One of the most obscure and poorly illuminated pages of the early dynastic history of the Seleucids is the events of the mid-260s BC related to the death of Prince Seleucus, the eldest son of Antiochus I. The purpose of this study is to present the most probable version of the circumstances that led to the premature death of Prince Seleucus on the basis of consideration and comparison of all known facts. After analyzing all the known sources, it is assumed that the prince fell victim to a planned and phased action, which is supported by the gradual promotion of the tsar's youngest son, Antiochus II, as a successor. This is especially clearly reflected in one of the cuneiform texts (AION Suppl. 77.15), indicating a "double co-government" in the Seleucid empire. The main reason for the elimination of Seleucus was precisely personal motives. At the same time, it is quite likely that officially, in order to give the case legitimacy, the tsarevich was accused of some malice against his father and on this basis was executed.

Keywords: The Seleucid Kingdom, Institute of Co-government, Prince Seleucus, Antiochus I.

page 19
The history of most Hellenistic monarchies, as is well known, was marked by numerous court intrigues, conspiracies and usurpations of power, often leading to bloody feuds within the ruling houses and becoming the main cause of the death of some of them1. As a rule, the information that has come down to us about such facts is fragmentary and contradictory. The secrets of the Hellenistic court were not always publicized, and if they did, the version that was favorable to the winning side was known. This is exactly the case with the subject of this article: the events of the mid-260s (hereinafter referred to as BC) related to the death of Prince Seleucus, the eldest son of Antiochus I, can be regarded with good reason as one of the most poorly illuminated and little-known pages of the early dynastic history of the Seleucids.

The main problem faced by the researcher of this story is the almost complete lack of sources: in fact, all available information is reduced to a few phrases of ancient authors, rather ambiguous,and sometimes contradictory. Some information can be gleaned from Greek inscriptions, and especially from cuneiform texts dating back to the reign of Antiochus I (281-261). In this situation, the picture looks very vague and, as it may seem at first glance, we have almost no way to restore this lacuna in the dynastic history of the first Seleucids.

Apparently, these circumstances are responsible for the fact that there are no special works devoted to this problem in historiography. The only exception is probably Article F. Штелина из "Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft" [Stahelin, 1921, Sp. 1234-1235]. In other cases, Prince Seleucus is usually only occasionally mentioned in the context of his father's domestic politics.2 Many studies provide outdated information about the chronology of the co-reign of Tsarevich Seleucus 3, and therefore some statements and conclusions made on the basis of such dates need to be clarified and rethought. In this regard, my task is to present the most probable version of the circumstances that led to the premature death of Tsarevich Seleucus, based on the review and comparison of all known sources.

Seleucus was the eldest son of King Antiochus 1 and his wife Queen Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes. The exact date of birth of the prince is unknown. The marriage of Antiochus 1 and Stratonica itself is dated differently: most often 294/293 [Mehl, 1986, p. 244; Grainger, 1997, p. 9; Breebaart, 1967, p. 154], but sometimes a later version is found-292 [Ogden, 1999, p. 122-without F. Stahelin believes, however, also without explaining his opinion and without dwelling on the time of marriage of Seleucus ' parents, that he was born no earlier than 293 [Stahelin, 1921, Sp. 1234]. It is known that Seleucus 'younger brother Antiochus, the future king Antiochus II, was born c. 286, as appears from Eusebius' account (Chron. I. 251 Schoene) of his death at the age of forty (246). Comparing these data, we can conclude that Seleucus was born approximately between 292 and 287 years In any case, he was under thirty years old at the time of his death.

Nothing is known about the prince's childhood, but it can be assumed that Seleucus spent his youth in the East with his father, even when he was co-ruler of Seleucus I (294-281). Apparently, the prince was prepared from birth as the heir and future sovereign of all the lands belonging to Seleucus I at that time. For the most already

1 As it happened, for example, with the dynasties of Cassander and Lysimachus [Ogden, 1999, p. 53-65].

2 The most informative passages about Tsarevich Seleucus are found in the following works: [Bevan, 1902, p. 169; Bouche-Leclercq, 1913, p. 72; Grainger, 1997, p. 66; Ogden, 1999, p. 125; Will, 2003, p. 150-151; Boiy, 2004, p. 140-144].

