16. Constructing Legitimacy: The Ptolemaic Familiengruppe as a Means of Self-Definition in Posidippus’ Hippika [1]

Elizabeth Kosmetatou, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Scholarly interest in the Hellenistic epigram has recently soared, and important studies have been published on its specific characteristics, context, models, and development. [2] Of particular relevance is the ongoing vivid discussion of the process by which these short, almost incidental, poems acquired new life in their transition from stone to book. The lucky survival of the new Milan papyrus, plausibly associated with Posidippus, has been a most welcome addition to this significant body of texts, as it sheds light on a variety of old questions, raises new problems, and opens paths for renewed debate. Indeed, one cannot stress enough its importance for our understanding of ancient poetry collections, the early book roll, and the aesthetics of organizing texts. However, interesting though this new cultural monument may be to a variety of disciplines, art historical, archaeological, historical, philosophical, or literary, its context remains primarily associated with the early Ptolemaic political spectacle. [3]

It is a topos among students of the Hellenistic period that much of its contemporary literature resulted from royal initiative to take positions opportunistically and to devise means for misleading public presentations of self. [4] It is a universal law of politics that in order for a leader to climb up the greasy pole and establish a regime, winning the support of disparate and often conflicting groups is crucial. These entities include the referential hinterland consisting of a ruler’s “immediate mirrors”, or his immediate entourage, the governed mass, the wider international community, as well as posterity. [5]

In such a context, legitimacy can first be viewed as a term of international law. Any state or organization is deemed to be legitimate after having been recognized and accepted by the international community, in other words by its peers with whom it expects to interact in the future. Even though the third century BCE was by no means a peaceful period, and conflicts among the Hellenistic kingdoms remained unresolved, the status quo established at Ipsus in 301 BCE was pretty much secure. [6] Alexander’s empire, whose initial survival rested on the personality and image of the Macedonian conqueror, had been a “great patient” since its birth, its size and diversity requiring the setting up of a specific state structure and institutional functions that never came to be. A few short years after Alexander’s premature death, it was therefore definitively parceled out among his generals, a new model of state developed, and it soon became obvious that reviving the dead in all its unstable glory would prove a futile endeavor. However, the official policy of self-promotion and misinformation ensured a continuous recognition of the newly emerged Hellenistic kingdoms as legal entities and powers to be reckoned with. After all, states were still being formed and could still disappear as the example of Lysimachus’ kingdom of Thrace instructed everyone in 281 BCE. [7] Every forged alliance counted.

Egypt, like Syria, was faced with additional concerns, as it was ruled by a Greek minority, an elite that had to be accepted by the wide population. As the kingdom gradually took shape, and new populations blended in living side by side with the native Egyptians, there arose the usual problems that any government deals with in its attempt to survive. [8] The manipulation of public opinion into winning the confidence of the ruled could only be achieved through the construction and reconstruction of a public persona in the form of illusions that aimed to discourage critical evaluation of policy, to maintain the social peace, and to define the ruler as a binding power that the ruled ought to take into account. [9] Additionally, it was equally important for the Ptolemies to retain a close relationship with their roots in Greece proper, especially its culture as formed by the old aristocracy and royalty over the centuries. The success of the early Ptolemies as image-makers lay on their linking themselves closely to their subjects and peers and on integrating themselves in their community on the basis of a shared set of expectations, values, and patterns. The use of social and religious structures, including processions and festivals was of paramount importance in this policy. [10]

Several of the new Milan epigrams highlight these recurring themes in Ptolemaic dynastic propaganda as it was formulated in the first decades of Lagid rule over Egypt. [11] This paper will examine the use of dynastic imagery as reflected in Posidippus’ Hippika, a section that attempts to mould the reader’s perception of the Ptolemies, in part by alluding to their use of statuary groups. Ptolemaic dynastic group monuments, featuring the reigning monarch and members of his immediate family, sometimes alongside his illustrious predecessors, were set up in areas under Ptolemaic influence and in major sanctuaries and cities. This form of representation, an extension of the usual gift of statue to an influential patron, was not new: it had already developed as a phenomenon among the Greek aristocracy in the mid-sixth century BCE, had declined with the rise of democracy in the Classical period, and had been revived in late 4th century BCE, among others, by Philip II of Macedonia. It was thereafter widely used by monarchs throughout the Hellenistic period as a means of legitimating their power, as well as for their self-glorification. Portraits of the honorees that were usually set up in public places, also functioned as monuments of royal euergetism toward cities, sanctuaries, and individuals who thus rewarded their patrons and invited future benefactions. At the same time, these sponsors advertized their own high connections at the Hellenistic courts. [12]

