Antigonus Gonatas Research Articles

Waterfield, The Making of a King: Antigonus Gonatas of Macedon and the Greeks

Review of Robin Waterfield, The Making of a King: Antigonus Gonatas of Macedon and the Greeks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).

The Antigonids and the Ruler Cult. Global and Local Perspectives?

Demetrius Poliorketes is considered by modern scholars the true founder of ruler cult. In particular the Athenians attributed him several divine honors between 307 and 290 BC. The ancient authors in general consider these honors in a negative perspective, while offering words of appreciation about an ideal sovereignty intended as a glorious form of servitude and embodied in Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius Poliorketes’ son and heir. An analysis of the epigraphic evidences referring to this king leads to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas did not officially encourage the worship towards himself.

DECONSTRUCTING A MYTH OF SELEUCID HISTORY: THE SO-CALLED “ELEPHANT VICTORY” REVISITED

In 281 b.c., the kings Lysimachus and Seleucus, the last survivors from among Alexander the Great’s hetairoi, clashed in a major battle near Corupedium in Phyrgia. Meanwhile, Celtic chieftains from the Balkan regions prepared for the most spectacular invasion of Greece since the Persian Wars. One decade later, the hellenistic world had undergone significant change: not only Lysimachus and Seleucus, but also Ptolemy Ceraunus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Pyrrhus had lost their lives in the quest for power. Antigonus Gonatas had eventually established himself as king of Macedon, while Antiochus i, having overcome the turmoil that followed his succession to the Seleucid throne, kept Ptolemy ii out of Syria and halted the latter’s intrusion into southern Asia Minor in the so-called “First Syrian War” (274–271/70 b.c.). Despite the loss of Miletus, Antiochus’ control now extended eastwards to the Hindu Kush and westwards to the Aegean coast. In contrast to his father, however, Antiochus had to tolerate the presence of Galatian forces in central Anatolia. After the Celts had been defeated at Delphi in 279 b.c., two remnant groups went to Asia in 278 b.c. and became allies of Nicomedes i of Bithynia, while at least one other seems to have been hired by Mithridates i of Pontus soon thereafter. Since our sources are scanty, much early Galatian history is controversial or obscure, and individual tribal names and settlement places are attested only in subsequent generations. Among these, the best known are the Tolistobogii, who took possession of the region around Gordium, the former Phrygian residence at the confluence of the Tembris and Sangarius rivers. To the west were the Tectosages, who ultimately controlled Ancyra and its environs up to the river Halys. East of the Halys were the Trocmi, with Tavium being their central market place, although this may in fact represent a much later stage in the formation of the Galatian landscape.

Parua figura poli: Ovid's Vestalia (Fasti 6.249–468) and the Phaenomena of Aratus

arte Syracosia suspensus in aere clausostat globus, immensi parua figura poli (Ovid, Fasti 6.277–8)‘The astronomy in the Fasti is indebted to Aratus, as was presumably Ovid's own Phaenomena’. The relationship between the astronomical material in Ovid's Fasti and the astronomical poem by Aratus of Soli, composed under the auspices of Antigonus Gonatas in about 278 B.C., is indisputable; but the nature of this relationship has not been explored. Such an exploration may add a new layer of meaning to Ovid's poem, as an entity which responds not only to aetiological models but also to ‘scientific’ didactic models.

A Macedonian shield and Macedonian measures

The bronze cover of a phalanx-man's shield, found in Upper Macedonia and published by P. Adam-Veleni, was inscribed ‘of king—’, the name being illegible. From the inscription and the decoration one can estimate that the Macedonian ‘foot’ was in the upper category of length. It is suggested that the king—probably Antigonus Gonatas—had these shields manufactured, and that he issued them to his infantry guard.

The Locrian Maidens and the Date of Lycophron'sAlexandra

The tribute of two maidens to the temple of Athena in Ilium was discontinued after the end of the ‘Phocian’ war (346 B.C.). We have for this the evidence of the Epitome of Apollodorus 6. 22 χéων δ τν παρελӨντων μετ τν Φωκiκν πλεπoν ἱκτiδας πασαντo πμoντεσ. In Tzetzes' commentary to Lycophron 1. 1141 the same piece of information is given on the authority of Timaeus (pp. 335–6 Scheer = fr. 66FHG), but Wilamowitz, among others, showed that Tzetzes arbitrarily (though perhaps not foolishly) transferred the name of Timaeus from the scholium on 1. 1155.3The information remains valuable without the adornment of an illustrious name. We know from a story of Aelian, which ‘Suidas’ partially preserved in many fragments (Aelianus, fr. 47, Hercher, ii, p. 205), that the Locrians were compelled by the Delphic oracle to resume the interrupted practice and submitted the regulation of it to a King Antigonus, δ βασiλεὺς Ἀντγoνoς øεӨν oἱ πρσταξεκλρῳ δiακρiӨναi This King Antigonus can hardly be identified with Antigonus Doson for two reasons which must, however, be admitted to be not absolutely cogent. First, the interval between interruption and resumption would be one of more than a century, whereas Aelian (though he cannot be pressed too much on any interpretation) presupposes a shorter interval. Secondly, the ‘Lokrische Madcheninschrift’ made famous by A. Wilhelm, which is an evidentterminus ante quernfor the intervention of King Antigonus, can hardly be later than 230–220 B.C. Wilhelm, indeed, had suggested a datec.270–240 B.C. His date has been affected by recent changes in Delphic chronology; but the balance of probability (so far as I can see) still favours a date nearer to 250 than to 200 B.C. Thus, the more natural alternative remains between Antigonus Monophthalmus and Antigonus Gonatas. Either agrees well with the interruption after the third Sacred War.

