Power Couples in Antiquity: Transversal Perspectives 1138575267, 9781138575264

Citation preview

 i

Power Couples in Antiquity

Everyone can name a couple made up of famous, rich, or powerful partners, who cultivate a joint media image which is stronger than either of their individual identities. Since the 1980s they have been known as “power couples”. Yet while the term is recent, the concept is not. More than 2,000 years ago, Greeks and Romans became aware of the media potential of couples and used it as an instrument to reinforce political power. Notable examples are Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias, Cleopatra and Mark Antony, or the Emperor Augustus and his wife Livia. Power Couples in Antiquity brings together the reflections of ten specialists on Greek and Roman power couples from the fourth century BCE to the first century C E . It is focused on the birth and the development of the “ruling couple” in the Hellenistic Greek kingdoms and in Rome between the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. By taking some emblematic cases, this book analyses the redistribution of public and private roles within these couples, examines the sentimental bonds or the relations of domination established between partners, explores how these relationships played out in private, and highlights the many common points between ancient and contemporary power couples. This book offers a fascinating insight into power dynamics in the ancient world, exploring not only the subtleties within these often complex relationships, but also their relationships with their subjects through the cultivation and manipulation of their joint public image. Anne Bielman Sánchez has been Professor of Ancient History at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, since 2005. Her research focuses on social problematics, especially on female public activities in the Greek Hellenistic world and in the Republican Roman world:  queens, priestesses, female magistrates, and benefactors. Works include Inventer le pouvoir féminin: Cléopâtre I et Cléopâtre II, reines d’Egypte au IIe s. av. J.-​C. (2015, co-​authored with Giuseppina Lenzo) and Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome (2016, co-​edited with Isabelle Cogitore and Anne Kolb). From 2016 to 2019, she is leading a project funded by the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research (FNS) that explores the phenomena of “couples” in Greco-​Roman antiquity.

ii

Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies

Titles include: The Greek and Roman Trophy From Battlefield Marker to Icon of Power Lauren Kinnee Rethinking ‘Authority’ in Late Antiquity Authorship, Law, and Transmission in Jewish and Christian Tradition Edited by A. J. Berkovitz and Mark Letteney Thinking the Greeks A Volume in Honour of James M. Redfield Edited by Bruce M. King and Lillian Doherty Pushing the Boundaries of Historia Edited by Mary C. English and Lee M. Fratantuono Greek Myth and the Bible Bruce Louden Combined Warfare in Ancient Greece From Homer to Alexander the Great and his Successors Graham Wrightson Power Couples in Antiquity Transversal Perspectives Edited by Anne Bielman Sánchez The Extramercantile Economies of Greek and Roman Cities New Perspectives on the Economic History of Classical Antiquity Edited by David B. Hollander, Thomas R. Blanton IV, and John T. Fitzgerald For more information on this series, visit:  https://​ www.routledge.com/​ classicalstudies/​series/​RMCS

 iii

Power Couples in Antiquity Transversal Perspectives

Edited by Anne Bielman Sánchez

iv

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Anne Bielman Sánchez; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Anne Bielman Sánchez to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​57526-​4  (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​351-​27244-​5  (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

 v

Contents

List of figures  List of contributors  Introduction: power couples: from antiquity to the contemporary world 

vii x

1

ANN E B I E L M AN S ÁN C HE Z

1 An exceptional Argead couple: Philip II and Olympias 

16

ELI Z AB E T H   C ARNE Y

2 Looking for the Seleucid couple 

32

MAR I E   W I DM E R

3 A change of husband: Cleopatra Thea, stability and dynamism of Hellenistic royal couples (150–​129 BCE ) 

42

MON I C A D ’ AGOS T I N I

4 Marital crises or institutional crises? Two Ptolemaic couples under the spotlight 

69

ANN E B I E L M AN S ÁN C HE Z A N D V I RG I N I E J O L I T O N

5 The magistrate and the queen: Antony and Cleopatra 

99

MAR I E -​C L AI RE F E RRI È S

6 Mark Antony and the women at his side 

116

ANN -​C AT H RI N HARD E RS

7 An exceptional and eternal couple: Augustus and Livia  FRA NC E S C A C E N E RI N I

136

vi

vi Contents

8 A love poet’s script for an Augustan power couple: Propertius 4.11 

151

JU DI T H P.   HAL L E T T

9 Claudius and his wives: the normality of the exceptional? 

166

T H OM AS  S PÄT H

10 Power couples in antiquity: an initial survey 

179

A NN E B I E L M AN S ÁNC H E Z

Index 

209

 vii

Figures

3.1 Silver tetradrachm (32 mm, 16.85 g, 12h) from Ptolemais/​ Acco. Obverse: Jugate busts right of Cleopatra, in the foreground, wearing diadem, kalathos, and veil, and Alexander Balas, wearing diadem; cornucopia behind her shoulder; in field left, A above cornucopia. Reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΘΕΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ. Zeus seated on throne left, sceptre in his left hand, holding Nike standing facing with spread wings in his outstretched right hand. NAC Auction 29 Lot 220, 11. May 2005 (cf. https://​www.acsearch.info/​search.html?id=221994). Photo courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica, http://​www. arsclassicacoins.com/​ 3.2 Silver tetradrachm (27 mm, 15.97 g., 12h) from Seleucia on the Tigris. Obverse: Jugate busts right of Demetrius I diademed, and Laodice draped and wearing stephane. Fillet border. Reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ. Tyche seated left on backless throne supported by winged tritoness, holding short sceptre in the right hand and cornucopia. Dotted border. Palm branch in outer left field and ΗΡ ligate and in outer right field Ρ retrograde. In exergue, ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ. NAC Auction 100 Lot 167, 29. May 2017 (cf. https://​www. acsearch.info/​search.html?id=3886009). Photo courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica, http://​www.arsclassicacoins.com/​ 3.3 Gold stater (18.5mm, 8.54 g, 1g) from Ptolemais/​Acco. Obverse: Diademed and veiled bust of Cleopatra Thea right, wearing stephane and single-​pendant earring. Border of dots. Reverse: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ (curving), filleted double cornucopia bound with diadem. Border of dots. CNG Auction Triton XIX Lot 2072, 6 January 2016 (cf. https://​www.cngcoins.com/​Coin.aspx?CoinID=301240). Photo courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://​ www.cngcoins.com/​

45

46

47

viii

viii  List of figures 3.4

Gold stater (27 mm, 27.80 g, 12h) from Ptolemais/​Acco 251–​250 B C E . Obverse: Diademed and veiled head of Arsinoe II right, with stephane. Reverse: AΡΣINOHΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ (curving), filleted double cornucopia bound with diadem. In field, LE -​PT ligate Border of dots. NAC Auction 66 Lot 79, 17. Oct. 2012 (cf. https://​www. acsearch.info/​search.html?id=1390199). Photo courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica, http://​www.arsclassicacoins.com/​ 48 4.1 The genealogical stemma for Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III 70 4.2a Upper register of the Raphia Decree stele (from Pithom), with Arsinoe III as Isis standing to the left of her brother-​ spouse Ptolemy IV mounted on horseback and pointing his spear at a prisoner. Cairo Museum. Photo G. Lenzo 72 4.2b Reconstruction drawing (freely inspired) of the upper register of the Raphia Decree stele. Drawing: Marquita Volken 73 4.3 Localisation of the representations of Arsinoe III at Edfu dating from the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator 78 4.4 Genealogical stemma of the Ptolemaic royalty in the second century; names in bold indicate involvement in the civil war of 132–​124 B C E 86 6.1 Aureus (22 mm, 8.01 g, 1 h), unknown mint, 39 BCE , M. Antonius. Obverse: M·ANTON·IMP·III·VIR·R·P·C. Head of M. Antonius, right; border of dots. Reverse: Head of Octavia, right. RRC 527,1. (Cf. http://​ikmk.smb.museum/​ object?id=18202297). Photo courtesy of Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18202297. Picture by D. Sonnenwald 125 6.2 Sestertius, bronze (37 mm, 19.75 g, 6 h), from Corinth (?), 38–​37 B C E , M. Antonius and L. Sempronius Atratinus. Obverse: [M ANT IMP TER COS] DES ITER [ET TER III VIR -​R P C]. [ANT, MP ligated]. Head of M. Marcus Antonius, right. Vis-​à-​vis bust of Octavia, left. Reverse: [L ATRATINVS AVGVR] COS DE[SIG]. Quadriga of hippocamps, right, steered by Antonius and Octavia as Poseidon and Amphitrite; below one rectangular object (astragal?) and stamp Δ. RPC I 1453. (Cf. http://​ikmk. smb.museum/​object?id=18215869). Photo courtesy of Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18215869. Picture by D. Sonnenwald 126 6.3 Tressis, bronze (31mm, 16.73 g, 6h), from Corinth (?), 38–​37 B C E , M. Antonius and L. Sempronius Atratinus. Obverse: M ANT IMP TER COS [DES ITER ET TER III VIR R P C]. [ANT, MP ligated]. Jugate busts of M. Antonius, in front, and C. Iulius Caesar (Octavianus), behind, right. Vis-​à-​vis bust of Octavia, left. Reverse: L ATRA-​TINVS AVGVR

 ix

List of figures ix COS DESIG. Three galleys under sail, right. Lituus above, below stamp Γ and triskeles. RPC I 1454,2. (Cf. http://​ ikmk.smb.museum/​object?id=18215870). Photo courtesy of Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18215870. Picture by D. Sonnenwald 6.4 Cistophorus, silver (28 mm, 11.61 g, 12 h), from Ephesus (?), c. 39 B C E . Obverse: M ANTONIVS IMP COS DESIG ITER ET TERT. Jugate busts of M. Antonius, wreathed in ivy, in front, and Octavia, behind, right. Reverse: III VIR -​R P C. Dionysus standing on cista mystica, left, with a thyrsus in his left hand and a kantharos in his right hand; flanked by twisting snakes. RPC I 2202. (Cf. http://​ ikmk.smb.museum/​object?id=18200378). Photo courtesy of Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18200378. Picture by L.-​J. Lübke (Lübke and Wiedemann) 8.1 The genealogical stemma for Paullus Aemilius Lepidus and his wife Cornelia

127

129 153

x

Contributors

Anne Bielman Sánchez has been Professor of Ancient History at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, since 2005. Her research focuses on social problematics, especially on female public activities in the Greek Hellenistic world and in the Republican Roman world: queens, priestesses, female magistrates, and benefactors. Works include Inventer le pouvoir féminin: Cléopâtre I et Cléopâtre II, reines d’Egypte au IIe s. av. J.-​C. (2015, co-​authored with Giuseppina Lenzo) and Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome (2016, co-​ed. with Isabelle Cogitore and Anne Kolb). From 2016 to 2019, she is leading a project funded by the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research (FNS) that explores the phenomenon of “couples” in Greco-​Roman antiquity. Elizabeth Carney is Carol K.  Brown Endowed Scholar in Humanities at Clemson University, USA. Her scholarship has often dealt with Macedonian monarchy (King and Court in Macedonia: Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy, 2015) and the relationship of royal women to Hellenistic monarchy (Women and Monarchy in Ancient Macedonia, 2000; Olympias, Mother of Alexander the Great, 2006; Arsinoe of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life, 2013). She is currently working on a study of the public role and image of Eurydice, mother of Philip II. Francesca Cenerini is Full Professor of Roman History and Epigraphy and Roman Institutions at the University of Bologna, Italy. Her main area of specialisation is Ancient History. In particular, her research interests address the representation of the female condition in the Roman Age by analysis of the epigraphic documentation. This line of investigation has produced many articles published both in scientific and informative journals, in miscellaneous volumes, in proceedings of conferences, and in two monographs: La donna romana. Modelli e realta (2002; 2nd ext. ed. 2009, repr. 2013); Dive e donne. Mogli, madri, glie e sorelle degli imperatori romani da Augusto a Commodo (2009). In 2016 she co-​ edited (with Francesca Rohr Vio, University of Venice) Matronae in domo et in re publica agentes. Spazi e occasioni dell’azione femminile nel mondo romano tra tarda repubblica e primo impero. In the same year she published an essay entitled “Il matrimonio con un’Augusta: forma

