From Alexander to the Theoi Adelphoi: Foundation and Legitimation of a Dynasty

This book provides a cultural and social history of the rise and legitimation of the concept of dynastic continuity in the early history of the Ptolemaic Empire. The scope of the study is therefore neither to provide a general overview of third-century Ptolemaic history, nor to discuss in detail the administrative and economic structures of the Ptolemaic state. Rather, its purpose is to investigate the ways by which the first Ptolemies negotiated and constructed a representation of their power as a dynastic house aspiring to universal dominion, protected by the gods and legitimately continuing the heritage of the Macedonian and Egyptian monarchies. It is argued that they managed to do so by operating within different socio-cultural and ethnic milieus and by pursuing their strategies on a two-fold level: on the one hand, by continuously reshaping the relationship between the present events of the ruling house and its historical and mythical past, so as to adapt it to new political and cultural agendas; on the other hand, by shifting the border between the spheres of human and divine power in order to ensure themselves the legitimacy and loyalty stemming from religious thought and practice.
Discussed evidence comprises Greek and Egyptian sources, literary and documentary texts, iconographic and archaeological evidence from the Macedonian conquest of Egypt under Alexander to the ascension of Ptolemy III Euergetes. Whenever possible, a new, encompassing evaluation of old evidence has gained new impetus from the intensive analysis of newly published sources. Secondly, the complex cultural and social factors operating in the construction and legitimation of the Ptolemaic dynasty have been discussed by drawing on the contribution of up-to-date scholarship in cultural and religious history as well as in sociology. The rooting of Ptolemaic power in Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean is studied as the movement from the immediate but unstable right of conquest established by Alexander, and subsequently claimed by the satrap Ptolemy, to the development of a mature and coherent system of power practices and representations.
The structure of the book is meant to provide readers with a chronological and thematic discussion ranging from Alexander’s conquest of Egypt to the first years of Ptolemy III. However, the six chapters that constitute this study can also be read separately as they are conceived as the monographic treatment of major moments or aspects of the cultural, political, and religious history of the early Hellenistic period.
Chapter 1 deals with the premises of Ptolemaic power in Egypt by focusing on the time of Alexander’s conquest. The implications of Alexander’s sonship to Zeus Ammon in propaganda and in religion are reviewed by drawing attention to the plurality of audiences (Macedonians, Greeks, Egyptians) for which this motif was conceived and used.
Chapter 2 discusses the conflicting patterns of legitimation in the age of the Successors and how Ptolemy exploited them in his rise from satrap to king. Some seminal moments of Ptolemy’s career are re-examined: the acquisition of Alexander’s corpse as a source of embodied legitimacy; the interactions between the leader and pre-existing Macedonian and Egyptian elites as they appear in assembly scenes of Greek historiography and in the hieroglyphic Satrap stele; Ptolemy’s help to the Rhodians against Antigonus and Demetrius and the entanglement between royal charisma and religious honours.
Chapter 3 focuses on the figure of Dionysus in Ptolemaic religion and culture from a twofold perspective. Firstly, the chapter provides an innovative analysis of the religious and ideological role of Dionysus in Ptolemy II’s Alexandrian procession described by Callixeinus of Rhodes. Secondly, it aims at offering a contribution for a reappraisal of the figure of Dionysus, of his cults and of the role of his figure within the larger context of the Ptolemaic Empire in the third century BC.
Chapter 4 discusses the patterns of divinization of Arsinoe II within the royal couple through the most complete documentary dossier collected thus far on the subject. Rather than constituting the aim of the research, the debate concerning the chronology of Arsinoe’s death and divinization has provided the rough framework for a new investigation of how the image of a solid royal couple was invented and spread in religious life and in propaganda. Diachronic developments in the configurations of the dynastic couple are traced through Greek and Egyptian evidence and discussed in relation to the changing of political agendas during the reign of Ptolemy II.
Chapter 5 studies the contribution of Ptolemy III to the construction of Ptolemaic dynastic continuity through old and new evidence, notably by providing fresh observations concerning the recently published decree of Alexandria (243 BC) for the understanding of Ptolemaic royal festivals in general and, more in particular, for the history of the festival Ptolemaia in the second half of the 3rd century BC.
Chapter 6 breaks with chronological continuity to trace, through literary and documentary evidence from the Roman period, the development of the tradition envisaging Alexander’s body as a talismanic relic protecting the city of Alexandria. The purpose of this epilogue is to provide a methodological essay of interpretation of cultural traditions in the longue durée, when patterns of continuity developed under the Ptolemies were separated from their original context of diffusion and consequently were re-used to shape the civic identity of Alexandria within the new and broader framework of the Roman Empire.
Although focus on the construction of a dynasty as a sequence of legitimate, kindred holders of monarchic power makes Ptolemaic kings and queens the central object of this study, it is argued that sovereigns cannot be considered as the sole holders of the initiative in the political, ideological and religious processes relating to the construction of royal and dynastic imagery. On the contrary, it appears that social agents other than the holders of supreme leadership not only reacted to top-down stimulation, but they also constructed, for their own use, representations of the monarchs that interacted with the message issued by the central power. From this perspective, therefore, dynastic continuity results from the intertextual combination of a variety of ideological and religious motifs stemming from different agents and occasions of communication.