Very few surviving statues can be associated with confidence to Ptolemaic dynastic statuary groups. Most of our evidence about them comes from a wealth of inscriptions that have been discovered in sanctuaries and cities of Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor. Their texts provide partial information about donors, statue materials, and, sometimes, the occasion for the dedications. [13] Of these undoubtedly the most interesting are the inscribed bases that once supported bronze or marble life, or larger-than-life, honorific or cult statues. Although none of the sculptures that were associated with the existing dedicatory inscriptions have survived to the best of our knowledge, we get an idea of how they may have looked from the few surviving portraits in stone and on portrait-coins. [14] Moreover, echoes of them can now be found in the new epigrams of the Milan papyrus.

Posidippus’ Hippika section comprises some of the most fascinating and spectacular epigrams on victories in the κέλης and chariot-racing events. A tremendous speed and energy stemming from the euphoria of victory comes across from the opening epigram, as the reader’s attention and the eyes of his/her imagination are repeatedly directed from the victorious horse to its owner and back, as they are both being crowned at the Pythia (AB 71):

The epigram in question stresses the dazzle of victory, as it gives way in medias res to the following epigrams featuring the successful races themselves. This sense of energy is further accentuated in the two epigrams that follow (AB 72–73), evoking at the same time vivid visual images: [16]

Indeed, this enormous energy is found in the characters and in the action within this cluster of epigrams, as it transcends from animal to human. While all the epigrams reflect the actual games that took place in major Panhellenic sanctuaries, the reader’s interest is captured throughout by the complexity and variety of events. People and animals are dashing about in thrilling races, achieving unparalleled glory and renown. Anecdotal stories are reconstructed featuring Ptolemaic protegés (AB 74): [19]

These first epigrams in the Hippika are of particular interest because they feature certain structuring devices that link them with each other and the rest, thereby bringing some order to the moving figures. As a concluding epigram of this first cluster, AB 74, already from its opening, resumes on the topics mentioned by the first two: The foal of AB 74 that won by a nod (νεύματι νικήϲαϲα) therefore echoes Molycus’ horse in AB 72 whose victory was also close (νικήϲαϲ ἄκρωι νεύματι καὶ κεφαλῆι). Likewise, the double victory in AB 71 is remembered in the last line of AB 74 (εἰκὼ ἐναργέα τῶ̣ν τότ᾿ [ἀγώνω]ν̣ ᾑ ἅρ̣[μα καὶ ἡνί]ο̣χ̣ον χάλκεον ὧδ᾿ ἔθετο), also alluding to a long tradition of victory monuments to which the surviving Charioteer of Delphi (5th c. BCE) belongs (Figure 1). In this respect, AB 74 also repeats in some detail the story of the three previous epigrams so to speak (AB 71–73).

As is the case with the Anathematika and the Andriantopoiika, the structure of the Hippika serves certain programmatic purposes related to the glorification of two Ptolemaic royal women (Berenice I and Berenice of Syria) and by extension of the entire dynasty, present in the epigrams that follow. [21] These poems serve then as ideological texts, through which the political leaders of Egypt figure as signs of competence and promise; the energy vibrating in the Hippika section, reflects their own strength, and their virtues introduce meaning to a confusing political world. [22]

Among the diverse eulogies with which Posidippus’ employers are showered, two stand out, AB 78 and AB 88 in honor of the royal sister and brother: the Syrian Berenice and the future Ptolemy III Euergetes. [23] The first and longest one places emphasis on three generations of victorious Ptolemaic women:

Verse 12 of the above epigram with its emphasis on the repeated victories by the younger generation (αὶ παίδων παῖδαϲ ἀεθ̣λ̣ο̣φόρο̣[υ]ϲ̣), in a manner that echoes the repetitive references to the victory of horse and owner in AB 71, also links AB 78 with AB 88 relating a victory by the later Ptolemy III Euergetes, perhaps during the same Olympic Games (before 252 BCE):

