-
63
Chapter*6:*Hellenistic*Empire* Hellenistic period The
Hellenistic period or Hellenistic era of Greek history describes
the time which followed the conquests of Alexander the Great. It
was so named by the historian J. G. Droysen. During this time,
Greek cultural influence and power was at its zenith in Europe and
Asia. It is often considered a period of transition, sometimes even
of decline or decadence, between the brilliance of the Greek
Classical era and the emergence of the Roman Empire. Usually taken
to begin with the death of Alexander in 323 BC, the Hellenistic
period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the
Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC or with the final defeat of the
last remaining successor-state to Alexander's empire after the
Battle of Actium in 31 BC. The Hellenistic period was characterized
by a wave of colonists who established Greek cities and kingdoms in
Asia and Africa. The Hellenistic period emerged, approximately,
323-30BC. Beginning after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the
period experienced prosperity and progress in the decorative and
visual arts, exploration, literature, sculpture, theatre,
architecture, music, mathematics, and science. The Hellenistic era
experienced an age of eclecticism, a new awakening of the diverse
knowledge and theories present in Greek culture. Instead of
contemplating and debating ideals, logic, extinguished emotion, or
consummate beauty, people would explore and analyze reality.
Background Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious
collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the
Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan
hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful.
Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of
Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of
Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence.
It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began,
under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the
Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent,
the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric
by the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and
centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly
controlled a large area. With the accession of a strong and
expansionist leader in Philip, Macedon was able to begin a rise to
power over Greece. Philip took every opportunity to expand
Macedonian territory, and in 352 BC annexed Thessaly and Magnesia.
Desultory conflicts with Thebes and Athens continued for another
decade, but in 338 BC Philip defeated a Theban and Athenian army at
the Battle of Chaeronea. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League
of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his
direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign
against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However,
whilst this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated
(possibly at the instigation of his son Alexander).
Alexander’s$Empire$ Succeeding his father, Alexander took over
the Persian war himself. During a decade of campaigning, Alexander
conquered the whole Persian Empire, overthrowing the Persian king
Darius III. The conquered lands included Asia Minor, Assyria, the
Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Media, Persia, and parts of modern
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the steppes of central Asia. Controlling
such a large territory wasn’t easy. The first tenet of Alexander's
policies was the founding (or re-founding) of cities across the
empire. This has, in the past, been interpreted as part of
Alexander's desire to spread Greek culture throughout the empire.
These cities were presumably intended to be administrative
headquarters in the regions, and to have been settled by Greeks;
many were settled by veterans of Alexander's campaigns.
Undoubtedly, this would have resulted in the spread of Greek
influence across the empire; however, the
-
64
primary purpose could have been to control his new subjects,
rather than specifically to spread Greek culture. Arrian explicitly
says that a city founded in Bactria was "meant to civilize the
natives"; however, this comment could be interpreted in either way
(with civilize as a euphemism for 'control'). Certainly, the cities
would have been garrison points, and thus allowed control of the
surrounding areas. Alexander also attempted to create a unified
ruling class of Persians and Greeks, bound by marriage ties. He
used both Greeks and Persians in positions of power, although he
depended more on Greeks in unstable positions, and also replaced
many Persian satraps in a purge after his return from India. He
also tried to mix the two cultures, adopting elements of the
Persian court (such as a version of the royal robes and some of the
court ceremony and attendants) and also attempting to insist on the
practice of proskynesis (bowing before the king) for his Greek
subjects. Furthermore, Alexander's marriage to, and child with the
