¹ Aymard (i) = Aymard, A., ‘Le protocole royal grec et son évolution’, REA 1, 1948, 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. (=Études d'histoire ancienne (Paris, 1967), 73 f. (cited in this edition); Aymard, (ii) = ‘Βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων’, RIDA iv, 1950, 61Google Scholar f. (=Études, 100 f., from which I shall cite it).

² Aymard (i), 82 f.

³ Cf. Dem. II 15; Arist. Pol. 1310b, 39.

⁴ Isocrates, , Panegyricus, 126Google Scholar; Archidamus 46, cf. Philippus 14.

⁵ The case of Amyntas, , son of Perdiccas in the inscription from Lebadeia (IG vii 3055Google Scholar) we shall examine in detail below, pp. 25–8.

⁶ Cf. Diod. xx 53.2–4; Plut, . Demetrius, 18Google Scholar. A recently published inscription from Samothrake (McCredie, J. R., Hesperia xxxvii, 1968, p. 222Google Scholar) makes it clear that Philip III and Alexander IV also jointly used the title when dedicating the (unidentified) building from which the inscription comes. This must be dated before Philip's death, c October 317 (not 316, as McCredie, 223), and this provides a thread of continuity in usage between Alexander the Great and the hellenistic successors.

⁷ The standard collection of hellenistic letters outside Macedon remains that of Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934)Google Scholar; for a list of the Macedonian letters (all of Philip V), see Walbank, F. W., Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940), 288Google Scholar n. 1; to which add Crampa, J., Labraunda III, part 1 (Lund, 1969)Google Scholar, nos. 5 and 7.

The only known exception to this practice is the letter of Ziaelas of Bithynia to Cos concerning the Coan asylia (Welles, , no. 25Google Scholar), which begins: Βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν Ζιαῆλας. This titular aberration is unique and remarkable, as indeed, in the context, are the other stipulations in the letter regarding the establishment of good relations generally between Bithynia and Cos; and we can only conclude that this formula had the specific purpose of emphasising the legitimacy of Ziaelas' rule in Bithynia. The chronology is unfortunately uncertain. The inscription is on the same stone and is engraved under a letter of Ptolemy III; it is therefore after 246; but it is apparently before the establishment of the festival at Cos, the first celebration of which was in 241 (Herzog, R. and Klaffenbach, G., Asylieurkunden aus Kos (Berlin, 1952), 17Google Scholar). We do not know exactly when Ziaelas came to the Bithynian throne, but we do know that he was not left as heir to it by his father Nicomcdes, (Memnon of Heraclea (FgrHist no. 434), fr. 14Google Scholar), and that a period of civil war intervened (ib.). What this seems to mean, therefore, is that Ziaelas, once having established himself de facto, recognised his need to do everything possible to have his position recognised; and to describe himself on such a document as Βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν emphasised the fact that he was in control and able to make these concessions. See also Chr. Habicht, RE s.v. ‘Ziaelas’, esp. col. 391 f. Cf. also the discussion below p. 23 on Cassander's inscription from Cassandreia.

⁸ Cf. e.g., Aymard (i), 73 f.

⁹ Aymard (i), 74 f; (ii), 100 f., esp. 122.

¹⁰ The theory is that of Holleaux, , BCH xxxi, 1907, 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. (=Études, iii, 55 f.).

¹¹ Dow, S. and Edson, C., HSPh, 1937, 127Google Scholar f.; Aymard (ii), 110 f.

¹² Aymard (ii), 101–2.

¹³ Diod. xviii 8.4. See also Syll. ³ 283 (Chios); 277 (Priene); OGIS 1 (Priene); Lindos Chronicle (Blinkenberg, , Lindos ii (Berlin-Copenhagen, 1941) p. 179)Google Scholar, C xxxviii. Some of Alexander's coins are also the first Macedonian coins to bear ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ: see Head, B. V., Historia Numorum ², 226Google Scholar; Bellinger, A. R., Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great (New York, 1963). 1Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Diod. xx 53.2–4; cf. Welles, nos. 2 and 4.