The Personal Appearance of Antigonus Gonatas

Previous articleNext article No AccessNotes and DiscussionsThe Personal Appearance of Antigonus GonatasCharles F. Edson, Jr.Charles F. Edson, Jr. Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 29, Number 3Jul., 1934 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/361751 Views: 3Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Two Notes on Ptolemaic History

Ptolemy I, son of Lagos and Arsinoe, is usually supposed to have belonged, through his mother, to a cadet branch of the Argead house and to have been a third cousin of Alexander. But a fragment of Euphantus, so far unexplained, leads up to the conclusion that his mother was not of the blood royal and that he had no connexion with the royal house at all. Hellenistic literature was full of fictitious relationships, which often found their way into history as facts; and we seem to have here another case of the same sort.Euphantus is contemporary evidence for the period during which Ptolemy I was king. He was a pupil of Eubulides and the first philosophic teacher of Antigonus Gonatas; supposing he went to him when Antigonus was thirteen, as Aristotle did to Alexander, he was a known man in 307 or 306, while Ptolemy took the crown in 305. As he wrote a treatise on Kingship for Antigonus he was alive in or after 276, after Ptolemy's death; he wrote a history of his own time, and died of old age.

The Neutrality of Delos

The problem of the neutrality of Delos has been the subject of a searching investigation by W. W. Tarn published recently in this Journal. The argument turns mainly on a purely epigraphical question, namely, the interpretation of the formula for the setting-up of a stele in the decrees of the Island League. Its historical importance is great, because, if Tarn is right, we should be justified in utilising the Delian Royal festivals for the reconstruction of the political history of the third century, which has rightly been styled the darkest period of Hellenism. As in the fourth Excursus of his large work Antigonus Gonatas, the distinguished scholar maintains the thesis that Delos became a member of the Island League, and that the varying history of this League is reflected in the establishment of festivals in turn by the Ptolemies, by the Seleucids, and by the Antigonids. The evidence for his theory he finds in the argument that the Islanders, if they wished to set up an inscribed stele in Delos, were not obliged to address a petition to the Commune of Delos, requesting the grant of a site in the sanctuary; the Islanders therefore controlled the site and ground of Delos, which implies that Delos belonged to the League. Although I raised objections to Tarn's thesis, as did Roussel at an earlier date, I would gladly be the first to agree with him, had he succeeded in bringing forward convincing proof of this theory. As this has not been the case, in view of the wide significance of the problem I think it advisable to break silence and to expose my objections to the criticism of experts.

The Dedicated Ship of Antigonus Gonatas

This paper is the sequel to one dealing with the chronology of the battles of Andres and Cos, published in the last number of this Journal: in it I propose to consider such information as we have about a great ship belonging to Antigonus Gonatas, which may throw some little additional light on these two battles. It is perhaps unnecessary to recall the fact that the third century B.C. was distinguished by a colossal series of experiments in the building of large warships, and that the limits of the effective history of these in action, so far as known to us, coincide pretty well (omitting Antony's revival) with those of the effective action of the Antigonid dynasty at sea: that is to say, ships larger than hexereis are not heard of in action earlier than the time of Antigonus I. or later than the time of Philip V. I make one assumption in this paper, if it be an assumption and not an axiom: I shall suppose that what is true alike of the earliest flint axes and of the modern battleship was true of the naval war-machines of the third century B.C., and that the advances made in building, dimly as we can distinguish them, were due, not to this or that chance or whim, but to a linked process of development.

The Battles of Andros and Cos

No apology should be needed for treating afresh these much-discussed battles, if only because the last two years have produced new and important evidence from Delos; though in fact the literary allusions, scanty as they are, have hardly even yet been sufficiently elucidated. I hope in this paper to fix the dates of Andros and Cos by the Delian archon-list, and to consider what that means in terms of B.C. In a subsequent paper, to be published in the next number of this Journal, I hope, by working out the history of the ship which Antigonus Gonatas dedicated to Apollo, to confirm the date assigned to Cos in this paper. If these two dates could really be fixed, they would be invaluable for our understanding of Aegean history in the middle of the third century.