The above two epigrams certainly belong to the epinician tradition in poetry that had been developed by Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides, but move even further. Placed among epigrams on equestrian triumphs, many of which clearly evoke victory monuments with their visual language and their use of demostratives, [27] these two epinicians for the two royal children also allude to a different kind of monument, the extensive Familiengruppe that was in vogue during the fourth and third centuries BCE. The presence of epigrams describing sculptures in the Hippika, rather than the Andriantopoiika, is not surprising. Indeed, the poet often displays in it, as in previously known work, his love for ambiguity, a tool that served him well in challenging his reader’s erudition and forcing him to become an active participant in the process of supplementation, Bing’s so-called Ergänzungsspiel. [28] The epinician epigrams in honor of the early Ptolemies do not only serve as flash-backs of their victories; they also allude to single or group monuments in their honor for athletic and political achievement. Last, but not least, they argue that Ptolemaic glory was further embedded in the Greek past.

Indeed, family renown seems to have been a standard element in the commemoration of members of Greek aristocracy as early as the seventh century BCE, before they found their visual expression in Familiengruppen. Interestingly, the earliest known epigram that praised a prominent family is associated with a daedalic votive-offering to Artemis, set up by a woman, Nicandre, on Delos. [29] It is dated to ca. 650 BCE, and the boustrophedon text inscribed on its base boasts:

As was stated above, the origins of dynastic group monuments can be traced back to the middle of the sixth century BCE, the date of the so-called Geneleos group that was set up at the Heraion of Samos in honor of the queen of the gods (560–550 BCE). This Familiengruppe was set up prominently in the sanctuary and featured the reclining figure of the patriarch [ - - - ]arches, probably an aristocrat, and his wife Phileia on either end of a long base, flanking their four children. [31] Two hundred years separate it from the next surviving Familiengruppe, the so-called monument of Pandaetes and Pasicles that was set up on the Athenian Acropolis in the second half of the fourth century BCE. [32]

However, Ptolemaic dynastic group monuments were conceived on the basis of two parallel traditions. Modelling themselves after Alexander the Great’s Argead dynasty, they were probably influenced by the Philippeion, built by Philip II after 338 BCE as a circular Ionic structure that was set up at Olympia, the site of the Olympic Games. It reportedly contained chryselephantine statues of three generations of the royal family: Philip II and his chief wife Olympias, his parents Amyntas and Eurydice, and his son and successor, Alexander. The Philippeion was significant in another way as well: it interacted with the major temples in the sanctuary, a practice that would be adopted by Ptolemy II Philadelphus as well. [33] Additionally, the use of gold and ivory in the statues of the Macedonian royal family drew an unmistaken parallel with the chryselephantine cult statue of Zeus and established a link between the Olympian god and the Macedonian kings. [34]

The Philippeion at Olympia was perhaps modelled after the lavish Mausoleion, the tomb of queen Artemisia’s husband Mausolus at Halicarnassus. The tomb was envisaged as a massive dynastic group monument featuring free-standing portraits of some thirty-six members of the royal family that were placed in the intercolumniations of its superstructure. The same program was later adopted by other Hellenistic dynasties, most notably the Attalids of Pergamon. [35]

The monument which comes closest to the ones echoed in Posidippus’ AB 78 and 88 is the so-called Daochus Progonoi monument—a variation of the Familiengruppe, which was set up in Delphi by the homonymous Thessalian dynast between 336 and 333 BCE. The group in question consisted of nine statues portraying the donor and his ancestors, real or fictitious, if indeed Apollo had also been featured in it. What is significant in this case is that two of these ancestors, Agias and Telemachus, had been Olympic victors between 490 and 480 BCE, while they had also scored victories at the Pythia together with their brother Agelaus, facts that were stressed by their portrayal in heroic/athletic nudity. [36] Each sculpture is identified by an epigram, and the athletes of the family boast their victories in a manner that is echoed in Posidippus: [37]

The similarities between Posidippus’ Hippika and the three epigrams associated with the victors featured in the Daochus monument are striking. First, there is emphasis on the considerable number of victories scored by the periodonikai Agias and Telemachus which are especially recounted in the Agias epigram in a clear attempt to overwhelm the reader. [38] The same technique is used by Posidippus, especially as he relates the story of the owner of a horse with obvious ambitions to win eventually a periodos in AB 76: [39]

It is undoubtedly by design that Posidippus mentions the Ptolemaea, a Panhellenic festival instituted by his employer Ptolemy II in memory of his father Ptolemy I Soter, which occupies here the first place, carrying off the glory that is a victory in the Olympic Games.