 xi

List of contributors xi di legittimazione?”, in A. Bielman Sánchez, I. Cogitore, and A. Kolb (eds), Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome (2016). Monica D’Agostini is a Research Fellow at Sacro Cuore Catholic University of Milano, Italy, in the Department of History, Archaeology and History of Art. Dr D’Agostini also collaborates with the Waterloo Institute for Hellenistic Studies of Canada, where she has been several times as teaching and research fellow. After completing a PhD on Seleucid queenship, she focused her research on Hellenistic dynasties, power and diplomacy, in the Antigonid and Seleucid kingdoms. Dr D’Agostini’s published contributions in English and Italian concern ancient Greek and Roman historiography as well as Greek epigraphy and numismatics. Her most recent works are two book chapters: “Asia Minor and the many shades of a civil war: Observations on Achaios the Younger and his claim on the Kingdom of Anatolia”, in K. Erickson (ed.), The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC: War within the Family. Swansea, 59–82; “Representation and Agency of Royal Women in Hellenistic Dynastic Crises. The Case of Berenike and Laodike I”, in A. Bielman Sánchez, I. Cogitore, and A. Kolb (eds), Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome (2016). Marie-​Claire Ferries is a lecturer at the University of Grenoble (UGA), France. She was a member of the École française de Rome (2015/​2016). Her research focuses on the end of the Republic, especially the triumvirate era and the political elites. Her doctoral thesis, published in 2007 under the title Les partisans d’Antoine, consisted of a study of the social composition and the political history of the Roman party of Mark Antony. Her most recent publications study the transitions of the first century BCE , mainly in Rome and the Orient, with a juridical, numismatic, and prosopographical approach: Les confiscations, le pouvoir et Rome, co-​published in 2016 with C. Chillet and Y. Rivière; Auguste et l’Asie Mineure, copublished in 2017 with L. Cavalier and F. Delrieux. Judith P. Hallett, Professor of Classics and Distinguished Scholar-​Teacher at the University of Maryland, USA, holds degrees from Wellesley College, USA, and Harvard University, USA. She has published widely in the areas of Latin language and literature; women, the family, and sexuality in Greco-​Roman Antiquity; and the study and reception of Classics in the Anglophone world. A 2013 collection of essays from Routledge, Domina Illustris:  Latin Literature, Gender and Reception, edited by D.  Lateiner, B. Gold, and J Perkins,| celebrates her academic career. Ann-​Cathrin Harders is Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. Her interests include kinship studies in Greek and Roman societies, the history of the Roman Republic, and Hellenistic monarchies. She is the author of Suavissima Soror. Bruder-​ Schwester-​ Beziehungen in der römischen Republik (2008), and of several articles on Roman prosopography, the Roman family, and Hellenistic royal couples.

xii

xii  List of contributors Virginie Joliton obtained a Master’s degree in Egyptology at the University Paul Valery-​Montpellier 3 in Montpellier, France, and then in 2015 became Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, with a PhD dissertation entitled “Etude iconographique des représentations de la reine dans les temples de l’Egypte ptolémaïque”, earned at the Institute of Archeology and Sciences of Antiquity. This work received one of the Faculty Prizes in 2016. Specialising in the study of queens of Ptolemaic Egypt, she continues her research on the representation of these women in native temples, in particular in relation to the reality of their status and of their political power. Thomas Späth is Professor of Ancient Cultures and Constructions of Antiquity at the Center for Global Studies and the History Department of the University of Bern, Switzerland. His publications on gender history in Antiquity, ancient and modern historiography, and the reception of Antiquity in modern popular culture include Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit bei Tacitus. Zur Konstruktion der Geschlechter in der römischen Kaiserzeit (1994). Together with V. Dasen, he is the editor of Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture (2010); with T. Lochman and A. Stähli, of Antike im Kino/​L’Antiquité au Cinéma (2008); and with U. Schüren and D.  Segesser, of Globalized Antiquity. Uses and Perceptions of the Past in South Asia, Mesoamerica, and Europe (2015). Marie Widmer is currently postdoctoral researcher at Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, TDMAM, LabexMed, France, working on a project on the ideal of the good Hellenistic ruler. Her research interests concern power distribution within the Hellenistic kingdoms. She is particularly interested in the Seleucid kingdom and the status of royal women, which she has investigated mainly by means of epigraphic evidence. She has published several articles in this field (including “Pourquoi reprendre le dossier des reines hellénistiques? Le cas de Laodice V”, in F. Bertholet et al., Egypte, Grece, Rome. Les différents visages des femmes antiques (2008) and “Apamé. Une reine au coeur de la construction d’un royaume”, in A. Bielman Sánchez, I. Cogitore, and A. Kolb (eds), Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome (2016). She is preparing the publication of a book based on her PhD thesis, concentrating on the political identities of the Seleucid queens.

 1

Introduction Power couples: from antiquity to the contemporary world Anne Bielman Sánchez

Power couple:  these two words may evoke Beyoncé and Jay-​Z, Brangelina, or Barack and Michelle Obama, two people of different sexes, both rich and famous, who officially live together, who willingly present themselves as a duo on the media scene, and who have an influence on millions of people. In tandem, the fame and influence of each partner reinforces, enhances, and supports that of the other, so that the couple acquires visibility which exceeds that of each individual partner. Even if the expression “power couple” is relatively recent, the phenomenon has existed for a long time1. In Greco-​Roman antiquity, there were such couples, in which both partners had significant personal wealth and/​or power and who promoted their partnership with the idea to benefit from it. The purpose of this chapter is to identify a certain number of these ancient power couples who lived between the end of the fourth century BCE and the first century CE , to analyse the processes they used to highlight themselves, to understand their motivations and their relational dynamics. This study of ancient power couples is part of a project carried out by a research team from the University of Lausanne and entitled “Regards croisés sur les couples dans l’Antiquité gréco-​romaine, IVe siècle av. J.-​C. -​IIe siècle ap. J.-​C.”.2 It aims to compare “ordinary couples” and “power couples” –​within and between each of the different ancient cultures and societies concerned. First, “ordinary couples” and “power couples” must be defined. We designate as “ordinary couples” all couples who cannot be considered as “power couples”. More precisely, the term “ordinary couples” refers to couples whose qualities, activities, and behaviours are similar to those of the majority of couples of their own status or class, and who do not appear to have any specific position or attributes among their peers; the members of these couples could thus belong as well to the lower strata of the population (slaves or freedmen) as to the middle classes or to the social elites (magistrates and priests of the Hellenistic cities, equestrian, senatorial, or consular families in Rome, etc.); they represented the large majority of the population. For its part, the term “power couple” has been reserved for partnerships which meet several criteria:

2

2  Anne Bielman Sánchez

• •

​ hey are couples made up of an adult man and a woman,3 both alive,4 T who maintain a stable relationship, conjugal or not but with sexual relations implied on account of the existence of common children. ​They are couples in which at least one of the partners occupied permanently the head of an ancient state. The Hellenistic kings and queens, the triumvirs of Republican Rome and their partners, and the Roman emperors and empresses are therefore concerned in an exclusive way.

Limiting ancient power couples to political leaders may seem surprising when compared to contemporary power couples who are much more related to the arts, show business, and sport than to the political world. This limitation is based on two arguments. On the one hand, certainly, some Greek or Roman actors and musicians exerted an influence on leaders, in particular on certain Roman emperors, but their influence was discreet, unofficial, and little promoted; moreover, we know nothing of the couples to which these actors or musicians belonged, apart from the fact that they were in no way regarded as “power couples”. On the other hand, in antiquity, the political arena was the privileged marker of male individual power: the most powerful individuals –​whether their power came from military victories, money, and land, or from family social prestige –​chose first and foremost to express and assert their power by holding political office and responsibilities. Furthermore, even if the feminine members of these ancient power couples did not have political rights in the strict sense,5 both members of such couples were willing to form a particular entity which was active in the political sector. However, it would be reductive to consider the sphere of influence and authority of the ancient power couples to be concerned only with the political or administrative domain: in the Greek and Roman world, institutional and social structures enabled sovereigns and emperors to interfere in the religious domain (which impregnated everyday life) and also in the establishment of legal norms with consequences affecting each individual. Moreover, the wives of these leaders had powerful family and social networks that extended well beyond the walls of their homes. Finally, the names and portraits of the ancient power couples marked out urbanized spaces, sometimes encouraging the population to copy the hairstyles or bold clothing of these high-​ ranking people, in particular under the Empire where the empresses launched fashions. For all these reasons, while the couples discussed in this book are, from a certain point of view, “political power couples”, they are also much more than that. The chronological limits proposed here include the Hellenistic kingdoms (from Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander the Great, then the successors of the Conqueror), the Roman Republic, and the beginning of the Roman Empire. The choice of this chronological sequence is justified both by the presence of plentiful documentation, and also by the fact that mutual influences between the Greek and Roman worlds developed during these centuries.

 3

Introduction 3 Sociological, even psychological, aspects are central to our investigation of ancient power couples: we will be interested in the “real-​life experience” of these couples (insofar as one can know it); the possible relationship of domination established between partners; the sharing of public roles between the members of a duo; the legitimisation of one partner by the other; and the sharing of the financial, political, or social interests of each partner, but also in the trivial, ordinary, daily elements of the life of a power couple. We will also try to understand whether ancient power couples obeyed different social injunctions or legal norms to those of ordinary couples, and how mutual influences between the majority of couples and the couples of leaders might have played out. The ancient couple has so far attracted little attention from scholars. However, the theme overlaps with a series of studies that have appeared since the end of the 1970s and that deal with women in antiquity and with gender studies. These subjects of research were further developed at the end of the 1980s with studies that examine relations between men and women as social and cultural constructions.6 However, the specific interest of this project in couples gives it a slightly different angle of approach. Let us take the case of the Hellenistic queens and kings: while many recent works concern these historical figures and make optimal use of available documentation,7 they mainly treat the sovereigns as individual personalities. There is an absence of focused analyses on these individuals as members of a couple, on the internal dynamics of these couples, as well as on the complementarity or separation of roles between partners. Fashion phenomena in the official representation of royal couples belonging to the main Hellenistic dynasties (Antigonids, Lagids, Seleucids) or the reciprocal emulation between ruling couples of neighbouring kingdoms have not been sufficiently taken into account. We also lack reflections on the intimate, emotional, or sexual aspects of the relationship between royal partners and on the possibility which is given to us –​or not –​to access this kind of information in the absence of ancient paparazzi and of an effective “press”! Concerning the leaders of the end of the Roman Republic  –​Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavian –​and the women who were at their side, we notice that moderns have well understood the political role of the partners of these statesmen, namely, their capacity to mobilize their familial and social networks,8 but a comparative approach on the functioning of these few couples and on the development of political strategies as a duo is still lacking. For the first and second centuries CE scholars have already taken an interest in the partnerships between emperors and empresses, that is, in the notion of the “imperial couple”. The different couples of emperors and empresses were examined from the point of view of the power relations between partners, of their political and civic involvement, of their religious involvement, and of their representation as leadership couples.9 It is noted, however, that some of these studies neglected to focus on the interpersonal relationships established between the members of an imperial couple.

4

4  Anne Bielman Sánchez Indeed, the study of the power couple  –​ancient or contemporary  –​is of course part of reflections on femininity and masculinity, but it adds the dimension of the emotional bond and relational dynamics. Such a study must integrate recent approaches to emotions, even if it is particularly difficult for us to grasp the emotional interactions and effects within various ancient power couples. The difficulties stem from the nature of the documentation we have pertaining to the specific category of couples. A large proportion of the testimonies comes from the classical authors. They have, however, introduced numerous biases in their descriptions of leading couples, either by resorting to stereotypes about the respective roles of men and women or by favouring an idealized and/​or normative vision of the conjugal relationship. The gap between these literary accounts and the reality of the relations within each ancient power couple is not easy to measure. Moreover, while ordinary ancient couples could freely express their attachment in a public way, notably on their funerary monuments, power couples had to take into account in each of their acts and statements the porosity between “private life” and “public life” or “political life”; the expression of their feelings –​that is love or hatred –​was controlled and calculated in the light of important political issues. The same could be said of contemporary political power couples.10 The official vectors of communication which, from the fourth century BCE to the second century C E , presented their active leaders to the population –​such as monumental inscriptions, bas-​reliefs, statues, or coins –​hardly allowed emotional spontaneity or passionate impulses. The official documents obey codes and patterns of representation that mask the real nature of feelings between partners of an ancient power couple. This book wishes to deal with the subject of ancient power couples from a broad diachronic perspective. Indeed, there is still no comparative study between the relational dynamics of the Hellenistic royal couples and those of the Roman rulers at the end of the Republic and during the Empire. However, the contribution of a transperiodic approach concerning social and gender issues is indisputable: such an approach highlights the evolution or immutability of several social aspects from one civilisation to another; it sometimes allows the relevance of modern terminology to be re-​evaluated, and often deemed anachronistic because it applies only to a given period and society. To implement these diachronic questions in the study of ancient power couples, a workshop with a dozen of specialists in gender studies was organized.11 Since we did not want to juxtapose scattered contributions, the approach was conceived from the outset in a collective and participatory manner. The specialists invited to the workshop received a list of questions that were considered to be particularly relevant and valid for many Greco-​ Roman power couples. Each speaker was asked to treat one or more of these transverse questions in his or her contribution. The aim was to identify some major characteristics of ancient power couples and to measure their permanence or evolution over several centuries and in culturally distinct societies. These shared questions provoked very diverse answers depending on

