In sum, these studies, all of which have significant individual value, contribute to an overall discourse on the system of Hellenistic politics that attempts to embed
24 On garrisons in general see: Labarre, Guy. “Phrourarques et phrouroi des cités grec-ques d’Asie Mineure à l’époque hellénistique”, in: Couvenhes and Fernoux (eds.). 2004, 221-248, esp. 235-237; on conflicts and co-existence see for instance: Chaniotis, Angelos. “Foreign Soldiers – Native girls? Constructing and Crossing Boundaries in Hellenistic Cities with Foreign Garrisons”, in: idem and Pierre Ducrey (eds.). Army and Power in the Ancient World. Stuttgart 2002, 99-113; Ma, John. “Oversexed, overpaid, over here: a response to Angelos Chaniotis”, in: Chaniotis and Ducrey (eds.). 2002, 115-122; Chaniotis 2005, 78-96.
25 Grieb 2008, 355-378; Carlsson 2010, esp. 279-293, esp. 283f.; Mann 2012, 11-15;
Walser 2012. On the continuities and changes in the ephebeia at Athens see: Burckhardt, Leonhard. “Die attische Ephebie in hellenistischer Zeit”, in: Kah and Scholz (eds.) 2004, 193-206 with the comments by Tracy, Stephen V. “Reflections on the Athenian Ephebeia in the Hellenistic Age”, in: Kah and Scholz (eds.) 2004, 207-210, as well as the fundamental study by Pélekidis, Chrysis. Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ. Paris 1962. See further on the ephebeia in Asia Minor and Macedonia:
Chankowski, Andrzej “L’entraînement militaire des éphèbes dans les cités grecques d’Asie Mineure à l’époque hellénistique: nécessité pratique ou tradition atrophiée?”, in:
Couvenhes and Fernoux (eds.) 2004, 55-76.
26 Gehrke 2003; Mann 2012, 12f.; Leppin, Hartmut. “Theophrasts ‘Charaktere’ und die Bürgermentalität in Athen im Übergang zum Hellenismus”, in: Klio 84 (2002), 37-56, here 49f.; Strootman, Rolf. “Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age”, in: van Nijf, Alston and Williamson (eds.) 2011, 141-153, here 144.
city and king by addressing overall structural questions, be they economic, cul-tural, political, or social.27 The central underlying question is thus ‘How did Hel-lenistic society work in these categories, both specifically, and in general?’28 The answers offered consist in more or less skilfully differentiated definitions, ideal types and normative abstractions, but at the same time stress the plurality of interactive configurations in evidence throughout the Hellenistic period. Their interest, overall, is in the complexity of the system of Hellenistic politics and in how it functioned.29
Such research on the overarching nature of the system proper was long dominated by the search for an integrated legal structure. Attempts to solve the problem posed by the apparent lack of a structural formula capable of describing Hellenistic sovereignty and relationships of authority hinged on the history of institutions and aimed to uncover an implicit structural principle in categories of constitutional and inter-state law.30 The best-known and most influential example is undoubtedly the model proposed by Elias Bikerman, closely followed by the fundamental alternative proposed by Alfred Heuss.31 Although the latter’s app-roach was fundamentally organised in categories of inter-state law and sought to
27 For the history of research see Seibert 1983, 176-179. This includes some of the great standard works of Hellenistic socio-economic history, including Bikerman, Elias. Insti-tutions des Seleucides. Paris 1938; Rostovtzeff, Michael I. The Social and Economic History of the Ancient World. 3 vols. Oxford 1941; Will 1979² [1966].
28 Cf. Ma 2013a. On the formation of the Ptolemaic state see also Manning, Joseph G.
The Last Pharaohs: Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305-30 BC. Princeton 2010, e.g. 1-6.
29 E.g. Heuss 1963²; Préaux, Claire. Le Monde Hellénistique. 2 vols. Paris 1978.
30 One pointer here is the note in Arr. Anab. 4.11.6 that even the Macedonian king ruled by virtue of nomos, “law”, rather than bia, “force”, but what that actually means is not quite as clear as my glosses may suggest (probably something like “consent contingent on reason and tradition”). See already Hammond, Nicholas G.L. and Griffith, Guy T.