The same theme of multiple victories at the Olympic, Nemean, and Isthmian games is featured in the series of epigrams in honor of princess Berenice (AB 78, 79, and 82). Rather than present these achievements in a nutshell, Posidippus spread them out by dedicating a poem for each event. However, this sense of energy and concentrated victory is still conveyed by the poet’s reference to the later Syrian queen’s multiple scores in chariot-racing. This device may have been first used by the tragic poet Euripides in 416 BCE in his epinician for the Athenian general Alcibiades, the first Greek to enter seven chariots for one event and to score three victories: [40]

Although this intriguing text is fragmentary, the few verses from its opening include a fascinating reference to the ease with which victory was achieved (ἀπονητί), the same that is also found in Posidippus’ AB 79 in praise of princesss Berenice’s effortless en bloc victories at the Nemea:

A second common theme occurring both in the epigrams from the Daochus monument and Posidippus’ AB 78 and 88 in praise of princess Berenice and the later Ptolemy III Euergetes is the emphasis on the collective achievement of the Ptolemaic clan. Agias, placed first for his seniority, lists his extraordinary victories, which may have been surpassed by his brother’s accidental, yet nevertheless impressive, killing of a mighty opponent (Τ[··]σηνῶν δὲ ἄνδρα κράτιστον | κτεῖνα, ἔθελον τό[γε δ᾿ οὔ]·). However, Telemachus’ achievement is presented through a link to his brother’s, the blood relationship of the two being declared first as further praise of the honoree (κἀγὼ τοῦ{ο}δε ὁμάδελ[φος ἔ]φυν). Kinship (σύγγονος ἀμφοτέρων τῶνδε) is also stressed in the epigram in honor of Agelaus which also incorporates the youngest brother’s Pythian victories in the family tradition begun by the elder brothers, a piece of information that becomes available only in the third poem, in addition to the Olympic achievement of the two. The unprecedented athletic glory of the family of Daochus (μοῦνοι δὲ θνητῶν τούσδ᾿ ἔχομεν στεφάνους) may echo Euripides’ boasting for Alcibiades (ὃ μηδεὶς ἄλλος Ἑλλάνων).

Euripides’ Epinician for Alcibiades and commemorative monuments in the tradition of the Naxian Nicandre probably influenced Cynisca’s epigram that was inscribed on a victory monument that this daughter of king Archidamus II and sister of kings Agesilaus II and of Agis II of Sparta set up at Olympia. She was the first woman to score victory in chariot-racing at the Olympic Games of 396 or 392 BCE. [43] Her epigram was preserved on stone and was also transmitted by the Greek Anthology (XIII 16):

Posidippus obviously nods to this monument in AB 87 which focuses on Berenice I, challenging Cynisca’s kydos. Fantuzzi has brilliantly discussed the context of these two mini-epinicians and has drawn parallels between Ptolemaic preoccupation with ancestral glory and several odes by Pindar in honor of prominent aristocratic victors. [45] This theme of challenge is important in the Hippika, and the glove is thrown, so to speak, explicitely to such glorious figures of the past as Cynisca, but the element of competition is also present in the continuous allusion to the long tradition to which the Ptolemies aspired. In this respect, the Lagid kings emerge victorious from their implicit juxtaposition with Alcibiades and aristocratic families of the remote past and, especially the illustrious quasi-royal family of Daochus, to whose victory monument may allude continuous references to his native Thessaly. [46]

Ptolemaic dynastic group monuments that focused on athletic victories of the rulers and their extended family may have existed, although the literary sources and the archaeological record have yet to furnish information on them. Remains of more mundane statuary groups standing on inscribed bases without epigrams have been associated with the early Ptolemies. These monuments are closer in concept to the Geneleos rather than the Daochus groups. A Ptolemaic statuary group was set up by the Aetolian League, an important Ptolemaic ally, at the sanctuary of Apollo in Thermos perhaps around 239 or 238 BCE. [47] Fragments of the base have survived and suggest that the group featured Euergetes, Berenice, and their six children from left to right: the heir to the throne, the later Ptolemy IV Philopator, Arsinoe III, the deified princess Berenice, a son whose name has not survived, but who may have been called Lysimachus, Alexander, and Magas. The group was completed by at least one more figure whose name has also not survived. Scholars have suggested Apollo for the last figure of this dynastic group, the honored god of the sanctuary, but Ptolemy I or Alexander the Great are likely candidates as well. [48]

