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: 19 September 2019
The study of Hellenistic Egypt, as it has been jointly carried out by Hellenists and Egyptologists in recent decades, is a remarkable example of the efficacy of interdisciplinary endeavours bringing together different media and cultural traditions. Based on the premises of these studies in social and cultural history, this article focuses on a neglected aspect of the encounters between the Graeco-Macedonian and Egyptian elites in the Ptolemaic kingdom: the role played by self-stylization in cultural encounters in general and, more precisely, in intercultural negotiations for legitimacy and privilege. The focus will be on the strategy by which one party – in this case, the Egyptian elite – could consciously shape a representation of its traditions and values that was meant to gain more prestige and contractual power in diplomatic exchanges with the Ptolemaic establishment.
The research leading to these results received funding from the European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme, under Grant Agreement no. 600376, during a Marie Curie Piscopia fellowship at the University of Padova, Italy (2015–17). An earlier version of this article was presented at the Elite Identity and Self-Representation in the Ancient Mediterranean World conference, organized by J. Murray and P. Michel at Fondation Hardt, Vandœuvres (Switzerland), 24–25 October 2015. I am grateful to Emily Cole and Alexander Meeus for their observations on that text. The final re-working of the article took place during the first year of an F.R.S.-FNRS postdoctoral scholarship at the University of Liège. I am particularly grateful to Ivana and Andrej Petrovic as well as to the anonymous referees of Greece & Rome for their remarks, which have helped me improve the clarity of my arguments. Of course I am solely responsible for every statement in this article, as well as for any mistakes or lack of precision which might have remained in the text. Translations of Diodorus are taken, sometimes with slight adaptations, from C. D. Oldfather (ed.), Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. I, Books I and II.1–34 (London and New York, 1933).
1 The current approaches to intercultural interactions in the Hellenistic world are discussed in the methodological introduction of Canepa, M. (ed.), ‘Theorizing Cross-Cultural Interactions Among the Ancient and Early Medieval Mediterranean, Near East and Asia’, Ars Orientalis 38 (2010), 7–29Google Scholar; Stavrianopoulou, E. (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period. Narrations, Practices, and Images (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2013), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bonnet, C., Les enfants de Cadmos. Le paysage religieux de la Phénicie hellénistique (Paris, 2015), 15–36Google Scholar. In my analysis, I also rely on the ‘intersubjective representation approach’, used in contemporary cross-cultural psychology to investigate the way in which dynamic communicative processes enable the interaction between the fine-grained patterns of identity-making at the personal level and the transmission and perpetuation of shared culture at the social level. For an introduction, see Chiu, C. et al. , ‘Intersubjective Culture: The Role of Intersubjective Perceptions in Cross-Cultural Research’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 (2010), 482–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wan, C., ‘Shared Knowledge Matters: Culture as Intersubjective Representations’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6.2 (2012), 109–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wan, C., ‘Understanding Cultural Identification Through Intersubjective Cultural Representation’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46.10 (2015), 1267–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benet-Martínez, V., ‘Cultural Identity Dynamics and Intersubjective Cultural Representations: A Commentary on Wan’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46.10 (2015), 1299–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 On intentional history, see Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Myth, History, and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 286–313Google Scholar; and the contributions collected in Foxhall, L. et al. (eds.), Intentional History. Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart, 2010)Google Scholar.
3 For the case of Ptolemaic Egypt, see in particular Moyer, I. S., Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge, 2011), 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the post-Achemenid Near East, see Strootman, R. and Versluys, M. J. (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity (Stuttgart, 2017)Google Scholar.
4 Breslin, J. W. and Rubin, J., Negotiation. Theory and Practice (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar; Kerr, P. and Wiseman, G. (eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World. Theories and Practices (Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar. For a scholarly analysis of the role of cultural factors in negotiation, see Gelfand, M. J. and Brett, J. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture (Stanford, CA, 2004)Google Scholar. For a history of mediating processes in the ancient Greek world, see Cozzo, A., ‘Nel mezzo’. Microfisica della mediazione nel mondo greco antico (Pisa, 2014)Google Scholar. A brief but useful overview of contemporary techniques of encoding and decoding cultural schemas in intercultural negotiating practice is provided by two online Special Reports of the Harvard Law School: ‘International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives', (Cambridge, MA, 2012); and ‘Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross-Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills from International Business and Diplomacy’ (Cambridge, MA, 2015); see <https://www.pon.harvard.edu/free-reports>, accessed 24 May 2019.
5 While a rich bibliography focuses on the categories of gift and exchange in ancient diplomatic practice (see recently Satlow, M. L. [ed.], The Gift in Antiquity. The Ancient World. Comparative Histories [Malden MA, 2013]CrossRefGoogle Scholar), cultural schemas and stereotypes have usually been discussed with a focus on the long-term processes of cultural interpretation, rather than on context-related negotiating practice. Thanks to Herodotus, Late Dynastic Egypt provides an interesting exception in this regard: see Vannicelli, P., ‘Herodotus' Egypt and the Foundation of Universal History’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 212–14Google Scholar; Moyer, I. S., ‘Herodotus and an Egyptian Mirage: The Genealogies of the Theban Priests’, JHS 122 (2002), 70–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For another intriguing case study, see Canepa, M., ‘Cross-Cultural Communication in the Hellenistic Mediterranean and Western and South Asia’, in Talbert, R. J. A. and Naiden, F. S. (eds.), Mercury's Wings. Exploring Modes of Communication in the Ancient World (Oxford, 2017), 249–72Google Scholar, focusing on the diplomatic interactions between Graeco-Macedonian and Indian elites on the eastern borders of the Seleucid Empire.