3 Unfortunately, such inaccuracies are also sometimes found in recent works. See, for example, [McAuley, 2011, p. 22].

page 20
for the middle-aged founder of the dynasty, the birth of a grandson was supposed to represent the future of his family and provide certain guarantees for the preservation of royal power in his family.4
Shortly after the death of Seleucus I and the accession of Antiochus I, Prince Seleucus was appointed co-ruler of his father. And since the earliest document attesting to this is dated to 24 kislymu 32 AD of the Seleucids (hereinafter - ES) = January 4, 279 (OEST 9.7; the tablet originates from Uruk), the proclamation of Seleucus as co-ruler seems to have taken place as early as 280 AD5 Apparently, Antiochus I, following the example of his father, was the first king of the Seleucid empire. fearing the emergence of various troubles similar to those that he faced shortly after his accession to the throne, 6 he sought to officially confirm his successor as soon as possible.

So, at the age of about 7-12 years, Seleucus became king and was given control, like his father before, of the "Upper Satrapies". The very fact that the tsarevich headed the eastern regions of the kingdom is almost unanimously accepted in historiography [Bevan, 1902, p. 169; Bokshchanin, 1960, p.149; Bickerman, 1985, p. 23]. Although this is not clearly recorded anywhere, 7 I am inclined to take this position on the basis of indirect data (the repeated mention of Seleucus in cuneiform texts, as well as, apparently, the reproduction by Antiochus I of the model of co-government laid down by Seleucus 1). However, due to his young age, the prince could still stay with his father for some time, gaining the necessary experience for conducting state affairs.

There is no evidence of Seleucus ' activities as a co-ruler. King Seleucus (βασιλευς σελευκος) is mentioned in several inscriptions in Asia Minor: V. 2.881 (276/275); SEG XXXV. 1170 (275-269) [Capdetrey, 2007, p. 403]; Robert, Caree II 3 (269/268); OGIS 220 (269/268 -?); IvLaodikeia am Lykos 1 (268/267)8. But these sources do not give practically any information about Seleucus (most often he is mentioned only in the dating formula; "Under the kings Antiochus and Seleucus"; βασιλευοντων ΑντιοχΟυ και Σελευκου...). Almost the same situation is observed with the cuneiform texts from Babylonia: in most cases they contain only the mention of "kings Antiochus and Seleucus".": m An [- ti-' - u-ku-su] and m Se [- lu-ku] sarrani (LUGAL)mes (see, for example: CM 37 = SCNR 17 (Article 1); ADRTB 277 (C Rev. 2-3; A up.e. 1; A left e. 1; B up.e. 1); 273 (A rev. 4-5; B obv. 1; B rev. 34; up.e. 2-3; left e. 1); 270 (B obv. 1; left. e. 1), with no details that could illuminate Seleucus ' activities as co-ruler 9. But it is precisely these tablets that make it possible to date with great accuracy, sometimes up to the day and month, a particular event reported in the text, thereby narrowing or, conversely, expanding the chronological framework of co-government.

The first mention of Seleucus as co-ruler, already noted earlier, refers to 24 Kislim 32 A.D. ES = January 4, 279 A.D. (OEST 9.7), the last (as it was believed before ne-

4 Seleucus I's very decision to hand over his wife to Antiochus 1 was a wise political move, since it was intended to minimize the possibility of dynastic unrest in the future [Ogden, 1999, p. 122-123; Smirnov, 2009, p.160-161].

5 This position is supported, for example, by A. Olmsted, K. Alonso, D. Ogden, and R. Strootman (Olmstcad, 1937, p. 6; Alonso, 1995, p. 128; Ogden, 1999, p. 125; Strootman, 2007, p. 114). However, the first year of co-rule between Antiochus 1 and Seleucus is often considered to be the 279th [Will, 2003, p. 150; Bickerman, 1985, p.23]. In some works, this year is defined without much specification as the 280/279 th [Stahelin, 1921, Sp. 1234; Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 21]. Such differences in dates are probably due to the material available to the authors at the time of publication of their works.