A second dynastic group monument in honor of Ptolemy III was dedicated by the Aetolians in the venerable Panhellenic sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi which they controlled during the third and second centuries BCE. A few fragments of its base have survived, but its reconstruction suggests that it was very similar to the one from Thermos and represented again Euergetes and his immediate family. Both Ptolemaic groups meant more to the Aetolians than a mere expression of gratitude and displayed at the same time the League’s high connections. The prominent position of prince Ptolemy, the heir to the Egyptian throne, in the group was an expression of the Aetolians’ hope for the continuation of Ptolemaic military support into the reigns of Euergetes’s successors. [49]

At the same time, both monuments advertised the excellent relationship between king and queen, as well as the importance of children in the state propaganda under Euergetes, who thus functioned as symbols for dynastic succession. [50] Indeed, this latter theme was mostly promoted by Euergetes, and later by his son Philopator, in an era before the murderous habits of his successors turned against members of their family, real or constructed challengers. Ptolemy III and Berenice II’s young children are mentioned in inscriptions; they escorted their parents on official visits, and the death of the infant Berenice initiated a cult in her honor of an unprecedented nature. [51] It was during that time that miniature intaglio portraits of Ptolemaic children became especially in vogue and circulated widely, like the oionochoai in fayence that were massively produced featuring Arsinoe II and other queens in relief. [52] This line of propaganda, later adopted by Augustus at a time when he constructed his own portrait of leadership, [53] had always been an effective means of creating ideal types. An image of a strong, perpetually united ruling family appealed to the common man who could thus relate to his ideal leader by identifying with his conservative habits. Moreover, the ubiquity of the royal children during the reign of Euergetes constitutes a subtle visual expression of an important term of political rhetoric that presented the public with the powerful ideas of security and austerity that one usually associates with a father figure. [54]

Whether Posidippus’ Progonoi epigrams in the Hippika are an ecphrasis of real or imaginary dynastic groups, he may have derived inspiration for their composition from monuments like the Daochus group. At any rate, he had probably noticed the specific group, set prominently at Delphi, given his attested relationship with the sanctuary where he himself had been honored. [55] This theory becomes even more attractive if we take into account that Lysippus, Posidippus’ apparently favorite sculptor (cf. AB 65), had made at least one bronze statue of Agias that was set up at Pharsalus. Although the Lysippan associations of the surviving Delphic marbles are possible, yet fiercely debated among scholars, the likelihood of a connection between the group monument and the Sikyonian sculptor makes the question of Posidippus’ models even more intriguing. [56]

Posidippus attempted to display continuity in the rule of Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Ptolemies. Indeed, the Macedonian conqueror is mentioned by several epigrams, directly or indirectly, or is alluded to by the mere mention of the Persians, as well as of the boundaries of his kingdom. [57] Even though his allusion to Ptolemaic dynastic group monuments is limited, the literary evidence suggests that Alexander the Great featured in some of these. It is not surprising that state propaganda in the first years of the Ptolemaic rule focused on underlining the ruler’s legitimacy as heir to Alexander’s empire and legacy. In this context, Ptolemy I, former general in the Macedonian army, had successfully manipulated the politically confusing situation which ensued after the conqueror’s death, occupied Egypt and areas around it, and eventually seceeded from the rest of the empire. His grip over his territory was secure, but Ptolemy also sought to gain the respect and obedience of his subjects, as well as prestige among the Greeks as a legitimate king. In a mastertroke, he seized Alexander’s body in ca. 321 BCE, while it was being transferred to the Ammoneion at modern-day Siwa desert or Macedonia and buried it in Memphis, in accordance with both Macedonian and Egyptian practices, which dictated that the ascension of the new king to the throne was marked by his burying of his predecessor. It was in Alexandria that Alexander’s earthly remains eventually found their resting place, however, under his son and successor, Ptolemy II. [58]

Throughout his reign, Ptolemy sought to emphasize his closeness to the Macedonian conqueror. The publication of his own history of Alexander’s wars exercised influence over the way posterity remembered the Persian campaign. The former general undoubtedly made sure that he figured prominently in the narrative, while he surely exaggerated the importance of his actions and contribution to its success. [59] But the close relationship between the two great men was further emphasized, particularly towards Ptolemy’s subjects, when a blood relation between Alexander and Ptolemy was invented. According to rumours that were spread by the king’s entourage and which are reflected in the texts of various authors, Arsinoe, Ptolemy’s mother, married his father, Lagus, while she had already been impregnated by Philip II of Macedonia and therefore carried the future general and king of Egypt. By claiming Alexander as his half-brother, Ptolemy also sought membership to the Macedonian Argead House and thus genealogical continuity for his dynasty. [60]

