No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Antiochos Epiphanes, King of the Seleucid empire, began his political career as a hostage, sent by his father to Rome in 188. About a decade later, when Antiochos’ elder brother Seleukos sent his own son Demetrios to Rome, Antiochos was permitted to leave the city.
He went to Athens, and it was probably there that he learned of his brother’s sudden death. Seleukos purportedly fell victim to a palace conspiracy. The king’s syntrophos Heliodoros, accused by Appian of heading the plot, assumed power in Antioch. Inevitably, Antiochos presented a claim to the throne. He was undoubtedly supported by Athenian diplomacy. The Attalid kings of Pergamum, who had not been on good terms with Seleukos, supplied Antiochos with money and an army. In a matter of weeks he was King in Antioch.
1 The periocha of Livy 41 says that Antiochos mortuo fratre Seleuco … in regnum Syriae ab urbe dimissus. Appian, however, says (Syr. 8. 45; cf. 47; cf. Sulp. Severus 2. 19. 5) that Antiochos was released in exchange for Demetrios, adding that Seleukos died when Antiochos was already in Athens, on his way from Rome. Thompson, M.The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (New York 1961), 158ff.,Google Scholar shows that the Antiochos whose name appears on Athenian coins with an elephant is not to be identified with the Seleucid king. However the decree of OGIS 248, whose attribution to Athens accords so well with Appian’s version (cf. M. Holleaux, ‘Un prétendu décret d’Antioche sur l‘Oronte’, REG 13 [1900], 139 f.) supports the latter.
2 Appian, loc. cit.
3 The Seleucid nearly became involved in war with Eumenes II in support of Pharnaces of Pontus(Diod. 29.24).
4 OGIS 248; Appian, loc. cit.
5 Ibid.; this is perhaps not entirely consistent with App. Mac. 18. 1, where at the height of the Third Macedonian War Perseus is making expensive efforts to compromise Eumenes in Roman eyes. However,cf. Will, E.Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.C.) (Nancy 1966),2. 243ff.Google Scholar
6 Bouché-Leclercq, A.Histoire des Séleucides (Paris 1913),1. 242ff.Google Scholar cf. Sands, P.C.The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic (Cambridge 1908),4;Google ScholarRE 1 (1894), 2471, s.v. Antiochos 27. For what appears a more judicious appraisal of the situation, cf. E. Will, (n.5.) 255 ff., but even in this more recent work the ‘threat’ of Demetrios against Antiochos’ rule seems somewhat exaggerated. What evidence is there that Popilius handed Antiochos a letter containing an allusion to Demetrios (ib. 272)?
7 OGIS 247; 2 Macc. 3.7.
8 In RE 8 (1912), 14, s.v. Heliodoros 6.
9 The length of Antiochos’ stay in Athens cannot be estimated. Mørkholm, O.Antiochus IV of Syria (Kopenhagen 1966), 40ff.Google Scholar rejects Appian’s implication that he was merely passing on his way to Syria. It is perhaps disputable, that the statues of Antiochos mentioned in OGIS 248 had already been erected at the time of the passage of the decree. A stay of a few months in Athens would not vitiate the conjecture defended here.
10 Cf. Aymard, A.Etudes d’hiistoire ancienne (Paris 1967),269.Google Scholar
11 M. Holleaux’s suggestion (op. cit. [n.l] 261) — followed by others — that Heliodoros had been in alliance with Alexandria is based on an interpretation by K.B. Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste, 429. Stark’s work was published in 1852, and his well fleshed-out reconstruction would probably seem quite arbitrary to a modern reader. Cf. further below.
12 The last word is that of Mørkholm, O. ‘The Accession of Antiochos IV of Syria’ ANS Museum Notes 2. (1964),63ff.;Google ScholarAntiochus IV of Syria, 42 ff.; cf.Newell, E.T. ‘The Seleucid Mint of Antioch’ The American Journal of Numismatics 51. (1917),19ff.Google Scholar
13 An Antiochean coin discussed by O. Mørkholm, op. cit. (n.9) 36 f., shows that Demetrios’ own mother was associated with the kingship of the younger brother. Mørkholm prefers to think that she was threatened into submission by Heliodoros, but does not dismiss the possibility of willing co-operation.