6 See the review and analysis of sources and modern historiographical constructions [Mastrocinque, 1993, p. 27-39].

7 Only J. R. R. Tolkien seems to have noticed this fact. Grainger (1997, p. 66).

8 First publication with a detailed analysis of the historical context: [Worrle, 1975, pp. 59-87].

9 The mention of Prince Seleucus, together with his parents, Antiochus 1 and Stratonica, on the cylinder of Antiochus I of Borsippa (BM 36277; dated 268) should also be revenged. It is noteworthy that here Seleucus is officially called king - sarru (LUGAL). For more information about the cylinder of Antiochus I, see the works of S. Sherwin-White, K. Erickson, R. Strotman, and K. Стивене [Sherwin-White, 1991, p. 71-86; Erickson, 2009, p. 119-121; Strootman, 2013, p. 67-97; Stevens, 2014, p. 66-88].

page 21
a long time ago, more on this later) -by March-April 267 [Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 21], after which he disappeared forever from the political arena, and his youngest son Antiochus II became co-ruler of Antiochus I. Well-known cuneiform texts and Greek inscriptions do not comment on these events in any way, so let's turn to the literary and historical tradition that has come down to us. Seleucus, the son of Antiochus I, is described by three authors: the compiler of the Prologues to Pompey Trogus, John Malalas (VI century A.D.), and John of Antioch (VII century A.D.)10. These authors are late and also very generous with various inaccuracies and errors.

In Syria rex Antiochus cognomine Soter alterofilio occiso, altero rege nuncupato Antiocho decesserit, is written in the prologue to the XXVI book of Pompey Trogus ' work. The Russian translation of this sentence by A. A. Dekonsky and M. I. Rizhsky: "in Syria, King Antiochus, nicknamed Soter, killed one son, and the other, Antiochus, appointed his heir, died" - is not entirely accurate. It omits an important detail: the original explicitly states that Antiochus II was not just appointed heir, but also proclaimed king (rege nuncupate Antiocho)11. Thus, it follows from this message that: 1) Antiochus I killed Seleucus; 2) apparently, almost immediately after that, he proclaimed his younger son Antiochus as his co-ruler with the title of king; 3) these events seem to have occurred shortly before his death (although, of course, we must take into account the frequent examples of compression of the chronology of events in the "Prologues").

John Malala (VIII.20) reports: αντιοχος (Soter. - E. B.)... Antiochus had two sons - Seleucus, who died at a young age, and Antiochus..." (compare the English translation: "Seleukos who died in infancy" [The Chronicle of John Malalas, 1986, p. 108]).

John of Antioch (FHG IV.55) generally repeats the version of Trog, adding, however, its reason for what the king did-suspicion of some malice: o μεν σελευκος, επιβουλευειν γποπτευθεις τω πατρι, κατακτεινετα& #953;; " Seleucus was killed on suspicion of malice against his father." In historiography, this phrase is often interpreted as a suspicion of a conspiracy organized by Prince 12, although the verb eπιβουλευω has various, including more general meanings - "secretly plotting, plotting" (LSJ s. v. eπιβουλευω). Thus, it is not necessarily a question of high treason and an attempt to seize power - perhaps we are referring to some other, not so serious differences between Antiochus and Seleucus.

So, there are three versions of Seleucus ' death:

1. Death at a young age without any specific cause, whether violent or not (Malala).

2. His assassination by Antiochus I for unspecified reasons (author of the Prologues of Pompey Trogus).

10 It has been suggested (Stahelin, 1921, Sp. 1235) that Plutarch mentioned Agis at the beginning of his biography (Plut. Agis 3) Seleucus, in the service of the Spartan king Leonidas, can be identified with the co-ruler of Antiochus I. In this case, it would seem logical to allow the prince to stay in Asia Minor: it is unlikely that Leonid would have gone to the "Upper Satrapies". However, Plutarch's phrase is too vague to draw binding conclusions from it, and the error of the Chaeronean writer is not excluded.

11 Cf., for example, with the latest English translation by J. R. R. Tolkien. Ярдли: "In Syria King Antiochus, surnamed Soter, died after killing one of his sons and naming the other one, Antiochus, king" [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_08_prologi.htm (дата обращения: 20.02.2015)].

12 "Seleucus, who after being associated with his father in the kingship was put to death by him on the charge of conspiracy in 268 BC" [Macurdy, 1985, p. 82-83]; " Antiochus 1 associated Seleucus, his eldest son by Stratonice, on the throne with him around 280, but then executed him for conspiracy c. 268-6" [Ogden, 1999, p. 125]; "Even Antiochus' son Seleucus was implicated in the plot and was executed by Antiochus" [Diakonov, 1961, p. 166]; " Seleucus, son of Antiochus 1, ordered to be released in Upper Asia, where he ruled as a prisoner. his father's viceroy, silver coins with the image of the head of Zeus and his own name; but he claimed royal power and was executed" (Bickerman, 1985, p. 204).

page 22

Fig. 1. Autograph of the clay tablet AION Suppl. 77.15, " which mentions "the dual co-government of the sons of Antiochus I. It is given according to the publication: [Stolper, 1993, p. 47].