6 Early Ptolemaic Egypt only counted three Greek poleis: Naukratis, a settlement in the Delta used by Pharaoh Amasis (sixth century bc) to provide the Greeks with a commercial hub on the Egyptian coast (see Villing, A., ‘The Greeks in Egypt: Renewed Contact in the Iron Age’, in Spier, J. et al. [eds.], Beyond the Nile. Egypt and the Classical World [Los Angeles, CA, 2018], 77–80Google Scholar); Alexandria, founded by Alexander III; and Ptolemais Hermiou, founded by Ptolemy I to counterbalance the political role of Thebes in Upper Egypt. The growth of Alexandria was destined to downgrade the traditional importance of Naukratis as a hub of Mediterranean commerce, as confirmed by the recent analysis of Grieb, V., ‘Zur Gründung von Alexandreia: die Quellen im Kontext des spätklassischen Urbanismus der südöstlichen Ägäiswelt und der nautischen Bedindungen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum’, in Grieb, V. et al. (eds.), Alexander the Great and Egypt. History, Art, Tradition (Wiesbaden, 2014), 169–219Google Scholar. A general study of the foundations of the Ptolemies is provided by Müller, K., Settlements of the Ptolemies. City Foundations and New Settlements in the Hellenistic World (Leuven, 2006)Google Scholar.
7 On the socio-economic profile and prerogatives of the Egyptian priestly elite in the Late Dynastic and Graeco-Roman periods, see Lloyd, A. B., ‘The Late Period’, in Trigger, B. G. et al. (eds.), Ancient History. A Social History (Cambridge, 1985), 301–9Google Scholar; Baines, J., ‘Egyptian Elite Self-Representation in the Context of Ptolemaic Rule’, in Harris, W. H. and Ruffini, G. (eds.), Ancient Alexandria Between Egypt and Greece (Leiden, 2004), 35–61Google Scholar; Clarysse, W., ‘Egyptian Temples and Priests: Graeco-Egyptian’, in Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2010), 277–85Google Scholar. On the interaction between Greek and Egyptian elites, see also Blasius, A., ‘“It was Greek to me…”: die locale Eliten im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, in Dreyer, B. (ed.), Lokale Eliten und hellenistische Könige. Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation (Berlin, 2011), 132–90Google Scholar; Weber, G., ‘Mächtige Könige und mächtige priester? Kommunikation und Legitimation im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, in Hartmann, A. and Weber, G. (eds.), Zwischen Antike und Moderne. Festschrift für Jürgen Malitz zum 65. Geburtstag (Speyer, 2012), 97–117Google Scholar; Fischer-Bovet, C., ‘Towards a Translocal Elite Culture in the Ptolemaic Empire’, in Lavan, M. et al. (eds.), Cosmopolitanism and Empire (Oxford, 2016), 103–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 On Alexander paying ritual honour to Apis upon his entering in Egypt, see Bosch-Puche, F., ‘Alejandro Magno y los cultos a animales sagrados en Egipto’, Aula Orientalis 30.2 (2012), 243–78Google Scholar; S. Pfeiffer, ‘Alexander des Große in Ägypten: Überlegungen zur Frage seiner pharaonischen Legitimation’, in Grieb et al. (n. 6), 94–6. A positive interaction with the temples also needed to be established by avoiding abuses on the part of soldiers, as documented by a papyrus containing the order, given by the commander Peukestas, to respect the property of a priest at Saqqara: see SB XIV 11942, with Turner, E. G., ‘A Commander-in-Chief's Order from Saqqâra’, JEA 60 (1974), 239–42Google Scholar.
9 On the traces of a rupture in the social composition of the Egyptian elite caused by the advent of the Macedonian domination, in contrast to the higher degree of continuity between the Late Dynastic period and the second Persian domination, see Gorre, G., Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d'après les sources privies (Leuven, 2009)Google Scholar; and G. Gorre, ‘A Religious Continuity between the Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods? Self-Representation and Identity of Egyptian Priests in the Ptolemaic Period (332–30 bc)’, in Stavrianopoulou (n. 1), 99–114.
10 For an analysis of this revolt, see Hauben, H., ‘L'expédition de Ptolémée III en Orient et la sédition domestique de 245 av. J.-C.’, APF 36 (1990), 29–37Google Scholar; for the Egyptian evidence, see el-Masry, Y. et al. (eds.), Das Synodaldekret von Alexandria aus dem Jahre 243 v. Chr. (Hamburg, 2012), 103–4Google Scholar.