Bactrian princess Roxana can be interpreted as an attempt to create
a royal dynasty which would be acceptable to both Asians and
Greeks. The spread of Hellenistic cultures was sparked by the
conquests of Alexander the Great. After his ventures of the Persian
Empire, Hellenistic kingdoms were established throughout south-west
Asia (the 'Near' and 'Middle East') and north-east Africa (ancient
Egypt and Cyrene in ancient Libya). This resulted in the export of
Greek culture and language to these new realms, and moreover Greek
colonists themselves. Equally, however, these new kingdoms were
influenced by the indigenous cultures, adopting local practices
where beneficial, necessary or convenient. After his death, the
huge territories Alexander had conquered became subject to a strong
Greek influence (hellenization) for the next two or three
centuries, until the rise of Rome in the west, and of Parthia in
the east. As the Greek and eastern cultures mingled, the
development of a hybrid Hellenistic culture began, and persisted
even when isolated from the main centres of Greek culture (for
instance, in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom). Hellenistic civilization
thus represents a fusion of the Ancient Greek world with that of
the Near East, Middle East and Southwest Asia, and a departure from
earlier Greek attitudes towards "barbarian" cultures. The
Hellenistic period was characterized by a new wave of Greek
colonization (as distinguished from that occurring in the 8th-6th
centuries BC) which established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia
and Africa. Those new cities were composed of Greek colonists who
came from different parts of the Greek world, and not, as before,
from a specific "mother city". The main cultural centers expanded
from mainland Greece to Pergamon, Rhodes, and new Greek colonies
such as Seleucia, Antioch and Alexandria. This mixture of
Greek-speakers gave birth to a common Attic-based dialect, known as
Hellenistic Greek, which became the lingua franca through the
Hellenistic world. After Alexander Alexander had made no special
preparations for his succession in his newly founded empire, dying
as he did at a young age, and thus on his death-bed (apocryphally),
he willed it to "the strongest". The result was a state of
internecine warfare between his generals (the Diadochi, or
'Successors'), which lasted for forty years before a more-or-less
stable arrangement was established, consisting of four major
domains: The Antigonid dynasty in Macedon and central Greece; The
Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt based at Alexandria; The Seleucid
dynasty in Syria and Mesopotamia based at Antioch; The Attalid
dynasty in Anatolia based at Pergamum.
-
65
A further two kingdoms later emerged, the so called
Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdom. Each of these kingdoms had,
thereafter, a noticeably individual development and history. For
the most part, the latter parts of those histories are of gradual
decline, with most ending in absorption by the Republic of Rome. We
find numerous cycles of alliances, marriages and wars between these
states. However, it is clear that the rulers of these kingdoms
still considered themselves Greek, and furthermore, recognized that
the other Hellenistic realms were also Greek and not 'robbing
barbarians.' The end of the Hellenistic period is often considered
to be 146 BC, when the Roman Republic conquered most of mainland
Greece, and absorbed all of ancient Macedon. By this time the rise
of Rome to absolute political prominence in the Mediterranean was
complete, and this might therefore mark the start of the 'Roman
period'. An alternative date is 30 BC, when the final Hellenistic
kingdom of Ptolemaic Egypt was conquered by Rome (the last remnants
of the Seleucid empire having been taken over thirty years
earlier). This more obviously represents the absolute end of the
power of the Hellenistic civilizations.
$Hellenistic$culture$ Athens retained its position as the most
prestigious seat of higher education, especially in the domains of
philosophy and rhetoric, with considerable libraries. Alexandria,
Egypt, was arguably the second most important center of Greek
learning. The Library of Alexandria had 700,000 volumes. The city
of Pergamon became a major center of book production, possessing a
library of some 200,000 volumes, second only to Alexandria's. The
island of Rhodes boasted a famous finishing school for politics and
diplomacy. Cicero was educated in Athens and Mark Antony in Rhodes.
Antioch was founded as a metropolis and center of Greek learning
which retained its status into the era of Christianity. Seleucia
replaced Babylon as the metropolis of the lower Tigris. The spread
of Greek culture throughout the Near East and Asia owed much to the
development of cities. Settlements such as Ai-Khanoum, situated on
trade routes, allowed cultures to mix and spread. The
identification of local gods with similar Greek deities facilitated
the building of Greek-style temples, and the Greek culture in the
cities also meant that buildings such as gymnasia became common.
