Studies in Ancient Monarchies - Volume,

Franz Steiner Verlag Offprint from:

The Splendors and Miseries

of Ruling Alone
Encounters with Monarchy from Archaic Greece
to the Hellenistic Mediterranean

Edited by Nino Luraghi

@ Franz Steiner Verlag 2013

 7
CONTENTS
WRITING DOWN THE KING:
THE COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION OF TREATISES
1. Ruling alone:
ON KINGSHIP IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD*
Monarchy in Greek Politics and Thought....................... ........................... 11
Nino Luraghi
Matthias Haake
2. The Victorious Tyrant:
Hieron of Syracuse in the Epinicia of Pindar and Bacchylides.................. 25 I
Christian Mann
. The statesman and philosopher Demetrius of Phalerum is supposed to have recom-
3. To Die like a Tyrant............................................................. ...................... 49 mended to a King Ptolemy to acquire treatises On Kingship and to read and study
Nino Luraghi them carefully: "For the things their friends (philoi) do not dare to offer to kings as
advice, are written in these books." 1 ln the whole of ancient literature, this passage,
4. The Victorious K ing: preserved in Sayings of Kings and Commanders, a text transmitted in the corpus of
Reflections on the Hellenistic Monarchy.............................. ........ ............. 73 Plutarch's Moralia and dedicated to the emperor Trajan, is more or less the only
Hans-Joachim Gehrke explicit statement on the purpose of treatises On Kingship. 2 This statement, how-
ever, is quite unlikely really to go back to Demetrius, and much less can it be taken
5. Agathocles and Hiero II:
at face value as a reliable guide for an understanding of treatises On Kingship. 3
Two Sole Rulers in the Hellenistic Age and the Question of Succession .. 99 Rather, it should be seen as a highly complex literary product, shaped by the un-
Matthias Haake
known author's intention implicitl y to portray the king, most probably Ptolemy II,
6. Becoming Kings:
Spartan Basileia in the Hellenistic Period............ ...................................... 129
D. Alexander Walthall
* The present article is a modified version of HAAKE 2003. Since the completion of the manu-
7. Writing down the King: script of HAAKE 2003, a number of important publications regarding treatises On Kingship in
general and in the Hellenistic period in pa1ticular have appeared. Among these, see especially
The Communicative Function of Treatises On Kingship in
BERTEi.Li 2002, S!DC!BO'ITOM 2006 and MURRAY 2007, and also HAAKE 2012. For a critical
the Hellenistic Period........ ......................................................................... 165 reading and valuable suggestions, I am grateful to Ann-Cathrin Harders (Bielefeld). That this
Matthias Haake contribution appears in its present form is owned to the se!Oess commitment of Nino Luraghi
(Princeton). Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are BCE.
8. The Castrated King, Dcmclr. Phal. frg. 38 Stork, van Ophuijsen and D orandi = frg. 63 Wehrli= FGrH 228 T 6b ap.
Plut. mor. l89D.
or: The Everyday Monstrosity of Late Hellenistic Kingship..................... 207
2 On the disputed question of Plutarch's authorship of Sayings ofKings and Commanders, denied by
Ulrich Gotter
JONES 1971, 30-31 and HAHN 1989, 185-186, see most recently BECK 2002 and PF.LUNG 2002,
84-85. The apophthegm is also quoted in various Late Antique and Byzantine collections of say-
9. Between Hellenistic Monarchy and Jewish Theocracy: ings; references in HAAKE 2003, 103-104 11. 5. The passage of the so-called Letter of Aristeas
The Contested Legitimacy of Hasmonean Rule ............................. ............ 231 (283) often invoked as a parallel to our apophthegm (see B!CKERMANN 1930, 283; ZuNTz 1959,
Kai Trampedach 26 n. l; MC!NDELS 1979, 132-133 and SQUILI.ONI 1991, 15 n. 36) really refers to official records
of tours of inspection compiled for kings for the improvement of men, not to treatises On Kingship;
see MURRAY 1967, 357 n. 3. On the Letter ofAristeas in general, see below p. 177 with n. 88.
Index nominum .. ....... .... .. ...... ........ ......... ..... ......... .... ................ .... ...... ............. 263
3 See, however, AALDERS 1975, 19; SCHOLZ 1998, 158 11. 119; VIRGILIO 2003, 50 and SIDEBOT-
Index locorum............................................ .. ........................ .......................... . 273 TOM 2006, 145.
166 Matthias Haake
with tyrannical traits: this is the topical meaning of the alleged unwillingness of the
philoi openly to offer advice. 4
In spite of its problematic nature, the passage brings to the fore in a striking way
some points that are central for the present investigation. If we take it litterally, three
inferences can be drawn from it: firstly, that treatises On Kingship were written by
philoi of the kings, who appear in the story as an established institution; secondly,
that such treatises were addressed directly, and ultimately exclusively, to kings; and
finally, that they consisted of advice that even a philos would not have dared to give
a king in person - in spite of the especially close and affective relationship between
a king and his philoi. 5 Furthermore, the apophthegm gives the impression that the
advice voiced in treatises On Kingship had little if anything to do with the principles
and structures of Hellenistic kingship or with constitutional theory, but rather was
tied to specific situations and included concrete instructions on how to act. The pur-
pose of the present contribution is to flesh out from a historical point of view what
the author of the apophthegm formulated in literary terms: the social meaning and
communicative function of Hellenistic treatises On Kingship. 6 The aim is not a new
interpretation of single texts, but an explanation of general structures.7
The Hellenistic treatises On Kingship are hardly a neglected topic. On the con-
trary, many studies have been devoted to their meaning and function, with different
methods and various emphases. 8 The present contribution explores a new ap-
proach. In the first place, it avoids applying to Hellenistic treatises On Kingship the
medieval term speculum principis,9 and its various renderings such as Fiirsten-
4 1\vo points are key for the understanding of the apophthegm: first, Aristotle's fam ous statement
that the tyrant, unlike the king, does not trnst his friends (Pol. 1313b29-3 l; see below p. 184),
and secondly, Demetrius of Phalerum's involvement in the succession of Ptolemy I, which
ended in his imprisonment by Ptolemy II (see HAAKE 2007, 66--67 with 11. 235 with further
references). I find the interpretation of the apophthegm by ADAM I 970, 15 unconvincing.
5 On the philoi of Hellenistic kings, HABICHT 1958 is sti ll fundamental; see, among the huge
bibliography, the more general treatments by HERMAN 1980-81; HERMAN 1997; WEBER 1997;
MOOREN 1998 and MEISSNER 2000. For a portrayal of the philoi as advisors of the ruler, see
SAVALLJ-LESTRADE 1998, 334--354. STROOTMAN 2007 is the most comprehensive general
study of the Hellenistic royal courts.
6 Treatises On Kingship were written also during the Roman Imperial and Late Antique times.
However, the power structure of Roman monarchy and the social conditions in the Roman
Empire created a radically different context that would require a special investigation. In gen-
eral, on the treatises On Kingship dating to the Roman Imperial and Late Antique Periods see
HAAKE 2003, 100-102; SIDEBOTTOM 2006, 129- 132 and 135-154 and HAAKE 201 2.
7 The basic concept of this approach bas been adopted from SKINNER 1978, ix- xv.
8 Because of its methods and objectives, the detailed study of KAERST 1898 is interesting only
from the point of view of the history of scholarship. GOODENOUGH 1928, in spite of its wide-
spread and somewhat uncritical reception (e. g. BLUMENFELD 2001 , 191-274; SCHULTI, 2001,
135-158; EDELMANN 2007, 155-172 and HARRISON 2011, 279-287), is in many ways out-
dated; see e.g. VAN NUFFELEN 2011, 23-24 with n. 66 and 115-116. WALBANK 1984, 75- 81;
HAHM 2000, 458-464 and ECKSTEIN 2009, 247-255 provide concise overviews of important
elements of Hellenistic theory of monarchy.
9 The combination of specitlum and rex apperas for the first time in the title of Goffredo da Vi-
terbo's Speculum regum, dedicated to the emperor Henry VI, dated to the year 11 83 CE; see
Writing down the Ki ng 167
spiegel, mirror of/for princes and miroir aux princes. Far too often, these Medieval
and Early Modern terms have been used by scholars in a generalizing way for texts
belonging to completely different literary genres and dating from the Bronze Age to
the early twentieth century, provided that the texts engaged in any way with the is-
sue of (good) kingship. 10 Yet, such a broad approach blurs differences between texts
which are different in terms of genre, date, authors and authorship, historical con-
texts, social conditions and communicative situations and whose only unquestion-
able common ground is their topic - the good ruler. 11
Accordingly, in the following Hellenistic treatises On Kingship will be re-
garded as instances of a specific genre. 12 The genre will be analyized accordi ng to
five constitutive elements: first, the author, seen not as an actual person but rather
as a member of a specific social group with a characteristic social role, and sec-
ondly, the addressee, regarded in the same way. Taken together, author and ad-
dressee constitute the explicit frame of the communication situation. 13 Thirdly, we
will consider the form of the treatises On Kingship, and four thly, their actual con-
tent. Fifthly, it is essential to discuss the problem of the implied audience of such
works, applying the same categories used for the author and the addressee. Such a
methodological demarche will be the line of approach to the function and purpose
of treatises On Kingship. 14
DoRNINGER 1997, 60-65. For an overview of medieval mirrors for princes see ANTON 1989.
See also the instructive observations of GENET 1977, ix-xix and JONSSON 2006. On the concept
of mirrors for princes see GRASSNICK 2004, 39-44. On the German terminology see HAAKE
2003, 104-105 n. 9 with further references.
10 This position is represented most influentially by HAnOT 1972, see e.g. 556: "die literarische
Gattung der Ratschliige fi.ir Fiirsten vom friihesten Altertum an ( ... ) unter sehr verschiedenen
Formen u. Bezeichnungcn auftritt: Elogium oder Verwiinschung, unverbundene Sentenzenfolge
oder didaktische u. systematische Abhandlungen, Biographie oder Utopie." See also BORN 1933,
esp. 583-584. For the inclusion of Hellenistic treatises in the category, see e.g. HADOT 1972,
580-582; AALDERS 1975, esp. 18; BERTELLI 2002, 54 and STROOTMAN 2007, 228. For a detai led
criticism of this approach, see HAAKE 2003, 106--107 n. 12; see also EDER 1995, J 59; for a dit~
ferent point of view, see ADAM 1970, 18. It is essential to keep in mind that in the Middle Ages
speculum was a very common element of titles, well beyond the ' minos for princes' ; see LEH-
MANN 1953, 27-45 and BRADLEY 1954 as well as GRABES 1973 and JONSSON 1995, 157- 212.
11 This docs not amount to a rejection of a comparative approach to the theme of the good ru ler;
for a good example, see MURRAY 1990.
12 RAIBLE 1980, esp. 342- 345 offers a most valuable methodo logy. The explanations by BoECKH
1886, 140- 168 on the 'generic interpretation' in the context of his 'theory of hermeneutics' are
still worth reading. Already PRAECHTER 1908, 162 called forcibly, but without appreciable ef-
fect, for taking carefully into account the aspect of literary genre when analyzing texts like
Agapelus Diaconus' Advice to !he Emperor, a text often considered a mirror for princes in
modern scholarship; see e. g. DEMANDT 2002. On genres in Greek literature see esp. Rossi 1971
as well as ROSENM EYER 1985 and SEGAL 1992. My approach has been inspired by 'historical
tex tual pragmatics ', on which see GUMBRECHT 1977. STAMMEN 1990 offers a persuasive the-
matic parallel in terms of approach, if not necessarily in terms of implementation.
13 See the methodological considerations by JAKOBSON 1990, esp. 72-75.
14 From a comparative point of view, the remarks of BURKE 1995, 33 regarding Castiglione's Li-
bro de/ Cortegiano are highly instructive.
168 Matthias Haake
II
Treatises which bear the title IlEQL ~am),.,dac:; did not appear before the Hellenistic
period. 15 Their emergence reflects the main and most obvious feature of the politi-
cal history of that period: for treatises On Kingship to emerge, a necessary condition
was not only the actual existence of monarchs, but also their direct influence on and
partial control of the world of the poleis to an unprecedented extent. 16
The first who authored a work entitled On Kingship was in all likelihood Aris-
totle, who adressed his treatise to his former pupil Alexander the Great. 17 Compos-
ing a work addressed to a sole ruler which dealt with the question of how to act as
a ruler did not go radically beyond already established literary and communicative
practices in the Greek world of the fourth century. 18 What was unprecedented was
the dominant position of the addressee, the social persona of the author, a philoso-
pher, and finally the title, On Kingship. Thus, Aristotle should be considered in a
way as the protos heuretes of the treatises On Kingship, even though he may hardly
have had the intention to invent a new literary genre. On the other hand, given the
structurally competitive nature of the relation between Greek philosophers, 19 it is
not surprising that Aristotle immediately found followers, starting with the head of
the Academy Xenocrates20 and the Democritean philosopher Anaxarchus from
15 See also MURRAY 2007, 17. Antisthenes ' treatises Cyrus or On Kingship and Archelaus or On
Kingship, both in Diogenes Laertius' list of Antisthenes' works (6.16 and 18 ; see H61STAD
1948, 73-77; RANKIN 1986, esp. 143-144 and ENGELS in FGrHf.VA I, 102-104 and 107-1 08)
are no exception, since in both cases the subtitle On Kingship is a later addition, as in the case
of Plato's Statesman , for which again Diogenes Lae1tius gives the subtitle On Kingship (3.58).
More details in HAAKE 2003, 109-1 I I n. 20.
16 See WALBANK 1984, 62- 64 and esp. BERTELLI 2002, 28 as welJ as ERSKINE 2011, 177. SIDE-
BOTTOM 2006, 121 blurs the issue, merging fourth-century discussions of political leadership
with the treatises On Kingship (see his statement, ibid. 120: " [i]t seems to have been Isocrates
who, in about 372 BC, attempted the first On Kingship, although it did not carry that title . .. ").
17 On the relationship of teacher and pupil between Aristotle and Alexander see below p. 172. The
testimonies for and fragments of Aristotle's treatise On Kingship areArist. test. 16.4 [p. 76.23-
26] Gigon = peri basileias test. 3 [p. 61--62] Ross = peri basileias test. 1 lp. 408] Rose3 ap.
Philop. [Ps.-Ammon.] in Cat. praef. 7'. JO-l 2 l= C!AG Xlll.1, p. 3.22-24 Busse]; Arist. test. 5
[p. 35.17- 191 Gigon = peri basileias frg. 1 [p. 62] Ross= frg. 646 Rose3 ap. Vit. Graeca Vul-
gata 22 During; Arist. test. 3 [p. 30.8- 10) Gigon = peri basileias frg. 1 Lp. 62] Ross = frg. 646
Rose3 up. Vit. Marciana 21 During and probably, even though not entirely uncontroversial,
Arist. frg. 982 Gigon = peri basileias frg. 2 [p. 62] Ross = frg. 647 Rose 3 up. Them. or. 8. 107c-
d. Regarding the content of this Aristotelian writing, see CHROUST 1968 and FLASHAR 2006,
224--226; see, however, PLEZIA 1980. Pace ScttOLZ 1998, 370 and contrary to what Johannes
Philoponus says ([Ps.-Ammon.J in Cat. praef. 7'.10- 12), Aristotle's treatise was not commis-
sioned by Alexander; for this conclusion, as well as for the ancient origin of the idea, sec
HAAKB 2003, 111-112 n. 22.
18 See below, p. 170- 172.
19 See GEHRKB 2004, 478-479 and, more generally, COLLINS 2002, 80-109.
20 Xenocr. frg. 2 Isnardi Parente ap. Diog. Laert. 4.14 ; fragments of this work, on which see ls-
NARDI PARENTE 1982, 280, have not survived. Like Aristotle, Xenocrates, too, was said in an-
tiquity to have been commissioned by Alexander a work containing advise (frg. 33 Isnard i
Writing down the King 169
Abdera,21 who both wrote treatises On Kingship addressed to Alexander, too. Thus,
the cornerstone for the genre of the treatises On Kingship was laid. 22 After Alexan-
der's death, however, no such text was addressed to any of the powe1fol participants
in in the competition over his heritage until the 'year of the kings' : it was only after
307/6, when the successors of Alexander were no longer j ust usurping their power,
but started claiming kingship, that treatises entitled On Kingship reappeared, the
earliest being the one addressed by the Peripatetic Theophrastus of Eresus to Cas-
sander. 23 As we will see, Theophrastus' example was followed by many philoso-
phers during the third century, which gives him an important role for the establish-
ment of the genre. 24
As far as its contents are concerned, naturally treatises On Kingship did not
develop ex nihilo. At the beginning of the Hellenistic age, the discuss ion of the dif-
ferent types of constitutions and the debate on which was the best one had already
a long tradition in the Greek world. 25 In this context, the problem of monarchy had
also been extensively debated and the profile of the idea] ruler had been sketched in
an unambiguous way. Thereby, a series of notions regarding kingship had arisen,
and the authors of treatises On Kingship drew upon this repertoire. Pre-Hellenistic
texts containing reflections on sole rulership can be divided in two main groups. On
the one hand, since the Archaic period, there are texts of various generic affilation
such as epic poetry, lyric poetry, historiography, tragedy and philosophy, which in-
cluded more or less elaborate thoughts on rulers and rulership. On the other hand,
Parente ap. Plut. mor. 1126D ; accepted by WESTMAN 1955, 277- 278; ISNARDI PARENTE 1981 ,
156-157 and SCHOLZ 1998, 195). Contra see TRAMPEDACH 1994, 141 and HAAKE 2003, 112-
113 n . 23. The considerations of MADDOLI 1967, 315- 318 do not seem to me to be convincing
in all respects.
21 Two fragments of Anaxarchus' treatise On Kingship are extant: Anaxarch. frg. 65A Dorandi =
72 B 1 DK ap. Clem. Al. Strom. 1.6.36 [see Anaxarch. frg. 65B- E Dorandi for further quota-
tions of the original text] and frg. 66 Dorandi = 72 B 2 DK ap. Ael. VH 4.14; see GIGANTE and
DORANDI 1980, 479-484 ; BRUNSCHWIG 1993, 67-70 and DORANDI 1994a, 11- 15. On Anaxar-
chus and his position in Alexander's entourage, sec BORZA 1981 and RmHNSO HN l 993.
22 Even though this is the most reasonable sequence for the three works, evidence is too scanty to
exclude a different. one. This however would make no difference for the explanation of the ori-
gins of the genre.
23 Theophr. frg. 589 no. 12 Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples and Gutas ap. Diog. Laert. 5.47 and
Thcophr. frg. 603 Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples and Gutas ap . Athcn. 144e. The authenticity of
this work was not unanimously accepted in antiquity. Athenaeus, who seems to be inclined to
accept it, mentions Sosibius of Sparta (FGrH 595 T 3) as a possible alternative author. Accord-
ing to the catalogue raisonne of D iogenes Lacrtius, T heophrastus wrote two further works en-
titled On Kingship: Theoph.r. frg. 589 no. 10 Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples and Gutas ap. Diog.
Laert. 5.49 and Thcophr. frg. 589 no.11 Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples and Gutas, up. D iog.
Laert. 5.42, with lists of the respective fragments. On these fragments, see Pom.BCK I 1985,
241.
24 On this see also BERTELLI 2002, 28-31 and MURRAY 2007, 17. Theophrastus' treatises On
Kingship are generally overlooked in discussions of how Alexander's successors were seen by
contemporaries in their new role as kings.
25 On the the beginnings of the literary discussion on monarchy, see STROH EK ER I 954 and, for the
wider context, BLEICKEN 1979.
170 Matthias Haake
since the beginning of the fourth century, there are writings in form of letters and
speeches addressed to powerful rulers at the periphery of the Greek world. 26
One of the earliest and best-known discussions of monarchy as a constitution
appears in the Constitutional Debate in Herodotus, 27 and it displays an aspect that
is common to pre-Hellenistic theoretical discussions of monarchy, in that the dis-
cussion of constitutional matters and the outline of an ' ideal society' are projected
into a chronologically and geographically different context. 28 Examples of this
strategy can be found not only in the fifth century, but also in the fourth. 29 Xeno-
phon's corpus offers several. 30 His Cyropaedia, composed in the sixties of the
fourth century, is difficult to classify in terms of form and of purpose. 31 The pro-
tagonist, Cyrus, is a Near Eastern ruler from the past, one who appears to have been
usually seen in a positive light by the Greeks. However, many features on his por-
trayal are consciously unhistmical and clearly Greek. 32 He is depicted as an ideal
ruler, with all the virtues that belong to such a ruler. 33 The importance of the per-
sonal virtue of the monarch explains the decadence of the empire founded by Cyrus