3. Murder of Antiochus I due to suspicion of some malice (John of Antioch).

As for the account of John Malala, the data he gives should hardly be taken seriously, given the numerous inaccuracies in his enumeration of the kings of Syria. 13 Versions of the author of the "Prologues" to the work of Trogus and John of Antioch.-

13 However, the question arises: why does Malala, who overlooked and confused many Seleucids (see examples: [Downey, 1938, p. 106-120]), mention Prince Seleucus, whose existence was mentioned by many ancient authors, including those who described the history of the dynasty (for example, Appian, Eusebius [Gabelko, Kuzmin, 2008,

page 23
They can be taken as complementary to a certain extent. It should be noted, however, that the message about the tsar's suspicion of some malicious intent by Seleucus is absent from the text of the Prologues (although they could have been omitted by the author based on the specifics of the genre) and appears only in a much later source. In this regard, the question arises: is it really this that was the real reason for the death of the tsarevich? Was there really a conspiracy, or was Seleucus simply eliminated as an objectionable person for some unknown reason? Here you should refer to the cuneiform sources.

Relatively recently (in 1993), a clay tablet from Babylon was published (AION Suppl. 77.15, stcc. 4-5; see fig. 1), which contains the following wording: mAn-ti-['- ku-su and] | mSi-lu-ku and mAn-ti-ku-su aplani (Α)mes-su sarrani (LUGAL)mes; " Anti[ox and] I Seleucus and Antiochus, his heirs, kings "14. In fact, this is a unique testimony to the "double co-government" in the history of the Seleucid empire: together with Antiochus 1, two of his sons are called kings at once. This tablet dates from about 4: 46. ES = August 15, 266 or somewhat earlier; obviously, this proclamation itself took place some time before the moment recorded in the document. And already in the text related to the 13th Tashrit of 46. ES = October 21, 266, only Antiochus 1 and Antiochus II are called kings (V. 49.115)15. It follows that: (1) Antiochus II was proclaimed co-ruler during his brother's lifetime and probably shortly before his removal; (2) According to the cuneiform dates, Seleucus disappeared from the sources - apparently killed-sometime between August 15 and October 21, 266, and Antiochus I's sole co - ruler was his own son. youngest son Antiochus 16.

Seleucus, as far as is known, was unmarried, while Antiochus II married Laodice-perhaps his close relative, and according to Polyenus (VIII. 50), even a half-sister: Λαοδικην oμοπατριον αδελφην (who, as is commonly believed, later poisoned her husband-Athen. XIII.593 c-d). Unfortunately, the exact date of this marriage (presumably arranged by Antiochus I) remains unknown; the prevailing date in historiography is 267 (Beloch, 1927, p. 200-202; Ogden, 1999, p. 125). However, it is not impossible to exclude the possibility that this happened before the removal of Seleucus, perhaps even shortly after Antiochus became co-ruler of his father and brother. Undoubtedly, the conclusion of such an alliance should have emphasized the preferential rights of the younger of the brothers. In this case, all these actions resemble a planned and phased action: after all, if Seleucus Day-

p. 142]), it seems, did not know at all, and also gives his own version of his death, which does not quite agree with the reports of Trog and John of Antioch? Regarding the former, it is possible that this reference to Prince Seleucus is due to the fact that both early Byzantine authors were probably originally from Syria in the past, the heart of the Seleucid empire. Discrepancies in the sources may be explained by the fact that John of Antioch may have used the official version of the death of the eldest son of Antiochus I, and John Malala, apparently, some other, not so accurate. However, even the version of Malala does not contradict more reliable authors: Seleucus really died while still a young man.

14 The same wording, which refers to the three kings, is also restored in lines 26-27 of this tablet (AION Suppl. 77, p. 47-49).