A History of Macedonia. Volume II: 550-336 B.C. Oxford 1979, 385-388, who also reject the constitutional model (p. 398). For the problem see e.g. the observations of Ogden, Daniel. Prostitutes, Polygamy and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London 1999, xvii-xix.
31 Elias Bikerman’s (1938) model, elegantly described by John Ma as the “surrender and grant model” (1999, 152; cf. idem 2013a, 335-342), is the antithesis of Heuss’ and hinges on a liminal moment, a siege, for instance, that erases the legal status and the sovereignty of a polis. Thereafter, this tabula rasa is re-inscribed in a unilateral, external act, which redefines the status of the polis with the ruler as new sovereign. For the Diadoch period research conducted on this model includes the work by Müller 1973;
Engel, Rudolf. Untersuchungen zum Machtaufstieg des Antigonos I. Monophthalmos: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der frühen Diadochenzeit. Kallmünz 1976, which investigated the legality of the behaviour exhibited by Antigonos Monophthalmos, as well as Orth, Wolfgang.
Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit. Munich 1977. The Hellenistic political system in general was treated in terms of these categories by Klose, Peter. Die völker-rechtliche Ordnung der hellenistischen Staatenwelt in der Zeit von 280-168 v. Chr. Munich 1972;
reconstruct the legal structure of inter-state relations with an aim to reconstruct-ing their ideal types,32 Heuss is nevertheless at times almost phenomenological in his differentiated discussion of interactions in practice, which ultimately led him to reject a model based in categories of constitutional law.33 The work is cha-racterised throughout by the honest attempt to grapple with the complexity and heterogeneity of the material – I have already cited his “bunte[r] Wirrwarr der zwischen Stadt und Herrscher verlaufenden Handlungen” – but even so the work’s fundamental concern is to develop ideal types on a legal basis, albeit with numerous caveats and qualifications. The formalism inherent in this approach had a deleterious effect on later attempts to grapple with this fundamental question of Hellenistic politics.34 The categories and language used suggested that there must have existed a coherent legal structure, thus implying an overall scheme that Heuss seems never to have intended, but that weighs on his discourse.35 We can therefore return only a mixed judgement: Heuss’ admirably nuanced analysis of individual interactions was weakened by an a priori commitment, inherited from previous research, to implicit legal structures. It is no wonder that the work’s reception was controversial.36
In the 80s, this search for a primarily legal basis for Hellenistic rule was chal-lenged by Hans-Joachim Gehrke’s use of Max Weber’s concept of charismatic authority to describe the Hellenistic king. Rather than searching for meaningful and stable legal structures, the essence of Hellenistic power was sought in the legitimation of violence through the cultivation of belief in the super-human
Mehl, Andreas. “Doriktetos Chora. Kritische Bemerkungen zum ‘Speererwerb’ in Politik und Völkerrecht der hellenistischen Epoche”, in: AncSoc 11/12 (1980/1981), 173-212, and recently by Mileta, Christian. Der König und sein Land. Untersuchungen zur Herrschaft der hellenistischen Monarchen über das königliche Gebiet Kleinasiens und seine Bevölkerung. Berlin 2008, esp. 73f., 78f., whose study provides a welcome update of this discourse. Fun-damental criticism of the entire approach has been famously voiced by Gehrke 1982, 247-277, esp. 248f. with n. 6.
32 Heuss 1963², III.
33 He was of course roundly criticised for this approach by Bikerman, Elias. “La cité grecque dans les monarchies hellénistiques”, in: Rev. Phil. 13 (1939), 335-349, esp. 346-348. That this criticism was not entirely justified is visible for instance at Heuss 1963², 225-229; 275f.
34 Heuss 1963², 217.
35 Heuss 1963², 275-278. The criticisms of Orth, Wolfgang. Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit. Munich 1977, 178-187, are surely too harsh. Cf. also the more sym-pathetic, but perhaps somewhat idealising defense by Bringmann, Klaus. Geben und Nehmen: Monarchische Wohltätigkeit und Selbstdarstellung im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Berlin 2000, 109 n. 1.