¹⁵ He begins his essay thus, begging a major question: ‘Toutes les analogies révèlent que ľappellation officielle de celui que ľusage courant nomme aujourd'hui “roi de Macédoine” était “roi des Macédoniens”: Μακεδόνων Βασιλεύς ou Βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων’ ((ii), 100).

¹⁶ See Head, , Historia Numorun ², 218Google Scholar f.

¹⁷ (ii), 122.

¹⁸ Refs. in (ii), 102 n. 2.

¹⁹ (ii), 103–4, supporting the original translation of Weissbach, F. H., Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden (Leipzig, 1911), 132–3Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ditt. Syll. ³ 332.

²¹ Rostowzew, M. [sic], Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates (Leipzig-Berlin, 1910), 251–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Tarn, W. W., Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford, 1913), 190Google Scholar f., esp. 191 n. 78.

²² I owe this argument to a discussion with Dr A. Giovannini.

²³ See also Aymard (ii), 120, briefly to this effect, though he, of course, regards the ‘title’ as ‘official’.

²⁴ Plut., Demetrius xviii 4Google Scholar.

²⁵ Jacoby, , RE x 2 s.v. ‘Kassandros’, 2307Google Scholar, rejects Plutarch's statement because he believes it conflicts with our inscription and Cassander's coinage (see below). It does not.

²⁶ See Head, , Historia Numorum ², 228Google Scholar.

²⁷ IG vii, 3055. The stone was copied by Pococke and Leake and has since disappeared. The most recent discussions of die text are by Ellis, J. R., JHS xci, 1971, p. 17Google Scholar; Vatin, Cl. in Salviat, F. and Vatin, Cl., Inscriptions de Grèce centrale (Paris, 1971), 81–94Google Scholar; cf. also Collitz, H., SGDI i, 156–9Google Scholar). It is perhaps conceivable (though entirely speculative) that Leake, whose copy alone reads ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥ[ (Pococke read the uninterpretable B—ITA) might have misread a final omega of the line as upsilon, and that ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ[Σ might have originally stood on the stone. If so, all interpretations based on the phrase as hitherto reconstructed would have to be given up and would make most of my following argument otiose.

²⁸ E.g. Dittenberger, , ad IG vii, 3055Google Scholar, citing Köhler, U., Hermes xxiv, 1889, 636Google Scholar f., esp. 640 f.

²⁹ (ii), 102 f.; 120 f.

³⁰ Ancient Macedonia, ed. Laourdas, B. and Makaronas, Ch. (Thessaloniki, 1970), 68Google Scholar f.; JHS xci, 1971, 15 f.

³¹ On the inscriptions of Philip V, which repeat exactly the word order of Cassander's document (‘title’ before name), see below, p. 28.

³² Gutschmid, A., Kl. Schr, iv (Leipzig, 1883), 35Google Scholar f. identifies him with Amyntas, , son of Archelaus (Arist. Pol. v, 1311b, 13 f.)Google Scholar who received his half-sister as wife. This is possible though entirely speculative; since a few lines above (1311b, 3–4) Aristotle mentions Amyntas ὁ μικρός, clearly from the context a king of some sort, who was murdered by one Derdas διὰ τὸ καυχήσασθαι εἰς τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ; and since he is not explicitly identified with the son of Archelaus a few lines further on, who is independently identified as τῷ υἱῷ (i.e. of Archelaus), these separate and different identification phrases actually suggest that Aristotle regarded the two Amyntases as different. In which case the murdered king Amyntas ὁ μικρός (patronymic unknown) is a more likely candidate for identification with the Amyntas II of the chronographers' king lists. He could even have been a late-born son of Perdiccas II (hence, perhaps, ὁ μικρός) and need not have been much more than about 20 in the mid-390s when he is mentioned in the king lists.