11 On the definition of the pharaonic name of the first Macedonian rulers of Egypt, see recently El-Gawad, H., ‘Tell Me Your Name and I Can Tell You How Your Kingship Was: The Royal Names of the First Three Ptolemies’, in el-Gawad, H. et al. (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology (Oxford, 2011), 1–14Google Scholar; Bosch-Puche, F., ‘The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great, I: Horus, Two Ladies, Golden Horus, and Throne Names’, JEA 99 (2013), 131–54Google Scholar; F. Bosch-Puche, ‘Alexander the Great's Egyptian Names in the Barque Shrine at Luxor Temple’, in Grieb et al. (n. 6), 55–88; Bosch-Puche, F., ‘The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great, II: Personal Name, Empty Cartouches, Final Remarks, and Appendix’, JEA 100 (2014), 89–109Google Scholar; Ladynin, I. A., ‘Defence and Offence in the Egyptian Royal Titles of Alexander the Great’, in Ulanowski, K. (ed.), The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome (Leiden, 2016), 256–71Google Scholar.
12 In the years of Kleomenes' and Ptolemy's administrations, the priestly elite undertook intensive architectural activity in the temples, in the name of the Argead pharaohs, thus expressing the legitimacy of the new lords in compliance with the Egyptian models of kingship. At least for the major projects, financial support from the central government can be assumed, as was later the case during the Ptolemaic period: see Chauveau, M. and Thiers, C., ‘L’Égypte en transition: des Perses aux Macédoniens’, in Briant, P. and Joannès, F. (eds.) La transition entre l'empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350–300 av. J.-C.) (Paris, 2006), 375–404Google Scholar; Thiers, C., ‘Observations sur le financement des chantiers de construction des temples à l’époque ptolémaïque’, in Preys, R. (ed.), Ägyptologische Tempeltagung. Structuring Religion (Wiesbaden, 2009), 231–44Google Scholar; I. A. Ladynin, ‘The Argeadai Building Program in Egypt in the Framework of Dynasties' XXIX–XXX Temple Building’, in Grieb et al. (n. 6), 221–40; Minas-Nerpel, M., ‘Pharaoh and Temple Building in the Fourth Century bce’, in McKechnie, P. and Cromwell, J. (eds.), Ptolemy I and the Transformation of Egypt (Leiden, 2018), 120–65Google Scholar.
13 The dating formula of a demotic document from Hawara, Fayum (P.Hawara OI 2), mentioning the first year of Pharaoh Alexander (10 October– 8 November 331 bc), shows that the new king was acknowledged as the provider of a legitimate legal framework for economic and financial life from the very beginning of Macedonian rule. For the demotic documentation of the reign of Alexander III, see J. Moye, ‘Die privaten demotischen Quellen zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen: Ihre Entwicklung am Beginn einer neuen Epoche der ägyptischen Geschichte im 4. Jh. V.Chr.’, in Grieb et al. (n. 6), 241–58.
14 Studies of their documentary dossiers have been carried out by Derchain, P., Les imponderables de l'hellénisation. Littérature d'hiérogrammates (Turnhout, 2000)Google Scholar; Lloyd, A. B., ‘The Egyptian Elite in the Early Ptolemaic Period: Some Hieroglyphic Evidence’, in Ogden, D. (ed.), The Hellenistic World. New Perspectives (London, 2002), 117–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legras, B., ‘Les experts égyptiens à la cour des Ptolémées’, RD 624 (2004), 963–91Google Scholar; Gorre, G., ‘Ptolemy Son of Lagos and the Egyptian Elite’, in Howe, T. (ed.), Ptolemy I Soter. A Self-Made Man (London, 2018)Google Scholar. For the famous case of Manetho, see also Moyer, I. S., ‘Berossos and Manetho’, in Haubold, J. et al. (eds.), The World of Berossos (Wiesbaden, 2013), 213–32Google Scholar; Moyer (n. 3), 84–141; see also Aufrère, S. H., ‘Manéthôn de Sebennytos et la traduction en grec de l’épistémè sacerdotale de l’Égypte sous le règne de Ptolémée Philadelphe: quelques réflexions’, in Bakhouche, B. (ed.), Dieu parle la langue des hommes (Lausanne, 2007), 13–49Google Scholar; Aufrère, S. H., ‘Manéthôn de Sebennytos médiateur de la culture sacerdotale du Livre sacré? Questions diverses concernant l'origine, le contenu et la datation des Ægyptiaka’, in Legras, B. (ed.), Transferts culturels et droits dans le monde grec et hellénistique (Paris, 2012), 321–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Clarysse (n. 6); Gorre, 2009 (n. 9); Fischer-Bovet (n. 7); Fischer-Bovet, C., Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt (Cambridge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 On the Satrap Stele, see Schäfer, D., Makedonische Pharaonen und hieroglyphische Stelen. Historische Untersuchungen zur Satrapenstelen und verwandten Denkmälern (Leuven, 2011)Google Scholar; Caneva, S. G., From Alexander to the Theoi Adelphoi. Foundation and Legitimation of a Dynasty (Leuven, 2016), 59–68Google Scholar; S. G. Caneva, ‘Ptolemy I: Politics, Religion, and the Transition to Hellenistic Egypt’, in Howe (n. 14), 94–5; B. G. Ockinga, ‘The Satrap Stele of Ptolemy: A Reassessment’, in McKechnie and Cromwell (n. 12), 166–98. For the ideological representation of the Persians/Medes as impious dominators, see also Klinkott, H., ‘Xerxes in Ägypten: Gedanken zum negativen Perserbild in der Satrapenstele’, in Pfeiffer, S. (ed.), Ägypten unter fremden Herrschern zwischen persischer Satrapie und römischer Provinz (Frankfurt, 2007), 34–53Google Scholar; Quack, J. F., ‘Ist der Meder an allem schuld? Zur Frage des realhistorischen Hintergrundes der gräköägyptischen prophetischen Literatur’, in Jördens, A. and Quack, J. F. (eds.), Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äußerem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios' VI. bis VIII. (Wiesbaden, 2011), 103–31Google Scholar. Colburn, H. P., ‘Memories of the Second Persian Period in Egypt’, in Silverman, J. and Waerzeggers, C. (eds.), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire (Atlanta, GA, 2015), 165–202Google Scholar; and Gorre, 2009 (n. 9), warn against the risks of considering this sharp condemnation of the Persian domination as a general attitude of the contemporaneous priestly elite.