Many cities maintained their autonomy while under the nominal rule
of the local king or satrap, and often had Greek-style
institutions. Greek dedications, statues, architecture and
inscriptions have all been found. However,
-
66
local cultures were not replaced, and often mixed to create a
new culture. Greek language and literature spread throughout the
former Persian Empire. The development of the Alexander Romance
(mainly in Egypt) owes much to Greek theater as well as other
styles of story. The Library at Alexandria, set up by Ptolemy I
Soter, became a center for learning and was copied by various other
monarchs. An example that shows the spread of Greek theater is
Plutarch's story of the death of Crassus, in which his head was
taken to the Parthian court and used as a prop in a performance of
The Bacchae. Theaters have also been found: for example, in
Ai-Khanoum on the edge of Bactria, the theater has 35 rows - larger
than the theater in Babylon. The spread of Greek influence and
language is also shown through Ancient Greek coinage. Portraits
became more realistic, and the obverse of the coin was often used
to display a propaganda image, commemorating an event or displaying
the image of a favored god. The use of Greek-style portraits and
Greek language continued into the Parthian period, even as the use
of Greek was in decline.
Hellenistic*Judaism* Those Jews living in countries west of the
Levant formed the Hellenistic diaspora (scattering of Jews). The
Egyptian diaspora is the most well-known of these. It witnessed
close ties, indeed the firm economic integration, of Judea with the
Ptolemaic kingdom ruled from Alexandria, and the friendly relations
which existed between the royal court and the leaders of the Jewish
community. This was a diaspora of choice not of imposition.
Information is less robust regarding diasporas in other
territories. It suggests that the situation was by and large the
same as it was in Egypt. Jewish life in both Judea and the diaspora
was influenced by the culture and language of Hellenism, and in
Judah relations deteriorated between Hellenized Jews and
traditionalists. For reasons not fully understood, the Seleucid
king Antiochus IV Epiphanes banned key Jewish religious rites and
traditions in Judea, causing traditionalists to revolt against the
Greek ruler. When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was looted and
services stopped, Judaism was outlawed. In 167 BC Antiochus ordered
an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. He banned brit milah
(circumcision) and ordered pigs to be sacrificed at the altar of
the temple. Antiochus's actions provoked a large-scale revolt.
Mattathias (Mattityahu), a Jewish priest, and his five sons
Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah led a rebellion
against Antiochus. Judah became known as Yehuda HaMakabi ("Judah
the Hammer" or Maccabeus). By 166 BC Mattathias had died, and Judah
took his place as leader. By 165 BC the Jewish revolt against the
Seleucid monarchy was successful. The Temple was liberated and
rededicated. The festival of Hanukkah was instituted to celebrate
this event. Some modern scholars argue that the king was
intervening in an internal civil war between the Maccabean Jews and
the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem. These competed violently over who
would be the High Priest, with traditionalists with Hebrew/Aramaic
names like Onias contesting with Hellenizing High Priests with
Greek names like Jason and Menelaus. In particular Jason's
Hellenistic reforms would prove to be a decisive factor leading to
eventual conflict within the ranks of Judaism. Other authors point
to possible socioeconomic reasons in addition to the religious
reasons behind the civil war. What began in many respects as a
civil war escalated when the Hellenistic kingdom of Syria sided
with the Hellenizing Jews in their conflict with the
traditionalists. As the conflict escalated, Antiochus took the side
of the Hellenizers by prohibiting the religious practices the
traditionalists had rallied around. This may explain why the king,
in a total departure from Seleucid practice in all other places and
times, banned a traditional religion. The main issue which
separated the Hellenized Jews from rebellious and traditional Jews
was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (or Roman or
other non-Jewish) empire. The major literary product of the contact
of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible), as well as the so-called
apocrypha and pseudepigraphicapocalyptic literature (such as the
Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the
Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the
period. Philo of Alexandria was an important Hellenistic apologist
of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition
-
67
of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of
an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had
anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on
Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive
or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the
heart" in the pursuit of virtue. Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism
emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented
reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) asemanations from God.