36 Cf. the discussion by Ma 1999, 152f.
agency of individuals.37 One fundamental problem with this approach lay in the nature of the theoretical model it drew on: in practice, sociological ideal types are difficult to map onto diachronic historical developments.38 Gehrke was of course fully aware of this issue and accordingly emphasised only the hermeneutic ad-vantages provided by a theoretically informed catalogue of features characteristic of the model Hellenistic ruler, as it could serve to point up historical deviation and specificity.39 Even with this caveat, however, a second integral problem remains. Using Max Weber’s typology of legitimate authority to conceptually elucidate the political system of the Hellenistic period not only runs into dif-ficulties when attempting to conceptualise the actual struggle for legitimacy, but also gives undue weight to individual actors, especially the kings. The complexity of the power processes and the plurality of scenarios of interaction and nego-tiation that shape them are thereby misleadingly levelled, since this approach projects a simplified semantic system: put provocatively, such an analysis falls prey to the intentions of the historical actors it seeks to analyse.40 Attempts to counteract this by digging deeper and differentiating the influence of ideal types on a case by case basis soon run into the limitations of such categories, because such an approach necessarily dissolves their hermeneutic potential.41
37 Gehrke 1982. The persistent popularity of this model is apparent e.g. in Seibert, Jakob.
“Zur Begründung von Herrschaftsanspruch und Herrschaftslegitimierung in der frü-hen Diadocfrü-henzeit”, in: idem (ed.). Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Bengtson (=Münchner Arbeiten zur Alten Geschichte 5). Munich 1991, 87-100;
Bringmann 2000, 53f. Before the publication of Hans-Joachim Gehrke’s seminal essay, Claire Préaux had already noted this dynamic, but without drawing on Max Weber’s terminology, see Préaux 1978, 1, 178-181.
38 Comparable approaches are visible in Quass 1993, 11-17, who uses the Weberian concept of the regime of dignitaries and Mileta 2008, 66-70, who draws on Oppen-heimer’s criticism of Weber.
39 Gehrke 1982, 251f. For a more recent application of Weberian ideal types cf. also Schäfer 2002, esp. 16-18; 167-172, who implicitly applies a Weberian concept of legitimate authority, but without acknowledging his theoretical debt.
40 Cf. Luhmann, Niklas. Die Politik der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M. 2000, 26f.
41 For such an approach by a historical sociologist cf. Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power. Vol. 1. Cambridge 1986, but cf. also Paschidis, Paschalis. Between City and King.
Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries Between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322-190 BC) (=Meletemata 59). Athens 2008, 22-24, who distinguishes power, ideology, and interaction, but purely by virtue of his superior retrospective point of view. Ma 1999 variously (e. g. 107, 142, 150) refers to Weberian ideal types, but uses them, like Gehrke, as theoretical contrast rather than as hermeneutic structure. This approach is justified by the material, as the Seleukid Empire under Antiochos III shows elements of all three Weberian types of legitimate authority.
Finally, a third integral problem of Weberian models relates to their narrow interest in the legitimacy of authority and the diffuse quality of ‘charismatic rule’.
Both the legitimation of power and the legal structures sought by Alfred Heuss are secondary systems of meaning that organise and normalise existing configu-rations of power on both the emic and the etic level of analysis. They both have in common, however, that they presuppose communication: that ‘knowledge’ be transferred is the prerequisite for their efficacy, but this always occurs in interac-tion that is embedded within an extremely complex discursive web that operates both situationally and through memory. An example may serve to illustrate the problem: Considered in these categories, the Weberian charisma of ancient rulers, their super-human aura, consists in their direct, face-to-face communication of an idiosyncratic world-construction, which is met by an “irrational belief” that requires constant reproduction through renewed action.42 It appears as a short-term, complexity-reducing and agency-producing instrument of power that is in-creasingly open to immense uncertainty and possesses only a relatively short range. But the crucial action that underlies ‘charisma’ is the communicative self-fashioning of the ruler; accordingly attention should be focused on the categories in which this idiosyncratic construction of the world operates, to its semiotic links and boundaries. The concept is thus little more than one descriptor among many and can really be used only to define situational aspects of rule, rather than being able to single-handedly explain a political cosmos that characterised the entire Eastern Mediterranean for several centuries.43 As a consequence, the first of the three observations that contributed to this study is that a theoretical concep-tualisation of Hellenistic power cannot operate on the basis of ideal types without accepting certain heuristic limitations, limitations that are not without alternative, as I will now attempt to show.
1.2 ‘Network’ – a conceptual phantom?
As was already noted above, more recent research on Hellenistic politics has become increasingly diverse in its interests. Among other trends, interest in concrete lines of contact and interaction between city and king has grown and become more sophisticated, both as regards the actual actors involved – John Davies’ “human hinges of Hellenism” – and the interactions they performed by drawing on a plurality of more or less institutionalised modes of interaction.44 In
42 Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen 19725 [1922], 124, 140-148.
43 Cf. Paschidis 2008, 20.
44 Davies, John K. “The Interpenetration of Hellenistic Sovereignties”, in: Daniel Ogden (ed.). The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives. London 2002, 1-21, esp. 8-13, quote from
the abstract, the overall socio-political system would then emerge from the sum of these modes. This re-orientation also finds expression in the fact that the kings as individuals recede into the background, becoming elements of a political cos-mos that is increasingly understood as a flexible and dynamic field on which power is constantly being negotiated in a complex mesh of concurrent dis-courses.45 Accordingly ‘culture’ is now routinely reflected as woven into the mesh of ‘politics’:46 the socio-political nexus of acts of communication and exchange documented in the dedications and reifications of honour produced by euer-getism now appears as a very significant and impactful strand of Hellenistic political discourse.47 The space and contexts in which cultural objects took effect, including the courts and palaces of kings, the agorai, temenea, and ἐπιφανέστατοι τόποι (“most conspicuous places”) of the cities, and the various, especially Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, have accordingly received more attention and been studied with respect for their diversity.48 The same can be said of human activity in these
p. 11. This is visible for instance in the interest of Strootman 2011, who now pursues an integrated approach by contrast with the comparable, but somewhat older hand-book contributions by Ma, John. “Kings”, in: Andrew Erskine (ed.). A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Malden 2003, 177-195, and Billows, Richard. “Cities”, in: Erskine (ed.) 2003, 196-215.
45 Fundamental remain Habicht, Christian. “Die herrschende Gesellschaft in den helle-nistischen Monarchien”, in: Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 45 (1958), 1-16; idem. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. Munich 1970² [1956]. For more modern approaches cf. e.g. Strootman 2011, 141-153; Ma 2013a.
46 See for example: Schalles, Hans-Joachim. Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der perg-amenischen Herrscher im dritten Jahrhundert vor Christus (=Istanbuler Forschungen 36).
Tübingen 1985; Hintzen-Bohlen, Brigitte. Herrscherrepräsentation im Hellenismus. Cologne 1992; Stewart, Andrew F. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics (=Hellenistic Culture and Society 11). Berkeley and Los Angeles 1993; von den Hoff, Ralf. “Tradition and Innovation: Images and Donations on the Early Hellenistic Acropolis”, in: Olga Palagia and Stephen Tracy (eds.). The Macedonians in Athens 323 – 229 B. C. Oxford 2003, 173-185; idem and Schultz, Peter (eds.). Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style and Context. Cambridge 2007.
47 Fundamental are the volumes by Bringmann, Klaus and Ameling, Walter (eds.).
Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer. 3 vols. Berlin 1995-2000, who provide both catalogue and analysis. See further Gauthier 1985, 39-53;
Billows 1995, 71-78; Ma 1999, 179-242; Kotsidu, Haritini. ΤΙΜΗ ΚΑΙ ∆ΟΞΑ.
Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Frankfurt a.M. 2000.
48 On city-scapes see for instance the contributions in Wörrle and Zanker (eds.) 1995;
Schwandner and Rheidt (eds.) 2004; Matthaei and Zimmermann (eds.) 2009, and espe-cially the third volume of Bringmann and Ameling (eds.) 1995-2000 by Schmidt-Dounas, Barbara. Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Politik und Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel der Monumente. Berlin 2000. On the palace as a functionally pluralistic space of representation see Nielsen, Inge. Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal. Aarhus 1994,
spaces, as performativity and theatricality have both attracted attention in the con-text of questions of power.49 In simple terms, therefore, recent research focuses strongly on spaces of action and interaction both in the polis and at court.
