Matthew Hogan - 310280486

Howimportanta role did the royal court and the kingsfriendsplay in the government of the Hellenistickingdoms?

The importance of the philoi and the wider court in Hellenistic kingdoms can be measured in several ways. While each individual aspect of Hellenistic government had its own function, there was a symbiotic relationship between the court, the philoi and the king that was important as a whole. Defining the role of court as a political system does not reveal its importance until the philois role as an administrative system is understood. Also, while the king helds all the power his interactions with the court and philoi help further explain the interactions of each. In short, in order to determine the importance of each individually an understanding of their relationship must be reached.

The courts influence was directly a result of those who were bound to it, an understanding of how the courts various rules effected the philoi and the king help determine its importance. To the philoi, the court had the potential to be the height of their political journey, the unspoken rules of etiquette enabled the philoi to create connections with others in the network.1 Although formally each philoi including the king was equal, in actuality their rank was measured in degrees of proximity to the king. The network of philoi around the individual directly determined their position;2 proximity could be the difference between direct contact with the king, contact through a philoi who could talk to the king or through several philoi who were each incrementally closer to the king. While things like wealth and military achievements had the power to elevate status, the court enabled the same benefit through etiquette and gift-giving. 3 Joseph was an aristocrat who wanted to gain privileges from the Ptolemaic court. To gain an audience with the king he privately sent presents to the elite at court, in doing so he bought their friendship and the chance to receive the presence of the king.4 The philoi were bound to these unwritten rules and a breach of them could warrant arrest.5 This shows that the court was the ancient equivalent of a political structure and as I will explain, it helped to determine who would be running the systems of government. This brings to mind the first and most immediately important role that the philoi provided to Hellenistic kingdoms and further helps explore the role of the court.

G. Herman, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic Constructs Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. (1997):
2 3 4 5

J. Rowlandson. The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy. Jewish Perspectives on Hellenism. (2007)

Proefschrift, The Hellenistic Royal Court. Court Culture, Ceremonial and Ideology in Greece, Egypt and the Near East. (1968) Josephus, Book III, Antiquities of the Jews. G. Herman, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age.

The philois most immediate importance in the royal court was as a communication network for the administrative purposes of Hellenistic kingdoms. Aristotle informs us that the king would make to themselves many eyes and ears and hands and feet.6 The friends would be assigned to different tasks around the kingdom, no pay was expected because the bonds of kinship rewarded in other ways. The court had the power to establish communication between the king and his subjects so they could perform the various roles that a kingdom required. Antiochus III, the king of the Seleucid empire described the process as mysterious and completely natural at the same time;7 he simply had to announce in the public forum of Teos with no prior warning that they would be free from taxes and it was so. 8 To ensure that the king had a presence in his cities a mutual kinship was fostered between them, similar to the bond between the philoi.9 The king would often invite elite from other cities to his court in order to take advantage of the ties they had with their hometowns.10 These philoi used their position in order to make sure the traditional gifts between king and city were an exchange of mutual benefit. This system also served the cities by helping members of their community who were seeking an audience at court.11 This shows that the philoi were an administrative force for the kingdoms and an important factor in their governance.

6 7 8 9

Aristotle, Book 3, Politics. J. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. New York. (1999) J. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor.

J. ONeil. Royal Authority and City Law under Alexander and His Hellenistic Successors, The Classical Quarterly. (2000)
10 11

Proefschrift, The Hellenistic Royal Court.

R. Strootman. Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age. The Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age. (2011)