³³ Beloch, , GG ² iii 2, 56Google Scholar, suggests that he must have been a challenger to Aeropus or Orestes, arguing from a confusion in the king lists and Amyntas' omission by Diodorus. If so, he would fit very neatly into our inscription (as long as he was a son of a Perdiccas).

³⁴ For refs. and discussion, see Beloch, , GG ² iii 2, 51Google Scholar; 56.

³⁵ This consideration made Köhler (op. cit.) place the inscription c. 350.

³⁶ Ditt. Syll. 258 = IG vii 4251+4250; Arch. Delt. xxi, 1966, A´, 45 f.

³⁷ Ellis, op. cit.; cf. also Aymard (ii), 121.

³⁸ Paus. i 34.1; [Demades], On the Twelve Years, 9.

³⁹ Justin, ix 4.5.

⁴⁰ Didymus, , in Dem. 9.43Google Scholar (=FgrHist 115 F 222). This passage was kindly drawn to my attention by Professor Chr. Habicht.

⁴¹ Cf. Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich (München, 1926) ii, no. 128Google Scholar.

⁴² Jacoby, , FgrHist comm. ad 115Google Scholar, p. 359, suggests books 45–50; Beloch, , GG ² iii 2, 24Google Scholar, suggests that books 48–51 dealt with events from 340 to Philip's march into Greece. The date of book 48 of c. 340 is thus agreed in both schemes for the ‘economy’ of the Philippica.

⁴³ [Dem.] xii.

⁴⁴ So Wendland, P., Anaximenes von Lampsakos (Berlin, 1905), 13Google Scholar f.

⁴⁵ So Pohlenz, M., Hermes lxiv, 1929, 41Google Scholar f.

⁴⁶ Arr. Anab. ii 13.2–3.

⁴⁷ So already Dittenberger, , ad Syll. ³258Google Scholar n. 3.

⁴⁸ Ditt. Syll. ³ 573 and 574.

⁴⁹ Lindos Temple Chronicle, C xlii, in Blinkenberg, C., Lindos II, Inscriptions 1Google Scholar, no. 2.

⁵⁰ Ditt., Syll. ³573Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Wilhelm, A., ‘Zu griechischen Inschriften und Papyri III’, AAWW 1922, 70Google Scholar f., restored after (which is doubtless correct), [καὶ Μαίδους …] and connected the inscription with Livy xxvi 25.3 f., which mentions Philip's expedition against Dardanians and Maedi in 211. This Blinkenberg (Lindos, ib.) prints, and comments: ‘130 Il faut regarder comme certaine la restitution’. It is, of course, entirely possible; but we should not forget that the Dardanians were a constant menace to Macedon, and Philip doubtless led many more expeditions against them than our literary sources happen to tell us about.

⁵² Vallois, R., Exploration archéologique de Délos vii 1 (Paris, 1923), 155Google Scholar f.; cf. Laidlaw, W. A., A History of Delos (Oxford, 1933), 118Google Scholar; Walbank, , Philip V of Macedon, 269Google Scholar.

⁵³ (ii), 115 f.

⁵⁴ Cf. also De Sanctis, , Storia dei Romani iv 1 (Turin 1923), 9Google Scholar n. 26.

⁵⁵ Vallois, op. cit., 150 f.; cf. Laidlaw, op. cit., 118.

⁵⁶ See particularly, Crampa, , Labraunda iii 1Google Scholar, esp. nos. 5 and 7, and pp. 123 f.

⁵⁷ (ii), 104f.; cf. De Sanctis, , Storia, iv 1, 9Google Scholar n. 26; Walbank, , Philip V of Macedon, 67Google Scholar n. 6.

⁵⁸ From at least 218 onwards, when we know that Philip deliberately employed a naval policy: Pol. v 2.1 f. Admitted as possible even by Aymard, (ii), 105; cf. Vallois, op. cit., 158.

