amyntoros wrote:To throw a spanner in the works (sort of) Pierre Briant in his
From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire says it is possible that a new king did NOT take on the previous king's concubines, and that a new harem was created for him. Sorry but I can't give page reference and actual text because I only had the book on interlibrary loan for a couple of weeks, but it is one line and it is given in the context of information about the "acquisition" of young women by the Persian court.
The Great King’s 360 Concubines.
[p.280] A real problem arises with the usual interpretation of certain Classical and Hellenistic texts on the number of royal concubines. Plutarch (
Art. 27.1) Diodorus (XVII.77.5), Qintus Curtius (III.3.24; VI.6.
, and Dicaearchus (Athenaeus XIII.557b) mention the existence of 360 concubines for Artaxerxes II and Darius III.
The figure 360 is found several times in Herodotus’ account about the paying of tribute; the third and twelfth nomes pay 360 talents of silver (III.90-92); the twentieth (India) annually sends 360 talents of gold powder (III.94). The figure even appears twice regarding the Cilician nome: out of the total of 500 talents of silver demanded, 140 went to maintain the cavalry permanently stationed in their country, the other 360 being sent to the royal court. Additionally, the country had to supply 360 white horses; Herodotus adds the following detail: “one for each day in the year, “ an expression also found in Diodorus regarding the royal concubines. The comparison of the texts leaves no doubt [p.281] about the existence of an ideal model, but was it Greek or Persian? Or, more precisely, was there any particular preference for the number 360 in Achaemenid thought? If not, we would have to toss out not only the number of concubines of the Great King but also Herodotus’ figures concerning Achaemenid tribute. We would also have to reject Herodotus’ story of the punishment that Cyrus inflicted on the Gyndes River, in which a white horse, which had been dedicated to the Sun, drowned: he divided it into 360 tiny streams and thus crossed it easily (I.189-90). We would also have to question the presence of 365 young men in Darius’ procession, “equal in number to the days of a whole year” (Quintus Curtius III.3.10), as well as the variety (360) of uses the Persians had for the palm tree (Strabo XVI.1.14).
Obviously, this is a symbolic number that is found also in Greek tradition. But it also seems clear that in Persian tradition reference was being made to a solar calendar of 360 days plus 5 epagomenal days that coexisted with the official administrative calendar of the Babylonian lunar type. Some of the texts that include the number 360 (or 365) are situated directly or indirectly in a context of sun worship, especially the horses sacrificed annually during the Mithrakana. It thus becomes apparent that the quantity of 360 concubines attributed to the Great King goes straight back to information from the Achaemenid court (cf.
nomos persikos in Diodorus). By settling on the number 360 concubines, they once again gave the Great King the image of a man above men because of a perfect proportionality between his own rhythm and cultic time. Thus, more than anything, it was a number pertaining to the sacred character of Achaemenid kingship.
The privileged status of these 360 women is well illustrated by the ancient authors. Custom has it, Diodorus says, that during the relocations of the court the king was accompanied by women of the Royal House and also by those of the Kinsmen and Friends. (XVII.35.3). In Darius III’s procession, Quintus Curtius mentions only the king’s mother and wife, accompanied by a crowd of mounted women: following were the king’s children and their governesses, as well as a crowd of eunuchs. “Next rode the 365 concubines of the king, regally dressed and adorned” (III.3.24). We also know from Heraclides that the concubines accompanied the Great King on hunts (Athenaeus XII.514c). This reproduces the custom described by Quintus Curtius (VIII.1.28) for the court of the Mauryan king (Strabo states that the concubines participated in hunts; XV.1.55). The 360 royal concubines constituted an integral part of the king’s suite, though definitely at a rank inferior to the blood-related princesses. There can hardly be any doubt, therefore, that out of all whom the ancient authors called “concubines”, the 360 royal concubines constituted a group with greater status than the immense horde of palace
pallakai.
We may presume, though without absolute proof, that at the king’s death, 360 new concubines were recruited. What became of the earlier group? We know that to humiliate his son Darius, Artaxerxes II banished Aspasia: “he consecrated her priestess of Diana of Ecbatana, whom they name Anaitis, that she might spend the remainder of her days in strict chastity” (Plutarch,
Art. 27.4). But it would be too hazardous to take this episode as a specific illustration of a general practice.
Furthermore, we do not know the criteria by which the concubines were selected. They are always characterized by uncommon beauty. This is already mentioned by the composer of the book of Esther, who adds that they were virgins. Diodorus says explicitly that they were beautiful: They were “outstanding in beauty as selected from all the women in Asia” (XVII.77.6). “Selected for their beauty,” comments Plutarch in turn [p282] (
Art. 27.2). But this is hardly a distinguishing feature. Timosa and Aspasia are described in the same terms, and so is Amytis, Xerxes’ sister and Megabyzus’s wife: “Anoutis was the most beautiful of all the women in Asia” (Athenaeus XIII.609a). And we recall Alexander’s wondering appreciation of the Iranian women: “jestingly…terrible eyesores” (Plutarch. Alex.21.10)
It is difficult to answer the question of selection criteria because the royal concubines are usually mentioned collectively. We know the names of only three of Artaxerxes I’s concubines, the ones who bore him children. Smerdis had a concubine who was referred to as a Babylonian (Ctesias 14); similarly, Ctesias refers to Artaxerxes I’s concubines as Babylonian, despite the fact that one of them had a good Iranian name, Alogune, which means ‘rose-colored’. If they really were among the 360 royal concubines (which is not certain), we may presume, with Diodorus and the composer of Esther, that they were recruited from the subject peoples and princes of the Empire. It seems unlikely, however, that any of them came from the great Persian aristocratic families, considering the indignant reaction of Spithridates, who broke with Pharnabazus on the grounds that he “intended to take his, Spithridates’, daughter as a concubine” (Xenephon,
Ages. 3.3).
,
Pierre Briant.
From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Eisenbrauns. Indiana. 2002. pp. 280-282
I don't know why thoe 'cool faces' appear in the post - couldn't get rid of them. No matter