once it fell in the hands of less virtuous kings. 34 In Xenophon's dialogue Hiero, the
poet Simonides discusses with the tyrant of Syracuse how the latter could acquire
popularity - and thereby become happy; 35 the 'good monarch ' outlined here is no
tyrant, because he lacks fundamental traits of the tyrant as typically present in the
imaginaire of the Greeks. In this case, too, the discussion is transposed into the past.
Finally, Xenophon's encomium on the Spartan king Agesilaus does deal with a
contemporary character, but even he was already dead at the time of composition
- quite apart from the fact that a Spartan king stood for an accepted special form of
26 For a most valuable survey of pre-Hellenistic reflections on monarchy, see BERTELLI 2002,
17-28; see also in respect of the fourth century, FROLOV 1974; SQUJLLONI 1990; EDER 1995;
SCHUTRUMPF 1995 and CARTLEDGE 2009, 96-103.
27 Hdt. 3.80-82-on this passage, see Plut. mor. 826D. On Herodotus' Constitutional Debate, see
LANZA 1977, 225-232; HARTOG 1980, 322-327; GAMMIE 1986, 172-175 and ASHER!, LLOYD
and CoRCELLJ\ 2007, 471-476.
28 It can be taken for granted, with BLEICKEN 1979, 152-153, that the debate never happened. An
early example of this trope is the description of the island of the Phaeacians in the Odyssey
(7.43-137); see FINLEY 1975, 182 and BrCHI,ER 1995, 33-39.
29 See MULLER 1991 and SEIDENSTICKER 1995; see also HAAKE 2003, 116 n. 50.
30 See in general PLACIDO I 989; lRMSCHER 1991 and GRAY 2011, 24-44; see also AZOULAY 2004.
31 On the Cyropaedia, see DUE 1989; TATUM 1989; ZIMMERMANN 1989; GERA 1993 ; NADON
2000 and GRAY 2011, 246--290. On Xenophon's idea of kingship, see CARLIER 1978. The im-
portance of Xenophon's Cyropaedia for ideas of Hellenistic kingship has been underlined by
FARBER 1979; see also DUE 1993.
32 See partially CIZEK 1975 and MITCHELL 2005, 302-305. For Cyrus' image in the works of
ancient authors, see the overview of WEISS BACH 1924, 1162-1164.
33 See already Cic. QF 1.1.23; see HIGGINS 1977, 44--59.
34 Xen. Cyr. 8.2- 27; see GERA 1993, 299-300 and MUI-!LLER-GOLDINGEN 1995, 262-271.
35 On this work of Xenophon, sec HATZFI-!LD 1946-47; STRAUSS 1948; AALDERS 1953; SORDI
1980; GRAY 1986; SQUJLLONI 1990a; SEVIER! 2004; L EPPIN 2010; SCHORN 2010 and GRAY
201 l, 34--35.
Writing down the King 171
Greek constitution .36 A comparison of Xenophon's Agesilaus with his Hellenica
makes immediately clear that in the former Xenophon was not pursuing a precise
description of the historical life of his hero, but rather the literary construction of
the 'good king', which is projected on the Spartan king. 37
Surely Plato is the most prominent fourth-century thinker to have articulated
reflections on monarchy in his works, especially in the Republic, with its famous
philosopher-king. 38 Even if Plato does not locate his discussion of constitutions in
the past, he sets it in an ideal polis, with the speaking name of Kallipolis, the 'beau-
tiful' or 'good city ' .39 Apart from the fact that the discussion takes place in the
world of theory, it is important that Plato wrote dialogues, in which he could pursue
and think through different approaches and aspects.40 Next to Plato's dialogues
there are more than a dozen letters transmitted under his name, whose authorship is,
however, controversial. 4 1 What warrants them a mention in this context is on the
one hand the fact that they are mostly addressed to powerful rulers like the Syracu-
sans Dionysius II and Dion, the Macedonian king Perdiccas Ill and the tyrant Her-
mias of Atarneus, and on the other hand their content: predominantly, the letters
deal with questions of good government for sole rulers and give advice to the re-
spective addressees in a Platonic manner, but partly, they contain also rather per-
sonal elements of Plato's life.42 Even though the Platonic Letters should be consid-
ered as forgeries, their fabrication and transmission show that it was plausible to
envisage Plato as writing such letters. This is hardly surprising, if we think, among
others, of Isocrates, a contemporary and rival of the founder of the Academy.
Isocrates addressed his writings explicitly to several rulers,43 including Diony-
sius I of Syracuse, the children of the tyrant Jason of Pherae, the Spartan king
Archidamus III and Timotheus of Heraclea Pontica.44 He wrote the ' Cyprian'
36 See Xenophon's instructive characterization of his work, Ages. 10.3. On this work, see PON-
TIER 2010 and GRAY 2011, 30-32.
37 On the Hellenica, sec GRAY 1989. On Xenophon's depiction of Agcsilaus, see LUPPINO 1991;
DILLERY 1995, 114-119 and SCHEPENS 2003.
38 Plat. Rep. 473c--e; see also 50le and Plat. epist. 7 .326b. On Plato 's philosopher-king, see e.g.
CAMillANO 1988; REEVE 1988, esp.191-195 and FLAIG 1994, 37-43; on the concept of the
philosopher-king in the late Platonic dialogues, see SCHOFIELD 1998.
39 Plat. Rep. 527c2; see CLAY 1988, 24--29. The use of the myth of Atlantis in Timaeus and Critias
points in the same direction; see GILL 1977 and MORGAN 1998. The same is true of the Laws,
were the discussion is set in the Cretan polis of Magnesia, a creation of Plato; see especially
CLAY 1993 and the magisterial work by PIERART 2008.
40 See FREDE l 992.
41 On the question of the authenticity of the Platonic Letters, see the comprehensive overview of
ERLER 2007, 308-322.
42 Plat. epist. 1- 3 (to Dionysius II), 4 (to Dion), 5 (to Perdiccas III), 6 (to Hennias and also to two
P latonic pupils, Erastus and Coriscus) and 13 (to Dionysius II). Plat. epist. 11, addressed to an
otherwise unknown Laodamas, should be mentioned in this context, too.
43 They can be subsumed under the heading 'open letters,' sec ESSIG 2000, 11-21. Isocrates him-
self c lassified all his writings, except the judicial speeches, as logoi politikoi; see or. 12.1- 2 and
15.45-46 and see WILCOX 1943 and Too 1995, L0-35.
44 Isac. epist. l, 6, 7 and 9.
 172 Matthias Haake
speeches To Nicocles, Nicocles or the Cyprians, and Euagora.s 45 and a group of
works which can be called the 'Macedonian writings' since they are addressed to
Philip II, to the young Alexander and to Antipater. 46 Because of their subject mat-
ter, the letters to young Alexander and to Anti pater are of no great interest for the
current purposes. 47 The other works just mentioned revolve around two topics: a
Panhellenic initiative and the relations of the addressees to the world of the poleis
on the one hand,48 and good rule in the respective tyrannical-monarchical ruling
systems on the other. 49
Finally, it is necessary to consider Aristotle, the probable inventor of the t:rea-
tises On Kingship, both because of his works and because he taught the young Al-
exander. The teacher-pupil relation between arguably one of the greatest philoso-
phers and one of the greatest conquerors of antiquity respectively has brought forth
many fanciful and pathetic depictions of the consequences of their encounter. Tn
fact the whole matter turns out to be rather less exciting, but so much more typical.
To expose his son to the world of paideia - nothing unexpected for a Macedonian
king - Philip II choose Aristotle who was at that time a respectable philosopher, but
hardly one of the most prominent, had kinship relations with the Macedonian court
and was familiar with court life due to his previous stay at the court of Hermias of
Atarneus. 50 Among Aristotle 's works, of particular interest are his Politics with its
discussions of sole rulership in general and of kingship in particular,51 the Protrep-
ticus, addressed to an otherwise unknown and possibly invented Cypriot king by
the name of Themison,52 and the treatise On Kingship addressed to Alexander, to-
gether with some other writings for the same addressee.53
45 Isoc. or. 2, 3 and 9; see EUCKEN 1983, 213-269 and see BERTI 1996 who underlines the rivalry
between Isoerates and the philosophers in Athens as one of the incentives for addressing writ-
ings to Cypriot rulers.
46 !soc. epist. 2, 3, 4 and 5. On the first letter to Philip (epist. 2), see Perlman 1969; the authentic-
ity of the second Jetter to Philip (epist.3) has been doubted - see MARZI 1994.
47 On lsoerates' letter to Alexander (epist. 5), see MERI.AN 1954, 60-65.
48 On Isocrates and the idea of Panhel!enism, see BRINGMANN 1965, 19-27 and USHER 1994; on
the background, see FLOWER 2000.
49 On lsocrates' ideas about monarchy, see BRJNGMANN 1965, 103-108 and KEHL 1962.
50 On ".'1"istotle's famil~ background, see e. g. TRAMPEDACH 1994, 49- 52; as to the teacher-pupil-
relat10n between Aristotle and Alexander, sec DORING 1957, 284-288 with a list of the most
relevant sources and see BROCKER 1966 and LANE Fox 1973, 53- 60.
51 See. Arist. Pol. 1279a22- b 10 and esp. 1284b35-1288b6. On Aristotle's concept of kingship in
the Politics, sec VANOER WAERD'f I 985; NEWELL 1991; CARLIER 1993 and NAGLE 2000.
52 The text of the Protrepticus is lost and can be reconstructed only through the works of other
ancient authors, most importantly Iamblichus' Protrepticus. See DURING 1961, esp. 43-170 on
the text; for a new reconstruction of the text, see SCHNEEWEISS 2005 (with commentary and
German translation). On Themision, addressee according to Arist. Protr. A I During = Protr.
frg. 1 Ross = frg. 50 Rose3 = frg. 54.34-42 Gigon ap. Teles, p. 46.4-9 Hense2 = frg . IVB
[p. 426.12- 17] Fuentes Gonzales ap. Stob. 4.32.21 rv, p. 786. 1-4] Hense, see DURING 196 1
173-175.
53 First and foremost, Alexander or On Colonies, attested in Diog. Laert. 5.22 and mentioned by
Johannes Philoponus (Arist. test. 16.4 [p. 76.23- 26] Gigon = peri basileias test. 3 [p. 61-621
Ross = peri basileia.1· test. 1 Ip. 408] Rose3 ap. Philop. LPs.-Ammon.] in Cat. praef. 7r, 10-1 2 [=
Writing down the King 173
All these writings can be divided into two groups: the ones that include reflec-
tions on monarchy in the framework of constitutional discussions and the ones that
present directly a concept of the good ruler, like Xenophon's Agesilaus and Cyro-
paedia or Isocrates' writings. The former, with the exception of Aristotle's, are pre-
sented formally as discussions between various interlocutors. They can be struc-
tured as dialogues throughout, as for example in the case of Plato and Xenophon's
Hiero, or use the dialogical form only for the constitutional discussion, as in the
case of Herodotus' Constitutional Debate. The dialogic form makes it possible to
avoid a stable conclusion and at the same time to depict certain positions as stronger
or weaker in their articulation; furthermore, it is difficult to associate securely the
author with any position.54
At this point, it is worth emphasizing that there are different types of writings
addressed directly to rulers: besides the treatises On Kingship, the topic of the cur-
rent investigation, there exist other forms of writings which were addressed directly
to rulers, were meant for implementation, and referred or reacted to current events
and circumstances. 55 Beside these political advisory letters, there are letters which
also include advise to rulers, but play on a level that cannot be called strictu sensu
political in terms of their primary concern. 56 Finally, the sources refer on various
occasions to private correspondence between rulers and protagonists of the Greek
intellectual life, a very important exchange in performative terms, whose contents
are, however, mostly unknown. 57 In spite of the differences between these writings
addressed directly to rulers and the treatises On Kingship, as will become evident in
the subsequent considerations they, too, are part of the broader communication be-
tween protagonists of the Greek intellectual life and rulers in front of the Greek
pu blic.
CIAG Xlll.l , p . 3.22-24 Busse l). Whether two passages of Plutarch (nzor. 3298) and Strabo
(1.4.9) go back to this Aristotelian work is as controversial as their interpretation; see BADIAN
1958 and S0Ro1 1984. Other writings of Aristotle, especially letters, are addressed to Alexan-
der: most notably, the so-called ' Arabian Letter ' , whose authenticity is doubtful. For an edition
and translation, see BIELAWSKI and PLEZ[A 1970; see also STERN 1968; PLEZIA 1969- 70;
CARLIER 1980; WEIL 1985 and PRANDI 1998.
54 See BAKHTIN 198 1.
55 Such as Isocrates' letters to Philip 11 (epist. 2 and 3).
56 An example could be the famous Leiter to Philip of Spe usippus, which contains ostensibly first
and foremost a recommendation fo r an otherwise unknown historian Antipater of Magnesia.
On this le tter, whose authenticity is hotly disputed, see the fu ndamental work of B1cKERMANN
- and SYKUTRIS 1928; see also BERTELLT 1976; BERTELLT 1977; ThAMPEDACH 1994, 138-140;
PANZRAM and PINA POLO 2001 and NATOLI 2004.
' 57 In spite of being a forgery, the correspondence between Zeno of Cilium and Antigonus Gonatas
transmitted by Diogenes Laertius and originating from Apollonius of Tyre's work On Zeno, is
an instrnctive example; see the convincing remarks by LAPIN! 1996, but see also, with a differ-
ent view, GRILLI 1963 and SONNABEND 1996, 254-255 .
174 Matthias Haake
III
The best way of starting a discussion of the Hellenistic treatises On Kingship is to
consider their authors. They belong to a clearly defined group: they are all and ex-
clusively philosophers. 58 This cannot be accidental. The question then becomes,
what was it that predestined philosophers to writing treatises On Kingship. It is im-
mediately clear that a list of authors amounts to a 'who's who' of Hellenistic phi-
losophy. Besides the already mentioned Aiistotle, Xenocrates, Anaxarchus and
Theophrastus, the Stoics Persaeus of Citium, 59 Cleanthes of Assos 60 and Sphaerus
of Borysthenes 61 as well as the Peripatetic Strato of Lampsacus 62 and the Megarian
Euphantus of Olynthus63 authored treatises On Kingship, too. To be sure, all that is
extant of these treatises is the title and the number of books that comprised them,
quoted in Diogenes Laertius' authors catalogues. Even Epicurus is on record as the
author of a treatise On Kingship. 64 This list shows immediately that composing
treatises of this kind was not the prerogative of one or more specific philosophical
school(s) and accordingly it had no connection with any specific philosophical
persuasion: 65 it was a general phenomenon in the late fourth and in the third centu-
58 For overviews of Hellenistic philosophers who wrote treatises On Kingship, see VIRGILIO 2003,
46-52 (who wrongly attributes one also to Heracleides Ponticus), MURRAY 2007, 17-21 and
STROOTMAN 2007 , 228-230. LEUTERITZ 1997, 23-37 is highly problematic.
59 SVF I Pers. Stoic. frg. 435 ap. Diog. Laert. 7.36.
60 SVF I Cleanth. Stoic. frg. 481 ap. Diog. Laert. 7.175.
61 SVFI Sphaer. Stoic. frg. 620 ap. Diog. Laert. 7.178.
62 Strato Perip. frg. 141 Wehrli ap. Diog. Laert. 5.59.
63 Euphant. Megar. frg. 68 Doring = FGrH 74 T 1 = 1)·GF I frg. 118 Snell ap. D.L. 2.110. On
Euphantus, who wrote also tragedies and a work on contemporary history, see JACOBY in FGrH
TIC, lJ 3-115; HORNBLOWER 1981 , 252-254 and MULLER 2000.
64 Epicur., p. 94, IX frg. 5 Usener = r9J 2Arrighetti ap. Plut. mor. 1095C; see also Diog. Laert.
10.28, where Epicurus' treatise On Kingship is mentioned in Diogenes Laertius ' catalogue rai-
sonne of the works of Epicurus. The interpretation of Plut. mor. 1095C is controversial; see
GIGANTE and DORANDl 1980, 487-496; FOWLER 1989, 129-133; MURRAY 1996, 20-21;
SCHOLZ 1998, 276-278 and in general ADAM 1974, 44-45. For my point of view, see HAAKE
2003, 119- 121 n. 80. McCONNELL 2010 offers a general outline of 'Epicureans on Kingship'
that is, however, not entirely convincing.
65 I leave out four texts that are often considered as Hellenistic treatises On Kingship par excel-
lence, but are in fact later and reflect a different historical context, namely the pseudo-Pythag-
orean treatises On Kingship that go under the names of Pseudo-Ecphantus, Pseudo-Diotogenes
and Pseudo-Sthenidas and Philodemus of Gadara 's On the Good King According to Homer. For
the texts of the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises, see Ps.-Ecphantus, pp. 25.1-37.4 Delatte =
pp. 79.1-84.8 Thesleff ap. Stob. 4.6.64-66 [IV, pp. 271.13-279.20] Hense; Ps.-Diotogenes,
pp. 37.5-45.11 Delatte= pp. 71.15-75.16 Thesleff ap. Stob. 4.7.61-62 [IV, pp. 263.14-270.11 l
Hense and Ps.-Sthenidas, pp. 45.I2-46.12 Delatte= pp. 187.8-188.13 Thesleff ap. Stob. 4.7.63
[IV, pp. 270.12- 271.12] Hense. These treatises have been assigned dates ranging from the third
century BCE to the third century CE, but their concept of rulership fits better a Roman Imperial
context, see HAAKE 2003, 121-122 n. 88 and also MAZZA 1974, 35-42. For discussions of
their chronology, see GOODENOUGH 1928, 59-78; DELATTE 1942, 59-163; THESLEFF 1961,
30-41; BURKERT 1972, 48-55 ; THESLEFF 1972; SQUlLLONl 1991, 35-60; BERTELLI 2002,
43-54; CENTRONE 2005, 571 - 575; MURRAY 2007, 17 with 28 11. 14 and ANDORLIN[ and L u -
Writing down the King 175
ry. 6?Accordingly, the idea often voiced in modern scholarship that certain philoso-
phers composed their treatises On Kingship based on preferences for specific kings
or dynasties appears to be unfounded. The same can be said for the notion that the
various schools had a precise orientation in regard to the vaiious Hellenistic
monarchies,67 a notion that is itself based on a postulate that cannot be proved,
namely that each school had a fundamental and essentially consistent political ori-
entation. 68
The second step consists in identifying the addressees of the treatises On King-
ship. As in the case of the author, the category of the addressees is clearly identified:
these treatises are always addressed to a king,69 but they are neither gifts of the
philosophers70 nor commissioned by the kings. 71 This is often made clear in the
titles of the various works, in which the name of a king is mentioned, as in the case
of Cassander, who shows up explicitly as the addressee of Theophrastus' On King-
ship in its very title. 72 In vaiious cases, the addressees are known even though their
names are not attested in the titles; a clear example is that of the Megaric philoso-
pher Euphantus of Olynthus, whose treatise was addressed to Antigonus Gona-
tas.73 Considering the list of the kings who were addressees of treatises On King-
ISELLJ 2011, 159-160. The treatise On Kingship by Pseudo-Diotogenes should probably be
dated around the beginning of the Common Era; see ANDORLINI and LUISELLI 2001, esp. 160-
161 (based on P.Bingen 3 = P.Med. inv.71.86f.; see DARJS 2000), which would suggest a similar
date also for Pseudo-Ecphantus and Pseudo-Sthenidas, in which case all these texts should be
seen as reactions of Greek writers to the establislunent of Augustus' autocracy after the battle
of Actium in 27. Philodcmus' On the Good King According to Homer, preserved in a papyrus
from Herculaneum (P.Herc. 1507) and dedicated by Pbilodemus to his patron L. Calpurnius
Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58), belongs in a Roman re publican, not in a Hellenistic context. For the
text (with commentary and Italian translation), see DORANDI 1982; see also FlsH 2002. The
meaning and intention of this text as well as its date are controversial; see MURRAY 1965; Gr-
GANTE 1984; MURRAY 1984; ASMIS 1991; BENFERHAT 2005, 219-229; DESANCTIS 2008 and
GANGLOFF2011, 106-lll;seealso HAAKE2003, 134-135n.184.
66 The only known treatise On Kingship whose author may not have been a philosopher and
whose date may not fall within the late fourth and third century is a treatise by an otherwise
unknown Theopompus registered in a Rhodian library catalogue dating to about 100; see Mai-
uri, Nuova Si/loge 11, col. I.28-29 as well as SEGRE 1935, 215 and HAAKE 2003, 123 n. 99 with
further references. In the catalogue, Theopompus is qualified as allos, presumably to distin-
guish him from the homonymous historian of Chios, some of whose rhetorical works are listed
immediately before the treatise On Kingship. See JACOBY in FGrH Il C, p. 354 and FLOWER
1994, 26-27. A small papyrus fragment, P.Schub. 35 (see FROSEN and WESTMAN 1997, 8-15),
dating to the first century, has been interpreted as part of a treatise On Kingship (FRASER 1972,
702 n. 58 and see also SrnEBOTTOM 2006, 129 n. 12), but not enough of the text is preserved to
tell for sure.
67 See e.g. ADAM 1970, 12-14.
68 See HAAKE 2003, 121 n. 83.
69 In this sense, see also MURRAY 1998, 263.
70 See, however, STROOTMAN 2007, 228.
71 Pace SCHOLZ 1998, 370-37 1.
72 See above, p. 169 with n. 23 and 24.
73 See Euphant. Megar. frg. 68 Doring= FGrH 74 T l = TrGF l frg. 118 Snell ap. Diog. Laert.
2.110.
176 Matthias Haake
ship it can be noticed that there is no clear conce ntration in the case of any single
dynasty. 74 In other words, belonging to a specific dynasty did not make a king more
or less likely to be the addressee of a treatise On Kingship, just as belonging to a
specific school did not make a philosopher more or less likely to write one.
Even though the state of preservation of the Hellenistic treatises On Kingship is
extremely bad, a few aspects of their form and content are reasonably clear. For-
mally, it seems that all these texts were self-contained, with features that remind of
epistolography and of oratory. Their content appears to have remained highly stable