Ptolemy’s retroactive adoption into Alexander’s family was emphasized whenever possible. Posidippus’ AB 31 suggests that the dynasty that the Ptolemaic or Lagid dynasty was also known as “Argead”:

Evidence from the Delian inventory lists mentioning Ptolemaic gifts to the sanctuary make it obvious that, like Alexander the Great had done before him, Ptolemy I evoked two different fathers, according to the occasion. We know that he dedicated an elaborate gold thericleian kylix, weighing about one modern kilo, which bore the inscription “ἀνάθημα Πτολεμαῖος Λάγου Μακεδὼν Ἀφροδίτηι.” [63] At the same time, Theocritus in his seventeenth Idyll (17.13–33) mentions Ptolemy I as son of Lagus but at the same time groups the king together with Alexander and with his own son, Ptolemy II in a continuing father-son structure. Such an apparent discrepancy should not surprise: the close association of rulers with divinities and heroes was a regular feature of civic ceremonial and political manipulation that dated from at least Pisistratus’ time, and audiences were not as gullible as scholars had initially assumed; they rather understood and appreciated the symbolism that was embedded in the theatricality of public life as controlled by the powers that be. [64]

Visual advertisement of the fictional brotherly relationship between Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I found its expression in several dynastic group monuments, according to the sources. In the grand procession for the Alexandrian Ptolemaea statues of Ptolemy I and Alexander were carried together, flanked by personifications of Greek regions. [65] Nicolaus Rhetor (ca. 400 CE) also mentions a similar elaborate group in his description of the now lost circular Tychaion of Alexandria. This building was commissioned by one of the first two Ptolemies, was located in the center of Alexandria, and probably constituted a shrine adjoining or incorporated to Ptolemy II’s Mouseion. On the side leading to the latter stood bronze statues of prominent kings, unspecified by Nicolaus, while on the opposite wall was a marble laurel crown flanked by the statues of two philosophers. Bronze stelae stood in the center on which the laws of the city of Alexandria were inscribed. The two adjoining sides each contained seven niches which were separated from each other by engaged columns. The central niche on the left side of the room, contained a larger-than-life-size statue of Ptolemy I holding a cornucopia which was flanked by six Olympian gods represented on a smaller scale. Facing the king across stood Charis (Grace) flanked by the remaining six Olympians. In the center of the room stood a sculptural group representing Alexander being crowned by the personification of Gaia. The latter was in turn crowned by Tyche, flanked by statues of Victory. [66]

Although Alexander’s statue occupied the center of the sanctuary and his extraordinary conquests were clearly emphasized, the primary focus of the Tychaion’s sculptures was Ptolemy I, his presumed half-brother and legitimate heir by the grace of the gods. According to Nicolaus, the entire ensemble culminated in the group which was set against the back wall and which included the laurel crown, the philosophers and the bronze stelae rather than Alexander. In his own clever and subtle way, Soter thus discreetly projected an idea whose debate was to occupy ancient philosophers: Alexander’s successes were mostly due to the benevolence of Fortune. The heavy duty of governing his spear-won territories weighed upon Ptolemy, his next of kin, who ruled by divine right. His absolute power would never become a tyranny, however, as his subjects were ingenuously informed: Soter was an enlightened ruler and patron of the arts and sciences who abided by the laws that he instituted and consulted the best and wisest advisors.

Until recently, scholars who attempted to reconstruct the Alexandrian Tychaion, incorporated the building in the Roman Imperial architectural tradition of Asia Minor. [67] Stewart has convincingly argued for a higher date for the Alexandrian Tychaion, however, by plausibly dating its intellectual roots to the mid-320’s BCE. [68] Alexander’s military successes had been considered as a gift of Fortune as early as 327 BCE, when the philosopher Theophrastus, Aristotle’s disciple and head of the Peripatos, wrote a treatise entitled Callisthenes or On Grief. [69] The significance of Fortune’s benevolence toward the Macedonians was further treated by Demetrius of Phalerum in a long treatise which may have been commissioned by Ptolemy I after 307 BCE when the exiled Athenian philosopher-“tyrant” fled to Soter’s court. [70] Their attractive ideas certainly influenced contemporary religious practice and triggered the foundation of various cults of Tyche. In this context most notably, Seleucus I of Syria commissioned a famous statue of Tyche for Antioch, his kingdom’s capital. The goddess was represented seated on Mount Silphion and holding a sheaf of wheat with the personification of the river Orontes at her feet. [71]