 5

Introduction 5 the ancient sources used, the power couple examined, the society in which a power couple evolved, and the methodology preferred by the speaker. Several exchanges and discussions promoted new interpretations and assumptions. This book, which follows the workshop, contains nine contributions organized in chronological order. The first four concern the Hellenistic kingdoms:  Elizabeth Carney deals with the two main royal couples of the Argead dynasty, Philip II-​Olympias and Philip III Arrhidaeus-​Adea Eurydice; Marie Widmer looks for Seleucid couples and identifies Antiochus III and Laodice as the first couple “active as such” in the dynasty; Monica D’Agostini examines which of the three Seleucid couples that involved the queen Cleopatra Thea might be considered power couples; Anne Bielman Sánchez and Virginie Joliton examine two Ptolemaic couples reputed to have experienced serious conjugal crises (Ptolemy IV-​Arsinoe III; Ptolemy VIII-​Cleopatra II). The other five contributions focus on Republican and Imperial Rome: Marie-​Claire Ferriès is interested in the dramatisation of the relationship of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII; Ann-​Cathrin Harders compares the different couples formed by Mark Antony and his Roman wives; Francesca Cenerini studies the evolution of the couple Octavian/​Augustus-​Livia between the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Principate; Judith Hallett demonstrates how the couple formed by L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus and his wife Cornelia was particularly powerful; Thomas Späth discusses the character –​exceptional or not –​of certain power couples, through the unions of the emperor Claudius with Messalina, then with Agrippina.12 A summary chapter takes stock of our reflections and highlights the main divergences and convergences between the Greek and Roman worlds concerning power couples, viewed as a political, cultural, and social phenomenon. This final chapter also aims to re-​examine some societal values, some taboos, and some gendered behaviours of the Greco-​Roman world through the prism of power couples. In the discussions which followed, the workshop comparisons between ancient and contemporary power couples emerged frequently, as in the contributions of A.-​ C. Harders and J.  Hallett. Implicitly, we may have considered that the drivers of human behaviour in the face of power and money games are no different today than they were in ancient societies and that, consequently, similar strategies and mechanisms could be identified in ancient and in contemporary power couples. For this reason, we will now offer some general remarks on contemporary power couples in this introduction to this investigation of ancient power couples. The term “power couple” has recently appeared in English dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary (edition 2016)  defines it as “Two ambitious people with powerful careers who are married to each other”.13 The Oxford English Living Dictionaries offers this: “A couple consisting of two people who are each influential or successful in their own right”.14 Lastly, the Cambridge Dictionary describes a power couple as “Two people who are married to each

6

6  Anne Bielman Sánchez other, or in a relationship with each other, and both have extremely successful careers, especially in politics or entertainment”.15 The example given by this dictionary refers to Mrs Clinton: “Hillary Clinton is part of the power couple that has dominated the Democratic party since the early 1990s”. In the examples provided by these various dictionaries, the expression is often supplemented by adjectives that underline the popularity of the couple or specify the reasons for their celebrity:  “a legendary Hollywood power couple”, “Hollywood’s hottest power couple”, “the indie rock power couple”, “a political power couple”.16 Several elements seem indispensable if a duo is to make the list of power couples that are in vogue: “They are the ultimate power couple: smart, wealthy, and deeply in love”.17 In her study, J. Hallett refers to a 2016 Huffington Post article which noted that this new term comes from the “netspeak” and reflects a social innovation –​and not, as is usually the case, a technological innovation (Hallett n. 2). These definitions are listed and detailed in the free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, under the entry “Supercouple”. This entry exists in the English version of the encyclopaedia, as well as in the French version but in a very abbreviated form. In the English entry (faithfully translated in the French entry), such a duo is considered “popular or financially wealthy pairings that are widely admired in an intense or obsessive fashion and influence society’s expectations of what a great love story or relationship should be; they may or may not be romantic or high-​profile and interest in the pairings may be due to a combination of chemistry, physical attractiveness, or because they seem fated”.18 The two entries consider that the expressions “supercouple” or “power couple” are synonymous; they also trace their origins to the United States at the beginning of the 1980s, on the basis of the most popular couple of the American soap opera General Hospital, a TV series broadcast every week since 1963 and still in production.19 As Diana Reep points out, an essential feature of soap opera power couples is the love that the partners have for each other, a love “so perfect that nothing could interfere with [it] except an evil, outside force”.20 On this criterion of the loving relationship, several fictional duos evolving in soap operas or television series in prime time were qualified as supercouples, sometimes a posteriori. There are fewer film couples raised to this status than television couples. According to the online editors responsible for these Wikipedia entries, this can be explained by the fact that it is more difficult to make the public understand only in an hour and a half or two hours (i.e. the average duration of a film) how much two people love each other.21 However a few couples comprised of Hollywood actors benefited from this label as soon as the expression spread: Clark Gable and Carole Lombard were probably the first, followed by Frank Sinatra and Ava Gardner, then by Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. Since the end of the 1990s, there have been countless duos of personalities defined as power couples.22 These people belong mainly to the field of cinema, theatre, music, and sport; they are beautiful, rich, and present in the media, and they stage their love affair.

 7

Introduction 7 Since the early 2000s, some of these couples were nicknamed by the media with a “portmanteau” (= “mot-​valise” in French):  Bennifer for Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, or Brangelina for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, for example.23 The fashion of the portmanteau applied to some privileged power couples and then spread outside the United States, to Japan or India in particular. In an article published in The Guardian in 2000, the English journalist Polly Vernon summarizes the advantages for two famous people of forming a power couple: “By hooking up with another, carefully selected celeb, you can eliminate your bad points […]. Attach yourself to someone smarter, prettier, more fashionable, hipper, funnier than you are, and you will automatically acquire these missing qualities by osmosis […]. Together, you are quite literally, the ultimate individual”.24 The title of the article, “The Power of Two”, combines  –​perhaps for the first time so explicitly  –​the notion of couple and that of power. The journalist analyses in an ironic and relevant way the reasons why “two stars are better than one”. From the fictional universe with couples intensely in love, we pass thus, in real life, to couples who exploit their affectionate relationship for the individual benefit of the partners. In P. Vernon’s remarks, we note the importance attached to the choice of partner, whose advantages and defects (physical, social, cultural, etc.) are carefully evaluated in terms of media coverage and popularity. Getting together in order to conquer or win back a media audience has indeed become a strategy since the late 1990s. For example, the top model Claudia Schiffer and the magician David Copperfield were suspected by the German newspaper Bunte in 1998 of being in a romantic relationship only to boost their popularity, Claudia in America and David in Europe.25 Let us note that what was reproached to the protagonists  –​in this case  –​was their attempt to mislead the public on the nature of their love feelings but not their attempt to use their coupling as a springboard for their careers. Because nobody denies it: the power couple can be a huge multiplier of popularity, especially when the partners belong to different cultural communities. One of the best examples is the relationship of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, who combined the Latino-​American community and the White-​American community. On the other hand, J. Hallett notes that one member of a political power couple can sometimes damage the image and reputation of his/​her partner (Hallett, n. 10). One of the few academic studies devoted to the contemporary phenomenon of celebrity couples confirms the importance of feeling in love for the popularity of contemporary supercouples.26 The stability of this bond is often dramatized with the birth of shared children, the offspring both confirming the permanence of the loving bond between the partners –​a central element of supercouples –​and also giving a new impetus to the media audience of the couple.27 Some supercouples thus become “superfamilies”: the Beckhams or the Kardashians excel in this staging of the family group. The twenty-​ first century thus overturns twentieth-​ century codes, according to which

8

8  Anne Bielman Sánchez individualism was at the heart of the star system and celebrity.28 Perhaps it explains why The Crown, a recent American-​British television series, focuses on romantic relationships and feelings within the Windsor royal family.29 A successful reality show, Power Couples, aims to test the degree of complicity between partners of famous couples. Created by Israeli television, this program was sold in 2015 to various channels around the world, notably in India.30 The principle of the broadcast is simple:  ten celebrity couples are placed in an enclosed space, cut off from any communication with the outside world, and are confronted with more or less unpleasant situations where their intimate knowledge of each other is tested. According to an article in India Today, “the show can be hailed as the ultimate relationship test for couples, as it will highlight their compatibility and power as a team”.31 This broadcast focuses the public’s attention on the quality of the couple’s relationship: the winning duo of the show does not gain (or does not only gain) a power couple status based only on the fame and fortune of the partners but (also) on the strength of their sentimental bond. The depth of the romantic relationship thus remains a constant of contemporary famous couples, while the transformation of these duos into conquering couples, in search of increased media glory, is confirmed by the journalist Vincent Cocquebert in his article published in 2011, “You + Me = More Power. The New Reign of Power Couples”.32 It is now accepted that the fame of a power couple exceeds the simple addition of the popularity of each partner.33 However, there have been few critical reflections on a paradoxical point: the valorisation of a duo in a “star system” where individual narcissism dominates. Moreover, it would be appropriate to analyse from a sociological angle the processes used by certain stars to turn each of their successive unions into power couples.34 Several lists of power couples or supercouples circulate on the Web, notably in Wikipedia’s English and French entries. It is interesting to note that these lists do not match. Those offered on Anglo-​Saxon sites only list fictional couples (soap operas, prime time TV shows, films, comic books, toys, animation films).35 On the other hand, several real couples –​celebrities from the arts, entertainment, or sports are mentioned in the Wikipedia “Supercouples” English entry, but no list is proposed. There are also no political figures among the couples listed in the Wikipedia English entry, and the images associated with the English terms “supercouple” or “power couple” only very rarely refer to Anglo-​Saxon political figures:  here and there appear Barack and Michelle Obama, John and Jackie Kennedy, even Kate and William of England. And S. Cobb and N. Ewen point out the existence of the portmanteau Billary to casually name the Clintons.36 For its part, Wikipedia’s “Supercouples” entry in French offers two separate lists. The first entitled “Celebrities” includes a list of 100 Anglo-​Saxon couples, 95 per cent of whom come from the world of arts, entertainment, and sports, but there are still the Obamas, the Clintons, Bill and Melinda Gates,

 9

Introduction 9 the media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his wife, as well as the royals Kate and William.37 The second list concerns only the 14 French couples deemed worthy of belonging to this circle.38 However, if half of them are composed of actors, actresses, or jet-​setters, in the other half of the couples at least one of the members is a political personality (president of the French Republic or minister). François Hollande appeared twice, with Ségolène Royal on the one hand, with Julie Gayet on the other.39 Wikipedia thus suggests that France (or the French-​speaking world) would more readily admit couples of politicians into the pantheon of contemporary power couples. A.-​C. Harders, who takes as contemporary example of a power couple Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, reinforces this impression (Harders). Yet let us avoid hasty conclusions:  J. Hallett’s study confirms that there is indeed a current in the United States which, since 1983, has recognised and admired political power couples (Hallett, n. 2 and 5). A book published in 2003 offers a selection of 23 power couples active in various fields.40 The author, Mary Abbott, addresses two ancient examples (Mark Antony and Cleopatra, then the Roman emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora), eight couples from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century and 13 duos from the twentieth century. However, the choice made by the author for the period 1900–​2000 is original:  in addition to two expected couples (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor; David and Victoria Beckham), and two couples linked to the British monarchy (the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson; Charles and Diana), we meet a couple of scientists (Pierre and Marie Curie), a couple of poets (Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath), and seven couples of whom at least one of the partners was involved in politics: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Mao Zedong and his wife, Juan and Evita Peròn, Nelson and Winnie Mandela, John and Jackie Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair and his wife. The starting hypothesis of Mary Abbott is this: from antiquity to the twenty-​first century, the power couple is a social construction, at the basis of which we find a woman of character, a powerful woman. However, Abbott considers the power couple to be “a feature of modern life”41 in the sense that, in her view, women’s access to higher education since the 1960s favoured their husbands’ political careers. This statement probably explains why the share of political power couples is so important in the list that M. Abbott has constituted. J. Hallett in some ways supports this view by recalling that many of the female partners of contemporary American power couples who are active in politics had achieved a brilliant individual career before their marriage and constituted a sort of “trophy” for their husbands (Hallett). A collective anthropological reflection led by academics around a series of famous American, English, and Indian couples confirms the massive predominance in this group of people from film and television circles. The authors also point out in their introduction that the largest Anglo-​Saxon magazines have their own lists of celebrities, classified into subcategories, for example, “the highest-​earning celebrity couples”, “the world’s most powerful couples”,

