Chapter D: FORENSIC, IN PRIVATE CAUSES.--I. Action for Libel (Greek: dike (8)

Whilst the Antigonid kingdom remained practically whole till the Roman conquest ended it in 168 B.C., and the house of Ptolemy ruled in Egypt till the death of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., the Seleucid Empire perished by a slow process of disruption. The eastern provinces of Iran went in 240 or thereabouts, when the Greek Diodotus made himself an independent king in Bactria (q.v.) and Sogdiana, and Tiridates, brother of Arsaces, a "Scythian" chieftain, conquered Parthia (so Arrian, but see PARTHIA). Armenia was finally lost in 190, when Artaxias founded a new native dynasty there. Native princes probably ruled in Persis before 166, though the district was at least nominally subject to Antiochus IV. Epiphanes till his death in 164 (see PERSIS). In southern Syria, which had been won by the house of Seleucus from the house of Ptolemy in 198, the independent Jewish principality was set up in 143. About the same time Media was totally relinquished to the Parthians. Babylonia was Parthian from 129. Before 88 the Parthians had conquered Mesopotamia. Commagene was independent under a king, Mithradates Callinicus, in the earlier part of the last century B.C. Syria itself in the last days of the Seleucid dynasty is seen to be breaking up into petty principalities, Greek or native. From 83 to 69 is the transient episode of Armenian conquest, and in 64 the last shadow of Seleucid rule vanished, when Syria was made a Roman province by Pompey. From this time Rome formally entered upon the heritage of Alexander as far as the Euphrates, but many of the dynasties which had arisen in the days of Macedonian supremacy were allowed to go on for a time as client states. One of them, the royal house of Commagene, not deposed by the Romans till A.D. 72, had Seleucid blood in its veins through the marriage of a Seleucid princess with Mithradates Callinicus, and regarded itself as being a continuation of the Seleucid dynasty. Its kings bore the name of Antiochus, and were as proud of their Macedonian, as of their Persian, descent (see the Inscription of Nimrud Dagh, Michel, No. 735).

2. Constitution of the Macedonian Kingdom.

The Macedonians of Alexander were not mistaken in seeing an essential transformation of their national monarchy when Alexander adopted the guise of an Oriental great king. Transplanted into this foreign soil, the monarchy became an absolute despotism, unchecked by a proud territorial nobility and a hardy peasantry on familiar terms with their king. The principle which Seleucus is reported to have enunciated, that the king's command was the supreme law (App. _Syr._ 61), was literally the principle of the new Hellenistic monarchies in the East. But the rights belonging to the Macedonian army as Alexander inherited it did not altogether disappear. Like the old Roman people, the Macedonian people under arms had acted especially in the transference of the royal authority, conferring or confirming the right of the new chief, and in cases of the capital trials of Macedonians. In the latter respect the army came regularly into function under Alexander, and in the wars which followed his death (Diod. xviii. 4, 3; 36, 7; 37, 2, 39, 2; xix. 61, 3), and in Macedonia; although the power of life and death came _de facto_ into the hands of the Antigonid king, the old right of the army to act as judge was not legally abrogated, and friction was sometimes caused by its assertion (Polyb. v. 27, 5). The right of the army to confer the royal power was still symbolized in the popular acclamation required on the accession of a new king, and at Alexandria in troubled times we hear of "the people" making its will effective in filling the throne, although it is here hard to distinguish mob-rule from the exercise of a legitimate function. Thus the people put Euergetes II. on the throne when Philometor was captured (Polyb. xxix. 23, 4); the people compelled Cleopatra III. to choose Soter II. as her associate (Just. xxxiv. 3, 2). In Syria, the usurper Tryphon bases his right upon an election by the "people" (Just. xxxvi. 1, 7) or "the army" (Jos. _Ant._ xiii. § 219). Where it is a case of delegating some part of the supreme authority, as when Seleucus I. made his son Antiochus king for the eastern provinces, we find the army convoked to ratify the appointment (App. _Syr._ 61). So too the people is spoken of as appointing the guardians of a king during his minority (Just. xxxiv. 3, 6). Nor was the power of the army a fiction. The Hellenistic monarchies rested, as all government in the last resort must, upon the loyalty of those who wielded the brute force of the state, and however unlimited the powers of the king might be in theory, he could not alienate the goodwill of the army with impunity. The right of primogeniture in succession was recognized as a general principle; a woman, however, might succeed only so long as there were no male agnates. Illegitimate children had no rights of succession. In disturbed times, of course, right yielded to might or to practical necessities.

The practice by which the king associated a son with himself, as secondary king, dates from the very beginning of the kingdoms of the Successors; Antigonus on assuming the diadem in 306 caused Demetrius also to bear the title of king. Some ten years later Seleucus appointed Antiochus as king for the eastern provinces. Thenceforth the practice is a common one. But the cases of it fall into two classes. Sometimes the subordinate or joint kingship implies real functions. In the Seleucid kingdom the territorial expanse of the realm made the creation of a distinct subordinate government for part of it a measure of practical convenience. Sometimes the joint-king is merely titular, an infant of tender years, as for instance Antiochus Eupator, the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, or Ptolemy Eupator, the son of Ptolemy Philometor. The object here is to secure the succession in the event of the supreme king's dying whilst his heir is an infant. The king's government was carried on by officials appointed by him and responsible to him alone. Government at the same time, as an Oriental despotism understands it, often has little in view but the gathering in of the tribute and compulsion of the subjects to personal service in the army or in royal works, and if satisfied in these respects will leave much independence to the local authorities. In the loosely-knit Seleucid realm it is plain that a great deal more independence was left to the various communities,--cities or native tribes,--than in Egypt, where the conditions made a bureaucratic system so easy to carry through. In their outlying possessions the Ptolemies may have suffered as much local independence as the Seleucids; the internal government of Jerusalem, for instance, was left to the high priests. In so far as the older Greek cities fell within their sphere of power, the successors of Alexander were forced to the same ambiguous policy as Alexander had been, between recognizing the cities' unabated claim to sovereign independence and the necessity of attaching them securely. In Asia Minor, the "enslavement" and liberation of cities alternated with the circumstances of the hour, while the kings all through professed themselves the champions of Hellenic freedom, and were ready on occasion to display munificence toward the city temples or in public works, such as might reconcile republicans to a position of dependence. Antiochus III. went so far as to write on one occasion to the subject Greek cities that if any royal mandate clashed with the civic laws it was to be disregarded (Plut. _Imp. et duc. apophth._). But it was the old cry of the "autonomy of the Hellenes," raised by Smyrna and Lampsacus, which ultimately brought Antiochus III. into collision with Rome. How anxious the Pergamene kings, with their ardent Hellenism, were to avoid offence is shown by the elaborate forms by which, in their own capital, they sought to give their real control the appearance of popular freedom (Cardinali, Regno di _Pergamo_, p. 281 seq.). A similar problem confronted the Antigonid dynasty in the cities of Greece itself, for to maintain a predominant influence in Greece was a ground-principle of their policy. Demetrius had presented himself in 307 as the liberator, and driven the Macedonian garrison from the Peiraeus; but his own garrisons held Athens thirteen years later, when he was king of Macedonia, and the Antigonid dynasty clung to the points of vantage in Greece, especially Chalcis and Corinth, till their garrisons were finally expelled by the Romans in the name of Hellenic liberty.