17 On the Greek model of the priestly decrees, see Clarysse, W., ‘Ptolémées et temples', in Valbelle, D. and Leclant, J. (eds.), Le décret de Memphis (Paris, 2000), 41–65Google Scholar; on the imbalance of power, see Gorre (n. 14).
18 This demotic text groups a list of hermetic oracular statements interpreted by the priests as references to historical events, whose good or bad impact is related to the moral and religious conduct of the pharaohs of the past: see Johnson, J. H., ‘The Demotic Chronicle as a Statement of a Theory of Kingship’, SSEA Journal 13.2 (1983), 61–72Google Scholar; Johnson, J. H. and Ritner, R. K., ‘Multiple Meaning and Ambiguity in the “Demotic Chronicle”’, in Israelit-Groll, S. (ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1990)Google Scholar, i.494–506; Bresciani, E., ‘Il pleut sur la pierre: prophéties politiques dans la littérature démotique’, in Assmann, J. and Blumenthal, E. (eds.), Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten (Cairo 1999), 282–4Google Scholar; Felber, H., ‘Die Demotische Chronik’, in Blasius, A. and Schipper, B. U. (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten (Leuven, 2002), 65–111Google Scholar.
19 This text, which is only preserved in a Greek version, contains the prophecy pronounced by a potter to Pharaoh Amenophis, announcing an epoch of chaos and destruction under the rule of foreign followers of Typhon/Seth, identified with the Macedonian dynasty: see Koenen, L., ‘Die Prophezeiungen des “Töpfers”’, ZPE 2 (1968), 178–209Google Scholar; L. Koenen, ‘Die Apologie des Töpfers an König Amenophis oder das Töpferorakel’, in Blasius and Schipper (n. 18), 139–87; Ladynin, I. A., ‘The Isolationist Concept of the Potter's Oracle and its Alternative’, in Rutherford, I. (ed.), Graeco-Egyptian Interactions. Literature, Translation, and Culture, 500 bce–300 ce (Oxford, 2016), 163–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 The Dream of Nektanebo, which tells in a prophetic-apocalyptic tone the story of the last indigenous pharaoh and of his defeat and escape at the time of the Persian invasion, is known from both Greek and Demotic texts: see Ryholt, K., ‘A Demotic Version of Nectanebo's Dream (P. Carlsberg 562)’, ZPE 122 (1998), 197–200Google Scholar; K. Ryholt, ‘Nectanebo's Dream or the Prophecy of Petesis', in Blasius and Schipper (n. 18), 221–41; Matthey, P., ‘“Barques sur le Nil…”: la légende de Nectanébo comme récit de dé-légitimation’, in Bonnet, C. et al. (eds.), Les représentations des dieux des autres (Palermo, 2012), 129–42Google Scholar.
21 On the relationship between the Dream and the first part of the Alexander Romance, where Nektanebo II is said to be the real father of Alexander III, see, with different interpretations, Jasnow, R., ‘The Greek Alexander Romance and Demotic Egyptian Literature’, JNES 56.2 (1997), 95–103Google Scholar; Gorre, G., ‘“Néctanébo-le-faucon” et la dynastie lagide’, AncSoc 39 (2009), 55–69Google Scholar; Matthey, P., ‘Récits grecs et égyptiens à propos de Nectanébo II: une réflexion sur l'historiographie égyptienne’, in Belayche, N. and Dubois, J.-N. (eds.), L'oiseau et le poisson. Cohabitations religieuses dans les mondes grec et romain (Paris, 2011), 303–28Google Scholar; P. Matthey, ‘Alexandre et le sarcophage de Nectanébo II: élément de propagande lagide ou mythe savant?’, in Grieb et al. (n. 6), 315–36; Jay, J. E. (ed.), Orality and Literacy in the Demotic Tales (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2016), 211–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 The explicit target of Diodorus' criticism in this passage is Herodotus. In the Hellenistic period, Herodotus was often seen as a model of the historian narrating thaumata, as outlined by Priestly, J., Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture. Literary Studies in the Reception of the Histories (Oxford, 2014), 51–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 See F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, IIIa (Leiden, 1964), 75–87 (= FGrH 264 F 25); Cole, T., Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Cleveland, OH, 1967)Google Scholar; Murray, O., ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship’, JEA 56 (1970), 141–71Google Scholar. On the basis of the assumed correspondence between Diodorus and Hecataeus, Murray (this note), 146, goes as far as to reconstruct the original structure of Hecataeus' work. These scholars reasserted the thesis describing Diodorus as a mere compiler of earlier historians, which had already been expressed by E. Schwartz, ‘Diodoros (38)’, RE (1903), cols. 663–704, against Spoerri, W., Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter. Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien (Basel, 1959)Google Scholar. Spoerri argued that Diodorus' archaiologia reflected a broader mix of late Hellenistic ideas. A substantial equivalence between Diodorus' text and Hecataeus is accepted by, among others, Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, ii.721, n. 19; Burstein, S. M., ‘Hecataeus of Abdera's History of Egypt’, in Johnson, J. H. (ed.), Life in a Multi-Cultural Society. Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (Chicago, IL, 1992), 45–9Google Scholar; Burstein, S. M., ‘Images of Egypt in Greek Historiography’, in Loprieno, A. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms (Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996), 591–604Google Scholar; Dillery, J., ‘Hecataeus of Abdera: Hyperboreans, Egypt, and the “Interpretatio Graeca”’, Historia 47.3 (1998), 255–75Google Scholar; Dillery, J., Clio's Other Sons. Berossus and Manetho (Ann Arbor, MI, 2015), 24–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stephens, S., Seeing Double. Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA, and London, 2003), 32–6Google Scholar. Against this dominant interpretation, see Burton, A., Diodorus Siculus, Book I. A Commentary (Leiden, 1972)Google Scholar; Sacks, K. S., Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, NJ, 1990), 70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gruen, E. S., Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, 2011), 91–2Google Scholar; Muntz, C. E., ‘The Sources of Diodorus Siculus, Book I’, CQ 61.2 (2011), 574–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, summarized in Muntz, C. E., Diodorus Siculus and the World of the Late Roman Republic (Oxford, 2017), 22–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 On the criterion of usefulness in the composition of Diodorus' work, see Cusumano, N., ‘La morale della storia: osservazioni sul terzo libro di Diodoro’, in Polidoro. Studi offerti ad Antonio Carile (Spoleto, 2013), 987–1004Google Scholar; Schorn, S., ‘Historiographie, Biographie und Enkomion: Theorie der Biographie und Historiographie bei Diodor und Polybios’, RSA 44 (2014), 137–64Google Scholar; Meeus, A., ‘History's Aims and Audience in the Proem to Diodoros' Bibliotheke’, in Hau, L. I. et al. (eds.), Diodoros of Sicily. Historiographical Theory and Practice in the Bibliotheke (Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT, 2018), 149–74Google Scholar; S. Bianchetti, ‘Ethno-Geography as a Key to Interpreting Historical Leaders and Their Expansionists Policies in Diodoros', in Hau et al. (this note), 407–27. Diodorus describes his working method in Book 1; see also Sulimani, I., Diodorus' Mythistory and the Pagan Mission. Historiography and Culture-Heroes in the First Pentad of the Bibliotheke (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2011), 127–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muntz, 2017 (n. 23), 28–56.
25 Diod. Sic. 1.31.7, 43.6, 44.4, 46.7–8, 63.1, 69.7, 81.4, 96.2.
26 See, among others, Rathmann, M., ‘Diodor und seine Quellen. Zur Kompilationstechnik des Historiographen’, in Hauben, H. and Meeus, A. (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 b.c.) (Leuven, 2014), 49–113Google Scholar; C. Rubincam, ‘New and Old Approaches to Diodoros: Can They be Reconciled?’, in Hau et al. (n. 24), 13–39.
27 The question of how and to what extent Diodorus had access to texts shedding light on Egyptian priestly traditions cannot be answered, since almost nothing is known of his stay in Egypt. For a brief discussion of the information derived from his text, see Muntz, 2017 (n. 23), 4, 217. However, the existence of a lively tradition of cultural encounters in Late Ptolemaic Egyptian temples, as well as at the court of the last Ptolemies, suggests that a learned man with good contacts who came to Egypt to learn more about the local culture and traditions could easily satisfy his curiosity. On Cleopatra speaking Egyptian, see Plut. Vit. Ant. 27.4–5; on the close links between the Alexandrian court and the Memphis priests of Ptah in the Late Ptolemaic period, see Thompson, D. J., Memphis under the Ptolemies (Oxford, 2012), 128–36Google Scholar.
28 As pointed out by Quaegebeur, J., ‘Sur la “loi sacrée” dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine’, AncSoc 11–12 (1981), 227–40Google Scholar, in Egyptian contexts the expression hiera biblos must be interpreted as the Greek translation of the Egyptian ḏmʻ-nṯr (‘divine book’), the papyrus roll containing texts collected in the libraries of the House of Life in the temples. The Greek expression is occasionally accompanied by the word Σεμ(ε)νουθι, which Quaegebeur explains as the Greek transliteration of ḏmʻ-nṯr. See also Aufrère, 2012 (n. 14), 324–33, on the Egyptian sources of Manetho.
29 On translations and bilingual or multilingual texts as expressions of cultural contact and hybridization in Hellenistic Egypt, see L. Prada, ‘Multiculturalism in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: Language Contact through the Evidence of Papyri and Inscriptions', in Spier et al. (n. 6), 148–54.