10

10  Anne Bielman Sánchez “the ten best power couples”, “the hottest celebrity couples”, and so on.42 All this shows that the definition of a power couple is neither univocal nor fixed, but that, nevertheless, in most contemporary Western societies (and particularly in the United States), politicians and their partners a priori may not form power couples; those who are considered as such constitute exceptions and not the rule. This observation is confirmed by the absence of global sociological studies on contemporary political power couples. It makes the comparison with ancient power couples –​whose power came from politics and was based on it –​more difficult. An interesting point concerns the mutual influences between contemporary power couples and ordinary couples in contemporary Western societies. Some members of famous couples claim their wish –​even their right –​to lead a life similar to that of any couple. A comment made by Zayn Malik, Gigi Hadid’s partner, during an interview for the Evening Standard was repeated by various media and websites: “But I can understand how it can look, that you’ve got these two people in a ‘power couple’. That’s not something I  want to be a part of. I’m with her [= Gigi Hadid] because I  like her, and I  hope she’s with me because she likes me. When we come home, we don’t really talk about that sh*t. We just spend time together as a normal couple, cook food, watch TV, have a laugh”.43 This is an attempt to erase the distance (at least in the intimate sphere) between a couple involved in the star system and anonymous couples. However, there is a paradox here since, according to Chris Rojek, “to be a celebrity is to be recognized as different”.44 When a power couple tries to minimize this difference, does it not risk damaging its image? Can a duo wish to be an extraordinary couple and an ordinary couple at the same time? An analysis of public reactions to similar situations would certainly be instructive. On the other hand, the importance of the emotional link between the partners and their ability to function as a team for the rating of supercouples has given rise to a current that tends to lead ordinary couples to believe that they too can become supercouples if they show the same qualities. A definition of these ordinary power couples can be found in the Urban Dictionary. “Power couple: a relationship between two people who are equally as cool as each other. They are as individually awesome and fun to be around as they are when they are together”.45 Online tests complete this definition and allow everyone to evaluate their own relationship in order to know if they belong to the circle of “total power couples”.46 Seen from this perspective, duos made up of two people remarkable for their wealth, their power, and their media fame, and duos made up of ordinary people whose good understanding and ability to highlight their relationship makes them remarkable, share a common point: they fascinate those who meet them, see them, admire them. We will have to take into account this mutual fascination between power couples and ordinary couples, as observed in contemporary Western societies, when we discuss, in the conclusion to this volume, the correlation between power couples and other couples in Greco-​Roman antiquity.

 11

Notes 11 Finally, it is worth noting a particular meaning of the term “power couples” in sociological studies published during the past decades. The term refers to adults living as a couple (male-​female, male-​male, or female-​female), who have a higher education, usually a university degree, and who enjoy strong purchasing power.47 This category of power couples is not relevant for our survey of ancient leadership couples, but could be taken into account as a contemporary point of comparison in a subsequent study of ancient social elite couples. From these few observations on supercouples or power couples emerges an obvious fact: remarkable couples, whether contemporary or ancient, represent a new field of study, still underresearched but rich of potential. A  specific focus on couples allows us to take a fresh look at a society and at the place that individuals occupy within it, whether alone or in partnerships.

Notes Introduction 1 The expression made its appearance in 2016 in the Oxford English Dictionary. You can find below in the Introduction a short analysis of the contemporary concept of “power couples”. 2 This project, supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, extends over the period 2016–​2019. It is led by a team comprised of Prof Anne Bielman Sánchez, Dr Claude-​Emmanuelle Centlivres Challet and a junior researcher, Charlotte Golay. Another junior researcher, Jana Hoznour, is connected to the project. 3 I use the term adult man or woman according to the criteria of Greco-​Roman antiquity. In Greece, as in Rome, girls were considered nubile as of 13–​14 years. For the Hellenistic kings, papyri and inscriptions attest that legal maturity was fixed at 14 years: at this age, a son’s king whose father was deceased could ascend the throne and make decisions beyond the control of his tutor; however, some Hellenistic princes were married by their father or their legal guardian before they were 14  years old:  thus Ptolemy VI (born around 186 B CE ) was married to his younger sister Cleopatra II (born around 185–​183 B CE ) in 175 B CE : see Bielman Sánchez et al. (2015b), 21–​3. In Rome, during the centuries of interest to us, the minimal lawful age for marriage was fixed at 12 years for girls and 14 years for boys. On age criteria in Greco-​Roman antiquity, see Sève (2008); on the rites of passage from childhood to adulthood, see e.g. Derks (2012), Dolanski (2012), or Lefkowitz (1995), but there are many studies on this subject. 4 This means that we deliberately put aside the testimonies about honours given to a deceased member of a couple by its surviving partner, like Ptolemy II did in favour of his sister-​wife, Arsinoe II (deification, coinage, bas-​reliefs, etc.). 5 They had no right to vote, neither in Greece nor in Rome, and could not take part in the legislative assemblies. In Hellenistic Greece, however, some women from rich and prestigious families obtained civic magistratures, which was strictly forbidden in the Roman world. 6 See i.e. Downs (2004), Harich-​Schwarzbauer et al. (2005), Sebillotte Cuchet et al. (2007); Boehringer S.  et  al. (2011). See also “EuGeStA. European Network on Gender Studies in Antiquity”: http://​eugesta.recherche.univ-​lille3.fr.

12

12 Notes 7 For the Seleucids, see lastly Coşkun et al. (2016). For the Antigonids, see in particular Carney (2000). For the Lagids, some recent studies exist for each reign, but it would be too long to enumerate them. However, some recent titles propose a bibliography: Müller (2009), Clayman (2014), Bielman Sánchez et al. (2015b). 8 The bibliography is given by Kunst (2016), 197–​216. 9 See in particular Delrieux et  al. (2016), 81–​118; Zanni (2008), 325–​43; Corbier (1995), 178–​93. 10 We think in particular of Bill and Hillary Clinton during “the Monica Lewinsky case”. 11 “Regards croisés sur les couples exceptionnels dans l’Antiquité gréco-​romaine”, 9–​10 November 2017, University of Lausanne. 12 In this book, references to these contributions will be made by indicating in the main text or in endnotes the name of the author in bold and between brackets. 13 English Oxford Dictionary [2016]: http://​www.oed.com/​(consulted on 18 January 2018) 14 Oxford English Living Dictionaries:  https://​en.oxforddictionaries.com/​definition/​ power_​couple (consulted on 18 January 2018). 15 Cambridge Dictionary:  https://​dictionary.cambridge.org/​fr/​dictionnaire/​anglais/​ power-​couple (consulted on 18 January 2018). 16 Oxford English Living Dictionaries:  https://​en.oxforddictionaries.com/​definition/​ power_​couple (consulted on 7 February 2018). 17 Oxford English Living Dictionaries:  https://​en.oxforddictionaries.com/​definition/​ power_​couple (consulted on 7 February 2018). 18 https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Supercouple (consulted on 7 February 2018). In the Wikipedia entry in French, these remarks are made as follows: “supercouple ou power couple sont des expressions anglophones qui expriment la popularité ou la richesse d’un couple qui passionne le public d’une manière intense et parfois obsessionnelle […] et qui rejoint ou cristallise les attentes de la société“, https://​ fr.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Supercouple (consulted on 7 February 2018). 19 https://​fr.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Supercouple (consulted on 7 February 2018). This assertion on the origin of the expression “power couple” is supported by the reference to the article of Reep (1992), 96–​102. See also Anger (1999) and Scodari (2004), in part. 30. 20 Reep (1992), 98. 21 See Arcieri (2008). 22 The contemporary supercouples do not consist only of a man and a woman: in 2006, Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, who were in relationship for many years, were introduced in the American media as “the world’s first gay supercouple”: see The Advocate –​the National Gay and Lesbian Newsmagazine, 29 August 2006. In Greco-​Roman antiquity, homosexual relationships were common, but they could not be transformed into a “couple relationship”. 23 See on this subject, Diaz (2015), 275–​94. Several synonyms were proposed for this concept of portmanteau:  blended name, uni-​name, combined name, composite, name-​mesh. The first portmanteau would have been forged in the 1920s for Greta Garbo and John Gilbert: the Gilbo; see Cobb et al. (2015), 1. 24 See Vernon (2000). 25 See the summary of the case by Döbler (1998). 26 Cobb et al. (2015). In a general way, academic studies on the phenomenon of power couples/​supercouples are still rare; the main sources are articles in newspapers. See

 13

Notes 13 however Williams (2012), 200–​19; Marshall (2014) devotes some remarks to the question of collective celebrity, in particular that of musical groups. 27 Cobb et al. (2015), 2–​3, and part 2 “Kinship”, 73–​150. 28 See on this subject the bibliographical references by Cobb et al. (2015), 4. 29 The Crown, created by P. Morgan, has been distributed on Netflix since 2016. 30 https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Power_​Couple_​(Indian_​TV_​series) (consulted 18 January 2018). See “Hit Israeli Reality TV Show ‘Power Couple’ Is Coming to India”. Huffington Post. 1 September 2015 (http://​www.huffingtonpost.in/​2015/​ 09/​01/​power-​couple-​india_​n_​8070252.html) (consulted on 18 January  2018). 31 “Is India Ready for Power Couple?”. India Today. 2 September 2015 https://​www. indiatoday.in/​television/​reality-​tv/​story/​is-​india-​ready-​for-​power-​couple-​260848-​ 2015-​09-​02 (consulted on 6 February 2018). 32 See Cocquebert (2011). 33 See Geraghty (2012). 34 We think in particular here of Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp. 35 https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​List_​of_​supercouples;http://​tvtropes.org/​pmwiki/​ pmwiki.php/​Main/​SuperCouple. 36 Cobb et al. (2015), 1. 37 https://​fr.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Supercouple. 38 https://​ fr.wikipedia.org/​ wiki/​ Supercouple, “France” (consulted on 7 February 2018). The entry “Supercouples” on Wikipedia (in French) provoked several comments. We can see that the concept of “supercouple” is not familiar to the French-​speaking net surfers because many aspects are disputed: the definition of the word, the list of the couples proposed in the note, and even the presence of this entry in the French online encyclopaedia. See: https: /​fr.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​ Discussion:Supercouple (consulted on 9 February 2018). 39 On this couple, see Degois (2014). 40 Abbott (2003). The work is intended for a large public and does not correspond to scientific standards; it does not offer any bibliography and does not present any written testimony (historical documents, archives) in support of the assertions of the author. 41 Abbott (2003), 1. 42 Cobb et al. (2015), 3. 43 https://​www.teenvogue.com/​story/​gigi-​hadid-​zayn-​malik-​two-​year-​anniversary-​ surprise-​dinner-​date (consulted on 9 February 2018). 44 Roge (2001), 177. 45 Urban Dictionary: https://​www.urbandictionary.com/​define.php?term=Power%20 Couple (consulted 10 January 2018). The definition continues as follows: “Neither one depends on the other for their feelings of self-​worth; they know in their heart that they are just as valuable to the world as the other. Good looking, optimistic, and sparks a light in the world that people recognize that goes beyond a normal relationship. In a power couple, if one person is flawed, the other person makes up for their weaknesses in strength. Together they are the epitome of what anyone would desire in a relationship. They encourage goodness in the world and make it a better place by being together”. 46 https://​www.msn.com/​en-​us/​lifestyle/​love-​sex/​9-​signs-​youre-​a-​total-​power-​couple/​ ss-​BBlqhG8 (consulted on 18 January 2018). 47 In Oxford English LivingDictionaries, an example of use of the expression “power couple” refers to this definition, even if the latter is not explicitly given in the