3. Commerce.

The new movement of commerce initiated by the conquest of Alexander continued under his successors, though the break-up of the Macedonian Empire in Asia in the 3rd century and the distractions of the Seleucid court must have withheld many advantages from the Greek merchants which a strong central government might have afforded them. It was along the great trade-routes between India and the West that the main stream of riches flowed then as in later centuries. One of these routes was by sea to south-west Arabia (Yemen), and thence up the Red Sea to Alexandria. This was the route controlled and developed by the Ptolemaïc kings. Between Yemen and India the traffic till Roman times was mainly in the hands of Arabians or Indians; between Alexandria and Yemen it was carried by Greeks (Strabo ii. 118). The west coast of the Red Sea was dotted with commercial stations of royal foundation from Arsinoë north of Suez to Arsinoë in the south near the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb. From Berenice on the Red Sea a land-route struck across to the Nile at Coptos; this route the kings furnished with watering stations. That there might also be a waterway between Alexandria and the Red Sea, they cut a canal between the Delta and the northern Arsinoë. It was Alexandria into which this stream of traffic poured and made it the commercial metropolis of the world. We hear of direct diplomatic intercourse between the courts of Alexandria and Pataliputra, i.e. Patna (Plin. vi. § 58). An alternative route went from the Indian ports to the Persian Gulf, and thence found the Mediterranean by caravan across Arabia from the country of Gerrha to Gaza; and to control it was no doubt a motive in the long struggle of the Ptolemaïc and Seleucid houses for Palestine, as well as in the attempt of Antiochus III. to subjugate the Gerrhaeans. Or from the Persian Gulf wares might be taken up the Euphrates and carried across to Antioch; this route lay altogether in the Seleucid sphere. With Iran Antioch was connected most directly by the road which crossed the Euphrates at the Zeugma and went through Edessa and Antioch-Nisibis to the Tigris. The trade from India which went down the Oxus and then to the Caspian does not seem to have been considerable (Tarn, _Journ. of Hell. Stud._ xxi. 10 seq.). From Antioch to the Aegean the land high-road went across Asia Minor by the Cilician Gates and the Phrygian Apamea.

4. Finance.

Of the financial organization of the Macedonian kingdoms we know practically nothing, except in the case of Egypt. Here the papyri and ostraca have put a large material at our disposal, but the circumstances in Egypt[3] were too peculiar for us to generalize upon these data as to the Seleucid and Antigonid realms. That the Seleucid kings drew in a principal part of their revenues from tribute levied upon the various native races, distributed in their village communities as tillers of the soil goes without saying.[4] In districts left in the hands of native chiefs these chiefs would themselves exploit their villages and pay the Seleucid court and tribute. To exact tribute from Greek cities was invidious, but both Antigonid and Seleucid kings often did so (Antigonid, Diog. Laërt. II., 140; Plut. _Dem._ 27; Seleucid, Michel, No. 37; Polyb. xxi. 43, 2). Sometimes, no doubt, this tribute was demanded under a fairer name, as the contribution of any ally ([Greek: syntaxis], not [Greek: phoros]), like the [Greek: Galatika] levied by Antiochus I. (Michel, No. 37; cf. Polyb. xxii. 27, 2). The royal domains, again, and royal monopolies, such as salt-mines, were a source of revenue.[5] As to indirect taxes, like customs and harbour dues, while their existence is a matter of course (cf. Polyb. v. 89, 8), their scale, nature and amount is quite unknown to us. Whatever the financial system of the Antigonid and Seleucid kingdoms may have been, it is clear that they were far from enjoying the affluence of the Ptolemaïc. During the first Seleucid reigns indeed the revenues of Asia may have filled its treasuries (see Just. xvii. 2, 13), but Antiochus III. already at his accession found them depleted (Polyb. v. 50, 1), and from his reign financial embarrassment, coupled with extravagant expenditure, was here the usual condition of things. Perseus, the last of the Antigonid house, amassed a substantial treasure for the expenses of the supreme struggle with Rome (Polyb. xviii. 35, 4; Liv. xlv, 40), but it was by means of almost miserly economies.

Special officials were naturally attached to the service of the finances. Over the whole department in the Seleucid realm there presided a single chief ([Greek: ho epi ton prosodon], App. _Syr_. 45). How far the financial administration was removed from the competence of the provincial governors, as it seems to have been in Alexander's system, we cannot say. Seleucus at any rate, as satrap of Babylonia, controlled the finances of the province (Diod. xix. 55, 3), and so, in the Ptolemaïc system, did the governor of Cyprus (Polyb. xxvii. 13). The fact that provincial officials [Greek: epi ton prosodon] (in Eriza, _Bull. corr. hell._ xv. 556) are found does not prove anything, since it leaves open the question of their being subordinate to the governor.

