception of one contribution, no titles from 2020 and subsequent years are listed—in many cases, the literature reviewed does not extend beyond 2015 to 2017. The fact that an essay by Francis Ludlow and Joe Manning described as “forthcoming” has since appeared in an anthology published in 2016 (!) highlights the problem: Given the often outdated state of research, the number of titles to be added would significantly exceed the scope of this review![7] It is evident that the contributions to a volume cannot be updated immediately prior to the publication date, but the time lag that has occurred here is unusual and regrettable, both for readers and for research in the subject area itself. Thorough editing would also certainly have benefited the volume, not least because of numerous typos, incomplete footnotes, missing references, several misspellings of authors’ names, and numerous formatting problems.[8] It remains unclear why the helpful index was named “Stichwortverzeichnis.”
The overall impression is therefore rather mixed: even if one cannot expect a single volume to provide an exhaustive answer to the complex question of the new world order in the Hellenistic period, its insightful observations and thought-provoking suggestions are offset by significant weaknesses.
Authors and Titles
- Mark Munn: Introduction
- Andrew Erskine: The Court, the Polis and Hellenistic Intellectual Culture
- Sabine Müller: The Commemorative and Legitimizing Dimension of Cultural Property in the Hellenistic Empires
- Sebastian Scharff, Victorious Kings, Hellenistic rulers and Agonistic Success
- Sylvana Katsounou: Tyche and the Hellenistic Monarchies: The Fortune of a New World
- Salvatore Vacante: Alcetas, the Pisidians, and the Macedonian Rule in Southern Asia Minor
- Jeremy LaBuff: Leagues of Carians as Local Rather Than Imperial Structures
- Timothy Howe: Ptolemy I, the Adversary, and Egyptian Royal Literature: “Restoring” a New World Order
- Gilles Gorre: The Transformation of Native Temples and Invented Traditions: Between New Religiosity and Royal Policy – The Case of Ptolemaic Egypt
- Jennifer Carrington: Egyptian Sight-Seeing in Ptolemaic Diplomacy
- Patrick Sänger: Associations in Ptolemaic Egypt. A Sociopolitical Typology
- Joseph Manning: Kingship, not Monarchy. Some New Directions in the Study of Hellenistic Kingship
Notes
[1] So still the in-depth discussion at Leon Mooren, The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy, in: Edmond Van ’t Dack et al. (Eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Leuven 1983, 205–240.
[2] Further considerations in Gregor Weber, Kulturbegegnungen in Alexandreia und im ptolemäischen Ägypten. Begriffe – Probleme – Perspektiven, in: id. (Ed.), Alexandreia und das ptolemäische Ägypten. Kulturbegegnungen in hellenistischer Zeit, Berlin 2010, 9–29; Stefan Pfeiffer/Gregor Weber (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Spaltungen im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (4.–1. Jh. v. Chr.), Stuttgart 2021.
[3] Hans-Joachim Gehrke’s monograph (Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Munich 1985) is still relevant in this regard.
[4] However, Martina Minas (Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der ptolemäischen Könige. Ein Vergleich mit den Titeln der eponymen Priester in den demotischen und griechischen Papyri, Mainz 2000) has been able to show that Alexander the Great was irrelevant to the Egyptian construction of the Ptolemaic ancestral lines, but that the new dynasty began with the first Ptolemaic couple.
[5] See the analysis by Gregor Weber, Dichtung und höfische Gesellschaft. Die Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte am Hof der ersten drei Ptolemäer, Stuttgart 1993, 392–399.
[6] See also the systematic considerations of Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, Siegen oder untergehen? Die hellenistische Monarchie in der neueren Forschung, in: Stefan Rebenich (Ed.), Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum, Berlin 2017, 305–340.
[7] Peter Franz Mittag’s research overview (Geschichte des Hellenismus, Berlin/Boston 2023, 127–208) provides an impression of the desiderata. Sebastian Scharff’s analytically convincing remarks are a summary of Chapter 5 of his monograph, which has since been published (Hellenistic Athletes. Agonistic Cultures and Self-Presentation, Cambridge 2024). Patrick Sänger’s contribution is a partial literal translation of chapter 7.1 of his monograph Die ptolemäische Organisationsform politeuma (Tübingen 2019), as the author himself reveals; he discusses in it the history of research and also distinguishes the politeumata from gymnasia and synodoi.
[8] The state of the articles by Katsaounou and Howe is particularly deplorable, as they also lack a number of relevant titles, such as those on the Satrap and Bentresh steles. Gorre’s article omits ten years of research on Sarapis.