14 Anne Bielman Sancl1ez

Bibliography Abbott M. (2003) Poiver Couples. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Anger D. C. (1999) Other Worlds: Society Seen through Soap Opera. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Arcieri J.(2008) "The Power of Cinematic Love: a Tribute to Supercouples". http:/ !media. www. themhnews. corn/media/storage/pa per999 /news/2008/0 2/ 14/En tertainmen t/ThePower. Of Cinematic.Love-3212026. sh tml (consulted 18 Jan11ary 2018). Bielman Sanchez A. and Lenzo G. (2015b) Inventer le pouvoir fen1inin: Cleopatre I et Cleopatre II, reines d'Egypte au /le s. av. 1-C. Bern: Peter Lang. et.fe1n111es dans l'Antiquite Boehringer S. and Sebillotte Cuchet V (eds) (2011) Ho1n111es grecque et ron1aine.Le Genre: 111ethodeset docu111ents.Paris: Colin. Carney E. D. (2000) Wo111enand Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Clayman D. L. (2014) Berenice II and the Golden Age of Egypt. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Cobb Sh. and Ewen N. (eds) (2015) First Co1J1es Love. Polver Couples. Celebrity Kinship and Cultural Politics. New-York/London: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc. Quarterly 8, 72-81. Cocquebert V (2011) Gentle111en's J. and Pollak R. A. (2007) "Why are Power Couples Increasingly Concentrated Compton in Large Metropolitan Areas?". Journal of Labor Econon1ics 25, 475-512. Corbier M. (1995) "Male Power and Legitimacy through Women: The do111us Augusta under the Julio-Claudians". In Hawley R. and Levick B. (eds), Won1enin Antiquity: Ne1t'Assessn1ents. London/New York: Routledge, 178-93. Co~kun A. and McAuley A.(2016) Seleukid Ro}'al Won1en.Creation, Representc,tion and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid En,1pire(Historia Einzelschriften 240). Stuttgart: Steiner. Degois F. (2014) Quelle histoire! Segolene Royal et Fran9ois Hollande. Paris: Plon. Delrieux F. and Ferries M.-C. (2016) "Portraits de femn1es, profils de reines ? Les femmes sur les monnaies provinciales romaines a la fin de la Republique et au de but de l'Empire (43 av. J.-C - 68 ap. J.-.C.)". In Bielman Sanchez A., Cogitore I. and Kolb A. (eds), Fen1111es infiuentes dans le 111ondehellenistique et a Ro111e.Illes. av. 1-C.- lies. ap. 1-C. Grenoble: ELLUG, 81-118. Derks T. (2012) "Les rites de passage dans l'Empire romain. Esquisse d'une approche anthropologique". In Payen P. and Scheid Tissinier E. (eds), Anthropologie de l'Antiquite: anciens objets, nouvelles approches. Brepols: Turnhout, 43-80. Diaz V (2015) "Brad & Angelina: and now ... Brangelina. A Sociocultural Analysis of Blended Celebrity Couple Names". In Cobb Sh. and Ewen N. (eds), First Con1es Love.Po1ver Couples, CelebritJJ Kinship and Cultural Politics. New York/ London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 275-94. Dobler M. (1998) Tc,gesspiegel,22 June 1998. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/ die-akte-claudia-schiffer/4 7 528.html (consulted 8 February 2018). Dolansky F. (2012) "Playing with Gender: Girls, Dolls and Adult Ideals in the Roman World". Classical AntiquitJJ 31.2, 256-92. Downs L. L. (2004) Writing Gender History. London: Hodder Arnold. Dribe M. and Stanfors M. (2010) "Family Life on Power Couples. Continued Childbearing and Unions Stability Among the Educational Elite in Sweden 19912005". Den1ographicResearch 23 (article 30), 847-78.

Introduction

15

Geraghty C. (2012) "Perfect Pairs. The New Power of Two". Mail Online, 15 April 2012 http:/ /www.dailymail.co. uk/home/you/ article-2128307 /Carey-Mulligan- MarcusM umf ord-The-new-British-power-couples-html (consulted 8 February 2018). Harich-Schwarzbauer H., Spath T. and Hindermann J. (eds) (2005) Gender Studies in den Altertun1slvissenschqften: Riiun1e und Geschlechter in der Antike. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Kunst Ch. (2016) "Formen der Intervention einflussreicher Frauen". In Bielman Sanchez A., Cogitore I. and Kolb A. (eds), Fe111111es influentes dans le n1onde hellenistique et a Ron1e. Illes. av. 1-C.- /le s. ap. 1-C. Grenoble: ELLUG, 197-216. L.efkowitz M. (1995) "The Last Hours of the Parthenos". In Reeder E. D. (ed.), Pandora. Won1enin Classical Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 32-8. in Conte111poraryCulture. Minneapolis: Marshall D. P.(2014) CelebritJJand Polve1:Fa111e University of Minnesota Press. M iiller S. (2009) Deishellenistische Konigspaar in der ,nedialen Repriisentation: Ptolen1aios II und Arsinoe II. Berlin: de Gruyter. Reep D. C. (1992) "The Siren Call of the Super Couple: Soap Opera Destructive Slice toward Closure". In Frentz S. (ed.), Staying Tuned. Conte111porarySoap Opera Criticis,n. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 96-102. Roge Ch. (2001) Celebrity. London: Reaktion. Scodari Ch. (2004) Serial Monogan1y. Soap Opera, L(fespan and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy. New York: Hampton Press. Sebillotte Cuchet V. and Ernoult N. (eds) (2007) Proble,nes du genre en Grece ancienne. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Seve M. (2008) "Les Grecs de l' Antiquite connaissaient-ils leur age?". Le Portique. Revue de philosophie et des sciences hu,naines 21, 1-9. Turner G. (2014) Understanding Celebrit)7• London: SAGE. Vernon P. (2000) "The Power of Two", The Guardian, 25 May 2000 (https://www. theguardian.com/film/2000/may/25/2) (consulted 8 February 2018). Widmer M. (2011) "The Repudiation of Laodice III". Lecture summarized in the rapport of Co~kun A. "Seleucid Study Day I, 15.08.2011 Exeter". H-Soz-Kult (https:/ /www.hsozkult.de/), 27 October 2011. Williams L. R. (2012) "Brangelina: Celebrity, Credibility and the Composite Ueberstar". In Shining in Shadolvs. Movie Stars in the 2000s. London: Rutgers University Press, 200-19. Zanni D. (2008) "Felicitas Temporum und Kaiserpaar". In Bertholet F., Bielman Sanchez A. and Frei-Stolba R. (eds), Eg;pte-Grece-Ron1e: Les differents visages des fe111111es antiques. Bern: Peter Lang, 325-43.

1

An exceptional Argead couple Philip II and Olympias Elizabeth Carney

This chapter focuses, primarily, on one and almost certainly the first exceptional Argead (the dynasty that ruled Macedonia from the seventh century BCE until 309 BCE) couple, Philip II and Olympias, although it also examines a second, perhaps even more exceptional Argead couple, Philip III and Adea Eurydice. I want to consider why and how the role of royal women in the late Argead and early Hellenistic monarchy changed in a way that made such public couples something of a norm and an important way monarchy and dynasty were pictured and understood. 1 Initially, monarchy in Macedonia was not - judging by extant sources conceptualised as a series of royal couples but rather as a series of reigning males, each somehow descended from an earlier male Argead; biology required a couple but presentation apparently did not. 2 Argead kings probably practiced polygamy from an early date. 3 Whether a cause or consequence of this lack of focus on couples, no institutionalised chief wife or female title existed. 4 When narrative sources mention very early royal women, they refer to royal daughters, widows, or mothers, not to wives. Admittedly, the paucity of evidence for this period could exaggerate the apparent lack of interest in royal pairings. Royal wives and their marriages became somewhat more visible during and to some degree because of the career of Eurydice, mother of Philip II (359336) and wife of Amyntas III (394/3-370/69). 5 Justin 6 claims that Eurydice committed adultery with her son-in-law, plotted to murder her husband, and put her lover on the throne, but that Amyntas pardoned her, for the sake of their children. Justin 7 also alleges that, undaunted, Eurydice later killed her two oldest sons. The scholiast for Aeschines 2.29 attributes only one murder to Eurydice, that of her eldest son, but he also claims that she acted in concert with her - according to him - second husband, Ptolemy, though whether that man was king or regent at the time or, for that matter, her husband, is uncertain. 8 The monuments Eurydice herself erected commemorated her either as a mother or as a patron, and they employed her personal name and a patronymic. Her husband is not mentioned in her three known dedicatory inscriptions, two of which were found on the site of the Eucleia sanctuary

An exceptional Argead couple

17

at Vergina/Aegae. In addition, the survival of an inscribed statue base, at Palatitsia, indicates that a portrait of Eurydice once stood near Vergina; it too refers to her by patronymic alone. This base was apparently part of a statue group, but one too large to portray only a couple. 9 The Philippeum, a building Philip decided to have constructed at Olympia after his great victory at Chareronea in 338, did include statues of Amyntas and Eurydice, apparently placed next to each other, to Philip II's left, but their images form part of a three-generational construct; they appear together as progenitors - perhaps a first in itself - not really as a couple. Five figures, in all, once stood in the Philippeum. 10 Eurydice was an exceptional woman, but she was not portrayed nor did she portray herself as part of a couple, exceptional or no. This is not surprising since nearly everything we know about her comes from the period of her widowhood. Her career demonstrates that royal women had begun to be public figures, but in her case, this change first happened because of the battle to insure the succession and survival of her sons, 11 and later because of the need to demonstrate that she and they were legitimate. If, as I believe, many of these "public appearances" of Eurydice date to the reign of her youngest son, Philip II, then they are also examples of Philip's elevation of the royal family to prominence in monuments and public events, an elevation often including the women of his family. Apart from his desire to confirm his mother's and thus his own respectability, Philip was certainly interested in showing his domination and that of his family. Our sources - of course, nearly all date to the Roman era - do indeed portray Philip and Olympias as a couple. One could argue that Plutarch (in the Life of Alexander but in some of the essays as well) virtually invented Olympias and Philip as a couple, a dysfunctional but certainly exceptional one. While Plutarch's biographies often focus on the formative years of the person under consideration, the amount of attention Plutarch devotes to Olympias, as well as to Philip, is striking. Plutarch need not have treated them as a couple, particularly granted that Philip had six other wives, but the first part of the Ale~xander centres on Philip and Olympias as a pair, though primarily as a parental pair. Plutarch implausibly asserts that their marriage was a love match occasioned by their chance meeting, when both were young, at their initiation into the mysteries at Samothrace. 12 Similarly, he describes Philip's last marriage to the young Cleopatra as a love match, 13 and that of Alexander and Roxane as well. 14 Plutarch thus romanticises (and eroticises) marriages actually initiated as part of political alliances. 15 He does seem to characterise these marriages as either the consequence of the previous existence of a couple, as in the case of Philip and Olympias, or as marking the creation of one. Plutarch treats the sexual union of Philip and Olympias as momentous yet rather frightening: before the marriage is consummated, Olympias dreams that a thunderbolt strikes her womb and causes a fire; later Philip has a prophetic dream about sealing his wife's womb with the device of a lion, a dream

18 Elizabeth Carrzey

that is interpreted to mean that Olympias is pregnant with a lion-like son. 16 Next Plutarch 17 asserts that Philip stopped having sex with Olympias, or at least having sex with her often, because he peeked in and saw a snake sleeping beside her. Supposedly he concluded that this meant either that she might work magic on him or that she was sleeping with a greater being. 18 Plutarch follows his story of scary royal sex with a description of Olympias' enthusiasm for and patronage of festivals for women that were wild (and snakey) and frightened men. Plutarch does not tell us directly how Philip felt about this group religious experience Olympias sponsored, but his narrative connects the two stories. He comments, after the account of Philip's sexual reluctance but before Plutarch describes the festival, that there is another story about these things - Olympias and snakes presumably -, 19 so Philip's reaction to the festival was probably negative. Plutarch 20 next reveals that Philip had consulted the Delphic oracle after his prophetic dream, and that the oracle told him to sacrifice to and especially venerate the god Ammon, even though it warned that he would soon lose the eye he would have used to peep at Olympias sleeping with the snake. Citing Eratosthenes, 21 Plutarch tells another tale, that before Alexander's departure, Olympias confided in Alexander the secret of his origin and ordered him to be concerned with things worthy of his birth. Plutarch comments, however, that others say that she herself rejected this notion (of the divinity of Alexander's father) and, if jokingly, implied that it was actually Alexander's own idea. A long section follows in which Alexander demonstrates his precociousness and potential, sometimes in a kind of competition with his father. 22 After recounting these stories of Alexander's early promise, Plutarch then turns to the trouble developing between Alexander and Philip, trouble that involved Olympias. Plutarch 23 faults Philip's polygyny since he asserts that his marriages and affairs caused trouble in the royal household as well as accusations and major disagreements between father and son, but Plutarch also specifically blames Olympias. He describes her as difficult and ready to anger and notes that she encouraged her son to quarrel with his father. Plutarch's diction implies that these two factors - Philip's many marriages and Olympias' character - were an issue even before Philip's supposed love match with Cleopatra. He then goes on to describe the famous quarrel between father and son at a drinking party, during which the Philip's new bride's guardian, Attalus, encouraged the Macedonians to ask the gods for a legitimate heir born from Philip and Cleopatra. According to Plutarch, when Alexander threw a cup at Attalus in response to this apparent questioning of his legitimacy, Philip drew a sword on his own son, but was too drunk to do more. Alexander mocked him and then left, taking Olympias with him. Whereas in the Alexande,~ Olympias is simply taken along when her son quarrels with his father - the quarrel he describes is between father and son - in the Moralia, 24 clearly in reference to this same episode, Plutarch twice says that Philip was having differences with his wife and son. In both works, 25 Plutarch says that

