[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]
Seleukid Ideology heralds a new series devoted to studying several aspects of the Empire’s history. It grew from a monthly Seleukid Lecture Series, an informal network of established scholars and upcoming researchers, and it represents another welcome outcome of the Seleukid Study Days, several proceedings of which have already been published in the last few years.
As the title suggests, the volume investigates the Seleukid dynastic and kingship ideology: through which means and practices did the ruling family craft its image across imperial space and time? Simultaneously, the collected essays give space to the often-neglected voices of Seleukid interlocutors, emphasizing how individuals and groups reacted to and, in turn, contributed to shaping aspects and trends of Seleukid self-fashioning.
The first two sections adopt a top-down viewpoint centered on the king and his court. They explore the means and strategies used to craft an image of the king and his family coherent enough to withstand challenges both within the court itself and from the outside (most critically, rivaling dynasties in the broader Hellenistic world) and flexible enough to accommodate the Empire’s cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity.
Accordingly, Kyle Erickson’s chapter focuses on the creation of the royal figure of Seleukos I, as it can be extracted from Appian’s narrative in the Syrian Wars. Pitting his account against the background of Alexander’s model of world-ruler and within the larger context of early Hellenistic conversation on (universal) kingship, Erickson makes a robust case for Seleukos’ successful crafting of an original legitimizing mythology. Through media as diverse as texts, coins, or seals, a second-tier officer morphed into an equal of Alexander himself and, in a subsequent step, even a divinely appointed king.
The twofold element at the core of Seleukid dynastic mythmaking is further explored in the section’s following two chapters. Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides focuses on a core symbol of Seleukid royalty: the anchor. She approaches this symbol against an old Near Eastern paradigm that viewed the kingdom as a ship and the king as a helmsman (a trope well-rooted in the Aegean world). Appealing to several audiences simultaneously, Seleukos and his Son Antiochos I anchored their claim to political validity in multiple cultural settings, devising a lasting symbol of royal authority.
Altay Coşkun further explores dynastic strategies to harness divine support as a bedrock for authority in chapter 4, which investigates the background for the prominence of Apollo’s cult in the early years of the dynasty. A close reading of two famous inscriptions from Didyma allows the author to emphasize the proactive role played by the civic body of Miletos in advertising the deity’s worship to gain more direct access to the dynasty through the king, the queen, and their son. By underscoring the multifaced nature of polis-court entanglement, the paper fittingly bridges sections I and II, where the focus lies on how the dynasty endeavored to keep its subjects aware of the king’s persona while simultaneously sensibly responding from inputs coming from the Empires’ multiple constituencies.
Babett Edelmann-Singer’s paper on the Daphne procession in 166 BCE highlights the role of objects (especially divine statues) in this process. The paper investigates Seleukid languages of ritual performance and communication as they transpire through the display of military, religious, and even profane objects. A close reading of Polybios’ description of Antiochos IV’s pompe at Daphne the author teases out the “transcultural aspirations” (p. 129) of the godly images carried by the sacred embassies of delegates from across the Empire. The careful arrangement of the procession conveyed the idea of Antiochos as a “teleological benchmark” (p. 129) of the imperial society. The Seleukid family was performatively displayed atop a hierarchy of gods: a symbolic reflection of the Empire and its constituent subject populations. The paper hence suggests how material culture can help investigate how the Seleukids constructed meaning while responding to the local(ized) expectations that the handling of culturally loaded objects implied.
In chapter 6, Stephen Harrison further discusses royal processions as an instructive lens through which to make sense of the ideological construction of Seleukid kingship. Here, the Daphne pompe is investigated for Achaemenid parallels drawn from the visual language of Persepolis, the royal inscriptions, and literary accounts such as Herodotus. This innovative perspective addresses the ongoing debate around Achaemenid-Seleukid continuity and change.[1] It shows how concepts of universal rule and territorially bounded sovereignty are not mutually exclusive but rather worked together in constructing mental and cultural geographies of “the world” (in turn, equated with the space the Empire ruled). Thus, shaping boundaries offered a powerful way to stake claims to universal rule.
The Persian background noise of critical components in Seleukid ideology is also investigated in Rolf Strootman’s chapter on the social construction of treason and traitors. The author’s focus is the post-mortem disfigurement of Molon and Achaios’, powerful Seleukid satraps and contestants for the throne in the 3rd century BCE.[2] Strootman deftly reconstructs the Near Eastern (Assyrian, and especially Achaemenid) cultural biography of such acts of conspicuous violence. In his analysis, the display of brutality and its retelling (of which Polybios provides an example) afforded the Seleukids a powerful tool for establishing monarchic authority and statecraft. Ritual violence drew boundaries separating human and de-humanized subjects: the very authority to inflict punishment sanctioned the king as legitimate while disqualifying those at the receiving end of these political gestures. Alexander’s treatment of Bessos provided a critical step in developing this effective (in its fearsome nature) tool of Seleukid authority.