for centuries on end: treatises On Kingship were fundamentally characterized by
the presence of topoi .75 With minor deviations, different authors coming from dif-
ferent philosophical schools all seem to have treated the topic of kingship in a rather
homogeneous manner in the treatises On Kingship. 76 The treatises focus on the
qualities, the aretai, which a good king must be possessed of, including righteous-
ness (dikaiosyne) and generosity (euergesia) towards the poleis of the Greek world,
and more generally philanthropy (philanthropia). 77 These qualities are a minor
image of the typical traits of the tyrant in the imaginaire of the Greeks. After all, in
Xenophon's Hiero the figure of the poet Simonides advises his interlocutor, if he
wants for hi s power to be accepted, to always do the opposite of what the Greeks
actually expected of a tyrant. This observation points to a fundamental fact: the im-
age of the good monarch is no independent construct, on the contrary, it is created
by reversing the traditional negative image of the tyrant. 78
Against this backround, two aspects are fundamental for any understanding of
treatises On Kingship. Firstly, they do not deal primarily with or present a more or
less elaborated theory of monarchy.79 In the fragments that are preserved the re is
nothing to suggest the presence of innovative theoretical concepts in these works.
This of course does not mean that the notions formulated in the m had no theoretical
foundation, but such foundation was not articulated in the treatises the mselves, but
rather in philosophical works devoted to constitutional questions. Secondly, the
treatises do not include an analysis, and actually not even a description of the prac-
°
tice of Hellenistic roy alty. 8 Central aspects of royal action are not mentioned at all,
as for instance the relations between different kings or the interaction between
kings and koina. 81 Nor do treatises On Kingship include suggestions on how to act
in specific circumstances; in this respect, they have no particular hortatory purpose.
74 See, however, ADAM 1970, 14--16.
75 See the outline of 'a typical treatise On Kingship' in MURRAY 2007, 21-26. On the term ' topos'
and its meaning , see the instructive remarks by LOPRIENO 1988, 10- 11.
76 See already HEuss 1955, 211 and, more recently, SCHOFIELD 1999, 743.
77 See e.g. WALBANK 1984, 82-83 and BILLOWS 1995, 57- 58.
78 See also HAAKE 2003, 122 n. 93. In Greek theories of constitutional typology as present espe-
cially in Aristotle's Politics and Nicomachean Ethics tyranny is the opposite or perversion of
kingship; see Pol. 1279b6-7 and above all Eth. Nie. 1'160a36-ll60bl.
79 Contrary to what suggested e. g. by VIRGILIO 2003, 47.
80 In this sense, however, see BARCE!LO 1993, 279.
81 Jn this context, it is worth mentioning that neither of these aspects appears to have received any
attention whatsoever by Greek philosophers.
Writ ing down the King 177
In fact, they simply present the ideal figure of the good king as a factual reality, but,
tellingly, do n ot refer to historical examples. Furthermore, because of the address-
ees, there is no trace of an explicit and argumentative defense of monarchy as the
best constitutional form: 82 in treatises On Kingship monarchy is simply taken for
granted. If the king's counterpart, the tyrant, is present in these work s, the examples
are symptomatically not taken from Greek history, which wo uld have offered a
great deal of suitable illustrative material, but generally from the world of Greek
myth, that was also populated b y numerous striking examples.83
At this point, it is necessary to consider the question of the implied reader of
these treatises, that is, of the audience the author imagines for his w ork, besides its
explicit addressee. Although philosophers dedicated treatises On Kingship to kings,
they were destined to circulation and thus to a w ider readership. A fragment of a
library catalogue from Rhodes, dating from around 100 BCE and including a trea-
tise On Kingship by an otherwise unknown Theop ompus,84 and fragments of
papyri,85 can be taken as indicators of the general public availability and circula-
tion of these works. Literary evidence also indicates occasionally that these writ-
ings circu lated widely and had many readers.86 One aspect that often does not re-
ceive adequate attention is the spread of ideas from the treatises On Kingship to
other literary genres. As examples one might refer to Polybius ' obituary for Attalus
I 87 and to the so-called Letter of Aristeas. 88 Instead of merging all these texts and
passages and subsuming them under the designation 'mirror of princes', a consist-
ent use of the concept of genre makes it possible to consider their homogeneity as
regards their content as a phenomenon of reception of ideas communicated fore-
most by treatises On Kingship, which revert themselves to long established topoi of
the 'good king'. Accordingly, it is possible to gain a sense of the sedimentation of
notions of monarchy as articulated in treatises On Kingship, which reinforces the
impression that these notions enjoyed a wide circulation. The ab undant presence of
topical elements of the image of the good king in inscriptions and papyri is a further
indicator of this situation. 89 For a particularly striking example, we may refer to the
82 See also SCHOFIELD 1999, 743.
83 See e.g. Theophr. frg. 600 Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples and Gutas = P.Oxy. XIII, 1611 frg. 1,
col. II.38--col. III.54.
84 See above, n. 66.
85 Less than one would expect, to be sure. See e.g. the fragment of one of Theophrastus ' treatises
On Kingship in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus (above u. 83). Even though this papyrus dates to the
third century CE, its very existence presupposes an earlier circulation of this text.
86 See e. g. Diogenes Laertius on Euphantus' treatise On Kingship: Euphant. Megar. frg. 68
Doring = FGrH74 T I = TrGF I frg. 118 Snell ap. Diog. Laert. 2 .110.
87 Polyb. 18.41. On this passage, see WELWEI 1963, 99- 104; WALBANK 1967, 603- 604 and
SONNABEND 1992.
88 On the so-called Letter of Aristeas, written in the late second century, but pretending to be writ-
ten during the reign of Ptolemy II, see MOMJGLIANO 1932; MURRAY 1967; MURRAY 1975;
MURRAY 1987; SCHMIDT 1986, esp. l ] l-143; BERTELLI 2002, 33--43 and H UNTER 20 11.
89 For a most valuable collection of sources, see still ScHUBAR'I' 1937 and ScHUBART 1937a,
whose interpretations, however, presuppose a straightforward relation between the sources and
historical reality; see the criticism of GEHRKE in tliis volume.
178 Matthias Haake
famous decree of the Iasians for the Seleucid queen Laodice III, where the follow-
ing is said of her husband Antiochus III: he, "maintaining his ancestral disposition
towards all the Greeks, and bringing peace to some, helping individually and in
common many others who have met with troubles, making some men free instead
of slaves, and believing that the whole of the exercise of kingship [- - - ] towards
the benefaction of men, earlier rescued our city out of slavery and made it free
90
( ... )." All these observations converge towards the conclusion that the implied
readership of the Hellenistic treatises On Kingship was the Panhellenic public of the
poleis.
IV
Considering author, addressee and implied audience of the treatises On Kingship
and keeping in mind that, in terms of contents, these works were neither expected
by the audience nor intended by the authors to include a theory of monarchy or
practical advice for specific situations,91 one wonders what was in fact their actual
purpose and meaning. In view of what has just been said, there is one line of ap-
proach to this question that appears particularly promising, i.e. to consider treatises
On Kingship from the point of view of communication, that is, specifically, of the
communication between philosopher and king in front of the specific audience rep-
resented by the world of the Greek cities. From this angle, author and addressee are
to be viewed not as individuals, but rather as social roles embedded in a specific
context and with their respective cultural semantics. 92 As for the implied audience,
it has to be assessed based on its embeddedness in the ideology of the polis.
Therefore, it is best to start with considering the polis. 93 For the discursive self-
perception of every polis, the ideologemes of eleutheria and autonomia were fun-
damental: they represented the kernel of the self-definition of a polis throughout the
history of ancient Greece. 94 This applies to the Hellenistic period as well,95 even
90 For the Greek text, see I.Iasos 4.41-47; see also BruNGMANN and STEUBEN 1995, 366---371 no.
297, esp. 366---367 col. T.41-47 and MA 2002, 329- 335 no. 26, esp. 331- 332 B (Col. I) 9 (41 )-5
(47) and 333-334 (translation). On this inscription, see also NAFISSJ 2001.
91 Even though treatises On King hip form a very specific type of philosophical literary production,
it is important to keep in mind that in general one of the main characteristics of philosophical
theories in the Greek world is the fact that they were not meant to be implemented; see, as to the
Hellenistic period, GEHRKE 1998 and, more programmatically, GonER 2003, 175.
92 It is essential for an understanding of the discourse that underpins the communication situation
here outlined that the philosopher, the king and the tyrant operate as 'cultural models '; on this
concept see QUINN and HOLLAND, 1987.
93 For a comprehensive overview on the polis see HANSEN 2000.
94 See e. g. EHRENBERG 1965, 107-125, esp. 119 and B1nows 1995, 71. On the ideal image of
the Hellenistic polis see HERRMANN 1984 and DAVIES 1984, 304-315. On the 'Greek slogan of
freedom ', see now also DMITRIEV 2011, esp. 112-144.
95 On the polis in the Hellenistic period in general, see GAUTHI ER 1984; W1LL 1988; GAUTHJER
1993; GIOVANNINI 1993, 268-274; GRUEN 1993a; RHODES with LEWJS 1997, 542- 549; M A
2002, 150-178 and GEHRKE 2003.
Writing down the King 179
though the scope for foreign power politics for the poleis was partially different
from earlier periods and despite the social transformations within the poleis with
their political and constitutional consequences. 96 Indeed, it is possible to observe
that the discursive projection of the polis was florishing in the Hellenistic period
and even later under the Roman empire. 97
Against the background of the ideology of the polis, the image of a powerful
sole ruler always represented radical otherness. One particular species of this im-
age, the tyrant, was seen and depicted as especially virulent and could be actualized
at any time. 98 The discourse of tyranny was crystallized in a cluster of topoi, the
most fundamental of which was the notion that the unlimited power of the one im-
plied slavery for all the other citizens. 99 It is important that precisely this topos
could also be activated in the case of Hellenistic kings. Already Philip II had been
depicted and presented to the public opinion of the Greeks as a tyrant by Dem-
osthenes in his Philippics and in part also by Theopompus of Chios in his History
of Philip. 100 The Funereal Orations of Demosthenes and Hyperides for the soldiers
who fell at Chaeronea and in the Lamian War respectively are explicit on this. 101 As
an example from a later time in the Hellenistic period, one can consider the situa-
tion before the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War in the year 200, when the
Athenians powerfully deployed the topos of the tyrant against the Antigonid king
Philip V and implemented various symbolic actions connected with it. 102
As for the kings, when they were not subsumed under the topos of the tyrant,
they were defined in terms of power, a ubiquitous category in Greek mentality, and
judged based on how they used power and especially on how they dealt with it dis-
96 On the first aspect, see GAUTHIER 1987-1 989 and MA 2000; see also HAAKE 2003, 125 n. 11 5.
Regarding the second point, see QuAss 1993, esp. 81-149; 196---210; 229- 252; 270- 303 and
366---373; GAUTHJER 1990; HABJCHT 1995; HAMON 20 10 and M ANN and SCHOLZ 2012.
97 An eloquent example comes from local historiography, see SCHEPENS 2001, esp. 14. T he same
is true of local historiography in epigraphic form, see BoFFO 1988, 9 and CHANJOTIS 1988,
134-137 and 368-369.
98 On the image of the tyrant in the imaginaire of the Greeks, see LANZA 1977, 33- 222 and
SCHMrn -PA NTEL 1979.
99 See MCGLEW 1993, 214.
100 Theopompus FGrH 115 F 224 ap. Athen. 4. 166f-1 67c, F 225a ap. Polyb. 8.11.5-13 (F 225b
ap. Athen. 6.260d- 26la) and F 236 ap. Athe n. 10.435b-c. On Demosthenes and Philip, see
RYDER 2000; on Theopompus' History of Philip, see CONNOR 1967; SHRJMPTON 1991, 58- 126
and FLOWER 1994, 98-115. On the depiction of Philip in ancient literature in general, see Gou-
KOWSKY 1996.
101 See Dem. or. 60.23-24 and Hyp. Epit. 3, 5, 16, 20, 24, 33 and esp. 39. On Demosthenes' Fu-
neral Speech, see e.g. PRINZ 1997, 252- 271; on the Funeral Speech of Hyperides, see e. g.
PRJNZ 1997, 272- 289.
102 According to Livy (31.44.2-9 and 41.23.1; see BmscoE 1973, 150- 152) the Athenians decided,
inter alia, to erase the names of the Antigonids from all inscriptions, to abolish all cults, festi-
vals, and priesthoods instituted in honor of Phi lip V and his ancestors, j ust as the tribes Antigo-
nis and Demetrias, instituted a century earlier, and to demolish all monuments erected in their
honor. On the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War and the symbolic acts performed by the
Athenians in this context, see H ABICHT 2006, 21 5-225 and BYRNE 20 10 .
180 Matthias Haake
cursively. 103 The categorization of Hellenistic monarchy as a form of charismatic
rule in Max Weber's sense makes it possible to explain the central aspects of the
figure of the Hellenistic king. 104 The charisma of the king, whose ultimate power
base was the army and whose most important supporters were his philoi, 105 mani-
fested itself nowhere as clearly as in his military victmiousness.106 However, the
king did not need to legitimize his position only in war and vis-a-vis the army. 107
Next to the inhomogenous, often non-Greek groups of subjects, which constituted
a central element in the Hellenistic kingdoms and which required diverse strategies
of legitimization,108 an important political instance the Hellenistic king needed to
deal with were the Greek cities, and given the ideology of the polis as outlined
above, this was by no means an easy undertaking. 109 Even though the poleis could
recognize the power of the kings, and even though a victorious ruler enjoyed a sig-
nificant degree of prestige from their point of view, too, a certain ambivalence was
inevitable, especially when the victories had been obtained at the expense of the
'wrong' foe, that is, generally speaking, of other Greek cities. In other words, one
of the central problems of the Hellenistic era was the fact that the poleis needed to
come to terms with a kind of power which they were preconditioned to regard as the
enemy par excellence: the monarch. 110
The mediation took place not only in the field of practical politics, but also in
the framework of a highly elaborate form of communication, which consisted
largely of symbolic practices. From the point of view of the ruler, the main elements
were acts of euergetism for the poleis 1ll and in part also the so-called 'royal
103 On the Greek concept of power, see GOTTER 2008, 183-199. On the Hellenistic king, see PRE-
AUX 1976; PREAUX 1978, 181- 294; GEHRKE in this volume; GRUEN 1996; MA 2003 and also
MOLLER 2011; further references in HAAKE 2003, 127 11. 130.
104 On Weber's typology of legitimate rule, see WEBER 1972, 122-176, esp. 140-148 for the con-
cept of charismatic rule. Essential for the conceptualization of Hellenistic monarchy as charis-
matic rule is GEHRKE in this volume; see also GOTTER 2008a, 176--178 and AusTIN 1986.
105 See e.g. AUSTIN I986, 462, with evidence showing the importance of the triad king-friends-
army. As an example, see I.Priene 15.6--7 = OGIS 12.6--7 = RC 6.6-7 (about 286/5). On the
Hellenistic king and his army, see CHANIOTIS 2005, 62-68; on the king's philoi, see above
p. 166 11. 5.
106 See Gehrke's contribution in this volume.
107 See CANIOTIS 2005, 62; see also the remarks by HAAKE 2003, 127- 128 n. 133.
108 See SEIBERT 1991, esp. 90 and HERZ 1996 as well as in particular MA 2003, 179-183 and GOT-
TER 2008a, 185.
109 On the interaction between the Hellenistic kings and the poleis, see BILLOWS 1995, 70-80;
CHANIOTIS 2005, 68-71; GEHRKE 2008, 50-51 and 176-179 and most recently STROOTMAN
2011. Eric Gruen brings it concisely to the point: "Two basic problems confronted the Greek
kings: the fact that they were Greek and the fact that they were kings." (GRUEN 1993, 4).
110 On monarchy in Greek history in general and the antinomy of polis and king, see GAUTHIER
1986 with a focus on the Greek history since the fourth century. For a general account of mon-
archy in the ideology of the polis of the fifth century, see TouRRAIX 1991 and see particularly
on fifth-century Athens and monarchy BRAUND 2000; see also ThAMPEDACH 2006.
111 On royal euergetism in the Hellenistic world, see AMELING 1987; BR!NGMANN and STEUBEN
1995; HAHICHT 1997; BRINGMANN 2000; SCHMIDT-DOUNAS 2000 and MA 2002, 182- 194 on
the 'language of euergetism'.
Writing down the King 181
correspondence'.ll 2 The royal letters to the poleis were a gesture often meant to
situate the communication on a specific plane, that of an exchange among equals.
On the level of content, the kings could employ notions that were articulated in the
treatises On Kingship. 113 The publication of the letters in epigraphic form by the
poleis monumentalized and preserved them, showing that the poleis attributed some
importance to them: display and preservation in a public context, often in central
places of the city, were gestures as meaningful as the text itself, and formed part of
the communication between king and polis but also between the polis and other
political entities. 114 Furthermore, the publication of royal letters also contributed to
the self-representation as well as to the self-perception of the polis. The tenor and
specific contents of these letters varied according to the political situation, and it
could be stated, simplifying radically, that the stronger the king, the less he needed
to pay attention to the discourse of good kingship. 115 The poleis on their part repaid
the kings by repeatedly conferring upon them various types of honors, 11 6 often cul-
tic ones, which enabled the poleis to integrate the honored kings in the respective
poliad 'world-system' by accepting and making acceptable their superior position
of power without incorporating them in the political community. 117 It is precisely in
this context of acts of communication between Greek citites and Hellenistic kings,
ultimately always precarious, that the treatises On Kingship belong, too. 118
From this angle, what profit could a king derive from demonstrative communi-
cation with a philosopher? First of all, it is necessary to remember that this com-
munication was pe1formed in front of a Panhellenic audience which was inclined to
see in every king a tyrant. Contrasting this anathemization must have been an es-
sential priority in the actions of the king towards the poleis, and here the figure of
the philosopher had a decisive function. As a social configuration, the philosopher
was connected especially closely to the polis. 119 This kind of political environment
was the habitat in which the philosopher had originally emerged and existed ever
since. To outline the process of origin and development of this human type would
require a comprehensive overview of the pre-Hellenistic ages, which is not feasible
I 12 For collection of royal letters, outdated but still authoritative, see C.B . Welles' RC; see also
WILHELM 1943. On the function, the function ing and the semantics of the royal correspon-
dance, see BERTRAND 1990; MA 2002, 179-182; CECCARELLI 2005, 361-366; MARI 2009;
VIRGILIO 2009 and VIRGILIO 20 11, 22-75.
113 See R EUSS 1954, 75-77.
114 On this, see BENCIVENNI 20 10 [201 1).
115 See Sc HUBART 1920, 327 and MA 2002, 235-242.
116 See KoTsmu 2000 for a comprehensive collection of evidence for honors awarded to Hellenis-
tic kings by Greek cities. On early Hellenistic Athens and her interaction with kings, see
KRALL! 2000, Jl4-120. It is important to underline that citizen rights were never a warded by
poleis to any Hellenistic king from one of the major dynasties; see GAUTHIER 1985, 208- 209.
117 On religious honors awarded to Hellenistic kings by poleis, see the seminal work by HABICHT
1970, esp. 129-242; see also PRICE 1984, 23-40; WALBANK 1987; MA 2002, 219-226 and
CHANIOTIS 2003.
118 One important if hitherto rather overlooked aspect is the visit of a king in a polis ; see PERRIN-
SAM!NAIJAYAR 2009, 67-80.
119 See also HAAKE 2007, 283.
182 Matthias Haake
here. 120 Yet, it is important to point out that by the beginning of the Hellenistic age
the role of the philosopher was well-established and accompanied by specific social
expectations. 121 In modern terms, Greek philosophers were ' intellectuals ', and in