15 Unfortunately, this evidence has not yet caught the attention of researchers. For some comments on this issue, see [Boiy, 2004, p. 144-145]. The researcher emphasizes that the tablet discussed above is the only evidence of the Seleucid triumvirate, but does not draw any significant conclusions from this. However, the descendants of King Antiochus and Queen Stratonica are mentioned in another document-a letter from a certain Evander (Guarducci, 1995, p. 276). However, the wording itself is very streamlined and has no indication of co-government.

16 The last date of Seleucus ' sole co-rule appears to be April 267. Antiochus II appears as co-ruler of his father between April 266 and April 265 (Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 21; Boiy, 2004, p. 144-145). Seleucus, who already shares the royal title with his brother, is mentioned in a text dating from August 266 (tablet of the "double co-government" - AION Suppl. 77.15), the first sole co-government of Antiochus 11 October 266 (ART 49.115). Thus, Antiochus II could become co-ruler in the period from April to August 266.

page 24
If he had done something illegal, he probably would have been eliminated quickly, without such a consistent preparation of the place of the heir for Antiochus II. Thus, it is unlikely that Antiochus I actually had a legitimate reason to deprive Seleucus of power. To assume that these two events - the appointment of the youngest son as co - ruler along with the eldest and the murder of Seleucus-are in no way connected, in my opinion, would be illogical. After all, it seems strange that Antiochus I, by appointing two co-rulers of his own free will, gave a legitimate reason for the division of his state, which is quite likely in such a situation, if both sons continued to rule after his death.

Of course, we can assume that Seleucus himself, who was watching all this, really could have had some unkind thoughts, which negatively affected his relationship with his father and was ultimately turned against him, but we have no reliable reasons to believe that there really was some kind of conspiracy organized by him against him. E. Bickerman, as noted above, considers the coins attributed to Tsarevich Seleucus as indirect evidence of this, which could be an indicator of some of his separatist aspirations [Bickerman, 1985, p. 24, 204]. However, it has been shown in many works that they should probably still be attributed to the time when Antiochus I co-ruled with Seleucus Nicator17. Moreover, if Seleucus had actually issued coins in his own name, it is unlikely that he would have had any reason to mint the name of his father on the legend; this is especially illustrated on the coins with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (SC 280)18. In this regard, the very fact that the co-ruler minted a coin with his own name, in my opinion, should not be considered in accordance with the opinion of E. Bickerman [Bickerman, 1985, p.204] as evidence of the prince's separatism. Other arguments in favor of the conspiracy theory, it seems, do not exist.

We cannot say what exactly caused the tragic end of Tsarevich Seleucus. Did he really, for some reason, fall out of favor with his father, who probably preferred to see his younger son as his successor, 19 or were some other forces interested in this? J. Grainger prefers not to comment on the reasons that led to the death of the tsarevich [Grainger, 1997, p. 66]. D. Ogden believes that the murder of the prince could be connected with dynastic strife and rivalry with possible heirs of Antiochus I from the second marriage [Ogden, 1999, p.124-125]. However, this hypothesis is unlikely, if only because the very fact that Antiochus I had a second wife requires more convincing arguments than those given by the author of this point of view.20
17 For coins with the legends ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (Babelon 99 = SC 279; 281-282) and ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ (SC 280), see [Babelon, p. XL; SCI, I, p, 104-105; Smirnov, 2009, p.165].

18 Wed. with issues of Antiochus Hierax (SC 835-838, 840-846, 848-855, 857-872, 874-914) and Achaea (SC 952-959): the legends of the rebel kings never mention a living legitimate monarch. It is noteworthy that, like Seleucus, Antiochus Hierax was the son of a king; Achaeus also belonged to a side branch of the dynasty.

19 The suggestion that the removal of Seleucus might have been related to Antiochus I's desire to replace his eldest son with a more trustworthy younger one was made by A. McAuley [McAuley, 2011, p. 22]: "The young co-regent was murdered on the grounds of conspiracy, only to be replaced by the seemingly more-trustworthy younger son of the King, also named Antiochus, in March / April 265". Unfortunately, the author does not give any weighty arguments in favor of his statement and refers to already outdated materials; obviously, the evidence of a "double co-government" remained unknown to him.

