Organising this study

A fundamental challenge that faces any academic text – and particularly one with a theoretical foundation – is how to organise the information it hopes to impart.

This problem may well be one reason why the network concept has been used mainly in a visually associative and metaphorical sense. It is clear, of course, that presentation must depend on the epistemological interest pursued. In Ivana Savalli-Lestrade’s fundamental work on the philoi, for instance, she weighs a number of organisational schemes, which include either focusing on the recon-struction of historical causality, or developing a historical-sociological typology in the Weberian sense.⁷⁶ As I will attempt to read the political actors of the Diadoch period in terms of identity negotiation, to understand their interactions as strug-gles for control in and of multiple interdependent networks of discourse, and to develop a ‘history’ of identity and agency in the Diadoch period, the scheme adopted here is a different beast. Central to networks of identity are communal discourses of value, norms for instance, that are altered, misunderstood, and countered and so serve as islands in a sea of change and reproduction. Rather than viewing norms as ideal types and studying their development over time, I study narratives of their employment and interplay at three different levels of social discourse: individual/micro – collective/meso – inter-collective/macro, all

74 On this problem of theoretical disintegration cf. Ma 2003b, 178f. The topological model of Davies 2002a, the Weberian approaches of Gehrke 1982, Quass 1993, Schäfer 2002, Mileta 2008, and the peer polity interaction model of Ma 2003a or the speech act theory used in Ma 1999 are all examples of this modern dynamic.

75 Davies 2002a, 4f.; 7-10.

76 Savalli-Lestrade 1998, 289f. Paschidis 2008 adopts a geographical organisational sche-me parallel to that of the epigraphic corpora he uses.

of which influence one another and are thus distinguished only to make analysis feasible. By adopting a heuristic structure based on the strata of societal organ-isation I hope to be able to paint a more subtle picture of Diadoch period politics that allows for deeper insights into the dynamic nature of early Hellenistic power configurations.

The first two levels of analysis are co-dependent in both practice and concept, since the individual necessarily constitutes itself vis-à-vis (and via) others and therefore via the collectives relevant to it, which in turn emerge dynamically out of multiple individual interactions. Both these polar elements are further insti-tutionalised in language and artefact, and thereby take shape to both individual and collective – a process that recursively reiterates.⁷⁷ The interaction networks that configure the semantics of these relations naturally differ in their con-figurations, but are often treated in discourse as though they were fixed; in other words, their workings are obscured by language in order to reduce the complexity of the world. The Diadoch period now provides a period of macro-political contingency that makes them perceptible, as the sources, themselves actors in these webs of discourse, have to thematise and legitimise how they re-negotiate individual and collective interests in a cosmos with strong, pre-existing, and insti-tutionalised norms and values. The importance of these processes is obvious, given that control over a society’s networks of values is the most fundamental form of power.

Naturally, the aim of such a study cannot be to identify states in which a com-prehensive and stable consensus of values is ‘established’. Rather my concern is with the production of narrative configurations in which such order is produced, resulting in the acceptance of certain actors or actor-configurations as bearers of said order in society, which is in turn viewed as a web of such narratives.⁷⁸ In Chapter 3 I analyse the Characters by Theophrastus of Eresos as a specific con-figuration of control between individual and collective in ‘polis society’. Chapter 4 then draws on Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and the extant anecdotes and historical

77 The following outline occasionally draws on terminology which will be developed be-low in Chapter 2. Cf. generally Du Boulay, Juliet. Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village.

Oxford 1974, esp. 41-51, for a modern study of such processes. Historical sources make such dynamics visible in language, for instance in the self-reflexive designations of collectives, such as φρατρία, δῆμος, and φυλή (e.g. IG II² 646:32f.) in polis society, or the φιλοῖ (e.g. Plb. 23.1.6), οἱ περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως (e.g. Plb. 28.12.8; 29.6.2), or αὐλικοὶ (e.g.

Plb. 16.20.8; 22.13.5; Plut. Demetr. 17.2) in court society. On discourse control in hono-rary decrees see Ma 2013b, 45-66.

78 As per Derrida’s famous dictum that there is nothing without context: Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore 2016 [1976], 172-174, 177.

narrations relating to early Hellenistic interaction ‘at court’ in order to construct

‘court society’ as a network of identity on the same terms.