the constmction of their social role the opposition of inte11ect and power was es-
sential. 122 Just as the polis was perceived as the archetypical Greek form of political
organization, 123 the philosopher, too, because of the very fact that his roots were in
the world of the polis, 124 was seen as an icon of Greekness and of Greek culture.125
Thus, on a conceptual level, the philosopher, as the personification of Hellenicity
par excellence, was the adversary of the king, who stood for plain otherness. 126
Of central importance for the production and the semantics of treatises On
Kingship is a virtue that was attributed especially to the philosopher, the parrhesia
or freedom of speech. 127 The notion originated from the political context, 128 and it
was seen as a fundamental right, or privilege, of the free citizen. 129 In the course of
a process determined by historical factors, parrhesia was transformed from a po-
120 See e. g. CAMlllANO 1983, 3-4.
121 See DECLEVA CA!ZZI 1993, 35- 307 and KURHONEN 1997, 33- 36 and 73-74.
122 For a detailed analysis, see HA AKE 2003, 97-100; regarding the ancient world , see LA PENNA
1990; DESIDERI 1991 , esp. 135 and GABBA 1998. See also DORANDI 2005. In order to concep-
tualize the figure of the intellectual as a Weberian ideal type (WEBER 1972, 3; 4 and 10), two
aspec ts are of cmcial importance. First, in the words of MERTON 1968, 263: "It sho uld be noted
that 'the intellectual ' refers to a sociaJ role and not to a total person. Although this role overlaps
in various occupational roles, it needs not coincide with these." Secondly, in the words of
BoURDIEU 1992, 186- 187: "L' intellectuel se constitue comme tel en intervenant dans le champ
politique au nom de l'autonomie ct des valeurs specifiques d'un champ de production culturelle
a a
parvenue un haut degre d 'independance l'egard des pouvoi.rs (et non, comme l'homme
politique afort capital culture!, sur la base d'une autorite propreme nt politique, acquise au prix
a
d ' un re noncement la carrie re et aux vale urs intellec tuelles)." See also the instructive re marks
Oil the intellectual by OEVERMANN 2003.
123 See e.g. M URRAY 2000, esp. 238-239.
124 This has also been pointed out by PREAUX 1978, 227.
125 Rather surprisingly, this central aspect of the cultural semantics of the image for the G reek
philosopher has not been investigated in depth; in this sense, see also DECLEVA CAIZZI 1993,
305. Relevant on this topic is the bon mot attributed to the scholarch of the Academy Lacydes
of Cyrene, who supposedly replie d to an invitation by King Attalus I saying that a statue is best
looked at from a distance (T la Mette ap . Diog. Lae rt. 4.60).
126 The juxtaposition translated itself into iconography: SMITH 1993 has convincingly shown that
statues of philosophers, in spite of unde niable differe nces, be longed together with statues of
citizens in terms of iconography and constituted an antipole to the Hellenistic rulers' statues;
see also Z ANKER 1995, 131-133.
127 See e.g. Plat. Gorg. 461e and Suid., s. v. JtO.QQ110 LCt; for a conceptual connection betwee n eleu-
theria andparrhesia, see also Democr. 68 B 226 DK ap. Stob. 3.13.47 [III, p. 463.8-10] Hense.
On parrhesia , see PETERSON 1929; SCARPAT 1964, 11- 69 and M OMIGLIANO 1971, 517-520
and now also M URRAY 2007, 21 and 26. At the ve ry end of his life, Michael Fouca ult exhaus-
tively dealt with parrhesia, 'franc-parler', in various lecture series, which are fu ll of important
insights; see FOUCAULT 2001; FOUCAULT 2008 and FOUCAULT 2009.
128 See RAAFLAUB 2004, esp. 223- 225.
129 As shown clearly in a fragment attributed to Sophocles (1)-GF IVS. inc. fab. **927a Radt =
TGrF V Adespota 554 Nauck2 ap. Stob. 3.13.16 [lll, p. 456. l 0-1 lJ Hense) and in the On Exile
Writing down the King 183
litical prerogative to a personal virtue 130 - a transformation that cannot be followed
in detail due to the scarcity of evidence. 131 Parrhesia played an important role for
Aristotle 132 and occupied a central position in Hellenistic philosophy, 133 becoming
a specific and almost essential trait of the philosopher, 134 which could characterize
him but could also be held against him as a standard against which he needed to
measure. 135 An extremely telling example of the relationship of philosophers and
parrhesia appears in an Athenian decree from the year 226/5 for the Peripatetic
philosopher Prytanis of Carystus, who, in a historical situation that was precarious
fo r Athens, represented Athenian interests withparrhesia during an embassy to the
Macedonian king Antigonus Doson. 136
Now, an aspect of the standard image of the tyrant was the fact that he could not
tolerate any free speech; he was supposed to react to it by losing control of his
nerves and having the philosopher tortured and executed, thus providing him the
occasion to show his bravery in front of his tormentors. 137 The symbolic impact of
the treatises On Kingship hits precisely this neuralgic point: by accepting the writ-
of the Cynic Teles (p. 23.4-7 Hense 2 = frg. 3 [p. 276.1-3] Fuentes Gonzales ap. Stob. 3.40.8
[III, p. 739.1 8-740.3] Hense).
130 See MOMIGLJANO 1973, 260.
131 Decisive steps in the process are re presented by Isocrates, who established a stronger connec-
tion with moral aspects and linked closely parrhesia with philia (or. 2.3), and Demosthenes,
who connected parrhesia with aletheia (23.204.2); on De mosthe nes and parrhesia see CARMr-
GNATO 1998.
132 Aristotle uses parrhesia with a descriptive meaning and a positive connotation, as the free
speech in front of the tyrant (Ath . Pol. 16.6), which can be repressed out of fear of the tyrant
(Pol. 13 13bl 1-16), in connection with his concept of philia (Eth. Nie . 1165a29-30) and finally
as the openness of the opponent (Rhet. 1382bl8-20).
133 See PETERSON 1929, 286- 287.
134 See the programmatic statement in Philodemus' On Frankness in Speech (Lib . die. frg . 1.5- 7
Olivieri): * x a86-16 A.01! ,:' btma.ggrima~e,:m I oocp6£ xa.l cj>LA.6oocpo£ avf]g, ... - "And, in
general, a wise man and philosopher speaks frankly . . ." (transl. by D. Konstan, D. Clay, C. E .
Glad, J.C. Thom and J. Ware). As M oMIGLIANO 1971, 519 put it: "Parrhesia divento una virtu
di fi losofi." On Philodemus' On Frankness in Speech, see GIGANTE 1972; GIGANTE 1983 and
GLAD 1996.
135 On this aspect in Roman Imperial and Late Antique ti.mes respectively, see DIEFENBACH 2000,
104-106 and BROWN 1992, 6 1-70.
136 Agora XVI 224 = /SE 28, 11. 20-2 1. For a detailed analysis, see HAAKE 2007, 89-99.
137 On this topic, ubiquitous in ancient literature, and its meaning in general, ALFOLDI 1958 is still
worth reading; more recently, DIEFENBACH 2000, 101-106 and RAJAK 2007, 110-113. The
best-known examples of philosophers cruelly tortured by tyrants are Zeno of Elea and Anaxar-
c hus of Abdera - especially striking is the de piction in Valerius Maximus (3.3, ext. 2-4), based
on Hellenistic sources. On m otifs and details see DORANDI 1994; BERNARD 1984; PRIEST 1978,
66- 67 and G RONEWALD 1978. Timotheus of Pergamum, on whose personality and date not
much is known (see RA DICKE in FGrH IVA 7, 466-467), wrote a whole work entitled On the
Bravery of Philosophers, whose topic was their manly behavior confronting cruel tyrants
(FGrH 1117 F 1 ap. Clem. Al. Strom. 4.56.2). Ammianus Marcellinus still used the motif of
torturing philosophers in orde r to brand Roman emperors as tyrants, see ROTA 1996 and
DIEFENBACH 2000, 103- 104. L ike the de ath of the tyrant (on which see LURAGHI in this vol-
ume), the de ath of the philosopher was also a motif with a c lear meaning; see JERPHAGON 1981.
 184 Matthias Haake
ing of a character who, in the eyes of the audience, is predestined by his social role
to provide advice, the monarch shows himself as the opposite of the tyrant. The
relationship between ruler and philosopher embodies the symbiosis of intellect and
power: if Plato in his Republic was voicing the radical demand that the philosopher
should become ruler or the ruler philosopher, 138 Aristotle diverged from him sig-
nificantly on this point, proposing that the rulers should gather philosophers as their
advisers. 139 This view was probably voiced in Aristotle's treatise On Kingship and
was destined to have a very successful career in the Hellenistic age. 140 Even if trea-
tises On Kingship did not contain specific advice for rulers, but only a general de-
piction of the good king, they belonged precisely in the conceptual context Aristotle
thought of. The combination of the philosopher giving advice and the king listening
determined their cultural semantics.
Such a configuration had positive implications for the king for one further rea-
son. A typical trait of the Greek tyrant was his boundless suspiciousness towards
everybody, and especially towards his friends. 141 Hellenistic rulers were surrounded
by a circle of philoi who served as advisers, projecting a decidedly different image,
reinforced by the presence of philosophers among them, 142 in spite of the fact that
in theory life at court was seen by Greek philosophers as incompatible with the
practice of philosophy. 143 The notion that a ruler should take advice also from intel-
lectuals was commonplace in the Hellenistic age. 144
Finally, it is important to mention one aspect that does not tend to receive much
attention. Writing a treatise On Kingship and addressing it to a king was also a way
for a philosopher to promote himself, acquiring prestige vis-a-vis the audience of
the Greek poleis and within the highly competitive and contentious community of
the philosophers.
138 Plat. Rep. 473c--e; see above on p. 171.
139 Contra RAWSON 1989, 233, who sees no clear difference between the two positions.
140 See AALDERS 1975, 75- 77. Aristotle's treatise remained influential well be yond the Hellenistic
period: Themistius quoted it in his speech delivered on the occasion of the quinquennial cele-
brations of the emperors Valentinian I and Valens, in a military camp atMarcianopolis in Moe-
sia Inferior in 368 CE, Them. or. 8.107c--d (= Arist. frg. 982 Gigon = peri basileias frg. 2
[p. 62] Ross= frg. 647 Rose3). On the context ofThemistius' speech see CHASTAGNOL 1987
and VANDERSPOEL 1995, 168.
141 Arist. Pol. 1313b29-31 ; on this aspect, see SCHUTRUMPF and GEHRKE 1996, 587.
142 Examples include the Stoic Persaeus of Citium (see below p. 179), the Epicureans Philonides
of Laodicea (see HAAKE 2007, 148-159) and Diogenes of Selcucia (see SAVA LLI-LESTRADE
1998, 75-76 no. 75), the Academics Diodorus of Adramyttium (see FERRARY 1988, 483 and
SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998, 174-175 no. 6) and Metrodorus of Scepsis (see FERRARY 1988, 228-
229 and 483--484 and SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998, 181-182 no. 10). On the Hellenistic king's
philoi in general, see above p. 166.
143 See e.g. Philod. Hist. Stoic. col. 13.4-7 Dorandi with SCHOLZ 1998, 323 n. 23 and BOLLANSEE
2000, esp. 24.
144 On this aspect, see GABBA 1984.
Writing down the King 185
V
Treatises On Kingship occupied a clearly defined social space in the constantly
volatile structure of the communication between kings and Greek cities in the Hel-
lenistic world. Even though these treatises had no direct and immediate conse-
quences on the level of political practice, their di scursive effectiveness can hardly
be overestimated, in so far as this allowed a Hellenistic ruler to project an image
that satisfied such discursive standards. 145
This point can be illustrated with a strik ing example. Probably no other Hel-
lenistic king was capable in the long run to play this part better than Antigonus
Gonatas. Not only in antiquity he enjoyed a flawless reputation after his death and
was seen as a 'philosopher-king'; even in modern research his image is predomi-
nantly positive, in agreement with the later ancient tradition. 146 Antigonus' connec-
tions of different character to many philosophers, such as the Citian Stoics Zeno
and Persaeus and Menedemus of Eretria, to mention but a few, are attested by an-
cient authors, and by and large their evidence can be accepted as reliable, even
though in detail not every single element is trustworthy. 147 Whether such connec-
tions had any impact on Gonatas' politics is a topic that cannot be discussed here in
detail, but a cursory examination fails to produce any political action that could be
explained or even only described as philosophically inspired. Key to Antigonus'
image as ' philosopher-king' is the description of monarchy as a ' noble servitude '
which is attributed to him. 148 Even though the attribution of this statement to Gona-
tas may be unfounded, it has still to be admitted that, at the time when it was at-
tributed to the Macedonian king and thereafter, it was seen as plausible for him to
have pronounced such a statement. Sure enough, it is possible to point to various
sources contemporary to Antigonus and also to some later pieces of evidence which
suggest a not very positive image of this king. 149 Although such evidence has re-
ceived due attention by modern research, it has had no real impact on the overall
145 Similar considerations, with differences in nuances and in reference to the Roman empire, in
DIEFENBACH 2000, 105.
146 Striking e xamples include the chapter entitled " Die makedonischen Herrscher und der 'Phi-
losophenkonig' Antigonos Gonatas" in LEVTERITZ 1997, 50-61 and GREEN 1990, 143 calling
Gonatas" the firs t Stoic king". On Antigonus in the early historiographical sources, see TARN
1913, 410--414.
147 On Zeno, see ERSKINE 2011a, 79-84 and PASCHm1s 2008, 172 n. 2; on Persaeus, see BoLLAN-
SEE 2000 and ERSKINE 20 l l, Oil Menedemus, see PASCHIDIS 2008, 452--456. On Antigonus'
connec tions to philosophers in general, see e.g. TARN 19 13, 223-256 (partly outdated) and
LANE Fox 2011 , 508-509 who, in spite of HAAKE 2004 and HAAKE 2007, 118-129, is con-
vinced that the text of an Athenian honorary decree for Zeno of Citum transmitted by Diogenes
Laertius (7.10-12) represents an authentic Athenian document "proposed at Antigonos' instiga-
tion".
148 Ael. VH 2.20; on this expression, sec VOLKMANN 1967 and VIRGILIO 2003, 67-68.
149 ln this respect, two extremely tell ing examples are the Chremonides decree (Sy/L.3 434/435 =
JG IF 686 + 687) and the decree for Glauco (ETIENNE and P!ERART 1975, 5 1-53); see most
recently HAAKE 201 1, 119 with further references.
 186 Matthias Haake
image of this king. 150 This is surprising at first, considering that Gonatas, in the
pursuit of his power politics and in the strategies that were meant to secure his influ-
ence, made ample recourse to actions that in the eyes of the Greeks could not but be
seen as tyrannical: one thinks of his treatment of Athens after the Chremonidean
War, of the Macedonian garrison on the Acrocorinth, of the control on the Gulf of
Euboea through the fortress of Chalcis and of Demetrias in Thessaly, ' the fetters of
Greece' , 151 or finally of his way of securing control over various poleis in the Pelo-
ponnese by imposing tyrants loyal to him. 152 All this would have been amply suf-
ficient to permanently brand a Hellenistic ruler in the collective memory of the
Greeks - one only has to think of Gonatas' father Demetrius Poliorcetes. 153 Even
the opinion, long cherished by modern research, that because of his philosophical
attitude Gonatas refused divine honors 154 has been endly dispelled by an inscription
found in the sanctuary of Nemesis at Rhamnous. 155 Beyond doubt, the most impor-
tant element in the legitimization of Antigonus' power had nothig philosophical
about it: it was his victory over the Celts at Lysimachia in 279 - the proof of his
victoriousness: 156 this was the foundation of his rule over Macedonia and of his at-
tempt at propagating the notion of his charisma throughout the Greek world, 157 al-
though in later times this episode moved rather to the background. 158 In spite of
various aspects of his politics which should have undermined his image, Antigonus
Gonatas succeeded in constructing a positive image of his person by referring dis-
coursively to elements of the reasoning in treatises On Kingship.
VI
In terms of contents, the treatises On Kingship employed the vocabulary of political
communication between Hellenistic kings and Greek cities. They were program-
matic in discursive terms, but did not offer instructions, let alone recommendations
150 As a representative example, see GABBERT 1997.
151 For.the expression 'fetters of Greece', see Polyb. 18.11.5 with WALBANK 1967, 563 ad Loe.
152 See FELLMANN 1930, 47-5 1 and 57-63.
153 On the image of Demetrius Poliorcetes, see ELKELES 1941 , 84-87; MASTROCINQUE 1979 and
DURAN MANAS 2005, 48-52.
154 See e.g. EosoN 1958, 63 n. 16; GREEN 1990, 143 and KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI 1998, 406;
but see HABICHT 1970, 64-73; 79- 81 and 256-257.
155 Petrakos, ,1rjµor:;wv Paµvovvw r:; 117. On this inscription, see HABICHT 1996 and HAAKE 2011.
156 On this victory, see NACHTERGAEL 1977, 167-169 and 177- 181 and LAN E Fox 2011, 500.
157 See STROBEL 1994, 72; CHANIOTIS 2005 , 221 and STROOTMAN 2005, 103 and 112-11 3. Next
to the decree in honor of Antigonus' victory moved by Menedemus of Eretria (Diog. L aert.
2.142; see in detail HAAKE forthcoming, 123- 130) and the dedication of the Athe nian officer
Heraclitus of Athmonon praising Antigonus' deeds ' against the barbarians for the safety of the
Greeks' (/G 112 677; see HAAKE 2011, 119 with further references) one might refer to an epi-
gram on the base of a statue of Pan from Beroea, which has been reasonably connected w ith the
battle of Lysimachia (l.Beroia 37; see in detail PAZARAS and HATZOPOULOS 1997 and LANE
Fox 2011, 500).
158 On the image of Gonatas in ancient literary sources, see C10cCOLO 1990.
Writing down the K ing 187
for specific circumstances, much less ' the political philosophy of Hellenistic
kingship.' 15 9 T hei r role in the political communication was determined by a series
of factors, structural and contingent. They would not have come into being without
the emergence of Hellenistic monarchy. If the power relation between poleis and
kings that existed for much of the fourth century had not changed, communication
in the form of speeches and letters adressed by 'man of the word' to 'men of power'
could have continued undisturbed. The fact that under Alexander a philospher, re-
gardless whether the first was Aristotle, Xenocrates or Anaxarchus, decided to ad-
dress to the king a treatise entitled On Kingship may also be regarded as contingent,
whereas the act of writing about monarchy and addressing a ruler followed an es-
tablished practice ofliterary and political communication. The fact that the example
was quickly followed by two other philosophers, which was decisive for the emer-
gence of the genre, was determined by structural factors, namely by the competitive
character of Greek philosophy, further reinforced by competition for gaining pres-
tigious positions close to the king. After a pause caused by Alexander 's death, a new
beginning was set by the 'year of the kings', and Theophrastus was the initiator of
the new wave of treatises On Kingship that spanned the third century BCE.
Needless to say, the semantic that this genre acquired cannot be imputed to
authorial intention in its very first phases. Rather, it was a result of the reception and
perception of the early examples of the genre. Such semantic could emerge because
the three fundamental elements that constitute the communicative context, namely
the philosopher as author, the king as addressee, and the political community of the
polis as intended audience, were cultural models that in the cultural world of the
Greeks of the early Hellenistic period were long since associated with well-defined
specific roles. This explains for instance why the authors of these treatises were
without exception philosophers: only they quali fied, thanks to their social role as
intellectuals, to address the king with the necessary authority. 160
It is extremely difficult to tell whether treatises On Kingship were confined to
the third century or whether we should postulate their survival into the second and
fi rst, in spite of the absence of evidence. 16 1 It is true that from the end of the third
century onwards, evidence on Hellenistic philosophy overall becomes particularly
scarce. 162 Whether this circumstance provides a sufficient explanation seems doubt-
ful, though, especially considering that, beyond general continuity, Hellenistic
monarchy went through a series of tranformations 163 which had an impact also on
the communicative interface between kings and Greek cities. 164 What is clear is that
a whole series of works written by philosophers and entitled On Kingship kept ap-
159 As in the title of G OODENOUGH 1928.
160 See BOURDIEU 1992a, 123.
161 See SIDEBOTTOM 2006, 129, who is of the opinion " that the genre continued" in the second or
first centuries, and on the other hand MURRAY 2007, 17, who pointed out that " there was little
evidence for the continued production of such works in the middle and later Hellenistic pe-
riod."
162 See the overview by MANSFELD 1999.
163 See GOTTER in this volume .
164 On this, see H AAKE 2012.
 188 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 189