30 For the legal documentation, see Quaegebeur (n. 28). On the Book of the Temple, a normative manual concerning the functioning of Egyptian sanctuaries, see Quack, J. F., ‘Ein ägyptisches Handbuch des Tempels und seine griechische Übersetzung’, ZPE 119 (1997), 297–300Google Scholar; Quack, J. F., ‘Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte’, ARG 2 (2000), 1–20Google Scholar; J. F. Quack, ‘Translating the Realities of Cult’, in Rutherford (n. 19), 267–83. On the Egyptian temple wisdom, see also J. Osing, ‘La science sacerdotale’, in Valbelle and Leclant (n. 17), 127–40; Ryholt, K., ‘On the Content and Nature of the Tebtunis Temple Library: A Status Report’, in Lippert, S. and Schentuleit, M. (eds.), Tebtynus und Soknopaiu Nesos. Leben in römerzeitlichen Fajum (Wiesbaden, 2005), 141–63Google Scholar; R. Jasnow, ‘“Between Two Waters”: The Book of Thoth and the Problem of Graeco-Egyptian Interactions', in Rutherford (n. 19), 317–56.
31 See the commentary of Osing (n. 30); more briefly Ryholt (n. 30), 158–62; and Aufrère, 2007 (n. 14), 29–32. For the texts of the katochoi archive in the Memphis Serapeum, see Legras, B., Les reclus grecs du Sarapieion de Memphis. Une enquête sur l'hellénisme égyptien (Leuven, Paris, and Walpole, MA, 2011), 192–252Google Scholar.
32 Osing (n. 30); Ryholt (n. 30) focuses on the deposit of Tebtynis, whose identification with the library of the House of Life is debated.
33 Ryholt, K., ‘The Turin King-List’, Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004), 135–55Google Scholar; see also Dillery (n. 23), 84–97, in relation to Herodotus and Manetho.
34 Interestingly, Diodorus does not take into account the assumed divine dimension of pharaonic power, but only the moral definition of the monarch as a pious human being. It is worth noting that this approach is consistent with both the Greek genre of treatises On Kingship (for which see below, n. 48) and the Egyptian priestly texts concerning the duties of the good pharaoh towards the temples.
35 In pharaonic Egypt, as is in other monarchic traditions, the young members of the court elite were the companions of the young heir: see E. F. Morris, ‘The Pharaoh and Pharaonic Office’, in Lloyd (n. 7), 204. On Egyptian court society, see Spence, K., ‘Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt: The Marna Period and Later Eighteenth Dynasty’, in Spawforth, A. J. S. (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies (Cambridge, 2007), 267–328Google Scholar.
36 On the pharaoh as the virtual agent of every official initiative taken in the civil and religious life of the kingdom (although most tasks would be carried out by his representatives), see Baines, J., ‘Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation’, in O'Connor, D. and Silverman, D. P. (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden and New York, 1995), 3–47Google Scholar; Morris (n. 35); B. Haring, ‘Administration and Law: Pharaonic’, in Lloyd (n. 7), 218–36.
37 Regarding the prayer of the priest, Diodorus' text can be contrasted with a section of the demotic Book of the Temple concerning the duties of a priest called nsw.tj, who was in charge of the rituals for the king: see Quack, J. F., ‘Organiser le culte ideal: le Manuel du temple’, Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 160 (2004), 21Google Scholar.
38 On the definition of pharaonic virtues in the Ptolemaic priestly decrees, see Clarysse (n. 17); Pfeiffer, S., Das Dekret von Kanopos (238 v. Chr.). Kommentar und historische Auswertung eines dreisprachigen Synodaldekretes der ägyptischen Priester zu Ehren Ptolemaios' III. und seiner Familie (Munich and Leipzig, 2004), 200–29Google Scholar.
39 While eunoia is a Greek concept, the topic of divine reward for pious kings is common to both Greek and Egyptian sources. For the Greek evidence, see also Diod. Sic. 18.28.5–6 on Ptolemy winning human consensus and divine protection against his rivals because of his virtuous behaviour. For a comparative analysis of the vocabulary of good kingship in Ptolemaic sources, see Schubart, W., ‘Das hellenistische Königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri’, APF 12 (1937), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schubart, W., ‘Das Königsbild des Hellenismus’, Die Antike 13 (1937), 272–88Google Scholar; Mooren, L., ‘The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy’, in Dack, E. Van't et al. (eds), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Leuven, 1983), 205–40Google Scholar.
40 It is worth noting that official judgements of deceased pharaohs by priests are not attested in the Egyptian documentation. Diodorus' posthumous judgement can be better understood as the transposition of the Egyptian ritual scene of the ‘judgement of the dead’, which is known from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, into a real judgement. For this text, see Quack, J. F., ‘Conceptions of Purity in Egyptian Religion’, in Frevel, C. and Nihan, C. (eds.), Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 2013), 148–50Google Scholar; and Quack (n. 30).
41 See also Diod. Sic. 1.64.5–6 for the people's hostility to Chemmis and Kephren. Significantly, their successor, Mykerinos, is said to have adopted a different style of government (Diod. Sic. 1.64.9).
42 LSJ online, <http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj> (accessed 24 May 2019).
43 On the Athenian euthynoi, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 48.4–5, with Piérart, M., ‘Les εὔθυνοι à Athènes’, ClAnt 40 (1971), 526–73Google Scholar. On the development of the euthynoi in the Greek poleis down to the first century bc, see Fröhlich, P., Les cités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats. IV–I siècle avant J.-C. (Geneva, 2004)Google Scholar.