5. Coinage.

With the exception of Ptolemaïc Egypt, the Macedonian kingdoms followed in their coinage that of Alexander. Money was for a long while largely struck with Alexander's own image and superscription; the gold and silver coined in the names of Antigonid and Seleucid kings and by the minor principalities of Asia, kept to the Attic standard which Alexander had established. Only in Egypt Ptolemy I. adopted, at first the Rhodian, and afterwards the Phoenician, standard, and on this latter standard the Ptolemaïc money was struck during the subsequent centuries. Money was also struck in their own name by the cities in the several dynasties' spheres of power, but in most cases only bronze or small silver for local use. Corinth, however, was allowed to go on striking staters under Antigonus Gonatas; Ephesus, Cos and the greater cities of Phoenicia retained their right of coinage under Seleucid or Ptolemaïc supremacy.

6. The Court.

In language and manners the courts of Alexander's successors were Greek. Even the Macedonian dialect, which it was considered proper for the kings to use on occasion, was often forgotten (Plut. _Ant._ 27). The Oriental features which Alexander had introduced were not copied. There was no _proskynesis_ (or certainly not in the case of Greeks and Macedonians), and the king did not wear an Oriental dress. The symbol of royalty, it is true, the _diadem_, was suggested by the head-band of the old Persian kings (Just. xii. 3, 8); but, whereas, that had been an imposing erection, the Hellenistic diadem was a simple riband. The king's state dress was the same in principle as that worn by the Macedonian or Thessalian horsemen, as the uniform of his own cavalry officers. Its features were the broad-brimmed hat (_kausia_), the cloak (_chlamys_) and the high-laced boots (_krepides_) (Plut. _Ant._ 54; Frontinus, iii. 2, 11). These, in the case of the king, would be of richer material, colour and adornment. The diadem could be worn round the kausia; the chlamys offered scope for gorgeous embroidery; and the boots might be crimson felt (see the description of Demetrius' chlamys and boots, Plut. _Dem_. 41). There were other traces in the Hellenistic courts of the old Macedonian tradition besides in dress. One was the honour given to prowess in the chase (Polyb. xxii. 3, 8; Diod. xxxiv. 34). Another was the fashion for the king to hold wassail with his courtiers, in which he unbent to an extent scandalous to the Greeks, dancing or indulging in routs and practical jokes.[6]

The prominent part taken by the women of the royal house was a Macedonian characteristic. The history of these kingdoms furnishes a long list of queens and princesses who were ambitious and masterful politicians, of which the great Cleopatra is the last and the most famous. The kings after Alexander, with the exception of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Pyrrhus, are not found to have more than one legitimate wife at a time, although they show unstinted freedom in divorce and the number of their mistresses. The custom of marriages between brothers and sisters, agreeable to old Persian as to old Egyptian ethics, was instituted in Egypt by the second Ptolemy when he married his full sister Arsinoë Philadelphus. It was henceforth common, though not invariable, among the Ptolemies. At the Seleucid court there seems to be an instance of it in 195, when the heir-apparent, Antiochus, married his sister Laodice. The style of "sister" was given in both courts to the queen, even when she was not the king's sister in reality (Strack, _Dynastie_, Nos. 38, 40, 43; _Archiv. f. Papyr_, i. 205). The "Friends" of the king are often mentioned. It is usual for him to confer with a council ([Greek: synedrion]) of his "Friends" before important decisions, administrative, military or judicial (e.g. Polyb. v. 16, 5; 22, 8). They form a definite body about the king's person ([Greek: philon syntagma], Polyb. xxxi. 3, 7); cf. [Greek: hoi philoi] in contrast with [Greek: hai dynameis], id. v. 50, 9), admission into which depends upon his favour alone, and is accorded, not only to his subjects, but to aliens, such as the Greek refugee politicians (e.g. Hegesianax, Athen. iv. 155b; Hannibal and the Aetolian Thoas take part in the councils of Antiochus III. A similar body, with a title corresponding to [Greek: philoi], is found in ancient Egypt (Erman, _Ancient Egypt_, Eng. trans., p. 72) and in Persia (Spiegel. _Eran. Alt._ iii. 626); but some such support is so obviously required by the necessities of a despot's position that we need not suppose it derived from any particular precedent. The Friends (at any rate under the later Seleucid and Ptolemaïc reigns) were distinguished by a special dress and badge of gold analogous to the stars and crosses of modern orders. The dress was of crimson ([Greek: porphyra]); this and the badges were the king's gift, and except by royal grant neither crimson nor gold might, apparently, be worn at court (1 Macc. 10, 20; 62; 89; 11, 58; Athen. v. 211b). The order of Friends was organized in a hierarchy of ranks, which were multiplied as time went on. In Egypt we find them classified as [Greek: syngeneis, homotimoi tois syngenesin, archisomatophylakes, protoi philoi, philoi] (in the narrower sense), [Greek: diadochoi]. For the Seleucid kingdom [Greek: syngeneis, protoi philoi] and [Greek: philoi] are mentioned. These classes do not appear in Egypt before the 2nd century; Strack conjectures that they were created in imitation of the Seleucid court. We have no direct evidence as to the institutions of the Seleucid court in the 3rd century. Certain [Greek: somatophylakes] of Antiochus I. are mentioned, but we do not know whether the name was not then used in its natural sense (Strack, _Rhein. Mus._ LV., 1900, p. 161 seq.; Wilamowitz, _Archiv f. Pap._ I., p. 225; Beloch, _Gr. Gesch._ iii (i), p. 391). As to Macedonia, whatever may have been the constitution of the court, it is implied that it offered in its externals a sober plainness in comparison with the vain display and ceremonious frivolities of Antioch and Alexandria (Polyb. xvi, 22, 5; Plut. _Cleom._ 31; _Arat_, 15). The position of a Friend did not carry with it necessarily any functions; it was in itself purely honorary. The ministers and high officials were, on the other hand, regularly invested with one or other of the ranks specified. The chief of these ministers is denoted [Greek: ho epi ton pragmaton], and he corresponds to the _vizier_ of the later East. All departments of government are under his supervision, and he regularly holds the highest rank of a kinsman. When the king is a minor, he acts as guardian or regent ([Greek: epitropos]). Over different departments of state we find a state secretary ([Greek: epistolographos] or [Greek: hypomnematographos]: Seleucid, Polyb. xxxi, 3, 16; Ptolemaïc, Strack, _Inschriften_ 103) and a minister of finance ([Greek: ho epi ton prosodon] in the Seleucid kingdom; App. _Syr._ 45; [Greek: dioiketes] in Egypt, Lumbroso, _Econ. Pol._ p. 339). Under each of these great heads of departments was a host of lower officials, those, for instance, who held to the province a relation analogous to that of the head of the department of the realm. Such a provincial authority is described as [Greek: epi ton prosodon] in the inscription of Eriza (_Bull. corr. hell._ xv. 556). Beside the officials concerned with the work of government we have those of the royal household: (1) the chief-physician, [Greek: archiatros] (for the Seleucid see App. _Syr._ 59; Polyb. v. 56, 1; Michel, No. 1158; for the Pontic, _Bull. corr. hell._ vii. 354 seq.); (2) the chief-huntsman, [Greek: archikunegos] (Dittenb. _Orient. Graec._ 99); (3) the maître-d'hotel [Greek: archedeatros] (Dittenb. _Orient. Graec._ 169) (4) the lord of the queen's bedchamber, [Greek: ho epi tou koitonos tês Basilissês] (Dittenb. _Orient. Graec._ 256). As in the older Oriental courts, the high positions were often filled by eunuchs (e.g. Craterus, in last mentioned inscription).