In a second step, a third level of analysis will be considered in order to inves-tigate how inter-collective power processes operate at this societal level in the early Hellenistic period. Chapter 5 aims to contribute to the study of inter-mediaries by investigating their societal role in the libellous discourses between the two highly organised collectives with established systems of values sketched in the previous chapters. More specifically, this chapter analyses the tangible evi-dence for such discourses about intermediaries by applying Yuri M. Lotman’s concept of the semiosphere. If collectives attempt to operate as expansionist discursive networks of cognitive order precisely via their border-crossing inter-mediaries, this compels the actual actors to transform their identities in order to control the modalities of interaction in these ‘limbo’ situations. In doing so, they not only extend their semantic world orders but also expand the ‘catalogue’ of identities they possess: they become hybrids. Put schematically, this results in new contingency, which is obviously relevant to the political system and requires integration and control by others and thus informs discourses of hybridity.⁷⁹

Lastly, Chapter 6 analyses a specific case of inter-collective exchange, namely the famous siege of Rhodes conducted by Demetrios Poliorketes, as a particularly dense example of a situation in which agency is being negotiated on an inter-collective level. The focus of the analysis is on the processes of narrative identity consolidation on both sides of the confrontation and especially on the agency developed by the artefacts and texts, especially the Colossus of Rhodes, in the identity politics that characterised the aftermath of the siege. The results are then summarised and reflected upon in a brief conclusion.

1.4.3 Sources

It is a sad and trivial truth of historical writing that one can only write about what is documented. The divergent nature of the case studies outlined above is both due to and has forced me to use quite heterogeneous sources, which makes it difficult to address matters of source criticism in a consolidated fashion. A dis-cussion of the specific voice of each source can therefore be found in the respective chapters.⁸⁰ Nevertheless, two general notes may be called for here.

79 See Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London 1994, 36f., 56.

80 The discussion of the pertinent literary sources by Billows 1990, 327-352 is funda-mental.

First, it is my conviction that the reconstruction of agency and identity hinges on narratives, since they provide complex, contextualised information. Literary sources provide this to a much greater extent than most epigraphic material. That is not to say that the latter weaves no socio-political narratives – the former are simply far easier to assess systematically. Generally speaking, the epigraphic evi-dence available for the late fourth and early third century BC is neither quanti-tatively nor qualiquanti-tatively as good as the material available for the High and Late Hellenistic period.⁸¹ This is true in particular as regards civic honorary decrees, especially since the ‘career decrees’ awarding megistai timai, which are so central to the discussion about the development and character of Hellenistic democracy, are only just beginning to emerge in the early third century BC.⁸² Furthermore, the extant historical material results from formalised processes that express different

‘transactional orders’ rather than purely ‘social’ narrative. For the most part, the narratives to be found on stones are thus neither detailed nor cohesive enough to provide answers to the questions of interest in this study, especially since they emerge from extremely biased forms of expression that are very successful at obscuring the tensions this study seeks to identify.⁸³

That being said, the extant, albeit often all too brief inscriptions provide a crucial background when considered as intentional and integral interactions within a network of power. Brief honorary decrees for external benefactors are relatively numerous in the Diadoch period and provide much of the known in-formation about intermediaries, particularly at Athens, Samos, Ephesus and Miletus; analysis of this evidence is accordingly indispensable in reconstructing the interpenetration of the socio-political cosmos of the emergent Hellenistic

81 Lamented also by Wallace, Shane. “Adeimantus of Lampsacus and the Development of the Early Hellenistic Philos”, in: Alonso Troncoso and Anson (eds.) 2013, 142-158, here 152f.

82 For the discussion see fundamentally Gauthier 1985, 77-92, 103-112, who also notes the precursors; see further Rosen 1987; Quass 1993; Habicht 1995. Good examples are the Athenian decree for Kallias of Sphettos (270/269 BC), a combination of an honorary decree for a citizen and for an external benefactor (see Shear 1978), and IG II² 657, the honorary decree for Philippides of Kephale (see Paschidis 2008, no. A40).

83 On the concept of ‘transactional orders’ see Ober, Josiah. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton 1989, 153f. On the proce-dure for the production of honorary decrees which involved the honorand (IG II² 657:54f.) see Gauthier 1985, 83-88; Paschidis 2008, 125. In conjunction with the contested nature of Diadoch period politics, this could result in extreme flattening, in evidence for instance in the career decree for Philippides, son of Philomelos (SEG XLV 101), which avoids any mention of contemporary events (see Paschidis 2008, 105).

world.⁸⁴ Numismatic evidence will likewise be of only secondary importance, although coins are occasionally touched upon in their capacity as vehicles of value that anchor, communicate, and reproduce collective identity and value discourse.