44 See Aesch. PV 324, concerning the violent domination of Zeus, the new king of the gods: τραχὺς μόναρχος οὐδ’ὑπεύθυνος κρατεῖ (‘a violent monarch and absolute ruler’). For the Persian king, see Aesch. Pers. 213, where Athossa contrasts the power of her son Xerxes to that of a city magistrate: being οὐχ ὑπεύθυνος πόλει (‘not liable to give account to the city’), his position will remain unchallenged even if his campaign results into disaster. Similarly, in his pro-democratic speech in Hdt. 3.80, Otanes argues against a political system allowing the monarch to be ἀνεύθυνος. Reflecting on the different kinds of constitutions, Arist. Pol. 4.10.1295a identifies the lack of constitutional control as a crucial element turning monarchy into tyranny.
45 For an overview of the developments in Greek reflections about monarchy during the classical period, see Luraghi, N., ‘One-Man Government: The Greeks and Monarchy’, in Beck, H. (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Greek Government (Malden MA, 2013), 131–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Murray (n. 23), 164–6, tentatively seeks the philosophical premises of Diodorus' passage (ascribed to Hecateus) in the philosophical school of Abdera, but the result of this enquiry remains highly speculative. On Ep. 8, see Brisson, L., Platon. Lettres (Paris, 1987), 233–52Google Scholar; Parente, M. Isnardi, Platone. Lettere (Milan, 2002), 257–64Google Scholar. On the shift of Plato's political thinking from the rule of philosophers to the rule of law and on the resulting stress on the role of euthynoi, see Lane, M., Method and Politics in Plato's Statesman (Cambridge and New York, 1998), 146–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piérart, M., ‘Du règne des philosophes à la souveraineté des lois’, in Eder, W. (ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? (Stuttgart, 1995), 249–68Google Scholar; Eder, W., ‘Le blanc, le pourpre et le noir: les funérailles des εὔθυνοι dans les “Lois” de Platon et le culte des grands hommes’, in Delruelle, E. and Pirenne-Delforge, V. (eds.), De la religion à la philosophie (Liège, 2001), 153–66Google Scholar; Meyer, S. Sauvé, ‘Plato and the Law’, in Benson, H. H. (ed.), A Companion to Plato (Malden MA, 2007), 373–87Google Scholar. More generally on the topic of the sovereignty of laws in fourth-century Athens, see D. Cohen, ‘The Rule of Law and Democratic Ideology in Classical Athens', in Eder, Die athenische Demokratie (this note), 227–47.
47 On the Macedonian monarchic system, see the discussion in Anson, E. M., Alexander the Great. Themes and Issues (London and New York, 2013), 13–42Google Scholar. On Hellenistic kingship, see Strootman, R., Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires. The Near East After the Achemenids, c. 330 to 30 bce (Edinburgh, 2014)Google Scholar; Caneva, 2016 (n. 19), 29–34, 49–57. On negotiation at the level of international diplomacy between cities and kings, see Ma, J., Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar. The entry basileia (‘kingship’) of the Byzantine lexicon Suda (B 147 Adler), thought to reflect a Hellenistic conception of monarchic power, explicitly maintains that ‘kingship is rule without accountability’ (βασιλεία ἐστίν ἀνυπεύθυνος ἀρχή).
48 For a general discussion of this genre, see Bertelli, L., ‘Perì Basileias: i trattati sulla regalità dal IV secolo a.C. agli apocrifi pitagorici’, in Bettiolo, P. and Filoramo, G. (eds.), Il dio mortale. Teologie politiche tra antico e contemporaneo (Brescia, 2002), 17–61Google Scholar; Murray, O., ‘Philosophy and Monarchy in the Hellenistic World’, in Rajak, T. et al. (eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA, and London, 2007), 13–28Google Scholar; Haake, M., ‘Writing down the King: The Communicative Function of Treatises on Kingship in the Hellenistic Period’, in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Splendors and Miseries of Ruling Alone. Encounters with Monarchy from Archaic Greece to the Hellenistic Mediterranean (Stuttgart, 2013), 165–206Google Scholar. On the relationship between king and laws in Hellenistic political thinking, see also Ramelli, I., Il basileus come nomos empsychos tra diritto naturale e diritto divino. Spunti platonici del concetto e sviluppi di età imperiale e tardo-antica (Naples, 2006)Google Scholar.
49 For the link between the royal bios and the legitimacy of monarchic power in Greek historiography from the fourth century bc onwards, see Farber, J. J., ‘The Cyropaedia and Hellenistic Kingship’, AJPh 100.4 (1979), 497–514Google Scholar; Murray, O., ‘Modello biografico e modello di regalità’, in Settis, S. (ed.), I Greci. Storia Cultura Arte Società. Vol. 2.III, una storia greca. Trasformazioni (Turin, 1998), 249–69Google Scholar.
50 In this respect, see also the comparison with the great pharaohs of the past in the episode of Darius being reminded by the chief priest of Memphis that his deeds have not surpassed those of Sesoosis (Diod. Sic. 1.58.4).
51 Some philosophers to whom treatises On Kingship are attributed belonged to the court elite of the king they addressed, or at least had a long acquaintance with the court milieu. The somewhat problematic overlap between the figures of the advising philosopher and of the court philos can be summarized by a statement that Plutarch (Mor. 189D) attributes to Demetrius of Phalerum. A prominent member of the Ptolemaic court at the time of Ptolemy I, Demetrius would have advised the king to purchase and read treatises On Kingship because ‘what philoi do not dare offer to kings as advice, is written in these books'; on this passage, see Haake (n. 48), 165–6.