It was customary, as in Persia and in old Macedonia, for the great men of the realm to send their children to court to be brought up with the children of the royal house. Those who had been so brought up with the king were styled his [Greek: syntrophoi] (for the Seleucid, Polyb. v. 82, 8 and xxxi. 21, 2; _Bull. corr. hell._ i. 285; 2 Macc. ix. 29; for the Ptolemaïc [Greek: syntrophoi paidiskai] of the queen, Polyb. xv. 33, 11; for the Pontic, _Bull. corr. hell._ vii. 355; for the Pergamene. Polyb. xxxii. 27, 10, &c.; for the Herodian, Acts 13). It is perfectly gratuitous to suppose with Deissmann that "the fundamental meaning had given place to the general meaning of intimate friend." With this custom we may perhaps bring into connexion the office of [Greek: tropheus] (Polyb. xxxi. 20, 3; Michel, No. 1158). As under Alexander, so under his successors, we find a corps of [Greek: Basilikoi paides]. They appear as a corps, 600 strong, in a triumphal procession at Antioch (Polyb. xxxi. 3, 17; cf. v. 82, 13; Antigonid, Livy, xlv. 6; cf. Curtius, viii. 6, 6).

7. Hellenic Culture.

All the Hellenistic courts felt it a great part of prestige to be filled with the light of Hellenic culture. A distinguished philosopher or man of letters would find them bidding for his presence, and most of the great names are associated with one or other of the contemporary kings. Antigonus Gonatas, bluff soldier-spirit that he was, heard the Stoic philosophers gladly, and, though he failed to induce Zeno to come to Macedonia, persuaded Zeno's disciple, Persaeus of Citium, to enter his service. Nor was it philosophers only who made his court illustrious, but poets like Aratus. The Ptolemaïc court, with the museum attached to it, is so prominent in the literary and scientific history of the age that it is unnecessary to give a list of the philosophers, the men of letters and science, who at one time or other ate at King Ptolemy's table. One may notice that the first Ptolemy himself made a contribution of some value to historical literature in his account of Alexander's campaigns; the fourth Ptolemy not only instituted a cult of Homer but himself published tragedies; and even Ptolemy Euergetes II. issued a book of memoirs. The Pergamene court was in no degree behind the Ptolemaïc in its literary and artistic zeal. The notable school of sculpture connected with it is treated elsewhere (see GREEK ART); to its literary school we probably owe in great part the preservation of the masterpieces of Attic prose (Susemihl I., p. 4), and two of its kings (Eumenes I. and Attalus III.) were themselves authors. The Seleucid court did not rival either of the last named in brilliance of culture; and yet some names of distinction were associated with it. Under Antiochus I. Aratus carried out a recension of the _Odyssey_, and Berossus composed a Babylonian history in Greek; under Antiochus III. Euphorion was made keeper of the library at Antioch. Antiochus IV., of course, the enthusiastic Hellenist, filled Antioch with Greek artists and gave a royal welcome to Athenian philosophers. Even in the degenerate days of the dynasty, Antiochus Grypus, who had been brought up at Athens, aspired to shine as a poet. The values recognized in the great Hellenistic courts and the Greek world generally imposed their authority upon the dynasties of barbarian origin. The Cappadocian court admitted the full stream of Hellenistic culture under Ariarathes V. (Diod. xxxi. 19, 8). One of the kings called Nicomedes in Bithynia offered immense sums to acquire the Aphrodite of Praxiteles from the Cnidians (Plin. _N.H._ xxxvi. 21), and to a king Nicomedes the geographical poem of the Pseudo-Scymnus is dedicated. Even Iranian kings in the last century B.C. found pleasure in composing, or listening to, Greek tragedies, and Herod the Great kept Greek men of letters beside him and had spasmodic ambitions to make his mark as an orator or author (Nicol. Dam. frag. 4; _F.H.G._ III. p. 350).

