5 EUNUCHS, RENEGADES AND CONCUBINES: THE ‘PARADOX OF POWER’ AND THE PROMOTION OF FAVOURITES IN THE HELLENISTIC EMPIRES Rolf Strootman 1. The Hellenistic philos: useful but difficult to control An anecdote of Antigonos Gonatas related by Plutarch (Mor. 183d) has becomeaclassictextforthemodernparadigmthatHellenistickingswere absolute rulers who selected their Friends at will: When a young man, the son of a brave father, but not himself having any reputationforbeingagoodsoldier,suggestedthatitwouldberightforhim tobegiventhesamegiftshisfatherhadreceived,Antigonossaid:‘Myboy, I give rewards for the excellence of a man, not for the excellence of his father’. Thisanecdoteexpressesanideal.Butindoingsoitexposeswhatprobably was the reality: the reality of philoi claiming hereditary rights to status at court. Bothliterarysourcesandepigraphicaldocumentsconveytheimpression that rulers freely selected philoi for their loyalty and personal merit. This ideal had been pithily expressed by Aristotle, who wrote that ‘monarchs make many hands and ears and feet their own, for they appoint persons who are friends of their rule and of themselves as their fellow-rulers’ (Pol.1287b).Althoughthis could betrue,rulersweremainlyinapositionto do so when successful in war, acquiring land and wealth and prestige to distribute among their followers and to pay their armies (like Alexander, Antigonos, Seleukos). Successful warfare could thus bring about the sudden rise of rulers of relatively humble background such as Pyrrhos. 1 But when expansion came to a halt, the conqueror, and especially his successor, would find himself faced with an established elite, confronted with unruly vassals, and in dire need of sources of income. Philip and Alexander had endeavoured to create a court in which not ancestry but the favour of the king determined who would rise to 121 93695_Hellenistic_Court:Layout 1 1/6/17 09:52 Page 121