pearing during the imperial period and all the way to late antiquity. 165 The latest
specimen dates to the early fourteenth century CE, when Thomas Magister, who
had taken the name ofTheodulos upon entering the monastic life, addressed an ora-
tion On Kingship to a Byzantine emperor of the Palaeologian dynasty. 166
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AALDERS, G.J.D.
1953: Date and Intention of Xenophon's Hiero , Mnemosyne 6, 208-215.
1975: Political Thought in Hellenistic Times, Amsterdam.
ADAM, H.
1974: Plutarchs Schrift non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, Amsterdam.
ADAM, T.
1970: Clementia Principis. Der Einflu8 he llenistischer Fi.irstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer
rechtlichen Fundierung des Principals durch Seneca, Stuttgart.
ALFOLDI,A.
1958: Der Philosoph als Zeuge der Wahrheit und sein Gegenspieler der Tyrann, Scientiis Arti-
busque. Collectanea Academiae Catholicae Hungaricae 1, 7-19.
AMELING, W.
1987: " ... et donaferentes". Konigliche Stiftungen an griechische Stiidte und Hei ligtlimer im
Zeitalter des Hellenismus , QC 9, 10-40.
ANDORLINI, I. and LUISELLI, R.
200 I: Una ripresa di Diotogene Pitagorico, Sulla Regalita, in PBingen 3 (encomio per Au-
gusto?), ZPE 136, 155-166.
ANGELOV, D.
2007: Imperial Ideology and Po litical Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330, Cambridge.
ANTON, H.H.
1989: s. v. Fi.irstenspiegel, in LexMA IV, Munich and Zurich, 1040-1049.
ASHER!, D., LLOYD, A. and CORCELLA, A.
2007: A Commentary on Herodott1s. Books I- IV edited by 0. Murray and A. Moreno, Oxford.
ASMIS, E.
1991: Philodemus ' Poetic Theory and On the Good King According to Homer, CIAnt 10, 1-45.
AUSTIN, M. M.
1986: Hellenistic Kings, War, and the Economy, CQ 36, 450-466.
AZOULAY, V.
2004: Xenophon et Jes graces du pouvoir. De la charis au charisme, Paris.
BADlAN, E.
1958: Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind, Historia 7, 425-444.
BAKHTIN M. M.
1981: Discourse in tl1e Novel, in M. Holquist (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by
M. M. Bakhtin, Austin, 259-422.
BARCEL6, P.
1993: Basileia, Monarchia, Tyrannis. Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung und Beu,teilung von
Alleinherrschaft im vorhellenistischen Griechenland, Stuttgart.
165 See e.g. SIDEBOTTOM 2006, 117-118 and 129- 155 and HAAKE 2012.
166 Thom. Mag. or. 7 Volpe Cacciatore; on this text, see e.g. VOLPE CACCIATORE 1996 and AN-
GELOV 2007 , 193-194, 222-224, 298-303 and passim. On date and addressee, see GAUL 2011 ,
330-337.
BECK, M.
2002: Plutarch to Trajan: The D edicatory Letter and the Apophthegmata Colle ction, in P.A.
Stadter and L. Van der Stockt (eds.), Sage and Emperor. Plutarch, Intellectuals, and Roman
Power in the Time of Trajan (98-17 A. D.), L euven, 163-173.
BENCIVENNI, A.
2010 [2011 ]: 11 re scrive, la citta iscrive. La pubblicazione su pietra delle epistole regie nell 'Asia
ellenistica, Studi Ellenistic i 24, 149-178.
BENFERHAT, Y.
a
2005: Ciues Epicurei. Les epicuriens e t l' idee de monarchie Rome e t in Italie de Sylla a Oc-
tave, Brussels.
BERNARD, P.
1984: Le philosophe Anaxarque et le roi Nicocreon de Salamine, JS 1984, 3-49.
BERTELLT, L.
1976: L'epistola di Speusippo a Filippo: un problema di cronologia, AAT 110, 275- 300.
1977: La lettera d i Speusippo a Fi lippo: ii problema dell'autenticita, AAT 111, 75-1 11.
2002: Peri Basileias: i trattati sulla regalita dal IV secolo a. C. agli apocrifi pitagorici, in P. Bet-
tiolo and G. Filoramo (eds.), ll dio mortale. Teologie politiche tra antico e contemporaneo,
Brescia, 17-6 1.
BERTI, E.
1996: Les ecoles philosophiques d' Athenes et Jes princes de Chypre, in Chypre et les o rigines
du sto'icisme. Actes du colloque, Paris, 12-13 mai 1995, Paris, 15-20.
BERTRAND, J.-M.
1990: Formes de discoms politiques: decre ts des cites grecques e t correspondance des rois
hellenistiques, CCG 1, 101-1 15.
BICHLER, R.
1995: Von der Insel der Seligen zu Platons Staat. Geschichte der antiken Utopie, Vienna et al.
BlCKERMANN, E.
1930: Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas, ZNW 29, 280-298.
BICKERMANN, E. and SYKUTRIS, E .
1928: Speusipps Brief an Konig Philipp. Text, Ubersetzung, Untersuchungen, Leipzig.
BIELAWSKI, J . and PLEZIA, M.
1970: Lettre d' Aristote a Alexandre: Sur la politique envers /es cites. Texte arabe etabli e t tra-
duit par J. Bielawski, commentaire de M. Plezia, Wroclaw et al.
BILLOWS, R.A.
1995: Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden c t al.
BLEICKEN, J.
1979: Zur Entstehung der Verfassungstypologie im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Monarchie, Aris-
tokratie, Demokratie), Historia 28 , 148-172.
BLUMENFELD, B.
2001: The Political Paul. Justice, Democracy and K ingship in a Hellenistic Framework, New York.
BOECKH,A .
1886: Encykloplidie und Methodologie der philologische n Wissenschaften he rausgegebe n von
E. Bratuschek, second edition, Leipzig.
BOFFO, L.
1988: Epigrafi di citta greche: un'espressione di storiografia locale, in Studi di storia e storio-
grafia per Emilio Gabba, Pavia, 9-48.
BOLLANSEE, J.
2000: Persaios of Kition, or the Failure of the Wise Man as General, in L. Mooren (ed.), Poli-
tics, Admin istration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Colloquium, B crtrinoro 19-24 J uly 1997, Leuven, J 5-28.
BORN, L.K.
1933: The specula principis of the Carolingian Renaissance, RBPh 12, 583- 612.
 '
190 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 191