⁵⁹ (ii), 118 f.

⁶⁰ (ii), 122. His explanation of why the ‘official’ title was hardly ever used is, perhaps not surprisingly, one of the most curious passages of Aymard's work.

⁶¹ IG ² ix 1, 56.

⁶² OGIS 239.

⁶³ Durrbach, C., Inscr. de Délos, 298Google Scholar A, lines 85; 86–7; 372 B line 21.

⁶⁴ IG ² xi 4, 1096 and 1095.

⁶⁵ IG ² iv, 589 and 590 A.

⁶⁶ Edson, C., ‘Macedonica’, HSPh li, 1940, 125–6Google Scholar (Pella); BCH xcii, 1968, p. 886 (Beroea); SEG xv, 421 (Lysimacheia) ; BCH xciv, 1970, p. 1084 (Samothrake).

⁶⁷ See the collection of non-epistolary instances in Dow, S. and Edson, C., HSPh xlviii, 1937, 129Google Scholar f., to which add the inscription recording the diagramma δ ἔθηκεν βασιλεὺς Φίλιππος published by Pelekides, S., Ἀπὸ τὴν πολιτέια καὶ τὴν κοινωνία τῆς ἀρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης (Thessalonike, 1934), 5–23Google Scholar = Welles, , AJA xlii, 1938, 249Google Scholar; Fraser, , Op. Ath., iii, 1960, 53Google Scholar no. 10.

⁶⁸ Blinkenberg, Lindos ii, no. 2, C xxxviii–xlii.

⁶⁹ Ditt., Syll. 518Google Scholar. Holleaux, M., Études d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques iii (Paris, 1942), 55Google Scholar f.

⁷⁰ Ib. p. 58 cf. also Aymard (ii), 109 f. (cautiously).

⁷¹ On this see Dow, and Edson, , HSPh 1937, 127Google Scholar f.; Aymard (ii), 110 f.

⁷² Pol. vii 9 = Staatsverträge iii, 528.

⁷³ Inscriptiones Creticae ii, xii, 20 = Staatsverträge iii, 501 (Eleutherna); Inscr. Cret. iii, III, 1 A = Staatsverträge iii, 502 (Hierapytna). On non-Macedonian occurrences of the usage, see below p. 36.

⁷⁴ Aymard, (iii) (=Études, 143Google Scholar f., from REA lii, 1950, 115 f.), 150. The absence of ruler cult is a red herring so far as information goes concerning the basic character of the Macedonian monarchy. Ruler cult was deliberately fostered as a unifying principle in those kingdoms which ruled diverse peoples. Macedon was a nation state (if not, in the legalists' sense, a ‘national monarchy’), therefore by definition, did not require a promoted royal cult as a unifying factor. Thereby, of course, Macedon also avoided some of the more superficial developments of autocracy which the royal cult tended to encourage, and thus made possible a freer communication between subject and king. But neither the absence of cult nor this freer communication tell us anything about the real basis of power in the state. The differences are juridically quite superficial (though they might, of course, have made Macedon a pleasanter place to live in).

⁷⁵ The Macedonian treaties mentioned only by literary sources to 200 B.C. are the following. Numbers refer to volume and number in Staatsverträge: ii, 165; 195; 249; 275; 298; 300; 301; 314; 315; 318; 319; 327; 329 (peace of Philocrates, for which Demosthenes quotes freely from the treaty); 330; 333; 336; iii, 402; 405 (Alexander and Aspendos, in which, according to Arrian (i 27.3), the Aspendians must φόρους ἀποφέρειν … Μακεδόσι. But Arrian is only summarising, not quoting from the document, and cannot be relied on for exact terminology); 458; 477; 490; 506; 520; 543; 547·

⁷⁶ Most accessible edition in Staatsverträge iii, 549.

⁷⁷ Inscr. Cret. iv, 167 = Staatsverträge iii, 498.

