kinsman," to the throne of his fathers. He roused a strong sensational interest in the populace of Antioch, and calls began to come to Demetrius from the "Macedonians" of the street that he should set King Philip in the ancestral kingdom. It was not the defect of Demetrius to lack enterprise, but he treated this demand with the contempt it deserved. Then the clamour grew; crowds surged about the palace doors. A cry arose that Demetrius must restore his cousin or give up the pretence of being a king. Demetrius saw he must take drastic steps. He caused Andriscus to be seized at night and sent to Rome (about 151-150).1

The isolation of Demetrius became daily more patent. Even Orophernes, residing at Antioch under his protection, conceived the idea of turning the general sedition to his own profit and supplanting his patron. He entered into secret negotiations with the leaders of the Antiochene mob. Demetrius penetrated his designs, and put him under close guard at Seleucia, upon the loyalty of which town he could perhaps better depend. As the rival claimant to Cappadocia he might again be useful some day, and was therefore not put to death.2

But already the danger from Alexander, the would-be son of Antiochus, had taken a far more menacing form. He was no longer threatening from the Cilician hills.

In the summer

of 153 he had appeared in Rome with Laodice, the daughter of Antiochus. They were conducted by the old intriguer, Heraclides of Miletus, who had now the grateful task of damaging his brother's destroyer. For a long time the party resided in Rome, making such a figure as was best calculated to impress public opinion before Heraclides thought the psychological moment come to approach the Senate. Nor did he during that time forget the old art by which he had made his way in Rome. At last the two children of Antiochus were brought before the Senate. Alexander spoke first-a cordial relations which had subsisted between his father and Rome, and so on. Then Heraclides

formal speech about the

1 Diod. xxxi. 40a; Liv. Epit. xlviii. xlix.; Zonaras ix. 28. Pauly-Wissowa, i. p. 2142, s.v. 'Andriskos, No. 4."

2 Just. xxxv. 1, 3 f.

VOL. II

See Wilcken,

P

made a moving oration. He began with an encomium of Antiochus Epiphanes, went on to denounce Demetrius, and finally delivered an appeal in the lofty name of Justice for the restoration of the true-born issue of the late King. It was all beautifully staged, and the Senate was immensely impressed. Only a few of the shrewder heads, Polybius says, saw through the business. A decree was made to the effect: "Whereas Alexander and Laodice, the children of a king who was sometime our friend and ally, have approached the Senate and represented their cause, the Senate has given them authority to return to the kingdom of their father, and has decreed that they shall receive assistance, as they have required." It was a triumph for Heraclides. He returned to Asia with his charges, and fixed his headquarters at Ephesus, to prepare for the invasion of Syria. The condottieri of most renown in the Hellenic world received a summons to take service under a king approved by Rome.1

The children of Antiochus would not want for allies. The policy of Demetrius had brought about a coalition against him of his three neighbour kings, Attalus, Ariarathes and Ptolemy Philometor. Alexander was "girt with the might of all the (Nearer) East." 2 And Demetrius had no security at home. Antioch was almost in open rebellion. That he knew how desperate the struggle was which lay before him is shown by his sending two of his sons, Demetrius and Antiochus, out of the country.

The first move in the attack was for Alexander to make a descent upon the coast town of Ptolemaïs. It was held by the garrison of Demetrius, but they had been infected by the prevailing sedition and opened to Alexander.3 Alexander had thus got a footing in his "paternal realm," and in Ptolemaïs he set up his rival court till his cause should have made further progress. There were now two kings in the country, each bidding for the support of its various communities and races.

1 Polyb. xxxiii. 18. Reinach supposes that it was the Laodice in question here, a genuine daughter of Antiochus Epiphanes, who afterwards married Mithridates Euergetes of Pontus, and was the mother of the great Mithridates (Mithridate Eupator, p. 51, note 1). Mithridates, the grandson of Antiochus Epiphanes! It makes an interesting question of heredity.

2 Just. xxxv. 1, 9.

31 Macc. 10, 1 f.; Joseph. Arch. xiii. § 35.

Our scanty authorities do not permit a connected narrative of the war. The Book of Maccabees and Josephus, who follows it, make no mention of the allied kings at all. But the expressions of Justin, Appian and Eusebius imply that the allied kings took a principal part.1 In the first battle, Justin says, Demetrius was victorious. Possibly Alexander risked a battle with his mercenaries before his allies arrived upon the scene.2 In the final battle Demetrius had, no doubt, the whole forces of the coalition against him. Undaunted to the end, he was still able to make a good fight. His left wing routed the enemy's right, and pursued it for a long way, inflicting heavy loss. Even the camp of the enemy was sacked. But the right, where Demetrius himself was, gave way. He found himself almost alone among the enemy. In those days of close fighting, a single expert horseman could do some damage. But, charging hither and thither, Demetrius rode his horse into some boggy ground, where it plunged and threw him. Then the enemy made a ring about him, and he became the mark for missiles from all sides. Showing no sign of surrender, he sank at last full of wounds, dying worthily of the race of fighters from which he sprang (150).3