20 d. Ogden makes this assumption based on his theory of "amphimetric crises" in Hellenistic monarchies (see her critique: [Ladynin, Gabelko, and Kuzmin, 2009, pp. 120-148]) and relying on Stephen of Byzantium, who reports that Antiochus 1 named the city Nisu after his wife (Steph. Byz. s.v. ΑντιοχΕια). However, the researcher himself notes that the same author gives clearly erroneous information that Antioch (- on-the-Orontes) was named after the mother of Antiochus I (ibid.). As a more convincing example, on

page 25
Anyway, with the current state of the sources, it is impossible to find the answer to this question. Nor can we with certainty refute or affirm the existence of a real conspiracy as a probable consequence of the disgrace of the heir. In this situation, however, it is likely that the primary reason for Seleucus ' removal was some personal motive; it is quite possible that officially, to give the case legitimacy, he was accused of some malice against his father.21 In reality, the prince probably fell victim to court intrigues, just as Agathocles, the son of Lysimachus, or Demetrius, the son of Philip V. Of course, this picture does not claim to be extremely reliable due to the fragmentary and unreliable sources, but based on all the known facts and their correlation with each other, the above option seems to be the most reasonable.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMA - Ancient World and Archeology. Saratov.

VDI-Vestnik drevnoi istorii [Bulletin of Ancient History].

ADRTB - Sachs A. J., Hunger H. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. I-II. Wien: Verlag der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988-1989.

AION - Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Napoli.

AJA - American Journal of Archaeology. Boston (Mass.).

AncSoc - Ancient Society. Leuven.

Babelon - Babelon E. Catalogue des monnais grecques de la Biblotheque Nationale. Les rois de Syrie, d'Armenie cl de Commagene. P.: Chez C. Rollin & Fcuardent, 1890.

BCHP - Finkel I., van der Spek R.J. Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period (http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html; дата обращения: 21.02.2015).

CIPh - Classical Philology. Chicago.

CM - Glassncr J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Leiden; Boston: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

CT - Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. L.

EA - Eprgraphica Anatolica. Bonn.

FHG - Mulleri C. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vol. IV P., 1851.

IK - Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien.

IvLaodikeia - Corsten T. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos. 49. Bonn, 1997.

JHS - Journal of Hellenic Studies. L.

LSJ - A Greek-English Lexicon, Compiled by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

OECT - Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts. Oxford.

OGIS - Dittenberger W. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 1. Hildesheim; Zurich; New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1986.

RE - Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart.

Robert, Carie II - Robert J. & L.: La Carie, II. Le Plateau de Tabai et ses environs. P., 1954.

SC - Houghton A., Lorber C. Seleucid Coins. Α Comprehensive Catalogue. Lancaster; London: Classical Numismatic Group, 2002.

SEG - Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden.

TAM V. 2 Herrmann P. Tituli Asiae Minoris, V: Tituli Lydiae, linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. Vol. 2. Vienna, 1989.

ZPE - Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn.

Ogden uses the words of Polyenus, who claimed that Laodice, the wife of Antiochus II, was his half-sister (VIII. 50), from which it follows that Antiochus I had another wife besides Stratonica. At the same time, Porphyry writes (Porph. FHG 6.6) that this Laodice was the daughter of Achaeus , one of the Asia Minor dynasties who belonged to a side branch of the house of Seleucus, which contradicts the version of Polyenus. Be that as it may, the thesis about the second wife of Antiochus I looks unfounded. In addition, his version does not explain why the rights of Antiochus II, who was also the son of Antiochus Soter from Stratonica, were not affected in any way.

21 It is possible that the prince was later "rehabilitated": it may well be that he is mentioned under the name Σελευκου θεου in the list of deified kings (OGIS 246) after Antiochus Soter and before Antiochus Theos. However, this identification is not indisputable, since" Seleucus the god " can theoretically be referred to as both Seleucus II and Seleucus III [for more details, see Picjko, 1982, p. 129, not. 1; Mastrocinque, 1984, p. 83-85; Van Nuffelen, 2004, p. 292].

page 26
list of literature

Bikerman E. Gosudarstvo Seleukidov [The Seleucid State] / Translated from French by L. M. Gluskina; ed. by I. S. Sventsitskaya. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985.

Bokshchanin A. G. Parthia i Rim. Vol. I: Vozrozhdenie sistemy politicheskogo dualizma v Perednoi Azii [Parthia and Rome: The Emergence of a System of Political Dualism in Western Asia].
Gabelko O. L., Kuzmin Yu. N. Matrimonial policy of Demetrius II of Macedon: new solutions to old problems / / VDI. 2008. N 1.