52 This point should be distinguished from the possibility that Diodorus expressed sympathy for one of the competitors of the Roman civil wars. On this point, see recently Muntz, 2017 (n. 23), 215–47; R. Westwall, ‘In Praise of Pompeius: Re-Reading the Bibliotheke Historike’, in Hau et al. (n. 24), 91–127.
53 On the expected public of Diodorus' Library, see Meeus (n. 24), 168–72.
54 For the Roman civil wars as the historical background of Diodorus' work, see Sacks (n. 23). On the possible meaning of the account about Egyptian kingship in this context, see also Muntz, 2017 (n. 23), 197–206.
55 Diodorus' observations follow the reference to a tradition by which the priests of Meroe would not only control the choice of the local kings, but even order their death on the basis of the gods' will expressed via oracles. By killing the priests, Ergamenes puts an end not only to this unusual habit but, more generally, to the supremacy of priests and traditional norms over the power of kings, and does so – according to Diodorus – in the name of Greek philosophy. The episode of the murder of the priests of Meroe, probably drawing on Agatharchides, is also reported by Strabo (17.1.2–3), who does not mention the name of Ergamenes.
56 To double-check the validity of this inference, it is useful to recall that, by contrast, throughout the Library Diodorus provides coherent treatments of topics that are of fundamental importance for his view of history. In addition to the principle of the usefulness of historical writing, see K. S. Sacks, ‘Diodoros of Sicily and the Hellenistic Mind’, in Hau et al. (n. 24), 43–63, on the link between arete and parrhesia. On the place granted to myths in Diodorus' project of universal history, see Sulimani (n. 24); and C. E. Muntz, ‘Diodoros, Mythology, and Historiography’, in Hau et al. (n. 24), 365–87.
57 See, for instance, Fraser (n. 23), i.497; a more nuanced assessment is provided by Murray (n. 23).
58 This observation would have made sense at the time of Diodorus' work, which witnessed the final fall of the Ptolemaic kingdom, and is consistent with his use of the imperfect tense, which characterizes the description of the customs of ancient times (1.72.6). Diodorus' list of Egyptian rulers includes the whole sequence of Macedonian kings, as one can infer from the passage 1.44.4, counting 276 years of Macedonian domination.
59 As already observed by Murray (n. 23), 157–61.
60 According to Ryholt (n. 30), 161, a section of the Book of the Temple testifies to the existence of a specific part of temple wisdom concerning the regulations of the life of the pharaoh. However, it seems more probable that this passage deals with the etiquette for meetings with the pharaoh, as suggested by J. F. Quack, ‘Die Dienstanweisung des Oberlehrers aus dem Buch vom Tempel’, in H. Beinlich et al. (eds.), Ägyptologische Tempeltagung (Wiesbaden, 2002), 166. This might include the ceremonies for the purification of the king, which are discussed in another section of the Book. Ryholt also draws attention to Clem., Strom. 6.4.35.3, where an ἐκλογισμὸν δὲ βασιλικοῦ βίου is the content of the second book that temple singers are expected to learn. However, the interpretation of the expression as ‘the regulations of the king's life’ is unconvincing. Aufrère, 2007 (n. 14), 29, translates it as ‘un exposé de la vie du roi’ (‘an exposition of the life of the king’), which seems more plausible in the light of the meaning of ἐκλογίζομαι as ‘to reckon’ or ‘to relate in detail’ (LSJ). If this means a celebration of the king, this could make it the pair of the first book used for the education of singers in Clement's text, which is said to contain hymns for the gods. For the possible correspondence between the content of the first book mentioned by Clement and the ‘aretalogy’ style by which knowledge about the gods is expressed in the demotic Book of Thoth, see Jasnow (n. 30), 326–7.
61 Yiftach-Firanko, U., ‘Law in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Hellenization, Fusion, Romanization’, in Bagnall, R. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford, 2009), 541–60Google Scholar; Rupprecht, H.-A., Recht und Rechtsleben im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten. An der Schnittstelle griechischen und ägyptischen Rechts 332 a. C.–212 p. C. (Stuttgart, 2011)Google Scholar; Manning, J. G., ‘Law under the Ptolemies’, in Keenan, J. G. et al. (eds.), Law and Legal Practices in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary (Cambridge, 2014), 17–19Google Scholar.
62 For a discussion of this approach, see Murray (n. 23), 141–52.
63 The category of ‘palimpsest’ was used by Genette, G., Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré (Paris, 1982)Google Scholar, in his discussion of intertextuality in literary traditions. Aufrère, S. H., ‘Priestly Texts, Recensions, Rewritings and Paratexts in the Late Egyptian Period’, in Alexander, P. et al. (eds.), In the Second Degree. Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2010), 159–80Google Scholar, applies this concept to the iterative and anonymous process of interpretation, adaptation, and transmission of texts which took place in Egyptian temples. It is clear that, in our case, the intercultural perspective further complicates this multi-layered intertextual tradition, where different messages, with their specific pragmatics and contexts, are absorbed and reshaped in compliance with new conceptual patterns and agendas.