The original source of

2 This seems borne out by Justin's "regibus bellum restituentibus." 3 Joseph. Arch. xiii. § 58 f.; Just. xxxv. 1, 10 f. both accounts was not improbably Polybius. The year in which Alexander Balas succeeded Demetrius is proved by the coins to have been 162 aer. Sel., since there are coins of both kings with that date. The year mentioned goes from October 151 to October 150, and the campaign would hardly have begun till the spring

of 150.

CHAPTER XXVIII

ALEXANDER I AND THE PTOLEMAÏC ASCENDANCY

THE chief part in overthrowing Demetrius and bringing in Alexander had been taken by Ptolemy Philometor.1 It had been shown abundantly how dangerous to the Egyptian realm an ambitious and enterprising Seleucid king was likely to be. Philometor had therefore supported Alexander with the design of having upon the Seleucid throne some one entirely subservient to himself, of establishing a dominant interest in Syria. Attalus and Ariarathes, who simply wished to secure themselves from aggression on the side of Syria, were probably quite agreeable to a settlement which left the country in this sort of informal dependence upon the Ptolemaïc crown. Immediately Alexander was in his seat, Philometor caused him to marry his daughter Cleopatra. Just as her grandmother, the Seleucid Cleopatra, had been married half a century before to Ptolemy Epiphanes in order to promote the Seleucid interest in Egypt, so she was now sent to the Seleucid court by the son of Ptolemy Epiphanes to confirm his ascendancy over Syria. And her role in the country would indeed be a principal one some day, for in the person of the young princess Destiny was introducing the Erinys of the house of Seleucus. She was received by the bridegroom at Ptolemaïs, whither she had been escorted by her father. There the marriage was celebrated "with great pomp, as the manner of kings is." 2

As for the Syrians, they hailed a new king with delight. The handsome, genial youth of twenty-three was a happy exchange for the eagle face and proud aloofness of Demetrius.

1 App. Syr. 67.

21 Macc. 10, 51 f.

He would not turn a dark brow upon their easy, festive life, or harass the country by bringing it into continual collisions with its neighbours. His relations with all the powers were extremely friendly. The three neighbour kings had been his supporters. Rome had smiled upon his enterprise.

So Alexander, whoever he was, sat as king upon the throne of Seleucus. He bore the surnames of Theopator Euergetes. For these two we sometimes find Epiphanes Nicephorus, those of his (alleged) father, or Eupator, the surname of his brother.1 But the name by which he was known in the mouth of the people was Balas.2

It is impossible to gauge the extent or form of the Ptolemaic ascendancy. It seems to be implied that the seat of the Seleucid court was now usually at Ptolemaïs, where it would be in closer touch with Alexandria. The silver money minted in the King's name in the Phoenician cities was assimilated to the standard of Egypt instead of to the Attic, which was the ordinary standard for Seleucid money, and it bore for emblem the Ptolemaïc eagle."

6

As a ruler Alexander proved himself utterly worthless. He fell under the dominion of mistresses and favourites, while the government was abandoned to the prime minister Ammonius,7 who made himself detested by his crimes. The minister's jealousy raged like fire in the court. All possible rivals among the Friends were removed by a series of murders. Among

1 Babelon, p. cxxiv. Babelon expresses a doubt whether ΕΥΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ on the British Museum coin has been correctly read, and opines that it is a disfigured EOIIATOPOZ. Mr. G. F. Hill has showed me the coin; ETNIATOPOZ is plain enough. Mr. Hill tells me the reading is beyond question.

2 Schürer (i. p. 227, note 11) thinks that this was his original name, citing Just. xxxv. 1, 6, "subornant propalam [leg. Balam] quendam, extremae sortis iuvenem." But if Balas is a name of Syrian origin, it is surely more likely that it was given Alexander in Syria.

31 Macc. 10, 68. Alexander returns to Antioch. Josephus in his paraphrase says EK Tĥs Þowiкns (Arch. xiii. § 87).

The "Phoenician" standard.

5 Babelon, p. cxxv. Ptolemy struck money in his own name at Ptolemaïs in 161, aer. Sel. 152-151 B.C. [ibid. p. cxxvi]. But this does not imply the assumption of sovereignty in the country. Antiochus Epiphanes, as we saw, struck money in his own name in Egypt while supporting the claims of Philometor. 6 Just. xxxv. 2, 2.

7 His name suggests an Egyptian origin.