-
68
Primary$Sources$
Plutarch:*Philip*of*Macedon's*Assassination*
The assassination that had the greatest impact on the course of
ancient history was that of Philip II (r. 359-336 B.C.E.), king of
Macedon and father of Alexander the Great. Lawyers, confronted by a
suspicious death, often ask the question cui bono?--" to whose
benefit?" In Philip's case, obviously, it was to Alexander's.
Father and son had their differences, at the center of which was
Alexander's forceful mother, Olympias, who had figured more
prominently in her son's life than Philip had. When Philip took as
his new wife (Macedonian kings often practiced polygamy) a
high-born Macedonian woman named Cleopatra, his relations with
Olympias naturally were strained and Alexander's position as likely
heir to the throne became insecure, since Olympias was not
Macedonian by blood. Could either Alexander or Olympias have been
behind the killing of Philip? You be the judge! Hint: try
constructing a chart of relationships (several of the participants
share the same name). The marriages and love affairs of Philip not
only led to conflicts in his household and among his womenfolk, but
soon affected the state as a whole, when disputes arose between
himself and his son Alexander. The envious and vengeful personality
of Olympias fanned these flames, as she provoked Alexander to defy
his father. Their differences came to a crisis with Philip's
decision to marry Cleopatra, a very young woman with whom he had
rashly fallen in love. At a banquet one night, Attalus, Cleopatra's
uncle, being quite drunk, urged the Macedonians to pray the gods
that the marriage of Philip and Cleopatra would produce a
pure-blooded heir [i.e., Macedonian on both sides] to the throne.
This infuriated Alexander, who shouted "You scoundrel, are you
calling me a bastard?" He then flung his drink at Attalus. Philip
rose to intervene, drawing his sword against his son. Luckily, he
was so unbalanced by wine and anger that he stumbled and fell to
the ground. At this, Alexander sneered and said "Here's the man who
plans to travel from Europe to Asia, but he can't even make it from
one couch to another without taking a header! " Following this
drunken ruckus, Alexander left the capital, removing Olympias to
Epirus and himself to Illyria. In the archonship of Pythodorus [336
B.C.E.] ... Philip, having been appointed hegemon
[commander-in-chief] by the Greek states, commenced the war with
Persia by sending ahead into Asia [Minor] an advance expedition
under the command of Attalus and Parmenio, with orders to liberate
the Greek city-states there. Philip himself, anxious to have divine
approval, consulted the Pythia [priestess at Delphi] to ask if he
would defeat the Persian king. She responded as follows: "The bull
is garlanded [for sacrifice]. All is ready and the sacrificer is at
hand. " Though the response was equivocal, Philip took it as
propitious to himself: that is, predicting the death of the Persian
king. In fact, it foretold Philip's own death at a festival with
solemn sacrifices; he, like the bull, would die wearing religious
wreaths. But Philip rejoiced to think that he had the backing of
the gods and trusted that Macedonian arms would subjugate Asia
[Minor]. Philip now made plans for spectacular celebrations for the
gods, in conjunction with the wedding of his and Olympias's
daughter, Cleopatra, who was marrying Alexander, the king of Epirus
(and brother of Olympias). Eager to have as many Greeks as possible
participating in the sacred observances, he scheduled elaborate
musical displays and feasts for his guests. He invited his own
friends from all over Greece and urged his courtiers to do the
same. He intended to impress the Greeks with his civility and to
repay the honors bestowed on him as supreme commander by staging an
appropriate social event. Many people came to the festival at Aegae
in Macedonia from all parts both for the games and for the
marriage. Philip was awarded golden crowns not only by individuals
but also by many major city-states, including Athens. When the
herald announced the Athenian decoration, he closed by saying that
the Athenians would surrender anyone plotting against Philip and
seeking refuge at Athens. The words (later) seemed an omen from the
gods that a conspiracy was in fact approaching. There were several
other sayings at the time that seemed to foreshadow the king's
demise.... The games were to begin the next day. The theater was
already packed before dawn, and at sunrise the lavish procession
began: it included dazzling images of the twelve Olympian gods
meant to awe the spectators; and to the twelve was joined a
thirteenth--that of Philip himself. Philip appeared at the crowded
theater attired in a white mantle. He bid his bodyguards to keep
their distance, meaning to demonstrate his confidence in the
adulation of the Greeks, which made armed guards
-
69
unnecessary. Amidst the general applause and raves, the plot to
assassinate unfolded itself. In the interest of clarity, I will
examine the motives for it. A Macedonian, Pausanias by name, from
the Orestis district, had been a member of the king's bodyguard.