The section is rounded out by Benjamin Scolnic’s paper on Seleukid ideology, as can be detected in Polybios’ account of the Battle of Panion (200 BCE) and his blistering critique of Zeno of Rhodes. As the author skillfully shows, Polybios’ criticism misses the context behind Zenos’ narrative and his alleged mistakes. The Rhodian arguably conflated two accounts: one more accurate, possibly deriving from battle reports, and another developed at Antiochos IV’s court, reflecting his spin on the events to lionize his (probably) fictive role to foster his self-presentation as an outstanding commander. This is a rare instance in which it can be demonstrated how and why Seleukid kings shaped history(writing) for political purposes. The scholarly implications in dealing with later accounts (such as Polybios’), which might not always be attuned to such ideological subtleties, should not be underestimated.
Sections III-V turn to case studies of local resistance to—and self-serving manipulation of—the dynasty’s efforts to create “a sense of royal authority that was acceptable to the polities under their scepter” (p. 21). Chapter 9, by Deirdre Klokow, addresses the topic of connectivity and rural space(s) through the epigraphic record by examining shifting land use patterns and their implications for understanding the relationships between the crown and its subjects. The focus lies on the purchase of the Pannoukome royal estate in Asia Minor and a land grant to the citizenry of Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha by Laokide I. Gazing beyond the Empire’s megacities is critical to assess the degree to which the dynasty succeeded in using landed wealth to negotiate acceptance and support throughout the Empire by carefully reacting to local concerns and landholders’ interests. The two case studies indicate considerable dynastic success in making the Empire visible on the ground through infrastructural investment, control of populations’ movements, and modifying pre-existing land exploitation patterns and rural settlements. The uneven documentary dataset, however, prevents fine-grained comparative assessments of these strategies in other regions of the Empire, most conspicuously Eastern Iran and Central Asia.[3]
Gillian Ramsey’s chapter on urban revolts somewhat nuances Klokow’s optimistic assessment of Seleukid success in grooming loyalty across the imperial space. Despite military and economic imbalances, civic communities never relinquished their goal of self-rule.[4] This must be considered when evaluating historical accounts keen on framing episodes of dissatisfaction against royal authority within ‘Great-Men’ narratives and court-centric accounts (cf. Strootman’s chapter).[5] Citizens’ concerns often drove adversarial action more than individual scheming, a point also stressed by Coşkun in chapter 4. The vibrancy of civic life, one cornerstone of Seleukid ideology and praxis, thus also posed a considerable threat to the dynasty’s domination, especially when “constructive communication” between the king and the poleis failed to materialize or produce results acceptable to both parties.[6]
In section IV, attention is devoted to the reception of Seleukid ideology. Its three chapters adopt a retrospective view of the strategies adopted to rule different parts of the imperial domain. In chapter 11, Germain Payen discusses the reception of royal claims to rulership over Armenia by the Artaxiad dynasty. The following two essays look at how aspects of the dynastic discourse became re-embedded in local discourses on people’s past and future, especially in Judaea. Thus, Scolnic’s second contribution (chapter 12) focuses on the Book of Daniel as a source of perceptions of the Seleukid rule. It argues that Daniel’s author repurposed Ptolemaic views of the Empire and its kings into a philosophy of history with apocalyptic overtones to account for the troubled present of the Jewish people.[7] In chapter 13, Eran Almagor focuses on the Book of Esther to further assess Israelitic reactions to the Seleukid rule. Departing from the usual attribution of Hasmonean hostility, Almagor views Esther as contemporary to, and surprisingly supportive of, the ruling dynasty. These two chapters illustrate the different reception of Seleukid authority among different audiences within one cohesive community. Assisted by the abundant source material (in multiple languages), this approach to the nuances of Seleukid power and its engagement by the imperial subjects has considerable value and ought to be tested in other, less explored areas of their domains.
The two final chapters offer different (but complementary) synthetic viewpoints on the efficacy of Seleukid ideology. On the one hand, Wenghofer claims that epigraphic evidence, such as the poleis’ decrees, reflects, at best, an instrumental use of imperial rhetoric to prevent deeper intrusion by Seleukid officials in local affairs. However, this leaves the question of acceptance of such claims unanswered or tilting toward the negative. On the other hand, Coşkun cobbles together case studies from Babylonia, Asia Minor, and, once more, Judaea, attesting to local support for the dynasty as an institution and for the ruling king even when such compliance could not be compelled, such as in times of political crisis. In his view, the dynasty successfully managed to generate support by allowing space for maneuvering to local stakeholders, who ended up upholding the Empire while fostering their own local(ized agendas).