The theme of the triumph of divine and enlightened monarchy which influenced the commission of the Alexandrian Tychaion was further amplified by other philosophers who worked at the court. Indeed the philosopher Euhemerus is credited with the introduction of the theory on “divine monarchy,” according to which the traditional gods had once been great rulers who were eventually deified. In order to illustrate his point, Euhemerus compared Ptolemy’s kingdom to the legendary court of Osiris and Isis. A passage from Diodorus attempting to trace the position of intellectuals and their influence over the Hellenistic courts back to the physicians, who took part in the Trojan War and served Agamemnon, may reflect the ideas of Euhemerus and his followers. Several intellectuals of the period lived under the illusion that they exercised positive influence on their patrons’ policies. [72] The representation of royal statuary groups reflects the ideology of the period: Rulers are crowned by personifications underlining their virtue already in the early third century BCE. In particular, Pausanias describes two groups from Olympia which bear similarities to the Alexander group of the Tychaion. In one, the region of Elis crowns Demetrius Poliorcetes and Ptolemy I, while in a later group, the personification of Hellas crowns Antigonus Doson and his son and successor Philip V. [73]

The presence of Olympian gods in the dynastic group monument of the Alexandrian Tychaion, may owe to late fourth-century BCE antecedents. In particular, Philip II of Macedon reportedly introduced this practice. The Macedonian ruler celebrated the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra at Aegai in 336 BCE and concluded the festivities with games which took place in the theater. An elaborate procession opened the events featuring a float which carried the statues of the Olympian gods and of Philip II as one of them. [74] Philip’s divine aspirations reportedly came as a shock to the Greeks who explained his ensuing assassination as the punishment of Nemesis for his hybris. By the time Ptolemy I commissioned the Tychaion, however, the Greek world had become used to royal claims to divine status. Soter went one step further than Philip II by placing his statue as second only to Alexander’s, but certainly more prominently than the once revered and feared Greek Pantheon.

The identity of the kings who were represented against the Tychaion’s wall which led to the Mouseion, necessarily remains a mystery, but we may plausibly assume that this, too, was an elaborate Ptolemaic dynastic group monument. That these statues may have been expanded in the three hundred years that followed by the addition of prominent Ptolemies who wished to associate their policies to that of Alexander and Ptolemy I, is an attractive theory, which cannot be stated with certainty, however. If this be the case, the Tychaion may therefore have been an ever-growing dynastic group monument extending over the centuries of Ptolemaic rule over Egypt and linking the later Ptolemies to their illustrious past. Such seems to have been the intention of most of these kings, starting from Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who chose to be buried near the tomb of Alexander thereby creating a large funerary complex which at the same time served as a royal group monument and functioned as visual expression of dynastic continuity.

Even though there is little evidence for the planning and setting up of elaborate Ptolemaic Familiengruppen during the second and first centuries BCE, the ideas that were first formulated and implemented under the early Ptolemies were always present in the language that these kings used in their appeal to their world for support. All political terms in the later period of the Ptolemaic dynasty evoked the importance of dynastic continuity that had been served well in the past by visual propaganda and could be traced back to that era when the young kingdom was still taking its form and link it with the Greek remote past. Posidippus’ retrospect of present and past victories in the Hippika recalls the viewer’s gaze upon monuments stemming from a long tradition that was shaped by the Greek elite from the seventh century BCE onwards. Initially it consisted of an elaborate praise of the Progonoi on inscriptions that were especially associated with great deeds: elaborate dedications to the gods, many of them in commemoration of prestigious athletic victories. The popularity of such stone epigrams made their transition from stone to book especially smooth, and longer epinicians often employed the theme of ancestral glory which found its visual expression in the Familiengruppe. The Ptolemies embraced this form of self-definition throughout the history of their dynasty and remained especially proud of their ancestry. Indeed, the reported eulogy over the dead body of Cleopatra VII, the most famous of the Ptolemies, pronounced by her dying maid Charmion seems to echo the words of Posidippus more than two hundred years before: she died as was becoming a queen, descendant of so many kings. [75]