BORZA, E.N. CECCARELLI, P.

1981 : Anaxarchus and Callisthenes: Acade mic Intrigue at Alexanders Court, in Ancient M ac- 2005: Forme di communicazione e ideologia della polis: discorso in assemblea, decreto ed
edonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki, 73- 86. epistola ufficiale, in U. Bultrighini (ed.), Democrazia e antidemocrazia nel mondo greco. Atti
BOURDlEU, P. de! Convegno Intemazionale di Studi, C hieti, 9-1 1 aprile 2003, Alessandria, 345-369.
1992: Les regles de l'art. Genese et struc ture du champ litteraire, Paris. CENTRONE, B.
1992a: Reponses. Pour une anthropologie refle xive, Paris. 2005: Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the Early Empire, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.),
BRADLEY, R. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge, 559-584.
l 954: Backgrounds of the Title Speculum in Medieval Literature, Speculum 29, 100- 115. C HANIOTIS, A.
BRAUND, D. 1988: Historic und Historiker in den griechischen Insc hriften. Epigraphische Beitriige zur grie-
2000: Friends and Foes: Monarchs and Monarchy in Fifth-century Athenian Democracy, in R. chischen Historiographie, Stuttgart.
Brock and S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens. Varieties of Political Organization and 2003: The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic
Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 103- 118. World, Malden/MA and Oxford, 431 -445.
BRINGMANN, K. 2005: War in the HeJlenistic World , Malden/MA and Oxford.
1965: Studien zu den politisc hen Ideen des lsokrates, Gottingen. CHASTAGNOL, A.
2000: Geben und Nehmen: Monarchische Wohltatigkeit und Selbstdarstellung im Zeitalter des 1987: Les quinquennalia de Vale ntinien 1°' et Vale ns, in H. Huvelin, M. Christo) and G. Gautier
Hellenismus, Berlin. (eds.), Melanges de numismatique offerts a Pierre Bastien a !'occasion de son 75° anniversaire,
BRINGMANN, K. and STEUBEN, H . V. Wetteren, 255-266.
1995: Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Stiidte und HeiligtUmer. Tei! I: CHROUST, A.-H.
Zeugnisse und Kommentare, Berlin. 1968: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's 'Philosopher King': Some Comments on Aristotle's On
BRISCOE, J. Kingship, RhM 111, 16-22 .
1973: Commentary on Livy Books XXXI-XXXIII, Oxford. CIOCCOLO, S.
BROCKER, M. 1990: Enigmi dell '~So~: Antigono II Gonata in Plutarco e altrove, in B. Virgilio (ed .), Studi
1966: Aristoteles als Alexanders Lehrer in der Legende, Bonn. ellenistici Ill, Pisa, 135-190 .
BROWN,P. CIZEK,A.
1992: Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, Madison. 1975: From the Historical Truth to the Literary Convention: The Life of Cyrus the Great
BRUN8CHWIG, J. Viewed by Herodotus, Ctesias and Xe nophon, AC 44, 53 1-552.
1993: The Anaxarchus Case: An Essay on Survival, PBA 82, 59- 88. CLAY,D.
BURKE, P. 1988: Reading the Republic, in C. L. Griswold, Jr. (ed.), Platonic Writings - Platonic Readings,
1995: The Fortunes of the Courtier. The European Reception of Castiglione's Cortegiano, New York and London, 19-33.
Cambridge. 1993: Plato's Magnesia, in R. M. Rosen and J. Fan-ell (eds.), Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in
BURK ERT, W. Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor, 4 35-445.
1972: Zur geistesgeschichtlic hen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica, in Pseudepigrapha I. COLLINS, R .
Pseudopythagorica - Lettres de Platon - Litterature pseudepigraphique juive, Geneva, 25-55. 2002: The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global T heory of Intellectual Change, fourth edition,
BYRNE, S.G. Cambridge/MA and London.
2010: The Athenian Damnatio Memoriae of the Antigonids in 200 B. C., in A. Tamis, C. J. CONNOR, W.R.
Mackie and S. G. Byrne (eds.), <l>IAA0HNAI0:E - Philathenaios. Studies in Honour of 1967: History without Heroes: Theopompus' Treatment of Philip of Macedon, GRBS 8, 133-154.
Michael J. Osborne, Athens, 157- 177. DARIS, S.
CAMBIANO, G. 2000: Frammento di materia medica, in H. Melaerts (ed.), Papyri in honorem Johannis Bingen
1983: La filosofia in Grecia ea Roma, Bari. octogenarii (P.Bingen), Leuven, 15-16.
1988: I filosofi e la costrizione a governare nella Repubblica platonica, in G. Casertano (ed.), I DAVIES, J. K.
filosofi e ii potere nella societa e nella cultura antiche, Naples, 43-58. 1984 : Cultural , Social and Economic Features of the Hellenistic World, in CAH2 VII, l, Cam-
CARLIER, P. bridge, 257- 320.
1978: L'idee de monarchie imperiale dans La Cyropedie, Ktema 3, 133-163. DECLEVA CAIZZI, F.
1980: Etude sur la pretendue lettre d' Aristote a Alexandre transmise par plusieurs manuscrits 1993: The Porch and the Garden: Early Hellenistic Images of the Philosophical Life, in A. Bul-
arabes, Ktema 5, 277-288. loch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley et
1993: La notion de pambasileia dans la pensee politique d' Aristote, in M. Pierart (ed.), Aristote al., 303-329.
et Athenes - Aristotle and Athens. Fribourg (Suisse), 23-25 mai 1991, Paris, 103-11 8. DELATTE, L.
CARMIGNATO, A. 1942: Les Traites de la Royaute d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthenidas, Liege and Paris.
1998: Demostenc e la parrhesia: diritto di critica e rifondazione dei valori democratici, Inv Luc D EMANl)T, A.
20, 33-57. 2002: Der Ftirstenspiegcl des Agapet, MediterrAnt 5, 573-584.
CARTLEDGE, P. DESANCTIS, D.
2009: Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice, Cambridge. 2008: II buon re di Filodemo tra Epicuro e Omero, Cron Erc 38, 165-177 .
 192 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 193

D ESIOERI, P.
1991 : Intelle ttuali e potere a Roma, in S. S ettis (ed.), Civilta dei Romani. II potere e l' esercito,
M ilan, 235-240.
DIEFENBACH, S.
2000: Jense its der " Sorge um sich". Zur Folter von Philosophen und Martyrern in der rii-
mischen Kaiserzeit, in P. Burschel, G. Distelrath and S. Lembke (eds.), Das Quale n des Ki:irpers.
E ine historische Anthropologie der Foller, Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 99-1 3 1.
DILLERRY, J.
1995: Xenophon and the History of his Times, London and New York.
DMITRIEV, S.
2011: The Greek S logan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece , Oxford.
DORANDJ, T.
1982: Filodemo, II buon re secondo Omero. Edizione, traduz ione e commento, Nap les.
1994: De Zenon d ' Elee a Anaxarque : fortune d'une topos litteraire, in L. Jerphagon, J. Lagree
and D. Delattre (eds.), Ainsi parlaient Jes Anciens. In Honorem Jean-Paul Dumont, Lille, 27-
37.
1994a: I frammenti di Anassarco di Abdera, AATC 69, 8-58.
2005: Le philosophe et le pouvoir. Un cas de propagande inversee, in A. Bresson, A .-M. Cocula
and C. Pebarthe (eds.), L'ecriture publique du pouvoir, Bordeaux, 27- 34.
DORNINGER, M.E.
1997: Gottfried von Viterbo. Ein Autor in der Umgebung der frtihen Staufer, Stuttgart.
DUE, B.
1989: The Cyropaedia. Xenophon's Aims and Methods, Copenhagen.
1993: Alexander 's Inspiration and Ideas, in J. Carlsen et al. ( eds.), Alexander the Great. Reality
and Myth, Rome, 53-60.
D ORING, I.
1957: Aristotle in the Ancie nt Biographical Tradition, Goteborg.
1961: Aristotle's Protrepticus. An Attempt to Reconstruction, Goteborg.
DURAN MANAS, M.
2005: Plutarco y las monarqufas helenisticas: elhos y pathos de los Antig6nidas, in A. Casa-
nova (ed.), Plutarco e I 'eta ellenistica. Atti de! convegno internazionale di studi, Fire nze, 23- 24
sette mbre 2004, Florence, 39-61.
ECKSTEIN, A. M.
2009: Helle nistic Monarchy in Theory and Practice, in R. K. Balot ( ed.), A Companion to Greek
and Roman Political Thought, Malden/MA and Oxford, 247- 265.
EDELMANN, B.
2007: Religii:ise Herrschaftslegitimation in der Antike. Die religii:ise Legitimation orientalisch-
iigyptischer und griechisch-hellenistischer Herrscher im Vergleich, St. Katharinen.
EDER, W.
1995: Monarchie und Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Die Rolle des Fiirste nspiegels in der
athenischen Demokratie, in W. Eder (ed.), Die athe nische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.
Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? Akten eines Symposiums (3.-7. A ugust 1992,
Be llagio), Stuttgart, 153- 173.
E oSON, C .
1958: Gottmenschentum und griechische Stadte . By Christian Habicht. Munich, 1956 , CPh 53 ,
61 - 65.
EHRENBERG, V.
1965: Der Staat der Grieche n, second edition , Stuttgart and Zurich.
ELKELES, G.
1941: De mettios der Stadtebelagerer, Breslau.
ERLER, M.
2007: Platon, Basel.
ERSKINE, A.
20 11: Be tween Philosophy and the Court: The Life of Pe rsaio s of Kition, in A. Erskine and L.
Llewellyn-Jones (eds.) , Creating a H ellenistic World, Swansea, 177-1 94.
2011a: The H ellenistic Stoa. Political Thought and Action, second edition, Bristol.
ESSIG, R.-8.
2000: D er Offene Brief . Geschichte und Funktion einer publizistischen Form von Isokrates bis
G iinter Grass, Wiirzburg.
ETIENNE, R. and PIERART, M .
1975: Un decret du koinon des Hellenes a Platees en l' honneur de Glaucon, fi ls d'Eteocle s,
d ' Athenes, BCH 99, 5 1-75 .
EUCKEN, C.
1983: Isokrates. Seine Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit den ze itgeni:issischen Philos-
ophen, Berlin and New York.
F ARBER, J. J.
1979: T he Cyropaedia and H ellenistic Kingship, AJPh 100, 497-51 4 .
FELLMANN, W.
1930: A ntigonos G onatas, Konig der M akedonen, und die griechischen Staaten, Wtirzburg.
FERRARY, J.-L.
1988: P hilhe lle nisme et imperialism e. Asp ects ideologiques de la conquete romaine du monde
he llenistique, de la seco nde g uerre de M acedoine a la guerre contre Mithridate, R ome.
F INLEY, M .l.
1975: Utopianism Ancie nt and M odern, in M. I Finley (ed.), T he Use and Abuse of History,
Lo ndon , 178-192 with 240-242.
FJSH, J.
2002: Philodemus' On the Good King According to Homer: Columns 2 1- 31, CronErc 32, 187-232.
FLAIG, E.
1994: Weisheit und Befehl. Platens "Polite/a'·' und <la s Ende der Politik, Saeculum 45 , 34---70.
FLASHAR, H .
2006: Dialoge, Philosophie , R hetorik: Obersetzungen, Erliiuterun gen und Komme ntar, in Aris-
toteles. Fragmente zu P hilosophie, Rhetorik, Poetik, Dichtung iibersetzt und erlautert von H.
Flashar, U. D ubielzig und B. Breitenbe rger, Darmstadt, 21-245 .
FLOWER, M. A.
1994 : Theop ompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC, Oxford.
2000: From S im onides to Isocrates: the Fifth-Century Origins of Fourth-Century Panhelle n-
ism, C!Ant 19, 65-101.
FOUCAUtT, M.
2001: Fearless S peech edited by J. Pearson, Los Angeles.
200 8: Le gouvernem ent de soi et des autres. Cours au Co llege de France (1982- 1983). Ed ition
e tablie sous la direction de F. Ewald et A. Fontana, par F. Gros, Paris.
2009: Le courage de la verite . Le gouverneme nt de soi et des autres II. Cours au College de
F rance ( 1983-1984). Editio n etablic sous la direction de F. Ewald et A. Fontana, par F. G ros,
Paris.
FOWLER, D . P.
1989: Lucretius and Poli tics, in M . Griffi n and J. B arnes (eds.), Philosophia Tagata. Essays on
Philosophy and Roman Society, Oxford , 120-150 .
FRASER, P M.
1972: Ptolemaic A lexandria. II: Notes, Oxford .
FREDE,M.
1992: Plato 's Argume nts and the Dialogue Form, OS APh 10, 201- 219.
FR6 SEN, J. and WESTMAN, R.
1997: Quattro papiri Schubart. PSchuba1t 35 , 37, 38, 39: sul regno; sugli agoni sport/vi; sulla
vecchiaia; sui diadochi, in Papiri filo sofici. Miscellanea di S tudi l, Florence , 7--48 .
194 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 195

FROLOV,E. GIGANTE, M. and DORANDI, T.

1974: Das Problem der Monarchie und der Tyrannis in der politischen Publizistik des 4. Jahr-
hunderts v. u. Z., in E . C. Weiskopf (ed.), Hellenische Poleis. Krise - Wandlung- Wirkung. Bd.
I, Berlin, 401--434.
GABBA, E.
1984: Scienza e potere nel mondo ellenistico, in G. Giannantoni and M. Vegetti (eds.), La scienza
ellenistica. Atti delle tre gio111ate di studio tenutesi a Pavia dal 14 al 16 aprile 1982, Naples, 13- 37.
1998: Pubblica opinione e intellettuali nel mondo antico, RSI 110, 5-17.
GABBERT, J.J.
1997: Antigonus II Gonatas. A Poltical Biography, London and New York.
GAMMIE, J. G.
1986: Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective History or Conventional Portraiture, JNES
45 , 171-195.
GANGLOFF, A.
2011: Le princeps et le bon roi selon Homere, in S. Benoist, A. Daguet-Gagey and C. Hoet-van
Cauwenberghe (eds.), Figures d' empire, fragments de memoire. Pouvoirs et identites dans le
monde romain imperial (JI< s. av. n. e. - VI0 s. den. e.), Villeneuve d' Ascq, 105- 122.
GAUL,N.
201 l: Thomas Magistros und die spatbyzantinische Sophistik. Studien zum H umanismus ur-
baner Eliten in der friihen Palaiologenzeit, Wiesbaden.
GAUTHIER, P.
1984: Les cites hellenistiques: epigraphie et histoire des institutions et des regimes politiques,
in Ilgawux.a i:ou TJ' L\ti;flvoili; Lvvi;l)g(ov 'EAAT]VLX.i')<; x.at Am:LVLx.i')i; 'EJuyga<j>tx.i')i;.
A8f]va, 3-9 'Ox.i:w~g(ov 1982, Athens, 82-107.
1985: Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IV'-Ier siecle avant J.-C.). Contribution a
l'histoire des institutions, Athens and Rome.
1986: Histoire grecque et monarchie, in E. LeRoy Ladurie (ed.), Les monarchies, Pmis, 43--62.
1987-1989: Grandes et petites cites: hegemonie et autarcie, Opus 6-8, 187-202.
1990: Quorum et participation civique dans Jes democraties grecques, CCG 1, 73-99.
1993: Les cites hellenistiques, in M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Sympo-
sium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and
Letters, July, 1--4 1992, Copenhagen, 211-231.
GEHRKE, H.-J.
1998: Theorie und politische Praxis der Philosophen im Hellenismus, in W. Schuller (ed.),
Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum, Darmstadt, 100-121.
2003: Biirgerliches Selbstverstandnis und Polisidentitat im Hellenismus, in K.-J. Hol.keskamp
et al. (eds.), Sinn (in) der Antike. Orientierungssysteme, Leitbilder und Wertkonzepte irn Alter-
tum, Mainz, 225-254.
2004: Die "Klassische Antike" als Kulturepoche - Soziokulturelle Milieus und Deutungsmus-
ter in der griechisch-romischen Welt' in F. Jaeger and B. Liebsch (eds.), Handbuch der Kultur-
wissenschaften I: Grundlagen und Schliisselbegiiffe, Stuttgart, 471--489.
2008: Geschichte des Hellenismus, fourth edition, Munich.
GENET, J.-P.
1977: Four English Political Tracts of the Later Middle Ages edited by J.-P. Genet, London.
GERA, D.L.
1993: Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique, Oxford.
GIGANTE, M.
1972: Per l'interpretazione dell'opera filodemea «Sulla liberta di parola», CronErc 2, 59-65.
1983: Filodemo sulla liberta di parola, in M. Gigante, Ricerche filodemee, second edition,
Naples, 55- 113.
1984: Per l'interpretazione de! libro di Filodemo 'Del buon re secondo Omero', PP 39, 285-
298.
1980: Anassarco e E picuro «Sui regno», SicG ymn 33, 479-497.
GILL, C.
1977: T he Genre of the Atlantis Story, CPh 72, 287-304.
GIOVANNINI, A.
1993: Greek Cities and Greek Commonwealth, in A. B ulloch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideolo-
gies. Self-de finition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley et al. , 265-286.
GLAD, C.E.
1996: Frank Speech, Flattery, and Friendship in Philode mus, in J.T. Fitzgerald (ed.), Friend-
ship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Fiiendship in the New Testament, Leiden et
al., 2 1-59.
GOODENOUGH, E. R.
1928: The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, YClS 1, 55-102.
GOTTER, U.
2003: Ontologie ve rsus exempium: Griechische Philosophie als politisches Argume nt in der
spaten romisc he n Republik, in K. Piepenbrink (ed.), Philosophie und Lebenswelt in der Antike,
Darmstadt, 165-185.
2008: Cultural Diffe rences and Cross-Cultural Contac t: Greek and Roman Concepts of Power,
HSPh 104, l 79-230.
2008a: Die Nemesis des Allgemein-Giiltigen. M ax Weber's Charisma-Konzept und die antiken
Monarchien, in P. Rychterova, S. Seit and R. Veit (eds.), Das Charisma. Funktionen und sym-
bolische Reprasentationen, Berlin, 173-1 86.
GOUKOWSKY, P.
1996: Philippe tel qu' en lui-meme I' Antiquite le change, in P. Carlier (ed.), Le IV' siecle av.
J. -C. Approches historiographiques, Paris, 9-27.
GRABES,H.
1973: Speculum, Mirror und Looking-Glass. Kontinuitat und Originalitat der Spiegelmetapher in
den Buchtiteln des Mittelalters und der e nglischen Literatur des l 3. bis 17. Jahrhunderts, Tubingen.
GRASSNICK, U.
2004: Ratge ber des Konigs. Fiirstenspiegel und Herrscherideal im spatrnittelalterlichen Eng-
land, Cologne et al.
GRAY, V.J.
1986: Xe nophon's Hiero and the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek L iterature, CQ
36, 115- 123.
1989: Character of Xenophon's Hellenica , Baltimore.
201 1: Xenopho n's Mirror of Princes. Reading the Reflections, Oxford.
GREEN, P.
1990: Alexander to Actium. T he Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley et al.
GRILLI,A.
1969 : Zenone e Antigono ll, RFIC 9 1, 287-301.
GRONEWALD, M.
1978: Prosaanthologie: Tapferkeit vor dem Tod, ZPE 28, 278-280.
GRUEN, E.S.
1993: Introduction, in A. Bulloch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the
Hellenistic World , Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 3-6.
1993a: The Polis in the Hellenistic World, in R. M. Rosen and J. FmTell (eds.), Nomodeiktes.
Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor, 339-354.
l 996: Hellenistic Kingship: Puzzles, Problems, and Possibilities, in P. B ilde et al. (eds.) As-
pects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus, 116-125.
GUMBRECHT, H. U.
1977: Historische Textpragmatik als Grundlagenwissenschaft der Geschichtsschreibung, Len-
demains 6, 125-1 35.
196 Matthias Haake
Writing down the King 197