An exceptional Argead couple

19

Demaratus, Philip's Corinthian guest-friend, tells the king that Philip has caused discord and evils in his own household and so persuades Philip to a reconciliation; in the Moralia it is clear that this reconciliation involves Olympias as well as Alexander. 26Thus, Plutarch has to some degree pictured Philip and Olympias as a quarrelling couple and yet begun to link Olympias to her son rather than to his father. Plutarch alone 27recounts an incident - the Pixodarus affair - that he places after the public reconciliation (though it may have, in fact, happened before the reconciliation, while Alexander and Olympias were in exile), 28 which pictures continuing strife between Philip and Alexander, strife that Olympias, though not alone, helped create. According to Plutarch, Alexander tried to replace his half-brother Arrhidaeus as the groom in a marriage alliance Philip was negotiating with Pixodarus, satrap of Caria. Plutarch reveals that Olympias and Alexander's friends had tried to convince him that the proposed marriage signified that Arrhidaeus was going to be Philip's successor. When Philip discovered Alexander's activities, he chastised his son and exiled Alexander's friends. When Philip is assassinated, Plutarch 29 seems to endorse the notion that Olympias egged the assassin on - the implication is because of Philip's actions at the drinking party - and notes that some blame Alexander too, though he adds that Alexander was angry with Olympias for her bad treatment of Philip's wife Cleopatra. 3° For the rest of the Life, Olympias recurs as a bad character, but one with whom Alexander is in frequent touch, and sometimes allows to act on her own. Thus the moment in which Philip and Olympias cease to be a couple, at least as far as Plutarch's narrative goes, marks the regular appearance of a new couple: the son Alexander and the mother Olympias begin to appear in his narrative until (and even after) Alexander's death. 31 Whereas Plutarch's discussion of the married couple of Philip II and Olympias puts part, at least, of the blame for the collapse of their partnership on Philip and in effect, polygamy, though Olympias' bad character is also a major focus of his criticism, Justin knows nothing of royal polygamy and Philip's other wives. Justin's narrative begins with a monogamous couple, Philip and Olympias, and he thinks that Philip divorced Olympias for adultery.32 Justin portrays Philip's former male lover as his assassin, but, much more directly and enthusiastically than Plutarch, Justin endorses the idea that Olympias was behind the assassination of Philip and also that Alexander was complicit in the crime. Justin's Olympias arranges the murder because she had been repudiated and Cleopatra, the new wife, pref erred over her, and in Justin Alexander joins the plot because he fears that his succession is in jeopardy. 33Justin's Olympias not only, along with her son, urged the assassin on but also tried to help him get away and wreathed the supposedly crucified assassin with a golden wreath and later secretly had him cremated over her husband's tomb, and then had a tomb of his own constructed for the assassin. Later she killed Cleopatra's child and farced her to hang herself, consecrated

20 Elizabeth Carrzey

the assassin's sword to Apollo, and generally claimed responsibility for her husband's death in a public way.34 Justin's narrative centres on a failed couple, a monogamous pair, destroyed by the wife's infidelity and her involvement and that of her son in the murder of Philip. Justin actually blames the quarrel with Cleopatra's guardian on Alexander's fears about his succession rather than implying, as Plutarch does, that the quarrel itself generated those fears. Whereas Plutarch's exceptional couple is exceptional in good part because they are the parents of Alexander, the parenthood of Justin's couple is largely irrelevant - his Olympias seems, for instance, unconcerned about Alexander's succession - and instead his is a tale of a royal couple destroyed by adultery, in effect, by a bad and unfaithful woman. Elsewhere in extant sources, indeed elsewhere in Plutarch, direct and indirect indications exist that Philip and Olympias sometimes functioned as a couple, or at least in concert, and not necessarily only as the parents of Alexander. Perhaps more important, these passages suggest that they were understood by contemporaries as part of a couple. In his Demetrius, 35 Plutarch mentions that the Athenians, while at war with Philip, having seized some of Philip's letters, opened all of them except those fram Olympias, acting out of Pl1ilantl1ropia. Thus, Plutarch implies that the correspondence between the married pair was an intimate one. Indeed, in the Moralia, 36 presumably massaging the same source as in the earlier passage, Plutarch says that the Athenians did not break the seal of private letter from the absent husband to an "affectionate" wife. Aeschines 37 refers to shopping done for Olympias in Athens, arranged by the agents of her husband, perhaps as a cover for spying. Apparently, Philip and Olympias both had a role in Alexander's education - a relative of hers was chosen early on as Alexander's tutor and mentor - 38 and supposedly both Philip and Olympias worried about their son's sexual education and employed a hetaera to have sex with him. 39 Other evidence indicates that Olympias was Philip's most prestigious wife, but does not conceptualise them as a couple. The attention Philip paid Olympias' brother Alexander - he put her brother on the Molossian throne in place of her uncle - suggests that she was Philip's most important wife. The narratives of Justin and Diodorus 40 also indicate that she was publicly his most important wife, that he was confirming their shared roles in the public face of Macedonian monarchy. The Philippeum, as we have noted, contained images of Philip himself (in the centre), his parents Amyntas and Eurydice to his left, and on Philip's right, Alexander and Olympias. 41 This monument was primarily dynastic (we should note that while Amyntas and Eurydice appear side by side, Philip and Olympias do not). Still, Olympias was there and none of the other wives were. If those who believe that Tomb II at Vergina is the tomb of Philip II are correct, and the 14 or so ivory heads from a chryselephantine couch in the main chamber of Tomb II were intended to represent members of Philip's court, then Olympias might once again have been depicted not as part of a royal pair but as a member of a wider group. If, however, the

An exceptional Argead couple 21 surviving heads came from a hunting scene depicted on the couch, then this is less likely to be true. 42 Alexander, of course, remained a popular subject for art and literature to the end of the ancient period and past. In the Roman era, Philip tended to fade from view and Olympias became more and more prominent, the motherson pairing replacing the wife-husband one. Alexander began this process by his belief that he was the son of Zeus-Ammon, an idea that caused him political problems and also helped shape the Alexander Romance in which Alexander and Olympias are close, and in which Olympias is more prominent than Philip and the much more sympathetic figure of the two. 43 While neither the St. Petersburg (also known as the Gonzaga) cameo nor the Vienna one - both depicting ju gate heads of a male and female - likely represent Alexander and Olympias, it is interesting that they have often been assumed to do so.44 Two sets of third-century CE medallions, one group from Aboukir (of 20 gold medallions) and one (of three gold medallions) from Tarsus, show Alexander, members of the Severan family, and Olympias and Philip. The images of Philip and Olympias, however, do not appear in the same sets, at least as they were discovered: six versions of Olympias's image (with slight variations) appear in the group originally found at Aboukir, and only one of Philip is part of the group from Tarsus. It is, however, possible that the medallions were originally produced at the same time and in the same place. 45 Even though all the medallions had a common origin, Philip and Olympias were not portrayed as a couple, either in the same image or on the obverse and reverse of the same medallion, but rather as part of the broader series. The third-century creators of the medallions did not conceive of them as a couple. The Alexander Ron1ance became increasingly popular and influential. In the Greek version of the Romance, Philip and Olympias are an unhappy pair, though in this case, Philip rather than Olympias is the main source of the trouble; certainly, Olympias is a kind of heroin and Philip something of a villain, if a pathetic one. The only ancient image that portrays Philip and Olympias as a couple, if an unhappy one, is a fourth-century mosaic from a villa in Baalbek. The villa's floor displayed a number of scenes from the Alexander Romance, but one scene depicted (in the upper left), Olympias (so labelled), with the famous snake/Egyptian magician and ex-pharaoh/Ammon sitting on her lap, and Philip (also labelled) uneasily sitting next to Olympias but pulling away. This scene probably illustrates an episode in the Ron1a11ce when the snake's sudden appearance convinces Philip that a divine snake actually did father Alexander. 46 Thus far I have suggested that Philip and Olympias, conceived of as a pair, were primarily a Roman construct, but not entirely so. One reason this is likely is that, starting with Philip's mother, and increasingly during his own reign and the period of Alexander and the Successors, royal women began to achieve greater and greater prominence. There were a number of factors that contributed to this evolution. Philip highlighted himself, but also his family, as witness the Philippeum and the way he turned his daughter's wedding into

22

Elizabeth Carrzey

an international festival. Alexander's long absence in Asia gave increasing importance to his mother and his full sister Cleopatra; they received some of his plunder, made dedications and served as patrons, and in his absence began to assert political power and influence. 47 It is difficult to demonstrate, but likely that women in the Macedonian elite, again because of the long absence of males on the Asian campaign, also began to grow in importance. 48 Some of these families would, of course, soon become ruling families. Once Alexander was dead, the importance of the remaining Argead women and of that of women in important families increased. Surviving Argead women served as potential - and in the case of Thessalonice (a daughter of Philip II and later wife of Cassander), actual - legitimizing factors. Antipater's daughters were as much pursued- arguably more so - as Philip's three surviving daughters. Long before the Successors took royal titles, they used their wives and mothers to buttress their control. Cities got named after them; they began to get private cults. They moved around the eastern Mediterranean, playing ceremonial roles but also bringing supplies, royal friends, and maintaining the children of the family, apparently developing courts and courtiers of their own in the process, though Olympias and her daughter had already probably gone some way down this path. 49 Even though most of the Successors mimicked the polygamy of the Argead kings, they tended to develop a wife who was more important, the semi-official other partner in a royal pair. This process happened at varying rates, but it was an observable phenomenon of the late fourth and the very early third century. The appearance of a female title, basilissa, signals this developing parallelism and, in effect the rise of, at least potentially, the somewhat institutionalised royal couple. This evolution occurred, primarily, because of the Successors' need for legitimizing devices of any sort, anything that held out potential to assist in stabilizing the succession. 50 The Hellenistic ideal of the harmonious royal couple took time to develop but, once that had happened, it had a long afterlife. 51 I want to turn my focus to a second exceptional couple, the very last Argead couple, and to their possible part in the evolving role of exceptional, mostly royal couples. Perhaps I should call them the first Hellenistic exceptional couple: Philip Arrhidaeus (III) and Adea Eurydice. 52 This may seem an odd notion since their entire careers appear to be and in a way were grim footnotes or rather endnotes to a royal dynasty. Yet they were, in a peculiar and distinctive way, partners, this despite the fact that they could not lay claim to the most significant part of Philip and Olympias's partnership. They were descendants of Philip but not of Olympias, never had a child, and certainly produced no male heir. In the end, Olympias defeated them and had both killed. The parallelism of their circumstances and careers, rather than their success or longevity, distinguishes them as a royal and definitely exceptional couple. Arrhidaeus was Alexander's half-brother, the son of Philip II by the Thessalian Philinna. 53 At the time of Alexander's death, Arrhidaeus was in Babylon. 54 Though the generals of Alexander, his close associates, had no

An exceptional Argead couple

23

interest in making Arrhidaeus king after his half-brother's death because they believed he suffered from a mental disability, thanks to an infantry officer's ability to manipulate the sentiments of the Macedonian army and their loyalty to the Argeads, the generals had to accept Arrhidaeus as co-king along with the posthumous child of Alexander, Alexander IV.55 At some point in the process that led to his recognition as king, Arrhidaeus took his father's name Philip. 56 Though he was thus Philip III, historians often ref er to him as Philip Arrhidaeus. He and his baby co-king were always in the control of one or more of a succession of regents. 57 Adea Eurydice also came from the line of Philip II: her warrior mother Cynnane was a daughter of Philip by his Illyrian wife, Au data. 58 Philip married Cynnane to his nephew Amyntas, the son of Perdiccas III. 59 Their daughter Adea was, therefore, Argead on both sides. After Philip's murder, Alexander eliminated Amyntas, supposedly because he was plotting against Alexander. 6°Cynnane remained in Macedonia and brought up her daughter as something of a soldier. 61 When Cynnane heard of Alexander's death, she decided to head east, to the Macedonian army; she hoped to marry her young daughter to Philip Arrhidaeus. When Perdiccas, the first regent, discovered that Cynnane had arrived with her daughter and these marriage plans, he and/ or his brother had Cynnane killed. The Macedonian army, however, angered at the murder of the daughter of Philip, forced Perdiccas to have the marriage take place. 62 At some point in these events, Adea assumed the name of her great-grandmother, Philip's mother, Eurydice. 63 Again, for clarity's sake, scholars tend to ref er to her as Adea Eurydice. Rather remarkably, Adea Eurydice, despite her youth, attempted to woo the Macedonian army away from its generals and into her control, primarily by speaking in public to the army. Though she failed in the end, she nearly toppled Antipater before her efforts were suppressed. 64 Then she, her husband, and Antipater (the latest regent) returned to Greece along with the young co-king Alexander IV and his mother. 65 After the death of Antipater, when Polyperchon had become regent, 66 Adea Eurydice somehow escaped his control with her husband and returned to Macedonia. There, perhaps in response to Polyperchon's apparent alliance with Olympias, 67 Adea Eurydice allied herself with Cassander and may have offered him the regency, though at times she acted as though she herself were regent. 68 Before Cassander returned to Macedonia, however, Polyperchon and Olympias brought an army into Macedonia, and when Adea Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus led the home Macedonian army out to meet them, it went over to Olympias and the royal couple were captured and imprisoned together, though they died separately. 69 Diodorus gives Adea Eurydice a dramatic death scene in which she attends to the care of her husband's corpse, calls down vengeance on Olympias, and then kills herself in tragic style. 70 Subsequently, Cassander, having killed Olympias and imprisoned her grandson, buried Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice (and the remains of Cynnane) at Aegae, with royal splendour, having honoured them with funeral games. 71

