Gregory John Callaghan (University of Pennsylvania)
Philetaerus, ruler of Pergamon and the founder of the Attalid dynasty, broke away from Lysimachus in 282 and used the vast wealth he appropriated from his former master to finance a robust foreign policy, with a high number of attested benefactions to numerous sanctuaries and cities. Because many of these gifts were to sites under Seleucid control, they raise several questions as to why the Seleucids would condone such involvement within their realm, or why Seleucid-controlled cities would accept these gifts and risk Seleucid ire? Traditionally, scholarship’s solution to these concerns has been rooted in an assumption that the Attalids, in fact, served under Seleucid authority—less of an answer to the questions raised than an invalidation (e.g. Allen 1983; Chrubasik 2013). This paper argues against such a reductive solution by demonstrating that Philetaerus, in fact, presented himself as a fully independent actor, and was perceived as such by the cities to whom he served as a benefactor.
A brief survey of the numismatic and literary evidence (Newell 1936; Le Rider 1992; Strabo 13.4; Paus. 1.10.4) typically offered as proof of Philetaerus’ subordination to the Seleucid dynasty shows that these sources, at best, suggest a vague recognition by Philetaerus of Seleucus I’s authority—a recognition that did not survive Seleucus’ death. Without these supports, scholars who wish to make Philetaerus a vassal of the Seleucids rely on comparison to other local dynasts operating in Asia Minor in the 3rd century, particularly the Philomelids. Yet, a close look at the sparse evidence for the Philomelids shows that they are routinely and clearly denoted as serving the Seleucid kings—a clarity that is utterly lacking for the Attalids. Moreover, the collective scope and scale of Philetaerus’ foreign benefactions dwarf those of the entire Philomelid dynasty. In-depth analyses of two of Philetaerus’ civic benefactions, to Kyme (Manganaro 2000) and Pitane (OGIS 335), demonstrate that: (1) Philetaerus’ benefactions to foreign cities—and the reciprocal honors he received as a result—are only comparable to those of independent Hellenistic kings; (2) those benefactions and honors are not presented as actions negotiated under Seleucid authority; and (3) at least some of these actions must have been perceived in contrast to—rather than as an extension of—Seleucid generosity.
By recognizing the independent authority of Philetaerus, this paper invites a return to the initial questions of how Philetaerus’ foreign benefactions could exist within the Seleucid realm. Or, to borrow the framing of Chrubasik, “If this place is Attalid but also Seleukid, what does this tell us about the relationship between the two powers?” (Chrubasik 2013, p. 13). Rather than assume that Attalid power must be a version of Seleucid power, this paper’s conclusion challenges our very conception of such power relations, and invites us to consider how interstate actors could wield different types of power and sources of authority without defaulting to a zero-sum understanding.