Because of his attractiveness, Philip became his lover. When Philip
then turned his attentions elsewhere (to another man named
Pausanias), the first Pausanias mocked the second by saying he was
androgynous and promiscuous. Cut to the quick by this slur, the
second Pausanias secured his own death in a sensational way, after
confiding in Attalus what he was intending to do. For, some days
later, during a battle with Pleurias, an Illyrian king, Pausanias
shielded Philip's body with his own, and died from fatal wounds so
received. The incident was widely reported. Attalus, a man of
standing and influence in the court of Philip, thereupon invited
the first Pausanias to dinner. Having gotten him drunk on undiluted
wine, he then handed him over nearly unconscious to be raped by his
mule-drivers. Pausanias, once sobered up, was deeply aggrieved by
the assault on his person and denounced Attalus to the king.
Philip, however, although outraged at the brutality of the deed,
did not choose to bring Attalus to account because of their
affiliation and because he had need of the man's services at the
moment: Attalus was the [uncle] of Philip's new wife, Cleopatra,
and, owing to his valor, had just been appointed general of the
forward forces in Asia. Thus, Philip instead tried to quell
Pausanias's justifiable rage over his injury by giving him gifts
and elevating his position in the corps of his personal bodyguards.
Pausanias for his part kept his grudge and longed to exact
vengeance not only from the man who had injured him, but also from
the one who had declined to redress the injustice. His teacher, the
sophist Hermocrates, unwittingly inspired him in his scheme. When
Pausanias asked him how one could become most renowned, the sophist
answered: "by slaying the man whose achievements were the greatest,
for the assassin's fame would endure as long as the great man's. "
Pausanias took this opinion as applicable to his own situation. He
immediately resolved to revenge himself during the distractions of
the wedding festival. Having readied horses at the city gates, he
went to the entrance of the theater carrying a concealed Celtic
dagger. Philip on his arrival bid his companions to enter ahead of
him and, with his bodyguard ordered to keep their distance, was by
himself. Pausanias darted forward and stabbed the king through his
ribs, killing him instantly. He then made a dash for the gates and
his getaway horses. Meantime, the royal bodyguards sprang into
action, some rushing to the fallen king, others pursuing the
killer; these included Leonnatus, Perdiccas, and Attalus [not the
uncle of Cleopatra]. Pausanias nearly made it to the waiting
horses, but his shoe caught in a vine and he fell. As he was
getting up, Perdiccas and the others overtook him and slew him with
their javelins. So perished Philip, the greatest European monarch
of his era. The vast extent of his rule led him to claim a throne
among the twelve great Olympian deities. He reigned twenty-four
years, in that time rising from a man with little support for his
claim to the throne to ruler of the greatest empire in Greece. The
success of his career derived not so much from his military genius
as from his facility and tact in diplomacy. They say that he prided
himself more on his skills of strategy and diplomacy than on his
battlefield courage, for his whole army shared the credit for
success in combat, while he alone got the recognition for
diplomatic victories. Question: Which people and what motives might
have been behind the murder of Philip?