24

Elizabeth Carrzey

The careers of the royal pair demonstrate an extraordinary degree of parallelism: both came from a strand of the Argead dynasty not connected to and in fact hostile to the tradition of Alexander (and thus Olympias); both were chosen by the army and resisted by the Macedonian elite; both took new names when they began their public careers, ones that alluded to the more traditional part of the dynasty; both received a royal burial, at the same time and possibly together, and were commemorated by funerary games. I might add that while Olympias did not kill them in the same way or at exactly the same time, in effect they died together and thus were linked in their deaths as well as in their lives.72 73 It is interesting that Diodorus refers to the husband and wife as ~acrtAc:tc;. He, of course, wrote nearly two centuries after these events and may well not have employed contemporary terminology. Basilissa feminises the male title basileus. Currently, the first time the female title basilissa appears is in a Samian decree 74 honouring a certain Demarchus, who is referred to as a guard in basilissa Phila's entourage. 75 Phila, the daughter of Antipater, was the wife of Demetrius Poliorcetes. 76 This Samian decree is usually dated to the period of Demetrius's siege of Rhodes, to about 305,77 thus to a date soon after basileus began to be employed to ref er to both Demetrius and Antigonus, something that happened in 306/5. 78 No similar literary evidence survives about the date, circumstances, or possible ceremony relating to the initiation of the female title. The pl1iloi of father and son may have initiated this practice for Phila just as they did that of employing the male title; conceivably the female title originated in Phila's court. 79 The wives of the other Successors apparently mimicked this practice soon after their husbands, following Antigonus and Demetrius, also began to employ the male title. But where did Phila's usage come from and what did it signify? The meaning of basilissa remains uncertain: the title is applied to some royal wives but not all, to daughters of some kings but not all, and sometimes to women who reign or co-reign. 8° Currently, no extant inscription refers to Adea Eurydice, but is it possible that she was the first to employ the female title, perhaps invented it, and that she did so because of her unique role as the Argead wife of a king who could not himself actually rule? 81 My question is merely speculative, but the marriage of Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice was a partnership, if an odd one, that makes my hypothesis at least plausible. Certainly, Adea Eurydice's career generally demonstrates an unconventional and assertive approach to her situation. If my guess is correct, then, presumably, Antigonus and Demetrius and Phila could have borrowed and adapted this practice, for their own somewhat different purposes. The careers of Olympias and Adea Eurydice, and to some degree that of Olympias's daughter Cleopatra, were transitional from that played by earlier women in the Argead dynasty to the developing role of women in the various Hellenistic dynasties; royal women began to serve a legitimizing role in monarchy, particularly in Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties where royal pairs played a far more important role than in the Antigonid dynasty. Close kin

An exceptional Argead couple

25

marriages like that of the last Argead couple facilitated this process. Adea Eurydice and Philip Arrhidaeus in effect legitimised each other and in that sense alone, as well as others, functioned as an exceptional couple and also as a model for subsequent royal pairings.

Abbreviations SIG3

Dittenberger W. Sy/loge inscriptionu1n graecarum. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel. 1915-1924. Reed. Hildesheim: Olms. 1982.

Notes 1 Roy (1998), 111-35. 2 For instance, Justin (7 .4.1) refers to "Amyntas rex" and to his son and successor Alexander, but the name of Amyntas's mother or his son's is not given. Inscriptions did not ref er to mothers and sometimes not even to fathers. See discussions in Greenwalt (1989), 22-28; Ogden (1999), 3-40; and Carney (2000), 23-27. Muller (2014), 154-62 concludes that Macedonian royal polygamy was probably borrowed from Persian practice, perhaps in the days of Alexander I and Perdiccas II. 3 Alexander III and Philip II certainly did and Amyntas III is almost certain. Satyr. ap. Ath. 13.557b; Arr. 4.19.5; Curt. 8.24-26; Diod 17.36.5; Plut. Alex. 77.4. 4 Carney (2000), 32-4 and 225-8. 5 On Eurydice's career, see Mortensen ( 1992); Carney (2000), 40-6; Carney (2006), 502; Molina Marin (2018), 75-90; Howe (forthcoming) and Carney (forthcoming a). 6 Just. 7.4.7. 7 Just. 7.5.5. 8 See Muller (2016), 200-35 for a recent overview of the order and events of this period and a discussion of the identity and role of Ptolemy, Eurydice's supposed husband. 9 On the Vergina and Palatisia inscriptions, see Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2000), 387403. The corpus of Plutarch (Mor. 14c) preserves another dedicatory inscription of Eurydice's, origin unknown. The first line of the inscription has been considerably emended. See discussion and references in Carney (2000), 41, n. 14. 10 Paus. 5.17.4, 20.9-10. Palagia (2010), 33-42 argues, primarily because of the corruption of the text of Pausanias at 5.17 .4, that the image in the Phillipeum represented not Philip's mother but his last wife, a person called "Eurydice" by Arrian 3.6.5 (this is the sole example of using this name for Philip's last wife). I am not persuaded by her arguments because Philip commissioned the Philippeum right after Chaeronea, before his last marriage and before he had quarrelled with Alexander (and Olympias, indirectly) and so needed to be reconciled to both mother and son, and because Philip's last wife had not yet produced a son. Moreover, Schultz (2007), 205-10 presents compelling arguments that it was done all at once, not completed in phases. See further discussion and reference in Carney (2015a), 61-90. 11 Aesch. 2.26-29. 12 Plut. Alex. 2.1. 13 Plut. Alex. 9.4. 14 Plut. Alex. 4 7 .4.

26

Elizabeth Carrzey

15 Whereas most would concur that, despite Plutarch, the marriage to Olympias was part of a political alliance (see Carney (2006), 12-16) and Plutarch himself asserts that Roxanne's was partly political (see recent discussion in Muller (2013), 38-9), not all would agree with me that the marriage to Cleopatra was a political alliance (see Carney (2015b ), 167-88). 16 Plut. Alerx. 2.2. 17 Plut. Alerx. 2.4. 18 Plut. Alerx. 2.4. 19 Plut. Alerx. 2.5. 20 Plut. Alerx. 3.1. 21 Plut. Alerx. 3.2. 22 Plut. Alerx 4.5-7.1, 9.3. 23 Plut. Alerx. 9.3. 24 Pl11t.Mor. 70c, 179c. 25 Plut. Alerx. 9.6; Mo,: 70c. 26 Plut. Mor. 179c 27 Plut. Alerx. 10.1-3. 28 Ruzicka (2010). 29 Plut. Alerx.10.4. 30 Plut. Alerx. 10.4. 31 Plut. Alerx. 16.8, 25.4, 39.5, 39.7, 68.3, 77.1-3, 77.5. 32 Just. 9.5.9, 7.1-14. 33 Just. 9.7.3. 34 Just. 9.7.1-14. 35 Plut. Den1. 22.1. 36 Plut. Mor. 799e. 37 Aesch. 3.223. 38 Plut. Alerx. 5.4. 39 Ath. 10.435a. 40 Just. 8.6.7-8, 9.6.1; Diod. 16.72.1. 41 Paus. 5.17.4, 20.9-10. On the placement of the statues in the Phillippeum, see Schultz (2007), 205-33. 42 Andronikos ( 1984), 131, conceiving of the ivory heads as portraits, suggested that one head which he believed to resemble the head he identified as "Alexander" could be a portrait of Olympias, though he admitted there was little to base this conclusion on, considering the absence of confirmed portraits of Olympias. The "Olympias" heads on the Aboukir medallions (see below) have never been conceived as portraits. Currently, however, since the scene of which the heads were once a part has come to be regarded as a hunting scene showing male members of the court (e.g. Kottaridi (2011), 83-8) and we have no evidence that women hunted, this view is not common. 43 See Carney (2006), 112-14 for discussion and for references. In the Alerxander Ron1ance, Olympias does have sex with Nectanebo/Ammon, but she is deceived into this relationship and Philip is portrayed as boorish. Some variants take a different point of view, and one collection of letters (see Carney (2006), 190, n. 39 for references) does actually picture Philip and Olympias acting together to discipline their son. 44 See discussion and references in Carney (2006), 114-17 and Figures 6.1 and 6.2. 45 See Dahmen (2008), 493-546 and Touratsoglou (2008), 479-92, both of whom suggest that both sets of medallio11s were intended as donatives to high officials,

An exceptional Argead couple

46 47 48

49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58 59 60

61 62 63

64

27

not as victory prizes in games. Dahmen argues for a common origin for both sets of medallions, at Veroia, likely inspired by paintings or statue groups there, and relates their development to the reign of Alexander Severus and the games in honour of Alexander held at Veroia in this period. For the Olympias images from Aboukir, see discussions in Pandermalis (2004), 34, Figure 13 and Carney (2006), 120-2. See Pandermalis (2004), 32 and Figure 11 for a discussion and references to the Philip image. Alexander Ron1ance 10.1. See Carney (2006), 193, n. 98 for references to the mosaic. My interpretation follows Chehab (1958), 48. Carney (2000), 82-93. The career of Phila, daughter of Antipater, whose husband Demetrius did not take a royal title until 306, is suggestive of the ways in which elite women helped their families, at this point many of whom were at a distance from each other. On Phila, see Wehrli (1964), 140-6; Carney (2000), 165-9; Harders (2013), 43-50; Carney (forthcoming b). For overviews of these developments, see Savalli-Lestrade (1994), 415-32; Carney (2000), 203-33; Savalli-Lestrade (2003), 59-76; Bielman Sanchez (2003), 41-64; Carney (2011), 195-220; Muller (2013), 31-42. See also Miron Perez (1997), 21535; Kunst (2007), 24-38; Co~kun et al. (2016a), 17-22; Bielman Sanchez et al. (2016), 141-54. Carney (2000), 225-32 discusses this development. Roy ( 1998), 111-35. On Adea Eurydice, see Carney (2000), 132-7 and on Philip Arrhidaeus, see Carney (2001), 63-89 for discussion and references. Satyr. ap. Ath. 13.557d. Curt. 10.7.2. Just. 13.1.1-4.4; Diod. 18.2.1-4; Ct1rt. 10.7.3-10.20; Arr. FGrH 156 Fl.1; Heidelberg Epiton1e FGrH 155F 1.1-2. Curt. 10.7.7. Meeus (2008), 39-82 provides a detailed analysis of the poorly attested events immediately after the death of Alexander. Romm (2011) and Anson (2014), 1-124 offer recent overviews of the early period of the Successors. Ath. 13.557c. Polyaen. 8.60.4; Arr. FGrH 156, F 9.22. Just. 12.6.14; Plut. Mo,: 327c. Amyntas may briefly have been king after his father Perdiccas 11l's death in battle and Philip II only regent (Just. 7. 5.9-1O; Satyr. ap. Ath. 13.557b), or Philip may have been recognised as king right away (Diod. 16.1.3, 2.1). Inscriptional evidence indicates that Amyntas, at some point either early or late in his life, was termed king. See Heckel (2006), 23 for references. Polyaen. 8.60; Duris ap. Ath. 560f. Arr. FGr H 156, F 9 .22-23. Greenwalt ( 1999), 459-60 rejects the idea that either the regent Perdiccas or the army chose her name. I agree, but not because I doubt that the army knew much about Philip's mother and her role, but rather because it is difficult to imagine an assortment of soldiers coming llp with the idea. Adea Eurydice's subsequent career tends to confirm the view that she purposely chose the name of her greatgrandmother Eurydice. Arr. FGrH 156 F9.30-33; Diod. 18.39.1-4. Though the accounts of Arrian and Diodorus already cited differ significa11tly,both give Adea Eurydice a significant

28

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77

78 79 80

81

Elizabeth Carrzey role involving defiance of various generals/regents and Antipater himself. Polyaenus (4.6.4), however, omits all mention of her. See further Carney (2000), 132-4. Diod. 18.39.7. Diod. 18.48.4. Diod. 18.49 .4, 57 .2. Just. 14.5.1-4; Diod. 19.11.1. Just. 14.5.8-10; Diod. 19.11.1-9. Diod. 19.11.5-7. Diod. 19.52.5. Since the discovery of Tomb II under the Great Tumulus at Vergina, some have thought that the tomb contained the remains of Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice, whereas others continue to believe that Philip II and one of his wives (which one varying over time) were buried in the tomb. Granted varying analysis of the age of the woman buried in the antechamber of Tomb II and apparently contradictory literary testimony, it is currently impossible to make a determination. See Carney (2016), 109-49 for a discussion of these issues and for references to varying interpretations. Diod. 19.52.5. SIG 1 333.6-7. Harders (2013), 47 argues that Demarchus's importance at Antigonus's court confirms Phila's importance On Phila, see Wehrli (1964), 140-6; Carney (2000), 165-9; Harders (2013), 43-50; Carney (forthcoming b). Carney (2000), 225-8. Paschidis (2008), 387-9 makes an unconvincing attempt to down-date the inscription to 299, arguing that it happened after Ipsus. Granted that Paschidis does agree that the women of the other dynasties imitated this practice of Phila's soon after, his dating makes little sense since the other Successors had little reason to imitate Antigonid practice in the immediate aftermath of the disastrous Antigonid defeat. Diod. 20.53.1-4; Plt1t. Den1. 18.1-2; App. Sy,: 54. Harders (2016), 30 wonders whether Phila's own court initiated the practice and Demetrius simply accepted it. Harders (2013), 47 and Co~kun et al. (2016b), 19 point out that not all kings' wives bore the title. This means that it should not be translated "queen". See Carney (1991), 156-61; Carney (2000), 226-7; Savalli-Lestrade (2015), 189, especially n. 7 and 8. Exactly what was "wrong" or different about Philip Arrhidaeus and the degree to which it was a problem is unclear, but the Macedonian elite, unlike the army that chose him as king, consistently treated him as though he needed a regent, and Adea Eurydice, as we have seen, after their escape from Polyperchon's control, seems to have functioned like or as a regent. On the nature of Arrhidaeus's perceived problems, see Carney (2001), 74-82. As Daniel Leon suggested to me in a recent conversation, a re-evaluation of Arrhidaet1s's capacities is in order in the light of recent work on the body and disability (e.g. Laes (2016)).