⁷⁸ Staatsverträge ii, 186. The exact date is not certain (and for our purpose unimportant), but see Bengtson, ad loc., arguing for 423/2.

⁷⁹ Frg. f, line 27. The precise restoration is uncertain, but the alternative, Περ[δικκαν, provides an odd-looking phrase for ‘Perdiccas' successors’. Moreover, the document finally seems to list ἄρχο]ντες? Μακεδ[όνο]ν (frg. c, line 52), among whom are at least two people who receive the tide Βασιλεύς (line 61).

⁸⁰ Line 61.

⁸¹ Staatsverträge ii, 231.

⁸² Staatsverträge ii, 264, lines 2 and 20–1.

⁸³ Staatsverträge ii, 308, line 11.

⁸⁴ Staatsverträge iii, 403, lines 11–12.

⁸⁵ Regarded as significant only by Dow, and Edson, , HSPh 1937, 137Google Scholar; petulantly rejected without showing any reason by Treves, P., LEC 1940, 156Google Scholar n. 3.

⁸⁶ Ib. (n. 69) p. 59.

⁸⁷ Pol. iv 9.4; but see Walbank, , Commentary on Polybius i (Oxford, 1956Google Scholar), ad loc., arguing that the formula of the Sellasia dedication, despite Polybius' explicit statement, suggests that the Macedonians were not members of the League but were represented there by their king. This seems unnecessary.

⁸⁸ So Dow, and Edson, , HSPh, 1937, 137Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Pol. vii 9.

⁹⁰ vii 9.1; 5; 7.

⁹¹ Cf. Walbank, , Commentary ii, 46: ‘It is not to be supposed that the Symmachy had been dissolved after the Social War’Google Scholar.

⁹² Staatsverträge iii, 501 (Eleutherna); 502 (Hierapytna).

⁹³ Most recently stated (cautiously) by Aymard (ii), 109; see also bibliography in Staatsverträge iii, ad 501.

⁹⁴ Eusebius, , Chron. i, 238 (ed. Schoene, )Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Cf. Van Effenterre, , La Crète et le monde grec de Platon à Polybe (Paris, 1948), 219Google Scholar f.

⁹⁶ Schmitt, , Staatsverträge iii, p. 197Google Scholar, is rightly more cautious when he says that the phrase is not known before Doson.

⁹⁷ This restoration is a letter or two short of what an average letter count would require; but see the description of the stone, which was badly pitted when it was engraved, and the lines are very irregular.

⁹⁸ Schmitt, , ad Staatsverträge iii, 501Google Scholar and 502, gives the dates, ‘Etwa 227–224(?)’, and attaches them to the preparations for the war with Cleomenes. Even without my argument about the allies, I do not see why the limit should be placed at 224 (even with a question mark), since Cretan mercenaries are known in this war only from the battle of Sellasia in 222; therefore 222 should be the terminus ante quem.

⁹⁹ OGIS 283.

¹⁰⁰ Livy xxxi 6.1.

¹⁰¹ Pol. xviii 46.5, cf. Walbank, Comm. ii, ad loc.

¹⁰² Livy xxxvi 2.2.

¹⁰³ Pol. xxi 42.

¹⁰⁴ Livy xlii 30.10–11.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Livy xlii 31.1: cui Macedonia obvenisset, ut is regem Persea quique eius sectam secuti essent … bello persequeretur. Cf. also Plut., Mor. 197FGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ ILS iii 2, 8884.

¹⁰⁷ Fasti Triumph. Capit. in Inscr. Italiae xiii 1, ad ann. 167.

¹⁰⁸ I am grateful to The Queen's University of Belfast for leave of absence and to the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung for a Forschungsstipendium, during the tenure of which in Heidelberg the substance of this article was written. Professor Chr. Habicht very kindly read an earlier version and suggested several improvements: he does not necessarily agree with all or any of my conclusions.