8. Divine Honours.

The offering of divine honours to the king, which we saw begin under Alexander, became stereotyped in the institutions of the succeeding Hellenistic kingdoms. Alexander himself was after his death the object of various local cults, like that which centred in the shrine near Erythrae (Strabo, xiv. 644). His successors in the first years after his death recognized him officially as a divinity, except Antipater (Suïdas, s.v. [Greek: Antipatros]), and coins began to be issued with his image. At Alexandria the state cult of him seems to have been instituted by the second Ptolemy, when his body was laid in the _Sema_ (Otto, _Priester u. Tempel_, i. 139 seq.). The successors themselves received divine honours. Such worship might be the spontaneous homage of a particular Greek community, like that offered to Antigonus by Scepsis in 311 (_Journ. of Hell. Stud._ xix. 335 seq.), the Antigonus and Demetrius by Athens in 307, to Ptolemy I. by the Rhodians in 304, or by Cassandrea to Cassander, as the city's founder (Ditt. 2nd ed. 178); or it might be organized and maintained by royal authority. The first proved instance of a cult of the latter kind is that instituted at Alexandria by the second Ptolemy for his father soon after the latter's death in 283/2, in which, some time after, 279/8, he associated his mother Berenice also, the two being worshipped together as [Greek: theoi soteres] (Theoc. xvii. 121 seq.). Antiochus I. followed the Ptolemaïc precedent by instituting at Seleucia-in-Pieria a cult for his father as Seleucus Zeus Nicator. So far we can point to no instance of a cult of the living sovereign (though the cities might institute such locally) being established by the court for the realm. This step was taken in Egypt after the death of Arsinoë Philadelphus (271) when she and her still-living brother-husband, Ptolemy II., began to be worshipped together as [Greek: theoi adelphoi]. After this the cult of the reigning king and queen was regularly maintained in Greek Egypt, side by side with that of the dead Ptolemies. Under Antiochus II. (261-246) a document shows us a cult of the reigning king in full working for the Seleucid realm, with a high priest in each province, appointed by the king himself; the document declares that the Queen Laodice is now to be associated with the king. The official surname of Antiochus II., Theos, suggests that he himself had here been the innovator. Thenceforward, in the Hellenistic kingdoms of the East the worship of the living sovereign became the rule, although it appears to have been regarded as given in anticipation of an apotheosis which did not become actual till death. In the Pergamene kingdom at any rate, though the living king was worshipped with sacrifice, the title [Greek: theos] was only given to those who were dead (Cardinali, _Regno di Pergamo_, p. 153). The Antigonid dynasty, simpler and saner in its manners, had no official cult of this sort. The divine honours offered on occasion by the Greek cities were the independent acts of the cities.

See Plut. _Arat._ 45; _Cleom._ 16; Kornemann, "Zur Gesch. d. antiken
Herrscherkulte" in _Beiträge z. alt. Gesch._ i. 51 sqq.; Otto,
_Priester u. Tempel_, pp. 138 seq.

9. Surnames.

There does not seem any clear proof that the surnames which the
Hellenistic kings in Asia and Egypt bore were necessarily connected
with the cult, even if they were used to describe the various kings in
religious ceremonies. Some had doubtless a religious colour, _Theos,
Epiphanes, Soter_; others a dynastic, _Phitopator, Philometor,
Philadelphus_. Under what circumstances, and by whose selection, the
surname was attached to a king, is obscure. It is noteworthy that
while modern books commonly speak of the surnames as _assumed_, the
explanations given by our ancient authorities almost invariably
suppose them to be given as marks of homage or gratitude (_English
Historical Review_, xvi. 629 (1901). The official surnames must not,
of course, be confused with the popular nicknames which were naturally
not recognized by the court, e.g. _Ceraunus_ ("Thunder"), _Hierax_
("Hawk"), _Physcon_ ("Pot-belly"), _Lathyrus_ ("Chick-pea").