Hippocrates*(c.*400*BC)*
Let us inquire then regarding what is admitted to be Medicine;
namely, that which was invented for the sake of the sick, which
possesses a name and practitioners, whether it also seeks to
accomplish the same objects, and whence it derived its origin. To
me, then, it appears, as I said at the commencement, that nobody
would have sought for medicine at all, provided the same kinds of
diet had suited with men in sickness as in good health. Wherefore,
even yet, such races of men as make no use of medicine, namely,
barbarians, and even certain of the Greeks, live in the same way
when sick as when in health; that is to say, they take what suits
their appetite, and neither abstain from, nor restrict themselves
in anything for which they have a desire. But those who have
cultivated and invented medicine, having the same object in view as
those of whom I formerly spoke, in the first place, I suppose,
diminished the quantity of the articles of food which they used,
and this alone would be sufficient for certain of the sick, and be
manifestly beneficial to them, although not to all, for there would
be some so affected as not to be able to manage even small
quantities of their usual food, and as such persons would seem to
require something weaker, they invented soups, by mixing a few
strong things with much water, and thus abstracting that which was
strong in them by dilution and boiling. But such as could not
manage even soups, laid them aside, and had recourse to drinks,
-
70
and so regulated them as to mixture and quantity, that they were
administered neither stronger nor weaker than what was required.
Question: What does this passage tell us about the Hellenistic
practice of medicine?
Diogenes*Laërtius:*Life*of*Diogenes*the*Cynic*(d.*325*BC)*
Once, when some strangers wished to see Demosthenes, he
stretched out his middle finger and said, "This is the great
demagogue of the Athenian people." When some one had dropped a
loaf, and was ashamed to pick it up again, he, wishing to give him
a lesson, tied a cord round the neck of a bottle and dragged it all
through the Ceramicus. He used to say, that he imitated the
teachers of choruses, for that they spoke too loud, in order that
the rest might catch the proper tone. Another of his sayings, was
that most men were within a finger’s breadth of being mad. If,
then, any one were to walk along, stretching out his middle finger,
he will seem to be mad; but if he puts out his forefinger, he will
not be thought so. Another of his sayings was, that things of great
value were often sold for nothing, and vice versa. Accordingly,
that a statue would fetch three thousand drachmas, and a bushel of
meal only two obols. . .
On one occasion he saw a child drinking out of its hands, and so
he threw away the cup which belonged to his wallet, saying, "That
child has beaten me in simplicity." He also threw away his spoon,
after seeing a boy, when he had broken his vessel, take up his
lentils with a crust of bread. And he used to argue thus, —
"Everything belongs to the gods; and wise men are the friends of
the gods. All things are in common among friends; therefore
everything belongs to wise men." Once he saw a woman falling down
before the Gods in an unbecoming attitude; he, wishing to cure her
of her superstition, as Zoilus of Perga tells us, came up to her,
and said, "Are you not afraid, O woman, to be in such an indecent
attitude, when some God may be behind you, for every place is full
of him?" . . .
Once, while he was sitting in the sun in the Craneum, Alexander
was standing by, and said to him, "Ask any favour you choose of
me." And he replied, " Cease to shade me from the sun." On one
occasion a man was reading some long passages, and when he came to
the end of the book and showed that there was nothing more written,
"Be of good cheer, my friends," exclaimed Diogenes, "I see land." A
man once proved to him syllogistically that he had horns, so he put
his hand to his forehead and said, "I do not see them." And in a
similar manner he replied to one who had been asserting that there
was no such thing as motion, by getting up and walking away. When a
man was talking about the heavenly bodies and meteors, "Pray how
many days," said he to him, "is it since you came down from
heaven?" Question: Why might Diogenes' cynicism have been popular
in Hellenistic times?