The volume is carefully edited, and there are no visible typos. It is coherently organized and offers an updated bibliography with an exhaustive set of indexes. The volume contributes significantly to the ongoing study of how and to what extent local conditions, expectations, and agencies impacted the (co)construction of Seleukid royal authority across the dynasty’s vast domains.[8] It is to be commended for the contributors’ compelling analysis of a vast array of evidence and sound methodological approach as well as some provocatively (but always persuasively argued) new hypotheses. However, it is regrettable how underrepresented the Far Eastern satrapies of the Empire remain, though this leaves room for researchers to engage with the insights provided by the contributions collected in Seleukid Ideology.[9]
Authors and Titles
- Richard Wenghofer and Altay Coşkun, Introduction: The Dialectics of Seleukid Ideology
SECTION I: FORMATION OF SELEUKID DYNASTIC IDEOLOGY
- Kyle Erickson, Royal Propaganda and the Creation of Royal Status for Seleukos I
- Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides, The King-Ship of the Seleukids: An Alternative Paradigm for the Anchor Symbol
- Altay Coşkun, The First Seleukid Benefactions in Miletos and the Creation of a Dynastic Ideology
SECTION II: ENACTING SELEUKID KINGSHIP
- Babett Edelmann-Singer, Material Culture, Ritual Performance, and Seleukid Rule: Antiochos IV and the Procession at Daphne in 166 BCE
- Stephen Harrison, Antiochos at Daphne and Xerxes at Sardeis: A Comparative Perspective on the Seleukid Vision of Empire
- Rolf Strootman, Ritual Mutilation and the Construction of Treason: The Execution of, Molon and Achaios by Antiochos III
- Benjamin E. Scolnic, Second-Hand Propaganda: Polybios and Zeno on the Role of Antiochos IV at the Battle of Panion
SECTION III: RESISTING SELEUKID ROYAL AUTHORITY
- Deirdre Klokow, Connectivity and Rural Spaces in the Seleukid Empire
- Gillian Ramsey, Rebel Poleis: The Politics of Anti-Seleukid Violence
SECTION IV: REFRAMING SELEUKID IDEOLOGY
- Germain Payen, Le royaume artaxiade dans l’Empire séleucide: de dominé à dominant
- Benjamin E. Scolnic, Śar Wars—How a Judaean Author in the 160’s BCE Transformed a Ptolemaic View of Hellenistic History into a Theology for His Time
- Eran Almagor, “To All Parts of the Kingdom”: The Book of Esther as a Seleukid Text
SECTION V: RE-ASSESSING SELEUKID IDEOLOGY
- Richard Wenghofer, Diplomatic Resistance to Seleukid Hegemony
- Altay Coşkun, The Efficacy of Ideological Discourse: Loyalty to the Seleukid Dynasty in Babylonia, Judaea, and Asia Minor
Notes
[1] Cf. Peter Panitschek, Die Seleukiden als Erben des Achämenidenreiches (Lausanne, 2016).
[2] See the discussion of these events in Boris Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire. The Men who Would be King (Oxford 2016).
[3] Cf. Sören Stark, ‘Some Observations on the Seleucid Northeastern Frontiers’ In Iran and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern History: the Seleucids (ca. 312-150 BCE), edited by T. Daryaee, R. Rollinger, and M. Canepa. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2023, 285-304.
[4] As forcefully argued most recently in John Ma, Polis. A New History of the Greek City-State from the Early Iron Age to the End of Antiquity (Princeton, NJ, 2024, 203-300).
[5] A topic explored at length across the Hellenistic Empires in P. Kosmin and I. Moyer (eds.), Cultures of Resistance in the Hellenistic East (Oxford 2022).
[6] Cf. Paul Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings (Cambridge, MA, 2014, 183-251) and Peter Mittag, ‘Indigene Illoyalitäten im Seleukidenreich. Gründe, Anlässe, Folgen’, In Gesellschaftliche Spaltungen im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (4.-1. JH. V. CHR), edited by S. Pfeiffer and G. Weber. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2021, 129-154.
[7] The paper’s argument fits into the model recently developed by Jacob Wright, Why the Bible Began. An Alternative History of Scripture and Its Origins (Cambridge, 2023), in which total defeat and humiliation become the foundation of a new idea of community and belonging.
[8] Cf. E. Anagnostou-Laoutides and S. Pfeiffer (eds.), Culture and Ideology under the Seleukids. Unframing a Dynasty (Berlin, 2022) and Matthew P. Canepa, The Iranian Expanse. Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE-642 CE (Oakland, CA, 2016, 42-67).
[9] Julian Wünsch, Großmacht gegen lokale Machthaber. Die Herrschaftspraxis der Seleukiden an den Rändern ihres Reiches (Wiesbaden, 2022, 287-309, 332-341) engages with Central Asia and India under the Seleukids, however from a methodological standpoint, which would have profited from the insights provided by the volume under review.