14 E.g. O. Mørkholm, ‘The Accession’, 75 n.28; E. Will, (n.5) 256.
15 Porphyry, ap. Jerome ad Daniel. 11. 21.
16 E.g. Otto, W.Zw Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers (Munich 1934), 30f.Google Scholar
17 Cf.Møckholm, O.Antiochus IV of Syria, 47.Google Scholar
18 That a pro-Ptolemaic party was active in Judaea (e.g. Hyrcanos the Tobiad) is generally recognized, cf. A. Bouché-Leclercq, (n.6) 1. 241 f.; E.R. Bevan, CAH 8. 497 f.
19 Concerning the legitimacy of Antiochos IV himself, be it noted that of the ancient sources only Daniel 11. 21, and Porphyry ap. Jerome, ad loc, impugn his right to the throne. Daniel is prophetically obscure: ‘they did not confer upon him the hod of the kingdom’. HWD MLCWT occurs also in l Chron. 29. 25, where it obviously refers to the glory of the kingship, not simply to a crown. That Epiphanes was no legitimate heir is only one possible interpretation. Concerning the meaning of Porphyry cf. above.
20 This is stated by Joh. Ant. FHG 4. 558, ft. 58, and implied by Diod. 30. 7. 2; cf. Gutschmid, A.v. ‘Der zehnte Griechenkønig im Buche Daniel’ Rhein. Mus. 15. (1869),317f.Google ScholarThe Babylonian Hellenistic king list (Sach, A.J.Wiseman, D.J. ‘A Babylonian king list of the Hellenistic Period’ Iraq. 16. [1954],208)Google Scholar says explicitly that the boy was put to death at the command of his ‘father’.
21 Cf. Polyb. 31. 2 (12). 5; App. Syr. 8. 46.
22 Even in 163, on the eve of his successful bid for the crown, Demetrios had to be warned not to drown his kingdom in drink, cf. Polyb. 31.13 (21). 8 ff. How eager (or fit) was he for the throne during his uncle’s lifetime?
23 In this context it is necessary to examine the relevance of an inscription published by W. Dittenberger, OGIS 251 èp βα/σι\έως Άν/τιάχο/υ και βασιλίσσης/… κ/αί Αημητρίο/υ/αύ/τούς τ/αττάμενοι… According to Dittenberger, the inscription dates to the beginning of the reign of Antiochos IV, the queen is named Laodike, and the Demetrios is our hostage. This would provide a further tie of co-operation — real or pretended — between Antiochos IV and Demetrios. (Cf. also Volkmann, H ‘Demetrios I und Alexander I von Syrien’ Klio. 19. (1934),379.Google Scholar Volkmann certainly goes too far in ascribing to Antiochos IV ‘eine gewisse Anerkennung der berechtigten Ansprüche des Demetrios’, etc.) Unfortunately, Dittenberger’s interpretation does not seem certain. He rejects the attribution to Antiochos VIII Grypus and Demetrios III because a) the inscription fails to add τοΰ υΐοϋ (whereas Demetrios III was the son of Grypus), and b) if the inscription were referring to this family it should have included at least the elder brothers of Demetrios HI. Now if Antiochos IV’s queen Laodike was indeed the widow of Seleukos IV, objection a) is not entirely removed by Dittenberger’s conjecture. And on any view, considering that Dittenberger has to date the inscription early in the reign, we should expect mention of Demetrios’ baby brother, who was king, no less, at the time in question. Another possibility presents itself which does not seem to have been examined by historians. Shortly after the capture of Demetrios II by the Parthians, his brother Antiochos VII Sidetes was badly in need of allies against Diodotos Tryphon. He married his own sister-in-law Cleopatra Thea (who enjoyed the support of the troops, Jos. AJ 13. 1 [221] f.), and he apparently sought by every means to present himself as the leader of his captive brother’s followers. (The passage in Appian, Syr. 11. 68, has long been considered unreliable as to details, cf. A. Bouché-Leclercq, 368 f.) Under the circumstances it would seem appropriate that the name of Demetrios II (but not his royal title) should be associated with the reigning pair (Antiochos VII and Cleopatra Thea) in a dedicatory inscription. The fact that Antiochos Epiphanes was highly honoured at Delos does not preclude the possibility of Sidetes’ therapeutae setting up an inscription there (cf. for example OGIS 255).