Bibliography Andronikos M. ( 1984) Vergina:The Royal To1nbsand the Ancient City. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon S.A.

An exceptional Argead couple

29

Anson E. M. (2014) Ale};ander's Heirs: The Age o.f the Successors. Oxford/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Bielman-Sanchez A. (2003) "Regner au feminin. Reflexions sur les reines attalides et seleucides". In Prost F. (ed.) L' Orient 1nediterraneen de la n1ort d'Alexandre aux ca,npagnes de Pon1pee: Cites et royau,nes a l'epoque hellenistique. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 41-64. Bielman-Sanchez A., Cogitore I., and Kolb A. (eds) (2016) Fe1n111esinfiuentes dans le ,nonde hellenistique et a Ron1e. Illes. av. J-C.-Ile s. ap. J-C. Grenoble: ELLUG. Carney E. D. (1991) "'What's in a Name? The Emergence of a Title for Royal Women in the Hellenistic Period". In Pomeroy S. B. (ed.) Wo,nen's History and Ancient History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 154-72. Carney E. D. (2000) Won1en and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carney E. D. (2001) "The Tro11ble with Philip Arrhidaeus". Ancient History Bulletin 15.2, 63-89. Carney E. D. (2006) Oly111pias,Mother of Ale~Yander the Great. London/New York: Routledge. Carney E. D. (2011) "Being Royal and Female in the Early Hellenistic Period". In Erskine A. and Llewellyn-Jones L. (eds) Creating the Hellenistic World. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 195-220. Carney E. D.(2015a) "The Philippeum, Women, and the Formation of a Dynastic Image" and ''Afterword". In Carney E. D. King ctnd Court in Ancient Macedonia: Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 60-90. Carney E. D. (2015b) "The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander, and the Murder of Philip". In Carney E. D. King and Court in Ancient Macedonia: Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 167-88. Carney E. D. (2016) "Commemoration of a Royal Woman as a Warrior: The Burial in the Antechamber of Tomb II at Vergina". Syllecta Classica 27, 109-49. Carney E. D. (forthcoming a) Eur.,vdice and the Birth o.f'Macedonian Poiver. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press. Carney E. D. (forthcoming b) "The First Basilissa:Phila, Daughter of Antipater and Wife of Demetrius Poliorcetes". In Tsouvala G. and Ancona R. (eds) an as yet untitled collection. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Chehab M. (1958 and 1959) "Mosa:iques du Liban". Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouthl4l5 and 29-52, Pls. XI-XXVI. Co~kun A. and McAuley A. (eds) (2016a) Seleukid Royal Won1en: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleul(id E111pire. Stuttgart: Steiner. Co~kun A. and McAuley A. (2016a) "The Study of Seleukid Royal Women: An Introduction". In Co~kun A. andMcAuley A. (eds) Seleukid Royal Won1en: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleul(ici En1pire. Stuttgart: Steiner, 17-22. Dahmen K. (2008) "Alexander in Gold and Silver: Reassessing Third Century AD Medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos". An1erican Journal o.f Nu111is111atics 20, 493-546. Greenwalt W S. (1989) "Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia". Arethusa 22, 19-45. Greenwalt W S. (1999) "Argead Name Changes". Archaic1 Makedonia/Ancient Macedonia 6.1, 453-62.

30

Elizabeth Carrzey

Harders A.-C. (2013) "Ein Konig und viele Koniginnen? Demetrios Poliorketes und seine Ehefrauen". In Kunst C. (ed.) Matronage. Handlungsstrategien und soziale Netz1verke von Herrscherfrauen in1Altertu111in diachroner Perspektive, Internationale Tagung vom 22.-24. Marz 2012 in Osnabruck. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, 43-50. Harders A.-C. (2016) "The Making of a Queen - Seleukos Nikator and His Wives". In Co~·kun A. and McAuley A. (eds) Seleukid Royal Won1en: Creation,

Representation and Distortion o.f'Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid E1npire. Stuttgart: Steiner, 25-38. Heckel W (2006) Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's En1pire. Oxford/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Howe T. (forthcoming) "A Founding Mother? Eurydike I, Philip II and Macedonian Royal Mythology". In Pownall F. and Howe T. (eds) Ancient Macedonians in the Greek and Ron1an Sources. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Kottaridi A. (2011). Macedonian Treasures: A Tour through the Museu111of the Royal To,nbs of Aigai. Athens: Karon Editions. Kunst Ch. (2007) "Frauen im hellenistischen Herrscherkult". Klio 89, 24-38. Laes C. (ed.) (2016) DisabilitJ' in Antiquity. London/New York: Routledge. Meeus A. (2008) "The Power Struggle of the Diadochoi in Babylon, 323 BC". Ancient Society 38, 39-82. Miron Perez M. D. (1997) "Olimpia, Euridice y el origen del culto en la Grecia hellenistica". Florentia Iliberritana 9, 215-3 5. Molina Marin A. I. (2018) "Reina y madre. Euridice I y la concepci6n clanica del poder en Macedonia". In Antela Bernardez B., Zaragoza Serrano C. and Guimera Martinez A. (eds) Dolor y Place,:·las n1ujeresen la Antiguedad. Madrid: Universidad Alcala de Henares, 75-90. Mortensen K. (1992) "E11rydike: Demonic or Devoted Mother?" Ancient History Bulletin 6, 156-71. Muller S. (2013) "Das symbolische Kapital von Argeadinnen und Frauen der Diadochen". In K11nst Ch. (ed.) Matronage. Handlungsstrategien und soziale Netz1ver!{eanti!{er Herrscherfrauen. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, 31-42. Muller S. (2016) Die Argeaden: Geschichte Makedoniens bis zum Zeitalter Ale.xanders des Grossen. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh. Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London: Ogden D. (1999) PolJ)ga11"1y, Duckworth/Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Palagia 0. (2010) "Philip's Eurydike in the Philippeum at Olympia". In Carney E. D. and Ogden D. (eds) Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33-42. Pandermalis D. (2004) "The Portraits of Alexander". In Pandermalis D. (ed.) Ale.xander the Grec1t:Treasuresfron1an Epic Era of Hellenisl1'1, New York: Alexander S. Onassis Benefit Foundation, 15-35. Paschidis P. (2008) Betlveen City and King: Prosopographicc1l Studies on the

Intern1ediaries bet1veen the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the RoJJalCourts o.f the Hellenistic Period (322-190 B. C.) Paris: De Boccard. Romm J. (2011) Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crolvn and En1pire. New York: Knopf. Roy J. ( 1998) "The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King". In Foxhall L. and Salmon J. (eds) When Men Were Men: Masculini(v, Polver and Identity in Classical Antiquity. London/New York: Routledge, 111-35.

An exceptional Argead couple

31

Ruzicka S. (2010) "The 'Pixodarus Affair' Reconsidered Again". In Carney E. D. and Ogden D. (eds) Philip II c1ndAle)[ander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 3-12. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli C. (2000) "Queenly Appearances at Vergina-Aegae: Old and New Epigraphic and Literary Evidence". Athens Annals o.f Archaeology 3, 387-403. Savalli-Lestrade I. ( 1994) "II ruolo pubblico delle regine ellenistiche". In Allessandri S. (ed.) Historie: Studie offerti dagli Allievi Giuseppe Nenci in occasione de! suo Congedo: Gallatina LE, 415-32. settantesin10 co111pleanno, Savalli-Lestrade, I. (2003) "La place des reines a la cour et dans le royaume a l'epoque hellenistique". In Frei-Stolba R., Bielman A., and Bianchi 0. (eds) Les fe1n1nes antiques entre sphere privee et sphere publique. Bern: Peter Lang, 59-76. Savalli-Lestrade I. (2015) "Les adieux a la pacriAtcrcra,Mise en scene et intrigue de la mort des femmes royales dans le monde hellenistique". Chiron 45, 187-219. Schultz P. (2007) "Leochares' Argead Portraits in the Philippeion". In Schultz P. and von den Hoff R. (eds) Earl}' Hellenistic Portraiture: linage, Style, Context. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 205-33. Touratsoglou I. (2008) "Tarsos, Aboukir, etc.: Before and after. Once again". A,nerican Journal of Nun1isn1atics20, 479-92. Wehrli C. ( 1964) "Phila filled' Anti pater et epouse de Demetrios, roi des Macedoniens". Historia 13, 140-6.

2

Looking for the Seleucid couple1 Marie Widmer

Introduction The emergence of various kingdoms characterised the Hellenistic world. The rulers in charge of territories inherited by Alexander the Great developed their authority concurrently. They built alliances and strengthened them through marriages. This political practice contributed to expanding the polygamous habit of the Hellenistic kings. 2 The latter seemed indeed to prefer polygamy to serial monogamy in order to avoid alienating an ally, even a farmer one, with the dissolution of a marriage. 3 Such was the case of the strategos Lysimachus, king of Thrace. He had four known wives whom he maintained simultaneously.4 First, circa 321 in the context of Triparadeisus, he married Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater, and then, circa 312, an Odysian royal woman, possibly the daughter of Seutes 111.5 Next, circa 302, he married Amastris of Heraclea Pontica, a niece of Darius III, and finally in 300/299, Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy 1.6 These numerous marriages of Lysimachus reflect the evolution of the geopolitical position of the Diadoch in the last quarter of the fourth century BCE. Such frenetic polygamy of the successors of Alexander the Great subsided, without however disappearing, when the Hellenistic kingdoms were formed and dynasties installed, 7 notably within the Seleucid family. The first Seleucid ruler, Seleucus I, married Apama, the daughter of an eminent Bactrian, at a wedding in Susa in 324. 8 Apama would be the first Seleucid basilissa (BaaiA1aaa). Twenty-five years later, the king married Stratonice, the Antigonid descendant, to countervail the political alliance of Ptolemy and Lysimachus established after Ipsos. 9 The state of our documentation does not allow us to confirm the polygamy of Seleucus, 10 but that of Antiochus II, the grandson of Seleucus I, is a given. The third Seleucid king married Laodice, the daughter of Achaius, whose family was well established in Asia Minor Cistauric, 11 before falling in with the Lagid dynasty by marrying Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, as a consequence of the Second Syrian War. 12The two wives of the king coexisted for six years, until the death of their husband. 13 Another example, from the end of the third century, is that of Antiochus III. Shortly after his enthronement, he married Laodice, his cousin and a descendant of the king of Pontus. 14Thirty years later, presumably during the

Looking for tl1e Seleucid couple

33

lifetime of his first wife, he married again, this time a young woman from Chalcis whom he renamed Euboia. 15 In this polygamous context, which can be observed for many of the first Seleucid sovereigns, the king created at the same time several duos with various wives. This begs the question whether the couple is the most obvious form to represent Hellenistic power. In other words, did Hellenistic power think of itself as a couple acting with one voice?

The voice of the Seleucid couple In the Seleucid inscriptions on which this chapter focuses, the first expression of a power couple dates from 203, almost a century after the constitution of the Seleucid kingdom. It is indeed on this date that the city of Teas honoured Antiochus III and his wife Laodice in these terms: for having granted (acpevTc: