Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:18:57.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Royal authority and city law under Alexander and his Hellenistic successors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

James L. O'Neil
James L. O'Neil
Affiliation:
University of Sydneyjames.o'neil@history.usyd.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the Macedonians had conquered Greece, city-states continued to exist along-side the more powerful kingdoms, and were often forced to accommodate their policies to the wishes of the powerful kings who were, in theory, their allies. If kings and cities were to co-operate effectively, there would need to be some way of adapting the authority of royal wishes to the theoretical rights of the cities to self-determination.

The contrast between the powers of a king, theoretically all-powerful within his kingdom, and the autonomy of a city did not need to be total. Aristotle, who was acquainted with the Macedonian kingdom, made a clear distinction between kingship and tyranny, between rule by the law and autocracy. He listed Macedonia alongside Sparta and Epirus as kingdoms which were ruled in the interests of all.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , December 2000 , pp. 424 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I wish to thank Professor F. W. Walbank for commenting on an earlier version of this paper, and an anonymous CQ referee for helpful criticism. Any remaining errors are mine.

2 Arist. Politics 1285a2–b6, cf.Newman, W. L., Commentary ad loc., vol. 3 (1902), 258ff.Google Scholar; see 1310b35 for the comparison with Sparta.

3 Errington, R. M., ‘Philip V, Aratus and the “Conspiracy of Apelles”’, Historia 16 (1967), 23.Google Scholar

4 P. de Francisci, Arcana imperii, 11.371;Aymard, A., ‘Sur l'assemblée macédonienne’, REA 52 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 127 = Études d'Histoire Ancienne (1967), 154;Billows, R. A., Antigonos the One-Eyed, (Berkeley, 1990), 259Google Scholar; Borza, E. N., In the Shadow of Olympus (Princeton, 1990), 245.Google Scholar

5 Finley, M. I., Use and Abuse of Greek History (London, 1975), 143Google Scholar; Gagarin, M., Early Greek Law (Berkeley, 1986), 106Google Scholar; Macdowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London, 1978), 59Google Scholar; Osborne, R., ‘Law in action in classical Athens’, JHS 105 (1983), 53.Google Scholar

6 Arangio-Ruiz, V., Rariora (Rome, 1946), 242.Google Scholar

7 Lenschau, T., ‘Alexander der Grosse und Chios’, Klio 33 (1940), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff.

8 This was a more developed democracy than the previous one at Chios:O'neil, J. L., The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy, (Lanham, MD, 1995), 167–8Google Scholar, cf. 24–5.

9 D.S. 17.109.1. Polyperchon's similar decree of 319 B.C. excluded those exiled for homicide or impiety (D.S. 18.56.4).

10 Cf.Goodenough, E. R., ‘The political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship’, YCS 1 (1928), 61.Google Scholar

11 Zancan, P., II Monarcato ellenistico (Padua, 1934), 30.Google Scholar

12 Welles, C. J., Royal Correspondence (London, 1934), 25.Google Scholar Cf. Billows (n. 4), 214. There is no evidence that Antigonus was actually infringing the autonomy of the cities (ibid., 213).

13 Billows (n. 4), 232.

14 OGIS 7.221, 231, 282, 335; SEG 7.62. Cf.Heuss, A., Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus (Leipzig, 1937), 80–90.Google Scholar

15 O'Neil (n. 8), 84–5.

16 P. Gurob 2 = Select Papyri 256.

17 See Schubart, W., ‘Spuren politischer Autonomie in Aegypten unter den Ptolemäern’, Klio 10 (1910), 47–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (Warsaw, 1955), 9.Google ScholarPartsch, J., ‘Die alexandrinischen Dikaiomata’, Archiv für Papyrusfor schung 6 (1920)Google Scholar, 42, disagrees.

18 Athenian law had a similar provision: Dem 20.118, 39.40; Pollux 8.122.

19 Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 114Google Scholar; Amundsen, L., ‘The classical Greek background of Ptolemaic law and the administration of justice’, in Acta Congressus Madvigiani Hafniae 1954, 1 (Copenhagen, 1958), 257–9.Google Scholar

20 Syll 344, lines 46–7. The laws should be best and helpful to the city.

21 Nisyros’ status as a Rhodian deme is not attested before the second century:Fraser, P. M. and Bean, G. E., The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (London, 1954), 147–52.Google Scholar

22 Josephus, AJ 12.142, 13.381. Antiochus IV had reneged on this permission:Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis (London, 1993), 52.Google Scholar

23 Welles, C. B., ‘New texts from the chancery of Philip V’, AJA 42 (1938), 249ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Welles (n. 12), 65–7. For the Pergamene decree: p. 267.

25 Ibid., 53.

26 Ibid., 271.

27 Errington, R. M., ‘Macedonian “royal style” and its significance’, JHS 94 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 24; Welles (n. 12), 70.5.

28 Welles (n. 12), 75.

29 Weisehöfer, J., ‘Kingship in ancient Iran’, in Bilde, P. et al. (edd.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Aarhus, 1996), 58ff.Google Scholar

30 Debevoise, N. C., A Political History of Parthia (Chicago, 1938), xi ff.Google Scholar; Welles (n. 12), 302.

31 Welles (n. 12), 304.

32 Archytas 4.1. 132; Diotogenes 4.7.61.

33 Archytas 4.1.135; Diotogenes 4.7.61; Sthenidas 4.7.62.

34 Sopater 4.5.60, cf. 57; cf. Diotogenes 4.7.62.

35 Diotogenes 4.7.62; Ecphantus 4.7.64; cf. Archytas 4.1.137.

36 Goodenough (n. 10), 99ff;Delatte, L., Les Traités de Royauté d'Ecphante, Diotogene at Sthénidas (1942), 286.Google Scholar

37 Philo, Life of Moses, 2.4; Stobaeus 4.7.67. Cf. Goodenough (n. 10), 94.

38 Rackham, H., Aristotle, , Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (Cambridge, MA, 1937), 258.Google Scholar

39 [Aristotle], Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1420a19–b12.