24 Bibliography in Olshausen, E.Prosopographie der hellenistischen Königsgesandten. (Louvain 1974) Google Scholar 1, no. 145. Apollonios ambassador to Rome, previously known to Roman intelligence as being in máximo honore apud regem (obviously Antiochos IV), Livy 42. 6; Apollonios son of Menestheus, ambassador to Egypt, 2 Macc. 4. 21; Apollonios father of Menestheus, Polyb. 31. 13 (21). The identity is maintained by F.M. Abel (ad 2 Macc). According to the excerpt from Polybius, Apollonios had retired to Miletus upon Antiochos’ accession. Abel thinks that Antiochos must have recalled him from retirement. The passage in Livy, however, implies that Apollonios had been in high regard in Antioch from the very beginning of the reign. The evidence of names and posts cited here seems sufficiently compelling to justify reinterpreting Polybius’ (or, rather, his epitomator’s) phrase κατά την Άντιόχου μετάληψιυ της άρχης. Perhaps Apollonios retired soon after his embassy to Egypt. He had served in high office under Seleukos IV, Polyb. loc. cit.; 2 Macc. 3. 5, and may have simply resigned because of old age (he is hardly identical with the Apollonios of 2 Macc. 5. 24, cf. W. Otto, [n.16] 15 n.2). The Meleager who served in his stead as ambassador to Rome in 170–169 (Polyb.27. 19; 28. 1; 22) was surely his son. (This is reported as uncertain by E. Olshausen, op. cit. no. 149).
25 O. Mørkholm (‘The Accession’, 75 f.) conjectures that Apollonios may have been the leader of a faction ‘loyal to the young co-regent’, Seleukos’ son. However Seleukos’ son was no more than about ten at the time of his death, and the continued employment of Apollonios and of his son on important missions for Antiochos IV seems to argue against any suspicions toward this ‘faction’.
26 Cf. Polyb. 31. 13(21). 2 f.
27 I Macc. 3. 38; 2 Macc. 8. 9; Jos. AJ 12. 7. 3 (298).
28 Polyb. 31. 14 (22). 4; Jos. AJ 12. 10. 4 (402). R. Marcus ad loc. reports the doubts that had been raised concerning Josephus’ information. Be that as it may, the author oí 2 Macc, obviously identified Nikanor son of Patroklos, τρισαλιτηριος in 2 Macc. 8. 34, with Nikanor the general of Demetrios, honoured with the same distinctive epithet in 2 Macc. 15. 3. For this cf. F.M. Abel on 1 Macc. 7. 26 (p. 137). Note, however, that in Polybius Nikanor becomes acquainted with Demetrios’ project only at the very last hour.
29 Were they all Roman spies or agents in charge of monitoring Antiochos and using Demetrios as a threat? Hardly. The elder Apollonios had served under Seleukos IV, and in his old age settled in Miletos. Nikanor seems to have served Demetrios I in the war against Judah Maccabee, who was a friend of Rome.
30 Cf. Polyb. 31. 2 (12). The expression πάλαι μέν έδόκει παρά το δίκαιου κατέχεσθαι may well imply that Demetrios had previously resented serving as hostage; however when it comes to claiming the crown, he says only that it belonged to him on better title ή τοκ Άνηύχου τέκνοις. Α. A Aymard’s interpretation of this passage (Etudes d’histoire ancienne, 254 ff.) does not seem to stand a close reading. Polybius’ τέκνα is probably a reference to any, actual or future, heirs of Antiochos IV.