HAAKE, M.
HATZFELD, J.
2003: Warum und zu welchem Ende schreibt man peri basileias? Uberlegungen zum histo-
rischen Kontext einer literarischen Gatlllng im Hellenismus, in K. Piepenbrink (ed.), Philoso- 1946-47: Note sur la date et l'objet du Hieron de Xenophon, REG 59-60, 54- 70.
HERMAN, G.
phic und Lebenswelt in der Antike, Darmstadt, 83-138.
2004: Documentary Evidence, Literary Forgery or Manipulation of Historical Documents? 1980-1981: The 'Friends' of the Early Hellenistic Rulers : Servants or Officials, Talanta 12-13
103-149. '
Diogenes Laertius and an Athenian Honorary Decree for Zeno of Citium, CQ 54, 470-483.
2007: Der Philosoph in der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur offentlichen Rede iiber Philosophen und 1997: ~h~ Court Society of the Hellenistic Age, in P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey and E . Gruen (eds.),
Philosophie in den hellenistischen Poleis, Munich. Helle111st1c Constructs. Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, Berkeley ct al. 199-
2U '
2011: Antigonos ll. Gonatas und der Nemesistempel von Rhamnous. Zur Semantik kultischer
HERRMANN, P.
Ehren fiir einen hellenistischen Konig an einen athenischen ,lieu de memoire', in M. Haake and
M. Jung (eds.), Griechische Heiligtiimer als Erinnerungsorte. Von der Archaik bis in den Hel- 1984: Selbstdarstellung der hellenistischen Stadt in den Inschriften: Ideal und Wirklichkeit in
lenismus. Ertrage einer intemationalen Tagung in Miinster, 20.-2 l. Januar 2006, Stuttgart, Tig~x'tLXa wu TJ' ~LEOvoui; r uveog(ou 'EAATJVLXTJ<; x a l AmLvLxfJi; 'E mygaqnxf\i;. A8fJ~a.
109- 127. 3-9 O,nwf:lg(ou 1982, Athens, 108-119.
HERZ, P .
2Dl 2: Zwischen Alexander dem GroBen und Arcadius, von Anaxarchos von Abdera zu Syn-
esios von Kyrene. Die Gattung Uber das Konigtum im Kontext antiker Alleinherrschaften - 1996: Hellenistische Konige. Zwischen griechischen Vorstellungen vom Konigtum und
eine Skizze, in L. Del Corso and P. Pecere (eds.), II fibro Filosofico dall' Antichita al XX secolo, Vorstellungen ihrer einheimischen Untertanen, in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler. The Cult
Tumhout and Bari, of the Ruling Power in Classical A ntiquity. Papers Presented at a Conference Held in T he Uni-
Forthcoming: Illustrating, Documenting, Making-Believe. The Use of psephismata in Hellen- versity of Alberta on April 13-15, 1994, to Celebrate the 65th Anniversary of D uncan Fish-
wick, Ann Arbor, 27-40.
istic Biographies of Philosophers, in P. Liddel and P. Low (eds.), Inscriptions and their Uses in
HEUSS,A.
Ancient Literature, Oxford.
HABICHT, C. 1954: Alexander der GroBe und die politische Ideologie des Altertums, A&A 4, 65- 104.
1958: Die herrschende Gesellschaft in den hellenistischen Monarchien, VSWG 45, 1-16. 1955: La monarchie hellenistique, in Relazioni del X Congresso lnternazionale di Scienze
1970: Gottmcnschentum und griechische Stadte, second edition, Munich. Storiche. Volume II: Storia dell'Antichita, Florence, 20 1-213. HIGGINS, W.E .
1995: Ist ein «Honoratiorenregime» das Kennzeichen der Stadt im spateren Hellenismus?, in 1977: Xenophon the Athenian. The Problem of the Individual and the Society of the Polis, Al-
bany.
M. Worrle and P Zanker (eds.), Stadtbild und Biirgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium,
H61STAD, R.
Miinchen, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, Munich, 87-92.
1996: Divine Honours for King Antigonus Gonatas in Athens, SCI 15, 131-134. 1948: Hero and Cynic King. Studies in the Cynic Conception of Man, Lund.
HO RNBLOWER, J.
1997: Die Rolle der Konige gegeniiber Stadten und Biinden, in M. Christo! and 0. Masson
(eds.), Actes du Xe Congres International d'Epigraphie Grecque et Latine. Nimes, 4-9 O ctober 1981: Hieronymus ofCardia, Oxford
H UNTER, R.
1992, Paris, 161-168.
2006: Athenes hellenistique. Histoire de la cited' Alexandre le Grand a Marc Antoine, second 2011: The Letter of Aristeas, in A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds.), Creating a H ellenis-
tic World, Swansea, 47-60.
edition, Paris.
lRMSCHER, J.
HADOT, P.
1971: s. v. Fiirstenspiegel, in RAC 8, Stuttgart, 555-631. 1991: Xenophons Adressaten, Philologus 135, 225-232.
ISN ARnt PARENTE, M.
HAHM, D.E.
2000: Kings and Constitutions: Hellenistic Theories, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The 1981: Per la hiografia di Senocrate, RFIC 109, 129- 162.
Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge, 457-476. 1982: Senocrate - Ermodoro: Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione c commento, Naple s.
JA KOBSON, R.
HAHN, J.
1989: Der PhiJosoph und die Gesellschaft. Selbstverstandnis, offentliches Auftreten und popu- 1990: The Speech Event and the Functions of Language, in L.R. Waugh and M. Monville-
lare Erwaitungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit, .1989. B urston (eds.), Roman Jakobson, On Language, Cambridge/MA and London, 69-79.
J ERPHAGON, L.
HAMON,P.
2010: Democraties grecques apres Alexandre: apropos de trois ouvrages recents, Topoi 16, 1981: Les mille et une morts des philosophes antiques. Essay de typologie, RBPh 59, 17-28.
389-424.
JO NES, C.P.
1971: Plutarch and Rome, Oxford.
HANSEN, M. H.
2000: The Hellenic Polis, in M.H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State
JONSSON, E. M.
1995: Le miroir. Naissance d' un genre litteraire, Paris.
Cultures. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, Copenhagen, 141-187.
HARRISON, J. R. 2006: Les miroirs aux princes sont-ils un genre litteraire?, Medievales 5 1, 153- 166.
KAERST, J.
2011: Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome. A Study in the Conflict of
Ideology, Ti.ibingen. 1898: Studien zur Entwicklung und theoretischen Begliindung dcr M onarchic im A lte1tum,
Munich and Leipz ig.
HARTOG, F.
K EHL, H.
1980: Le rniroir d' Herodote. Essai sur la representation de l'autre, Paris.
1962: Die Monarchic im politischen Denken des Isokrates, Bonn.
198 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 199

KoTsmu, H. M ANSFELD, J.
2000: TIMH KAI ti.OSA. Ehrungen hellenistischer Herrscher irn griechischen Mutter- 1999: Sources, in K. Algra et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy,
land und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berlicksichtigung der archiiologischen Denkmaler, Cambridge, 3- 30.
Berlin. M ARI, M.
KOUKOULJ-CHRYSANTHAKI, C. 200 9: La tradiz ione delle libere poleis e I 'opposizione ai sovrani. L'evoluzione de! linguaggio
1998: ti.we; xm ~am).twc; Av1:Ly6vou, in M. Lilibaki-Akamati and K . Tsaka lou-Tzanavari della politica nella Grecia e llenistica, in G. URSO (ed.), Ordine e sovversione nel mondo greco
(eds.), Mvelac; J(CtQLV. T6µoc; ITTrJ µviJµri Ma(,QrJc; LLyav(ouu. Thessaloniki, 401-411 . e ro mano. Atti de l convegno intem azionale , Cividale de! Friuli, 25- 27 settembre 2008, Pisa,
KRALLI, l. 87-112.
2000: Athens and the Kings (338-261 B.C.) : The Language of the Decrees, CQ 50, 113- M ARZI, M.
132. 1994: Isocrate e Filippo II di Macedonia: l'autentic itil della II Epistola a Filippo, A&R 39,
KuRHON EN, T. 1- 10.
1997: Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers and Philosophical Schools at the Begin- M ASTROCINQUE, A.
ning of the Hellenistic Age, in J. Frosen (ed.), Early Hellenistic Athens. Symptoms of a Change, 1979: D emetrius Tragodoumenos (propaganda e letteratura al tempo di Demetrio Poliorcete),
He lsinki, 33-101. Athe naeum 57, 260-276.
LANEFox, R. M AZZA, M.
1973: Alexander the Great, London. 1974: Il principe e ii potere. Rivoluzione e legittimismo costituzionale nel III. sec. d. C., in
2011: "Glorious Servitude ... ": The Reigns of Antigonos Gonatas and Demetrios 11, in R.J. G. G. Archi (ed.), Istituzioni giuridiche e real ta politiche nel tardo impero (III-V sec. d. C.). Atti
Lane Fox (ed.), Brill's Companion to Ancie nt Macedon. Studies in the Archaeology and His- di un incontro tra storici e g iuristi , Firenze, 2-4 maggio 1974, Milan, 1-62.
tory of Macedon, 650 BC-300 AD, Leiden and Boston, 495-519. Mc CONNELL, S.
LANZA,D. 2010: Epicure ans on Kingship, CCJ 5 6, 178-198.
1977: JI tiranno e il suo pubblico, Turin. MCGLEW, J.F.
LAPENNA,A. 1993: Tyranny and Political Culture in Anc ient Greece , Ithaca and London.
1990: L'intellettuale emarginato nell'antichitil, Maia 42, 3-20. M EISSNER, B.
LAPIN!, W. 2000: Hofmann und H errscher. Was es fiir die Griechen hiel3, Freund eines Konigs zu sein,
1996: Il carteggio tra Zenone stoico e Antigono Gonata, in M. S. Funghi (ed .), Oti.01 AK G 82, 1-36.
ti.IZHLI0L. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesc o Adorno, Florence, 277-286. MENDELS, D.
LEHMANN,P. 1979: ' On Kingship' in the "Temple Scroll" and the Ideological Var/age of the Seven Banquets
1953: Mittelalterliche Biichertitel II, Munich. in the "Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates", Aegyptus 59, 127-136.
LEPPIN, H. M ERLAN, P.
2010: Xenophons Hieron. Oberlegungen zur Geschichte de s monarchischen De nken irn klas- 1954: Isocrates, Aristotle and Alexander the Great, Histo1ia 3, 60- 81.
sischen Athen, in B. Linke, M. Meier and M. Strothmann (eds.), Zwischen Monarchie und MERTON, R. K.
Republik. Gese llschaftliche Stabilisierungsleistungen und politisches Transformationspoten- 1968 : Social Theory and Social Structure. 1968 Enlarged Edition, New York and London.
tial in den antiken Stadtstaaten, Stuttgart, 77-89. M ITCHELL, C.
LEUTERITZ, E. 2005: Bakhtin and the Ideal R uler in 1- 2 Chronicles and the Cyropaedia, in R. Bracht Branham
1997: H ellenistische Paideia und Randgruppe n der Gesellschaft. Herrscher und Frauen, "Bil- (ed.), The Bakhtin Circle and Anc ient Narrative, Groningen, 297-319.
dungspolitik" und Eukosmia, Munich. Mo M1GLIANO, A.
LOPRIENO, A. 1932: Per la data e la caratteristica della lettera di Aristea, Aegyptus 12, 161-172.
1988: Topos und Mimesis. Zurn Auslander in der ligyptischen Literatur, Wiesbaden. 1971: La liberta di parola ncl mondo antico, RSI 83, 499-524.
LUPPINO. E. 1973: Freed om of Speech in Antiquity, in P.P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
1991: Agesilao re di Sparta: immagine e realta, in M. Sordi (ed.), L'immagine dell' uomo poli- S tudies of Selected Pivotal Ideas II, New York, 252- 263.
tico: vita pubblica e morale nell ' antichita, Milan, 89- 107 . MOOREN, L.
MA, J. 1998: K ings and Courtiers. Political D ecision-Making in the Hellenistic States, in W. Schuller
2000: Fighting poleis in the Hellenistic World, in H. van Wees (ed.), War and Violence in A n- (ed.), Politische T heorie und Praxis im Alte1tum, D armstadt, 122-133.
cient Greece, London, 337-376. MORGAN, K. A.
2002: Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, second edition, Oxford. 1998: Designer History: Plato's Atlantis Story and Fourth-Century Ideology, JHS 118, 101- 118.
2003: Kings, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden/MA and O x- M OLLER, R.
ford, 177-195. 1991: Literarische K ommunikation in Griechenland im 5. und 4 . Jah rhundert v. u. Z. , Philolo-
MADDOLI, G. gus 135, 4-23.
1967: Senocrate nel clima politico de! suo tempo, DArch I, 304-327. M OtLER, S.
M ANN, C. and SCHOLZ, P. 201 1: H errschaftslegitimation in den friihhellenistischen D ynastien, in J.E . A kude et al. (eds.),
2012: "Demokratie" im Hellenismus? Von de r Herrschaft des Volkes zur H errschaft der Hono- Politische H errschaft je nseits des S taates. Zur Transfo rmation von Legitimitlit in Geschichte
ratioren?, Mainz. und G cgenwart, Wiesbaden, 157-183.
200 Matthias Haake
MUELLER-GOLDINGEN, C.
1995: Untersuchungen zu Xenophons Kyruptidie, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
MULLER, R.
2000: s. v. Euphante d'Olynthe (E 125), in DPhA III, Paris, 334-335.
MURRAY, 0.
1965: Philodemus on the Good King According to Homer, JRS 55, 161- 182.
1967: Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship, JThS 18, 337- 371.
1975: Aristeas and His Sources, in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XII. Papers Pre-
sented to the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 197 1. Part I:
Inaugural Lecture, Editiones, Criticia, Philologica, Biblica, Historica, Berlin, 123-128.
1984: Rileggendo Jl buon re Secondo Omero, CronErc 14, 157-160.
1987: The Letter of Aristeas, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi Ellenistici II, Pisa, 15-29.
1990: The Idea of the Shepherd King from Cyrus to Charlemagne, in P. Godman and 0. Murray
(eds.), Latin Poetry and the Classical Tradition. Essays in Medieval and Renaissance LiteraUJrc,
Oxford, 1-14.
1996: Hellenistic Royal Symposia, in P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellen istic Kingship,
Aarhus, 15-27.
1998: Modello biografico e modello di regalita, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia-cultura- arte
- societi\ 2. Una storia greca III. Trasfonnazioni, Turin, 249-269.
2000: What is Greek about the Polis?, in P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein
(eds.), Polis & Politics. Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen
on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, Copenhagen, 231-244.
2007: Philosophy and Monarchy in the He llenistic World, in T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Per-
spectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley et al., 13- 28.
NACHTERGAEL, G.
1977: Les Galates en Grece et Jes Soteria de Delphes. Recherches d ' histoire et d' epigrapbie
hellenistique, Brussels.
NADON, C.
2000: Xenophon's Prince. Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia, Berkeley et al.
NAFISSI, M.
2001: L'iscrizione di Laodice (lvlasos 4): Revisione del testo e nuove osservazioni, PP 56, 101- 146.
NAGLE, D.B.
2000: Alexander and Aristotle's Pambasileus, AC 69, 117- 132.
NATOLl, A.F.
2004: The Letter of Speusippus to Philipp II. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary,
Stuttgart.
NEWELL, W.R.
1991: Superlative Virtue: The Problem of Monarchy in Aristotle's Politics, in C. Lord and D. K.
O'Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science, Berkeley e t al.,
191-211.
0EVERMANN, U.
2003: Der Intellektueele - Soziologische Strukturbestimmung des Komplemetar von Offent-
lichkeit, in A. Franzmann, S. Liebermann and J. Tykwer (eds.), Die Macht des Geistes. Soz i-
ologische Fallanalysen zum Strukturtyp des Intellektuellen, Frankfurt/M., 13-75 .
PANZRAM, S. and PINA POLO, F.
2001: M ito, historia y propaganda politica: la carta de Espeusipo a Filipo II de M acedonia,
Geri6n 19, 355-390.
P ASCHIDIS, P.
2008: Between City and King. Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries betwee n the
Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period
(322-190 BC), Athens.
W1iting down the King 201
PAZARAS, T. and H ATZOPOULOS, M. B.
1997 : 'En(yQaµµa <'mo Tl] B EQOLO Twv AVTLyovu'iwv, Tekmeria 3, 71-78.
PELL!NG, C .
2002: The Apophthegmata Regum et Imperatorum and Plutarch's Roman Lives, in C. Pelling
(ed.), Phitrn·ch and History. Eighteen Studies, London and Swansea, 65- 90.
PERLMAN, S.
1969: Isocratcs' " Philippus" and Panbellenism, Historia 18, 370-374.
PERRIN-SAMINADAYAR, E.
2009: La preparation des entrees royales et imperialcs dans Jes cites de I'Orient hellenophone,
d' Alexandre le Grand aux Severes, in A. Bere nger and E. Perrin-Saminadayar (eds.), Les en-
trees royales et imperiales. Histoire, representation et diffusion d'une ceremonie publique, de
!'Orient ancien ii Byzance, Pruis, 67-90.
PETERSON, E.
1929: Zur Bedeutungsgescbichte von IlOQQl']O(a , in W. Koepp (ed.), Reinhold-Seeberg-Fest-
schrift I. Zur Theorie des Ch1i stentums, Leipzig, 284-297 .
P!ERART, M .
Plato n et la cite grecque. Theorie et realite dans la constitution des Lois, second edition,
Paris.
PLACIDO, D.
1989: Economia y sociedad. Polis y basileia. Los fundamentos de la refl exion historiografica
de Jenofonte, Habis 20, 135-153.
PLEZIA, M.
1969-70: Die Ge burtsurkunde des Hellenismus, Eos 58, 51-62.
1980: Le regent e t son conseiller (autour du Politique, dialogue perdu d' Aristote), in Actes du
Collogue international sur l' ideologie monarchique dans l'antiquite. Cracovie - Mogilany du
23 au 26 octobre J977, Warszaw and Cracow, 29- 35.
PODLECKI, A. J.
1985: Theophrast on History and Politics, in W.W. Fortenbaugh (ed.), Theoph.rastus ofEresus.
On his Life and Work, New Brunswick and Oxford, 231-249.
PONTIER, P.
2010: L' Agesilas de Xenophon: comment on reecrit l' histoire, in M.-R. Guelfucci (ed.), Action
politique et ecriture de l'histoire II. Le nanateur homme d'action. Actes du colloque, Besan9on,
16 au 18 oc tobre 2008, Trois-Rivieres, 259-383 .
PRAECHTER,K.
1908: Antonio Bellomo, Agapeto diacono e la sua scheda regia. Contributo alla storia dell'Im-
peratore Giustiniano e dei suoi temp i, ByzZ 17, 152- 164.
PRANDI, L.
1998: Aristoteles und die Monarchie Alexanders (Noch einmal zum "arabischen" Brief), in W.
Schuller (ed.), Politische T heorie und Praxis im Altertum, Dann stadt, 72- 84.
PREAUX, C.
1976: L'image du roi de l'epoque hellenistique, in Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval
Thought. Studia Gerardo Verbeke ab amicis et collegis dicata, Leuven, 53- 75.
1978: Le monde hellenistique. La Gre ce et !'Orient de la mort d' Alexandre a la conquete ro-
maine de la Grece, 323-1 46 avant J.-C., Paris.
PRicE, S.R.F.
1984: Rituals and Power. The R oman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.
PRIEST, N. E .
1978: A Moral Treatise with Exempla, ZPE 31, 61-69.
PRINZ, K.
1997: Epitaphios Logos. Struktur, Funktion und Bedeutung der Bestattungsreden im A then des
5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt/M. e t al.
 202 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 203

QUASS, F. SCHMIDT-DOUNAS, B .
1993: Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Stadten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur 2000: Geschenke erhaJten die Freundschaft. Politik und Selbstdarstell ung im Spiegel der Mo-
politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit, Stuttgart. numente, Berlin.
QUINN, N. and HOLLAND, D. ScHMITT-PANTEL, P.
1987: Culture and Cognition , in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language 1979: Histoire de tyran, o u comment la cite grecque constrnit ses marges, in B. Vincent (ed.),
and Thought, Cambridge, 3-40. Les marginaux et Jes exclus dans I'histoire, Par is, 217-230.
RAIBLE, W. SCHNEEWEISS, 0.
1980: Was sind Gattungen? Eine Antwort aus semiotischer und textlinguistischer Sicht, Poetica 2005: A1istoteles: Protreptikos. Rekonstruiert, iibersetzt und kommentiert, Darmstadt.
12, 320-349. SCHOPIELD, M.
RAAFLAUB, K. 1998: The Disappearing Philosopher-King, in Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy
2004: The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, Chicago. 13, Leiden, 2 13-241.
RAJAK, T.
1999: Social and Political Thought, in K. Algr a et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hel-
2007: The Angry Tyrant, in T. Rajak et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, lenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 739-770.
Berkeley et al., 110-127. SCHOLZ,P.
RANKIN, H.D.
1998: Der Philosoph und die Po litik. Die Ausbildung der philosophischen Lebensform und die
1986: Antisthenes Sokratikos, Amsterdam. Entwicklung des Verhaltnisses von Philosophic und Politik im 4. und 3. Jh. v. Chr., Stuttgart.
RAWSON,E. SCHORN, S.
1989: Roman Rulers and the Philosophic Adviser, in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), Philo- 2010: Politische Theorie, ,Fiirstenspiegel' und Propaganda. Philistos von Syrakus, Xenophons
sophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, Oxford, 233-257. Hieron und Dionysios I. von Syrakus, in D. Engels, L. Geis an M. Kleu (eds.), Z wische n Ideal
REEVE, C. D. C. und Wirklichkeit. Herrsc haft auf Sizilien von der Antike bis zum Spatmittelalter, Stuttgart,
I 988: Philosopher-Kings. The Argument of Plato's Republic, Princeton. 37-61.
RHODES, P. J. with LEWIS, D. M. SCHUBART, W.
1997: The Decrees of the Greek States, 1997. 1920: Bemerkungen zum Stile hellenistischer Konigsbriefe, APF 6, 324-347.
ROSENMEYER, T. G. 1937: Das hellenistische Konigsideal nach lnschriften und Papyri, APF 12, 1- 26.
1984: Ancient Literary Genres: a Mirage?, YCGL 34, 74--84. 1937a: Das Konigsbild des Hellenismus, Die Antike 13, 272-288.
ROSSI, L.E. ScHUTRUMPI~ E.
1971: I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche, BTCS 18, 1995: Politische Reformmodelle im vierten Jahrhundert. Grundsatzliche Annahmen politischer
69-94. Theorie und Versuche konkreter Losungen, in W. Eder (ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4.
ROTA, S.
Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? Akten eines Symposiums
1996: l1 filosofo e l'imperatore. Esempi di constantia e :7tUQQl']OLa ed episodi di crudeltil nei (3.- 7. August 1992, Bellagio), Stuttgart, 271-300.
resoconti arnmianei di alcuni processi del IV secolo d. C., in De tuo tibi. Omaggio degli allievi SCHUTRUMPF, E. and GEHRKE, H .-J.
a ltalo Lana, Bologna, 395-420. 1996: Aristoteles. Politik Buch IV-VI iibersetzt und eingeleitet von E. Schiitrumpf, erlautert
RUBINSOHN, W. Z. von E. Schiitrumpf und H .-J. Gehrke, Darmstadt.
1993: The Philosopher at Court-Intellectuals and Politics in the Time of Alexander the Great, SCHULTE, M.
in Ancient Macedonia V. Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium Held in Thessalo- 200 l: Speculum Regis. Studien zur Fiirstenspiegel -Literatur in der griechisch-romischen An-
niki, October 10-15, 1989, vol. II, Thessaloniki, 1301-1327. tike, Miinster et al.
RYDER, T. T. B. SEGAL, C.
2000: Demosthenes and Philipp II., in I. Worthington (ed.), Demosthenes. Statesman and Ora- 1992: Literary Genres in Greece and Rome, SIFC 85, 961-964.
tor, London and New York, 45-89. SEGRE, M.
SAVALLI-LESTRADE, I. 1935: Catalogo di libri da Rodi, RFIC 13, 214--222.
1998: Les ph.iloi royaux dans I' Asie hellenistique, Geneva. SEIBERT, J.
SCARPAT, G. 1991 : Zur Begriindung von Herrschaftsanspruch und HeJTschaftslegitimierung in der friihen
1964: Parrhesia. Storia de! termine e delle sue traduzioni in latino, Brescia. Diadochenzeit, in J. Seibert (ed.), Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift fiir Hermann Bengt-
SCHEPENS, H. son, Munich, 87-100.
2001: Ancient Greek City Histories. Self-definition tluough History Writing, in K. Demoe n SEIDENSTICKER, B.
(ed.), The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present. Historical Reality, Ideological Constrnc- 1995: Dichtung und Gesellschaft im 4. Jahrhunde1t. Versuch eines Uberblicks, in W. Eder (ed.),
tion, Literary Representation, Leuven, 3-25. Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vollendung oder Ve1fall eincr Verfas-
2003: Potrait d' Agesilas, roi de Spatte, entre consentement et dissentiment, in E. Luppino Manes sungsform? Akten eines Symposiums (3 .-7. August 1992, Bellagio), Stuttgart, 175-198.
(ed.), Storiografia e regalitil nel mondo greco. Colloquio interdisciplinare. CattedTe di Storia SEVIER!, R.
della storiografia greca e Storia greca, Chieti, 17-18 gennaio 2002, Alessandria, J 27- 175. 2004: The Imperfect Hero: Xenophon's Hiero as the (Self-)taming of a Tyrant, in C. Tuplin
SCHMIDT, W. (ed.), Xenophon and His World. Papers from a Conference Held in Liverpool in July 1999,
1986: Untersuchungen zur Falschung historischcr Dokumente bei Pseudo-Aristaios, Bonn. Stllttgart, 277-287.
 1
204 Matthias Haake Writing down the King 205

SHRIMPTON, G. S. 1972: On the Problem of the Doric Pseudo-Pythagorica. An Alternative Theory of Date and
1991: Theopompus the Historian, Montreal et al. Purpose, in Pseudepigrapha I. Pseudopythagorica - Lettres de Platon - Litterature pseudepigra-
SIDEBOTTOM, H. ph iq ue j uive, Geneva, 59-72.
2006: Dio Chrysostom and the Development of On Kingship Literature, in D. Spencer and E. Too, Y.L.
Theodorakopoulos (eds.), Advice and Its Rhetoric in Greece and Rome, Bari, 1 I 6-157. 1995: The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates. Text, Power, Pedagogy, Cambridge.
SKINNER, Q. ToURRAIX, A.

1978: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Volume I: The Renaissance, Cambridge. 1991: Le paradoxe de la monarchie dans l'ideologie poliade au vime siecle, in L'ideologie du
SMITH, R.R. R. p ouvoir monarchique dans 1'Antiquite. Actes du collogue de la Societe des Professeurs d ' His-
1993: Kings and Philosophers, in A. Bulloch et al. (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-defini- toire Ancienne de l'Universite tenu a Lyon et Vienne !es 26-28 juin 1989, Paris, 9- 21.
tion in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley et al., 202-211. ThAMPEDACH, K.
SONNABEND, H. 1994: Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgenossische Politik, Stuttgart.
1992: Polybios, die Attaliden und die Griechen. Oberlegungen zum Nachruf auf Attalos I. 2006: Die T'yrannis als Wunsch- und Schreckbild. Zur Grammatik der Rede Uber Ge-
(18,4 l), Tyche 7, 207-216. waltherrschaft im Griechenland des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., in B. Seidensticker and M. Vohler
1996: Die Freundschaften der Gelehrten und die zwischenstaatliche Politik im klassischen und (eds.), G ewalt und Asthetik. Zur Gewalt und ihrer Darstellung in der griechischen Klassik,
hellenistischen Griechenland, Hildesheim et al. Berlin and New York, 3-27.
SORDJ, M. USHER, S.
1980: Lo Jerone di Senofonte, Dionigi I e Filisto, Athenaeum 58, 3-13. 1994: Isocrates: Paideia, Kingship and the Barbarians, in H.A. Khan (ed.), The Birth of the
1984: La Lettera di Aristotele ad Alessandro e i rapporti Ira Greci c barbari, Aevum 58, 3-12. European Identity: The Europe-Asia-Contrast in Greek Thought 490- 322 B. C., Nottingham,
SQUILLONI, A. 132-145.
VANDERSPO EL, J .
1990: II profilo del capo politico nel pensiero de! IV secolo: lo speculum principis, PPol 23 ,
201-218. 1995: Themistius and the Impe rial Court. Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to
1990a: Lo ,Jerone' di Senofonte e ii tiranno felice, AATC 55, 105- 125. Theodosius, Ann Arbor.
VANDER WAERDT, P.A.
1991: II concetto di ' regno' nel pensiero dello Ps. Ecfanto. Le fonti e i trattati rregt ~am11.Elai;,
Florence. 1985: K ingship and Philosophy in Aristotle's Best Regime, Phronesis 30, 249-273 .
STAMMEN, T. VAN NUFFE LEN, P.
1990: Fiirstenspiegel als literarische Gatrung politischer Theorie im zeitgenossischen Kontext 2011: Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenitic Period,
- ein Versuch, in H.-0. Miihleisen and T. Stammen (eds.), Politische Tugendlehre und Re- Cambridge.
VIRGILIO, B.
gierungskunst. Studien zum Fiirstenspiegel der Friihen Neuzeit, Tiibingen, 255-285 .
STERN, S.M. 2003: Lancia, diadema e porpora. II re e la regalit,'i ellenistica, second edition, Pisa and Rome.
1968: Aristotle on the World-State, London and Colchester. 2009: Aspetti e prospettive della corrispondenza reale ellenistica, in P. Negri Scafa and B. Vir-
STRAUSS, L. gilio (eds.), Dallo Stirone al Tigri, dal Tevere all'Eufrate. Studi in onore di Claudio Saporetti,
1948: On Tyranny. An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero , New York. Rome, 391-408.
STROHEKER, K. F. 2011: Le roi ccrit. Le correspondance du souverain hellenistique, suivie de deux lettres
I 954: Zu den Anfangen der monarchischen Theorie in der Sophistik, Historia 2, 381-412. d'Antiochos Ill a partir de Louis Robert et ct' Adolf Wilhelm, Pisa and Rome.
STROBEL, K. VOLKMANN, H.

1994: Keltensieg und Galatersieger. Die Funktionalisierung eines historischen Phiinomens als 1967: D ie Basileia als ev<So!;oi; <Sou11.E(a. Ein Beitrag zur Wortgeschichte der Duleia, H istoria
politischer Mythos der hellenistischen Welt, in E. Schwertheim (ed.), Forschungen in Galatien, 16, 155- 161.
Bonn, 67-96. VOLPE CACCIATORE, P.
STROOTMAN, R. 1996: L'orazione De Regno di Toma Magistro, in F. Conca (ed.), Byzantina Mediolanensia. V
2005: Kings against Celts. Deliverance from Barbarians as a Theme in Hellenistic Royal Prop- Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini, Milano, 19-22 ottobre 1994, Milan, 41 1-419.
WALBANK, F. W.
aganda, in K.A. E. Enenkel and I. L Pfeijffer (eds.), The Manipulative Mode. Political Propa-
ganda in Antiquity - a Collection of Case Studies, Leiden and Boston, 101- 141. 1967: A Historical Commentary on Polybius II. Commentary on Books VII-XVIIl, Oxford.
2007: The Hellenistic Royal Court. Court Culture, Ceremonial and Ideology in Greece, Egypt I 984: Monarchies and Monarchic Ideas, in CAH2 V il, 1, Cambridge, 62-100.
and the Near East, 336-30 BCE (diss. phil.) Utrecht. 1987: Konige als Gotter. Oberlegungen zum Herrscherkult von Alexander bis Augustus, Chi-
2011: Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age, in R. Alston, 0. van Nijf and C. Williamson ron 17, 365-382.
(eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Leuven, 141-153. WEBER, G.
TARN, W.W. 1997: Interaktion, Reprasentation und Herrschaft. Der Konigshof im Hellenismus, in A. Win-
1913: Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford. terling (ed.), Zwischen "Haus" und "Staat". Antike Hofe im Vergleich, Munich, 27-71.
J.
TATUl'v!, WEBER,M.

1989: Xenophon's Imperial Fiction. On The Education of Cyrus, Princeton. 1972: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundrill der verstehenden Soziologie, fifth edition, Tiibin-
THESLEFF, H. gen.
1961: An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period, Turku.
206 Matthias Haake

WEIL,R.
1985: Sur la »Lettre d'Aristote a Alexandre«, in J. Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles - Werk und
Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Erster Band: Aristoteles und seine Schule, Berlin and New
York, 485-498.
WEISSBACH, F. H.
1924: s. v. Kyros (6), in RE-Suppl. IV, 1129-1166.
WELWEI, K.-W.
1963: Konige und Konigtum im Urteil des Polybios, Cologne.
WESTMAN, R.
1955: Plutarch gegen Kolotes. Seine Schrift Adversus Colotem als philosophiegeschichtliche
Quelle, Helsinki.
WILCOX,S.
1943: Isocrates' Genera of Prose, AJPh 64, 427-431.
WILHELM,A.
1943: Griechische Konigsbriefe, Leipzig.
WiLL,E.
1988: Poleis hellenistiques: deux notes, EMC 32, 329-352.
ZANKER, P.
I 995: Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst, Munich.
ZIMMERMANN, B.
1989: Roman und Enkomion-Xenophons "Erziehung des Kyros", WJA 15, 97-105.
ZUNTZ,G.
1959: Aristeas Studies I: "The Seven Banquets", JSS 4, 21-36.

w::=