Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:15:20.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antiochus III and his Title ‘Great-King’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

E. R. Bevan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not generally realized that to speak of Antiochus III—the Antiochus who makes a figure in Roman History—as Antiochus the Great is strictly speaking incorrect, although, as a popular form of speech, it goes back to the time of Polybius, and is even found on some monuments. Other monuments give us the form which is obviously the more correct, the official, form. The Seleucid kings had, it is well known, official surnames. We find them on their coins or in inscriptions along with their title Βασιλεύς The three elements of their designation have their regular order—title, personal name, surname, e.g.Βασιλεύς Σέλευκος Φιλοπάτωρ But in the case of Antiochus III the inscriptions of most authority, which give his designation in full, have notΒασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίοχς Μέγας That is to say, Μέγας is not really a surname at all: but Antiochus III is distinguished by a modification of his title: he is not simply ‘King’ but ‘Great-King.’ The popular form is especially misleading to us who have the way of calling kings the Great to imply vaguely some sort of personal preeminence, as when we speak of Alfred the Great, Frederick the Great, &c. The title ‘Great-King’ has quite a definite significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 22 , November 1902 , pp. 241 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1902

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 iv. 2, 7.

2 E.g. C.I.G. No. 4458.

3 Michel, Nos. 467, 1229, 1297. Βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίοχος Μέγας so far as I know, never occurs. Where the Βασιλεὺς is omitted, we find Αντίοχος Μέγας as in C.I.G. No. 4458. This is natural, since something is wanted to distinguish him from other kings of the name, and his title being omitted, the distinctive part of it is used in place of a surname.

4 E.g. Inscription of Sennacherib, , Schrader, , Keilinschrift. Bibliothek ii. p. 80Google Scholar.

5 Tiele, , Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte, p. 493Google Scholar.

6 Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Appendix, Note C.

7 Spiegel, Die altpersischen Keilinschriften.

8 Hdt. i. 188 &c.

9 Michel, Recueil d'Inscriptions Grecques. No. 32 = Hicks and Hill, No. 20.

10 Strassmaier, , Zeitschr. f. Assyr. viii (1893), p. 106 f.Google Scholar, cf. Schrader, , Sitzungsb. d. Berlin. Akad. 1890, p. 1331Google Scholar.

11 Keilinschrift. Bibliothek iii., p. 136.

12 Michel, No. 1158.

13 Cf. Justin xxxviii, 10, 6 (of Antiochus vii). ‘Tribus prœlüs victor cum Babyloniam occupasset, magnus haberi coepit,’ where wo see the same popular perversion of the title as in the case of Antiochus III.

14 C.I.G. No. 5127 = Michel No. 1239.

15 Numismatic Chronicle. Third Series, vol. xx (1900), p. 181 f.

16 Its first appearance in the Parthian series is on coins which were assigned by Mr. Gardner to Mithridates I (174—136), but which Mr. Wroth gives to Mithridates II (123—88). It is found on coins of the Indian rajah Maues about 120.

17 The coins on which Tigranes uses it are those struck in Syria.

18 Inscription of Nimrûd Dagh, Michel, No. 735.

19 Cf. Justin xxxviii, 7, 1: Inscription of Nimrûd Dagh.

20 Strack, Dynastie der Ptolemäer, Nos. 154 and 155.

21 Freeman, , History of the Norman Conquest, vol. 1 3 p. 548 fGoogle Scholar.

22 § 29. In other passages § 35, § 41 the plain Βασιλεὺς is found.

23 C. I. Semit. Pt. i. Tom. i. p. 112.

24 Of course the general sense of Βασιλεὺς continued common. But in the case of the great Macedonian houses (those of Antigonus, Seleucus, &c.), it had in the first instance been adopted as implying succession to the Mace donian throne.

25 Plutarch, , Dem. 25Google Scholar.

26 Niese, . Geschichte der griech. u. maked. Staaten, ii. p. 123Google Scholar.

27 My thanks are due to Mr. G. F. Hill and Mr. Wroth for their help in verifying the numismatic data, adduced in this article, and to Mr. R. C Thompson for similar help in respect of the cuneiform inscriptions.