In prosopography, the substantial amount of epigraphically attested individu-als involved in these spaces is accordingly subdivided by drawing on this fun-damental dichotomy, which allows for easier handling. The polis has its ‘civic’ or
‘local’ elite of outstanding citizens50 and the court is populated by a court society51
esp. 18-26, 209-212, who notes the interplay between theatrical facade and palace architecture, both of which aim to produce impactful visual stimuli. On spatial dynamics in sanctuaries see for instance the work on Delos by Dillon, Sheila and Baltes, Elizabeth P. “Honorific Practices and the Politics of Space on Hellenistic Delos: Portrait Statue Monuments along the Dromos”, in: AJA 117:2 (2013), 207-246, and on the sanctuary of Athena Lindia on Rhodes by Squillace, Giuseppe. “Alexander the Great, Ptolemy I and the offerings of arms to Athena Lindia”, in: Alonso Troncoso and Anson (eds.) 2013, 215-224; cf. also Scott, Michael C. “Displaying Lists of What is (not) on Display: the Uses of Inventories in Greek Sanctuaries”, in: Matthew Haysom and Jenny E. Wallensten (eds.). Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece:
Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17-19 April 2008.
Stockholm 2011, 239-252, on displaying what is absent through monumental text.
49 See e.g. Chaniotis, Angelos. “Sich selbst feiern? Städtische Feste des Hellenismus im Spannungsfeld von Religion und Politik”, in: Wörrle and Zanker (eds.) 1995, 147-172;
idem 1997; idem. “Theatre rituals. The Greek Theatre and Festivals”, in: Peter J.
Wilson (ed.). The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Oxford and New York 2007, 48-66; idem. “Empathy, Emotional Display, Theatricality, and Illusion in Hellenistic Historiography”, in: idem and Pierre Ducrey (eds.). Unveiling Emotions II.
Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture. Stuttgart 2013, 53-84; cf. also generally Gehrke 2003, 241f. and for a specific example from the Diadoch period Thonemann 2005 on Demetrios Poliorketes.
50 On civic elites see e.g. Quass 1993; Paschidis 2008; Dreyer, Boris and Weber, Gregor.
“Lokale Eliten griechischer Städte und königliche Herrschaft”, in: Boris Dreyer and Peter Franz Mittag (eds.). Lokale Eliten und hellenistische Könige. Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation. Berlin 2011, 14-54, and above chapter 1.1.2.
51 Recent definitions of the court elite are provided by Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. Geschichte des Hellenismus. Munich 20084, 53-55, as well as Strootman, Rolf. Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires. The Near East After the Achaemenids, c. 330 to 30 BCE. Edinburgh 2014, 117-135. Central studies include Herman, Gabriel. “The ‘Friends’ of the Early Hellenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?”, in: Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981), 103-149; Le Bohec, Sylvie. “Les Philoi des Rois Antigonides”, in: REG 98 (1985), 93-124 and eadem. “L’entourage royal à la cour des Antigonides”, in: Edmond Lévy (ed.). Le Sys-tème palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome: actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19-22 Juin 1985.
Strasbourg 1987, 315-326; Billows 1990, 360-452; Weber, Gregor. “Interaktion, Repräsentation und Herrschaft. Der Königshof im Hellenismus”, in: Aloys Winterling (ed.). Zwischen ‘Haus’ und ‘Staat’. Antike Höfe im Vergleich (=Historische Zeitschrift Beiheft 23). Munich 1997, 28-71; Herman, Gabriel. “The Court Society of the Hel-lenistic Age”, in: Cartledge, Garnsey and Gruen (eds.) 1997, 199-224; Savalli-Lestrade,
that is almost entirely ‘elite’ in the literal sense of that word. While the polis simply remained the established frame of reference for civic elites, the new court societies were the result of the gradual creation of a new, stratified socio-political system of meaning. Over time, what had been an alternative, peripheral source of identity for Greek individuals long before Alexander the Great was transformed into a formal socio-political system tangible in titles and etiquette, which can in turn be collected and historically analysed.52 While having a dichotomy of categories is immensely helpful in organising material and providing fundamental analytical
Ivana. Les “Philoi” royaux dans l’Asie hellénistique. Geneva 1998; Weber, Gregor. “Der
Ivana. Les “Philoi” royaux dans l’Asie hellénistique. Geneva 1998; Weber, Gregor. “Der