10. Armies.

The armies of Alexander's successors were still in the main principles
of their organization similar to the army with which Alexander had
conquered Asia. During the years immediately after Alexander the very
Macedonians who had fought under Alexander were ranged against each
other under the banners of the several chiefs. The most noted corps
of veterans, Argyraspides (i.e. the royal Hypaspistae) played a great
part in the first wars of the successors, and covered themselves with
infamy by their betrayal of Eumenes. As the soldiers of Alexander died
off, fresh levies of home-born Macedonians could be raised only by the
chief who held the motherland. The other chiefs had to supply
themselves with Macedonians from the numerous colonies planted before
the break-up of the empire in Asia or Egypt, and from such Macedonians
they continued for the next two centuries to form their phalanx. The
breed--at least if the statement which Livy puts into the mouth of a
Roman general can be relied on--degenerated greatly under Asiatic and
Egyptian skies (Liv. xxxviii. 17, 10); but still old names like that
of _pezetaeri_ attached to the phalangites (Plut. _Tib._ 17), and they
still wielded the national _sarissa_. The latter weapon in the
interval between Alexander and the time of Polybius had been increased
to a length of 21 ft. (Polyb. xviii. 12), a proportion inconsistent
with any degree of mobility; once more indeed the phalanx of the 2nd
century seems to have become a body effective by sheer weight only and
disordered by unevenness of ground. The Antigonid kings were never
able from Macedonian levies to put in the field a phalanx of more than
20,000 at the utmost (Liv. xlii. 51); Antigonus Doson takes with him
to Greece (in 222) one of 10,000 only. The phalanx of Antiochus III.
at Raphia numbered 20,000, and Ptolemy Philopator was able at the same
time to form one of 25,000 men (Polyb. v. 4). As these phalangites are
distinguished both from the Greek mercenaries and the native Egyptian
levies, it looks (although such a fact would be staggering) as if more
Macedonians could be raised for military service in Egypt than in
Macedonia itself (but see Beloch, p. 353). The royal foot-guards are
still described in Macedonia in 171 as the _agema_ (Polyb. v. 25, 1;
27, 3; Liv. xlii. 51), when they number 2000; at the Ptolemaïc court
in 217 the _agema_ had numbered 3000 (Polyb. v. 65, 2); and a similar
corps of _hypaspistae_ is indicated in the Seleucid army (Polyb. vii.
16, 2; xvi. 18, 7). So too the old name of "Companions" was kept up in
the Seleucid kingdom for the Macedonian cavalry (see Polyb. v. 53, 4,
&c.), and divisions of rank in it are still indicated by the terms
_agema_ and royal squadron ([Greek: basilike hile], see Bevan, _House
of Seleucus_, ii. 288). The Antigonid and Seleucid courts had much
valuable material at hand for their armies in the barbarian races
under their sway. The Balkan hill-peoples of Illyrian or Thracian
stock, the hill-peoples of Asia Minor and Iran, the chivalry of Media
and Bactria, the mounted bowmen of the Caspian steppes, the
camel-riders of the Arabian desert, could all be turned to account.
Iranian troops seem to have been employed on a large scale by the
earlier Seleucids. At Raphia, Antiochus III. had 10,000 men drawn from
the provinces, armed and drilled as Macedonians, and another corps of
Iranians numbering 5000 under a native commander (Polyb. v. 79). The
experiment of arming the native Egyptians on a large scale does not
seem to have been made before the campaign of 217, when Ptolemy IV.
formed corps of the Macedonian pattern from Egyptians and Libyans (cf.
Polyb. v. 107, 2; Ptolemy I. had employed Egyptians in the army,
though chiefly as carriers, Diod. xix. 80, 4). From this time native
rebellions in Egypt are recurrent. To the troops drawn from their own
dominions the mercenaries which the kings procured from abroad were an
important supplement. These were mainly the bands of Greek
_condottieri_, and even for their home-born troops Greek officers of
renown were often engaged. The other class of mercenaries were Gauls,
and from the time of the Gallic invasion of Asia Minor in 279 Gauls or
Galatians were a regular constituent in all armies. They were a weapon
apt to be dangerous to the employer, but the terror they inspired was
such that every potentate sought to get hold of them. The elephants
which Alexander brought back from India were used in the armies of his
successors, and in 302 Seleucus procured a new supply. Thenceforward
elephants, either brought fresh from India or bred in the royal
stables at Apamea, regularly figured in the Seleucid armies. The
Ptolemies supplied themselves with this arm from the southern coasts
of the Red Sea, where they established stations for the capture and
shipping of elephants, but the African variety was held inferior to
the Indian. Scythed chariots such as had figured in the old Persian
armies were still used by the Greek masters of Asia (Seleucus I.,
Diod. xx. 113, 4; Molon, Polyb. v. 53, 10; Antiochus III., Liv.
xxxvii. 41), at any rate till the battle of Magnesia. The Hellenistic
armies were distinguished by their external magnificence. They made a
greater display of brilliant metal and gorgeous colour than the Roman
armies, for instance. The description given by Justin of the army
which Antiochus Sidetes took to the East in 130 B.C., boot-nails and
bridles of gold, gives an idea of their standard of splendour (Just.
xxxviii. 10, 1; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plut. _Eum._ 14; id. _Aemil._ 18;
id. _Sulla_, 16).

During the 3rd century B.C. Egypt was the greatest sea power of the
eastern Mediterranean, and maintained a large fleet (the figures in
App. _Prooem_, 10 are not trustworthy, see Beloch III. i, 364). Its
control of the Aegean was, however, contested not without success by
the Antigonids, who won the two great sea-fights of Cos (c. 256) and
Andros (227), and wrested the overlordship of the Cyclades from the
Ptolemies. Of the numbers and constitution of the Antigonid fleet we
know nothing.[7] At the Seleucid court in 222 the admiral ([Greek:
nauarchos]) appears as a person of high consideration (Polyb. v. 43,
1); in his war with Rome Antiochus III. had 107 decked battleships on
the sea at one time. By the Peace of Apamea (188) the Seleucid navy
was abolished; Antiochus undertook to keep no more than 10 ships of
war.

For the Hellenistic armies and fleets see A. Bauer in L. von Müller's
_Handbuch_, vol. iv.; Delbruck, _Gesch. d. Kriegskunst_ (1900).

11. Treatment of Subject Peoples.

To their native subjects the Seleucid and Ptolemaïc kings were always foreigners. It was considered wonderful in the last Cleopatra that she learnt to speak Egyptian (Plut. _Anton._ 27). Natives were employed, as we have seen, in the army, and Iranians are found under the Seleucids holding high commands, e.g. Aspasianus the Mede (Polyb. v. 79, 7), Aribazus, governor of Cilicia (Flinders Petrie, _Papyri_, II., No. 45), Aribazus, governor of Sardis (Polyb. vii. 17, 9), and Omanes (Michel, No. 19, l. 104). Native cults the Hellenistic kings thought it good policy to patronize. Antiochus I. began rebuilding the temple of Nebo at Borsippa (_Keilinschr. Bibl._ iii. 2, 136 seq.) Antiochus III. bestowed favours on the Temple at Jerusalem. Even if the documents in Joseph, _Arch._ xii. SS 138 seq. are spurious, their general view of the relation of Antiochus III. and Jerusalem is probably true. Even small local worships, like that of the village of Baetocaece, might secure royal patronage (_C.I.G._ No. 4474). Of course, financial straits might drive the kings to lay hands on temple-treasures, as Antiochus III. and Antiochus IV. did, but that was a measure of emergency.

12. Significance of Macedonian Rule.

The Macedonian kingdoms, strained by continual wars, increasingly divided against themselves, falling often under the sway of prodigals and debauchees, were far from realizing the Hellenic idea of sound government as against the crude barbaric despotisms of the older East. Yet, in spite of all corruption, ideas of the intelligent development of the subject lands, visions of the Hellenic king, as the Greek thinkers had come to picture him, haunted the Macedonian rulers, and perhaps fitfully, in the intervals of war or carousal, prompted some degree of action. Treatises "Concerning Kingship" were produced as a regular thing by philosophers, and kings who claimed the fine flower of Hellenism, could not but peruse them. Strabo regards the loss of the eastern provinces to the Parthians as their passage under a government of lower type, beyond the sphere of Hellenic [Greek: epimegeia] (Strabo xi. 509). In the organization of the administrative machinery of these kingdoms, the higher power of the Hellene to adapt and combine had been operative; they were organisms of a richer, more complex type than the East had hitherto known. It was thus that when Rome became a world-empire, it found to some extent the forms of government ready made, and took over from the Hellenistic monarchies a tradition which it handed on to the later world.