The relationship between the court, the philoi and the king was not coincidental. They had all become co-dependent on each other whether through natural progression or conscious decision. For example the bonds of kinship that dictated hierarchy within court were most likely brought directly from the philoi as the bonds were part of a culture that existed previously.12 The court served the king as a tool he could use to distribute and magnify his power. The unspoken rules of court were able to dictate the flow of the kings influence through the philoi, Pliny provides an example of this. Apelles was the leader of a faction within the philoi who actively tried to bring about the kings downfall. All this power was fleeting though, the simple act of Apelles being denied the kings presence in court was enough for his followers to question the power that Apelles held. This led to his abrupt abandonment. 13 As Polybius said, at the nod of a king, universally envied to universally pitied.14 Although this demonstrates the power of the king, he was not a functioning power in and of himself; the philoi had their own role. The king was constantly performing ceremonies and other grand acts to inspire awe, and since he needed to be managing administration constantly the court was portable.15 But the philoi had a more direct contribution to the kings power, when the people turned to court for assistance the philoi created a superhuman distance between the ruler and subject. 16 The further removed from the common people the king was, the more his presence would feel godlike and awe inspiring. This distance was mutually beneficial as the perceived power of the king further accentuated the privilege of those with access to him. 17

12 13 14 15 16 17

R. Strootman. Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court Under Antiochus The Great, 223-187 BCE. (2011) G. Herman, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic Constructs Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. (1997): Polybius, Book V, Histories R. Strootman. Dynastic Courts of the Hellenistic Empires. A Companion to Ancient Greek Government, (2013) J. Rowlandson, The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy. J. Rowlandson, The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy.

This shows the limitations that both the philoi and the court had. Within these limitations however, the court had its own ways to influence the king from the highest echelons of power to the lowest. Someone close to the king such as someone in his sunedrion (war council) was able to use their position among the philoi to directly sway the opinion of the king. They had access to this influence because of the expectations of the ties of kinship between them. 18 The lesser philoi of the court also had a measure of control over the king in regards to their general opinion. When addressing the traitors Megaleas and Crinon, the king was not able to declare them traitors himself, for fear of those among the philoi that did not agree.19 The loyalty of the kings friends was constantly in question and enabled them to have a certain amount of control over the king. The final and most influential way that individual philoi were able to come into power was through the positions that the king rewarded them with. An example of the exertion of this power is Epigenes, who was a high-ranking general. He led a resistance against the new king (Antiochus III).20 It was the leader of a separate philoi faction that disposed of him; but even then the faction had control of the court until Antiochus finally managed to win the respect of his kingdom himself. Kings like Xenoetas, who was murdered by his friends show the true importance of the philoi and the court, they had the power to root out unsuitable kings and replace them. 21 The king needed to be cunning and understand the court in order to properly rule his kingdom. If the king didnt measure up however, the court had a natural system to replace him.22

18 19 20 21 22

R.Strootman. Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age G. Herman, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age. R. Strootman. Hellenistic Court Society G. Herman, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age. Proefschrift, The Hellenistic Royal Court.

In conclusion, the court and the philoi had their own part in the governance of Hellenistic kingdoms. Most directly the philoi were needed to carry out administrative needs of the kingdom and the court was required to sort them into their roles. While the philoi could attain power for themselves within this system and even eliminate the king, their greater power on a whole was within the system. In order for the philoi to achieve any power at all, the court needed the king in order to distribute it. To simplify, if the king was a generator providing the kingdom power, the philoi were the power lines that distributed it to every city. The court in this metaphor resembles the laws of electricity that allow the power to naturally and efficiently reach its destination. Because of the nature of this symbiotic relationship the court and the philoi were a crucial part of Hellenistic government.

Bibliography: Aristotle, Book III, Politics. Herman, Gabriel, The Court Society of the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic Constructs Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography . L.A: University of California Press, 1997. Josephus, Book XIV Antiquities of the Jews. Ma, John. Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ONeil, James L. Royal Authority and City Law under Alexander and His Hellenistic Successors, The Classical Quarterly. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000 Proefschrift, The Hellenistic Royal Court. Court Culture, Ceremonial and Ideology in Greece, Egypt and the Near East. Rotterdam,1968. Rowlandson, Jane The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy. Jewish Perspectives on Hellenism. L.A.: University of California Press, 2007. Strootman, Rolf. Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court Under Antiochus The Great, 223-187 BCE, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2011. Strootman, Rolf. Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age. The Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age. Leuven, 2011. Strootman, Rolf. Dynastic Courts of the Hellenistic Empires. A Companion to Ancient Greek Government. Oxford: Malden, 2013.