Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  the Ptolemies
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Three Cases in the House of Ptolemy

100%
Grabowski T.
Classica Cracoviensia
|
2012
|
issue 15: Leadership in Antiquity: Langauge - Institutions - Representations
81-107
EN
The article focuses on the image of the three rulers of the Lagid Dynasty: Ptolemy IV, Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII, which was included in the sources, The Histories by Polybius in particular the ancient tradition is especially hostile towards Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy VIII, who are presented as the rulers neglecting state matters, concentrated on their own pleasures and, particularly in the case of Ptolemy VIII, cruel. Polybius’ most serious charge leveled against Ptolemy IV concerns his idleness as well as leading an inept foreign policy. In the light of the assessment of Ptolemy IV’s reign, Polybius’ opinion is not completely justified. On can judge that Ptolemy IV’s lifestyle decidedly influenced the opinion concerning his reign. It cannot be ruled out, however, that what we have to deal with in this case is the Ptolemies’ and the antique authors’ different understanding of the concept of tryphé (trufἠ). Affluence as a means of the possibilities of acting and the manifestation of splendour of the monarchy’s power was the idea that formed the basis of the concept of tryphé in the Ptolemies’ propaganda and ideology. Tryphé was the sign of the dynasty’s power, prosperity and constituted a complement of one of the most important elements of the Hellenistic kings’ propaganda, that is euergetism. The concept of tryphé was, nevertheless, ambiguous. In the light of the antique accounts, the understanding of the above concept was dominated by the pejorative aspects, such as a passion for luxury and a riotous lifestyle, which led to debauchery and effeminacy. At least a part of the opinions included in the antique sources can be explained just by the differences in the perception of the concept of tryphé on the part of the Ptolemies and Greek intellectuals. It does not concern only Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy VIII, but also Ptolemy VI, who was very positively presented in the antique tradition. Despite all his real liking for him, Polybius points out his tendency to live life to the full in an excessive manner. Tryphé constituted, however, a significant element of the Lagids’ ideology and it is difficult to suppose that the members of the dynasty consistently used the means which fell on barren ground. Even if the Ptolemies could not reach the intellectual elites in this way, the manifestation of tryphé brought results in the case of the other recipients, such as the ordinary subjects who were supposed to admire the splendour and affluence of the dynasty. When it comes to the representatives of culture and science, the Ptolemies successfully managed to get through to them in different ways, for instance by the acts of euergetism or by providing patronage for culture and science. Nonetheless, tryphé in a considerable way influenced the way in which the Ptolemies were perceived by ancient authors.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Documentary Contexts for the ‘Pistiros Inscription’

88%
Graininger D.
Electrum
|
2012
|
vol. 19
99-110
EN
In the 250s and 240s continental Greece found itself in a particularly complicated situation. The growth of the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as Sparta’s awoken ambitions, presented the Ptolemies with favorable conditions to actively pursue efforts to weaken the Macedonian influence there. Initially, the partner of the Ptolemies became the Achaean League. In this way, the Ptolemaic fleet gained important footholds, including both Corinthian ports, Kenchreai in the Saronic Gulf and Lechaion in the Corinthian Gulf. This strengthened the position of the Lagids at sea, and it was the islands on the Aegean Sea and the coasts of Asia Minor that were in the centre of the Ptolemies’ interest. However, the Aetolian League could continue to be seen as one of their possible partners in Greek politics. We should not exaggerate the Achaean-Aetolian conflict. After the death of Antigonus Gonatas in 239, the two conflicted federations were joined by an alliance. It cannot be excluded that Sparta also cooperated with the coalition, and the king of Egypt could have been a convenient link in this cooperation. There is no information whatsoever to suggest an Egyptian initiative to form the coalition. After the defeat of the Egyptian fleet at Andros in ca. 245, the position of the Lagids in the Aegean Sea was not as strong as it had once been. This was all the more reason for Ptolemies to closely observe the Aetolians’ intense activity on the Aegean Sea. The Ptolemies and Aetolians concluded symmachia. Ultimately, however, alliances were reversed: Aratus pushed the Achaean League towards a coalition with Macedonia, but earlier, having learned about the Achaean-Macedonian negotiations, Ptolemy decided to cancel his financial support for the Achaeans and hand it over to Sparta. It is very likely that the situation in the whole Aegean region (especially the expedition of Antigonus Doson to Caria in 227) played a role in changing the Ptolemies’ policy. The contacts which the Aetolian League established in the region were all the more reason for Ptolemy III to choose Cleomenes and the Aetolians at the expense of the Achaean League. At that time, the beginning of closer relations between the Aetolians and the Attalids could also be observed. It cannot be ruled out that the Ptolemaic diplomacy was a mediator, since up until then the Aetolians had no common interests with Pergamum. For the Lagids, on the other hand, the Attalids were a force worth supporting against the Seleucids, just as the Aetolians were a valuable partner in the rivalry against Macedonia.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Ptolemies versus the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues in the 250s–220s BC

88%
Grabowski T.
Electrum
|
2012
|
vol. 19
83-97
EN
In the 250s and 240s continental Greece found itself in a particularly complicated situation. The growth of the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues, as well as Sparta’s awoken ambitions, presented the Ptolemies with favorable conditions to actively pursue efforts to weaken the Macedonian influence there. Initially, the partner of the Ptolemies became the Achaean League. In this way, the Ptolemaic fleet gained important footholds, including both Corinthian ports, Kenchreai in the Saronic Gulf and Lechaion in the Corinthian Gulf. This strengthened the position of the Lagids at sea, and it was the islands on the Aegean Sea and the coasts of Asia Minor that were in the centre of the Ptolemies’ interest. However, the Aetolian League could continue to be seen as one of their possible partners in Greek politics. We should not exaggerate the Achaean-Aetolian conflict. After the death of Antigonus Gonatas in 239, the two conflicted federations were joined by an alliance. It cannot be excluded that Sparta also cooperated with the coalition, and the king of Egypt could have been a convenient link in this cooperation. There is no information whatsoever to suggest an Egyptian initiative to form the coalition. After the defeat of the Egyptian fleet at Andros in ca. 245, the position of the Lagids in the Aegean Sea was not as strong as it had once been. This was all the more reason for Ptolemies to closely observe the Aetolians’ intense activity on the Aegean Sea. The Ptolemies and Aetolians concluded symmachia. Ultimately, however, alliances were reversed: Aratus pushed the Achaean League towards a coalition with Macedonia, but earlier, having learned about the Achaean-Macedonian negotiations, Ptolemy decided to cancel his financial support for the Achaeans and hand it over to Sparta. It is very likely that the situation in the whole Aegean region (especially the expedition of Antigonus Doson to Caria in 227) played a role in changing the Ptolemies’ policy. The contacts which the Aetolian League established in the region were all the more reason for Ptolemy III to choose Cleomenes and the Aetolians at the expense of the Achaean League. At that time, the beginning of closer relations between the Aetolians and the Attalids could also be observed. It cannot be ruled out that the Ptolemaic diplomacy was a mediator, since up until then the Aetolians had no common interests with Pergamum. For the Lagids, on the other hand, the Attalids were a force worth supporting against the Seleucids, just as the Aetolians were a valuable partner in the rivalry against Macedonia.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.