AUTHORITIES.--For the general history of the Macedonian kingdoms, see
Droysen, _Histoire de l'Hellénisme_ (the French translation by
Bouché-Leclercq, 1883-1885, represents the work in its final
revision); A. Holm, _History of Greece_, vol. iv. (1894); B. Niese,
_Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten_ (1893-1903);
Kaerst, _Gesch. des hellenist. Zeitalters_, vol. i. (1901). A masterly
conspectus of the general character of the Hellenistic kingdoms in
their political, economic and social character, their artistic and
intellectual culture is given by Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._ iii. (i.),
260-556; see also Kaerst, _Studien zur Entwicklung d. Monarchie_; E.
Breccia, _Il Diritto dinastico helle monarchie dei successori
d'Alessandro Magno_ (1903). Popular sketches of the history,
enlightened by special knowledge and a wide outlook, are given by J.
P. Mahaffy, _Alexander's Empire_ ("Stories of the Nations Series");
_Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire_ (1905); _The Silver Age
of the Greek World_ (1906). See also HELLENISM; PTOLEMIES; SELEUCID
DYNASTY. (E. R. B.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the events which brought this empire into being see ALEXANDER
THE GREAT. For the detailed accounts of the separate dynasties into
which it was divided after Alexander's death, see SELEUCID DYNASTY,
ANTIGONUS, PERGAMUM, &c., and for its effect on the spread of
Hellenic culture see HELLENISM.

[2] For details see separate articles on the chief generals.

[3] For Ptolemaïc Egypt, see PTOLEMIES and EGYPT.

[4] A _tenth_ of the produce is suggested to have been the normal tax
by what the Romans found obtaining in the Attalid kingdom. The
references given by Beloch (_Griech. Gesch._ iii. i, p. 343) to prove
it for the Seleucid kingdom are questionable. Beloch refers (1) to
the letter of Demetrius II. to Lasthenes in which [Greek: hai dekatai
kai ta tele] are mentioned, 1 Macc. 11, 35 (Beloch, by an oversight,
refers to the paraphrase of the documents in Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 4,
§ 126 seq., in which the mention of the [Greek: dekatai] is
omitted!). The authenticity of this document is, however, very
doubtful. He refers (2) to Dittenb. 171 (1st ed.), line 101; but here
the tax seems to be, not an imperial one, but one paid to the city of
Smyrna.

[5] The salt monopoly is mentioned in 1 Macc. 10, 29; 11, 35, a
suspected source, but supported in this detail by the analogy of
Ptolemaïc Egypt and Rome. For domains in Antigonid, Attalid and
Bithynian realms, see Cic. _De leg. agr._ ii. 19, 50.

[6] Antiochus Epiphanes was an extreme case. For the Antigonid court
see Diog. Laërt. vii. 13; Plut. _Arat._ 17; for the Seleucid, Athen.
iv. 155b; v. 211a; for the Ptolemaïc, Diog. L. vii. 177; Athen. vi.
246c; Plut. _Cleom._ 33; Just. xxx. 1.

[7] For the Antigonid [Greek: nauarchos] or admiral, see Polyb. xvi. 6.

MACEDONIUS, (1) bishop of Constantinople in succession to Eusebius of Nicomedia, was elected by the Arian bishops in 341, while the orthodox party elected Paul, whom Eusebius had superseded. The partisans of the two rivals involved the city in a tumultuous broil, and were not quelled until the emperor Constantius II. banished Paul. Macedonius was recognized as patriarch in 342. Compelled by the intervention of Constans in 348 to resign the patriarchate in favour of his former opponent, he was reinstalled in 350. He then took vengeance on his opponents by a general persecution of the adherents of the Nicene Creed. In 359, on the division of the Arian party into Acacians (or pure Arians) and semi-Arians or Homoiousians, Macedonius adhered to the latter, and in consequence was expelled from his see by the council of Constantinople in 360. He now became avowed leader of the sect of Pneumatomachi, Macedonians or Marathonians, whose distinctive tenet was that the Holy Spirit is but a being similar to the angels, subordinate to and in the service of the Father and the Son, the relation between whom did not admit of a third. He did not long survive his deposition.

See the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen; Art. in _Dict. Chr.
Biog._; F. Loofs in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyk._; H. M. Gwatkin,
_Arianism_.

MACEDONIUS, (2) bishop of Mopsuestia, was present at the councils of Nicaea and Philippopolis, and inclined to the reactionary party who thought the Athanasians had gone too far.

MACEDONIUS, (3) bishop of Constantinople (fl. 510), a strict Chalcedonian who vainly opposed the fanaticism of the monophysite Severus and was deposed in 513.

MACEIÓ or MACAYO, a city and port of Brazil and capital of the state of Alagôas, about 125 m. S.S.W. of Pernambuco, in lat. 9° 39´ 35´´ S., long. 35° 44´ 36´´ W. Pop. including a large rural district and several villages (1890), 31,498; (1908, estimate), 33,000. The city stands at the foot of low bluffs, about a mile from the shore line. The water-side village of Jaraguá, the port of Maceió, is practically a suburb of the city. South of the port is the shallow entrance to the Lagôa do Norte, of Lagôa Mundahú, a salt-water lake extending inland for some miles. Maceió is attractively situated in the midst of large plantations of coco-nut and _dendé_ palms, though the broad sandy beach in front and the open sun-burned plain behind give a barren character to its surroundings. The heat is moderated by the S.E. trade winds, and the city is considered healthful. The public buildings are mostly constructed of broken stone and mortar, plastered outside and covered with red tiles, but the common dwellings are generally constructed of _tapia_--rough trellis-work walls filled in with mud. A light tramway connects the city and port, and a railway--the Alagôas Central--connects the two with various interior towns. The port is formed by a stone reef running parallel with and a half-mile from the shore line, within which vessels of light draft find a safe anchorage, except from southerly gales. Ocean-going steamers anchor outside the reef. The exports consist principally of sugar, cotton, and rum (_aguardiente_). Maceió dates from 1815 when a small settlement there was created a "villa." In 1839 it became the provincial capital and was made a city by the provincial assembly.