This is mainly due to the fact that dedicated work on coins already exists and I felt unable to contribute much beyond what had been achieved.⁸⁵

The second general point is quite obvious: I prefer contemporary material where possible, since it promises to provide far superior insights into the mesh of power discourses that characterised the period of their creation. As any scholar of the late 4^th century BC knows, such material is scarce and often fragmentary.

As such, it has to be supplemented with the major literary sources of later date, Diodorus’ Bibliothēke and Plutarch’s Bioi of Pyrrhos of Epeiros, Eumenes of Cardia, and Demetrios Poliorketes, as well as the Apothegmata. These are simply too important to discard and fortunately they largely rest on contemporary sources of relatively good quality and their biases have received a great deal of study.⁸⁶ I have further chosen to incorporate Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, which was not only written long before the period I study but also derives from a different world – a choice I defend at length below.⁸⁷

84 See e.g. the collections by Olshausen, Eckart. Prosopographie der hellenistischen Königs-gesandten: Von Triparadeisos bis Pydna. Leuven 1974; Le Bohec 1985; Billows 1990, 361-452; Savalli-Lestrade 1998; Paschidis 2008.

85 Matthaei 2013 is a recent example of a focused analysis of numismatic materials and their role in Hellenistic identity politics.

86 On the contemporary situation, complexities, and biases of Diodorus see Sacks, Kenneth. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton, NJ 1990; idem. “Diodorus and his Sources: Conformity and Creativity”, in: Simon Hornblower (ed.). Greek Historiography. Oxford 1994, 213-232; Schmitz, Thomas A. “The Image of Athens in Diodorus Siculus”, in: idem and Nicolas Wiater (eds.). The Struggle for Identity. Greeks and their Past in the First Century BCE. Stuttgart 2011, 235-251; Rathmann, Michael. “Diodor und seine Quellen”, in: Hauben and Meeus (eds.) 2014, 49-113. Diodorus has, at least to an extent, been redeemed and is a good source for the period of the Diadochi, which is (suspiciously) fortunate as he is largely without alternative. On Plutarch see Sweet, Waldo E. “Sources of Plutarch’s Demetrius”, in: CW 44 (1951), 177-181; Bosworth, A. Brian. “History and Artifice in Plutarch’s Eumenes”, in: Philipp A. Stadter (ed.).

Plutarch and the Historical Tradition. London and New York 1992, 56-89, esp. 78-80;

Pelling, Christopher. Plutarch and History. London 2002, 65f., who argues that Plutarch worked from a single source in an initial stage of composition, which he then supple-mented and reworked to emphasise his interests. He further argues (p. 70) that the Apothegmata are a later product related to the production of the Lives but not their precursor or basis, which enhances their value in that it diversifies the cross-section of discourse available in his work.

87 See below p. 193.

1.5 Summary

This study is an analysis of ‘power politics’ of the Diadoch period, seen here as a period of macro-political contingency and societal reconfiguration, conducted with an eye toward deep, societal processes of negotiation. By studying narratives as attempts at control over cognitive networks of meaning, this approach aims to offer a different perspective on the socio-political dynamics that characterised the phase between the death of Alexander the Great and the battle of Kurupedion in 281 BC. In referencing these two events, I do not mean to signal that I regard them, especially the latter, as fundamentally transformative – they merely serve the purpose of conveniently focusing the inquiry. The processes studied here are in operation wherever humans interact, and the specific forms identified are intimately related to those found in other periods of Greek history: the con-figurations we shall find are akin to the patterns seen in a kaleidoscope, at once new and familiar. That said, this period shakes up the kaleidoscope, making new patterns visible in the sources.

The theoretical methodology applied to these sources is thus intended to coax out a deep socio-political history of a period of change, based on the observation that the Greek societies of the early Hellenistic period had to accommodate fluc-tuations and transformations in their sets of societal rules. The existing political structures were firmly entrenched and well enmeshed within the cognitive world order of every actor. The true challenge in this period lay in creating new struc-tures in an already well-structured and self-reflexive socio-political context. In these circumstances a tabula rasa, as implied by the old ‘death of the polis’ fantasy, was out of the question. Structures had to be adapted and modified, semantics subtly rewired and shifted. The case studies presented here offer one way of understanding how this happened and the societal impact the process had.

2. Power as networks: concepts and method