The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra by Andrew Erskine Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones Shane Wallace

206 PHOENIX The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra. Edited by Andrew Erskine, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Shane Wallace. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. 2017. Pp. xxx, 442. This book provides a broad set of studies in the social composition, spatial framing, functioning, external interactions, and diachronic developments of Hellenistic courts. Many of the articles are reworked versions of papers originally presented at a conference held at the University of Edinburgh (February 2011), whereas other contributions have been added later, in order to increase the number of topics dealt with. The introduction does not offer a comprehensive theoretical assessment of the social mechanisms of interaction and negotiation at court,1 but usefully sketches out a wide spectrum of topics, combining the relevant bibliography in classics and ancient Mediterranean studies with the comparatist approach of social and cultural anthropology. At the beginning of Part I (“Development”), Shane Wallace deals with an abundantly discussed topic—the constitution of Hellenistic courts at the time of the Diadochi—by drawing fresh attention to some less explored themes. Of particular interest is the analysis of the adoption, by many Diadochi—and even by assumed traditionalists such as Krateros (11–12)—of aspects of Achaemenid court protocol and social ceremonies as a way to claim continuity with Alexander. Special attention is given to royal luxury, purple and golden clothes and accessories, and the use of divine attributes (e.g., Poseidon’s trident) in the public self-representation of the Successors. In Chapter Two, Janett Morgan questions many assumptions about Hellenistic royal palaces. Arguing that we are often misled in our understanding of the archaeological evidence by basing our expectations on modern cases, the author convincingly re-examines the textual and material traces of royal monumental buildings, from Achaemenid Persepolis to Vergina, and from Hekatomnid Caria to Pergamon and Alexandria. David Engels (Chapter Three) then deals with the theme of diachronic change through the case study of the Seleucid court and its continuity with or rupture from Achaemenid precedents. The personal link between kings and collaborators, which is typical of early Hellenistic courts, can be clearly distinguished from the closed circle of noble families allowed to hold and bequeath prominent positions in the well-established social system of the Achaemenid court. A higher degree of continuity can be ascertained in the provincial administration and in the architecture of royal residences in the East. Part II portrays different social types characterizing “Life at Court” in the Hellenistic period. Ivana Savalli-Lestrade provides in Chapter Four an interesting analysis of courtiers as mediators between the “inner” and “outer” court: that is, between the closed space of physical access to the king and the broad, interconnected space of administration and of interaction between kings and cities. The personal ambitions of royal collaborators tended to create internal hierarchies within the court, as attested by the second-century standardization of aulic titles in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, but also promoted conformity to royal models, since courtiers would manifest their social distinction by reproducing royal taste and models of behaviour that were fashionable at court. Rolf Strootman (Chapter Five) investigates the position of eunuchs, renegades, and concubines, revealing that their apparent social marginalisation was functional to the services kings expected from them. Their status as social outsiders, in contrast to the 1 As does, for instance, H. Heitmann-Gordon, Accommodating the Individual: Identity and Control after Alexander (Munich 2017) esp. Chapters 1–2. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 207 traditional court aristocracy, made these figures meet an important requirement for royal favourites: their personal rather than formal link with the monarch turned them into faithful collaborators, entirely dependent on royal benevolence for their success. On the other hand, the fact that these socially marginalised figures could act as an “obligatory passage point”2 to enable courtiers to have access to the king also explains why contemporary literary sources often cast them in a negative light. As Ivana Petrovic observes, “courts exist in order to simultaneously display and conceal the ruler” (147). In Chapter Six Petrovic compares historiographic passages about Alexander and Hellenistic kings and poetic texts (from Callimachus and Theocritus), showing not only that Hellenistic court poetry...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.