McENTEE, JERVIS (1828-1891), American artist, was born at Rondout, New York, on the 14th of July 1828, and was a pupil of Frederick E. Church. He was made an associate of the National Academy of Design, New York, in 1860, and a full academician in 1861. In 1869 he visited Europe, painting much in Italy. He was identified with the Hudson River School, and excelled in pictures of autumn scenery. He died at Rondout, N.Y., on the 27th of January 1891.

MACER, AEMILIUS, of Verona, Roman didactic poet, author of two poems, one on birds (_Ornithogonia_), the other on the antidotes against the poison of serpents (_Theriaca_), imitated from the Greek poet Nicander of Colophon. According to Jerome, he died in 16 B.C. It is possible that he wrote also a botanical work. The extant hexameter poem _De viribus_ (or _virtutibus_) _herbarum_, ascribed to Macer, is a medieval production by Odo Magdunensis, a French physician. Aemilius Macer must be distinguished from the Macer called _Iliacus_ in the Ovidian catalogue of poets, the author of an epic poem on the events preceding the opening of the Iliad. The fact of his being addressed by Ovid in one of the epistles _Ex Ponto_ shows that he was alive long after Aemilius Macer. He had been identified with the son or grandson of Theophanes of Mytilene, the intimate friend of Pompey.

See Ovid, _Tristia_, iv. 10, 43; Quintilian, _Instit._ x. 1, 56, 87;
R. Unger, _De Macro Nicandri imitatore_ (Friedland, 1845); C. P.
Schulze in _Rheinisches Museum_ (1898), liii. p. 541; for Macer
Iliacus see Ovid, _Ex Ponto_, ii 10, 13, iv. 16, 6; _Amores_, ii. 18.

MACERATA, a city of the Marches, Italy, the chief town of the province of Macerata and a bishop's see, 44 m. by rail S. of Ancona. Pop. (1901), 6,176 (town), 22,473 (commune). Crowning a hill 919 ft. above sea-level, with a picturesque mass of buildings enclosed by walls and towers, Macerata looks out over the Adriatic. The cathedral is modern, but some of the churches and palaces are not without interest. Besides the university, agricultural school and industrial institute, Macerata has a communal library founded by Leo XII., containing a small but choice collection of early pictures, and in the municipal buildings, a collection of antiquities from Helvia Ricina. There is an enormous amphitheatre or _sferisterio_ for _pallone_, a ball game which is very popular in the district. The industries comprise the making of bricks, matches, terra-cotta and chemicals.

Macerata, as well as Recanati, was founded by the inhabitants of Ricina after the destruction of their city by Alaric in 408. During the Lombard period it was a flourishing town; but it was raised from comparative insignificance by Nicholas IV. to be the seat of the governors of the March. It was enclosed in the 13th century by a new line of walls more than 2½ m. in circuit; and in the troubles of the next two hundred years it had frequent occasion to learn their value. For the most part it remained faithful to the popes, and in return it was rewarded by a multitude of privileges. Though in 1797 the inhabitants opened their gates to the French, two years afterwards, when the country people took refuge within the walls, the city was taken by storm and delivered to pillage. The bishopric of Macerata dates from the suppression of the see of Recanati (1320).

MACFARREN, SIR GEORGE ALEXANDER (1813-1887), English composer, was born in London on the 2nd of March 1813, and entered the Royal Academy of Music in 1829. A symphony by him was played at an Academy concert in 1830; for the opening of the Queen's Theatre in Tottenham Street, under the management of his father, in 1831, he wrote an overture. His _Chevy Chase_ overture, the orchestral work by which he is perhaps best known, was written as early as 1836, and in a single night. On leaving the Academy in 1836, Macfarren was for about a year a music teacher in the Isle of Man, and wrote two unsuccessful operas. In 1837 he was appointed a professor at the Academy, and wrote his _Romeo and Juliet_ overture. In the following year he brought out _The Devil's Opera_, one of his best works. In 1843 he became conductor at Covent Garden, producing the _Antigone_ with Mendelssohn's music; his opera on _Don Quixote_ was produced under Bunn at Drury Lane in 1846; his subsequent operas include _Charles II._ (1849), _Robin Hood_ (1860), _She Stoops to Conquer_ (1864), and _Helvellyn_ (1864). A gradual failure of his eyesight, which had been defective from boyhood, resulted in total blindness in 1865, but he overcame the difficulties by employing an amanuensis in composition, and made hardly a break in the course of his work. He was made principal of the Royal Academy of Music in succession to Sterndale Bennett in February 1875, and in March of the same year professor of music in Cambridge University. Shortly before this he had begun a series of oratorios: _St John the Baptist_ (Bristol, 1873); _Resurrection_ (Birmingham, 1876); _Joseph_ (Leeds, 1877); and _King David_ (Leeds, 1883). In spite of their solid workmanship, and the skill with which the ideas are treated, it is difficult to hear or read them through without smiling at some of the touches of quite unconscious humour often resulting from the way in which the Biblical narratives have been, as it were, dramatized. He delivered many lectures of great and lasting value, and his theoretical works, such as the _Rudiments of Harmony_, and the treatise on counterpoint, will probably be remembered longer than many of his compositions. He was knighted in 1883, and died suddenly in London on the 31st of October 1887.

An excellent memoir by H. C. Banister appeared in 1891.