Dyakonov M. M. Ocherk istorii drevnego Irana [Essay on the History of ancient Iran]. Moscow: Publishing House of Oriental Literature, 1961.

Ladynin I. A., Gabelko O. L., Kuzmin Yu. N. A new concept of the dynastic history of Hellenism? Reflections on the monograph by D. Ogden (Ogden D. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death. The Hellenistic Dynasties. London; Swansea: Duckworth - The Classical Press of Wales, 1999. XXXIV, 317 p.) / / The Ancient world and Archeology. 2009. Issue 13.

Smirnov S. V. Pervy opyt sotravitel'stva v gosudarstvo Seleukidov [The first experience of co-government in the Seleucid state]. 2009. N 4.

Alonso C. The Seleucids in Mesopotamia: Thesis for the Degree of Master of Arts. Edmonton, 1995.

Beloch K.J. Griechische Geschichte. Bd. IV. T. 2. Berlin-Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1927.

Bevan E.R. The House of Seleucus. Vol. 1. L.: Edward Arnold, 1902.

Boiy T. Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004.

Bouche-Leclercq A. Histoire des Seleucides (323-64 avant J.-C.). Т. 1. P.: Ernest Leroux, 1913.

Breebaart A.B. King Seleucus 1, Antiochus, and Stratonice // Mnemosyne. Vol. 20. 1967. Pt. 2.

Capdetrey L. Le pouvoir seleucide. Territoire, admnistration, finances d'un royaume hellenistique (312-129 avant J.-C.). Rennes: Presses Universitaires des Rennes, 2007.

The Chronicle of John Malalas / Transi, by Ε. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, & R. Scott. Melbourne: Central Printing, Australian National University, 1986.

Downey G.A. Seleucid Chronology in Malalas // American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. 42. 1938. Pt. 1.

Erickson K.G. The Early Seleucids. their Gods and their Coins: Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Exeter, 2009.

Grainger J.D. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden-New York-Koln: Brill, 1997.

Guarducci M. Epigrafia greca. T. III. Roma: lstituto poligrafico dello stato, 1995.

Macurdy G.H. Hellenistic Queens: A Study of Women-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. Chicago: Apres Publishers, 1985.

Mastrocinque A. Seleucidi divinizzati a Tco // Epigraphica Anatolica. 1984. 3.

Mastrocinque A. "Guerra di successione" e prima guerra di Celesiria. Un falso modcrno e una questione storica // Ancient Society. Vol. 24. 1993.

McAuley A. Seleucid Marriage, Succession, and Descent Revisited: Thesis for the Master s Degree. Edinburgh, 2011.

Mehl A. Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. Lovanii, 1986.

Ogden D. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London; Swansea: Duckworth with the Classical Press of Wales, 1999.

Olmstcad A.T. Cuneiform Texts and Hellenistic Chronology // Classical Philology. Vol 32. 1937. Pt. 1.

Parker R., Dubberstein W. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75. Providence: Brown University Press, 1956.

Picjko F. Ptolemies in a List of Deified Seleucids from Teos, OGIS 246 // Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bd. 49. 1982.

Sherwin-White S. Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus 1 from Borsippa II Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol III. 1991.

Stahelin F. Seleukos (3) // Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 2A. 1921.

Stevens K. The Antiochus Cylinder, Babylonian Scholarship and Sclcucid Imperial Ideology // Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. 134.2014.

Stolper M. W. Late Achaemenid, Early Macedonian, and Early Seleucid Records of Deposit and Related Texts: Supplemento n. 77 agli ANNALI vol. 53 (1993), fasc. 4. Napoli, 1993.

Strootman R. Babylonian, Macedonian, King of the World: the Antiochos Cylinder from Borsippa and Seleukid Imperial Integration // Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images / Ed. E. Stravrianopoulou. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013.

Strootman R. The Hellenistic Royal Court: Court Culture, Ceremonial and Ideology in Greece, Egypt and the Near East, 336-30 ВСЕ: PhD Thesis. Utrecht, 2007.

Van Nuffelen P. Le culte royal de l'empire des Seleucides: une reinterpretation // Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte. Bd. 53. 2004. No. 3.

Will Ε. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 avant J.-C.). Vol. I. Nancy: Editions du Seuil, 2003.

Worrle M. Antiochos I., Achaios der Altere und die Galater. Eine neue Inschrift in Denizli // Chiron. 1975, No. 5.

page 27

Permanent link to this publication: