Место издания:Изд-во Гос. Эрмитажа Санкт-Петербург
Первая страница:116
Последняя страница:131
Аннотация:Notes about the Egyptian “Protocol” of the Argeadai Kings
Ivan A. Ladynin (Moscow)
The article presents an analysis of the Egyptian royal titles of Alexander the Great (reign in Egypt in 332-323 B.C.), Philip Arrhidaeus (formal reign in Egypt in 323-316 B.C.) and Alexander, son of Alexander the Great and Roxane (formal reign in Egypt in 316-304 B.C.). The Horus name of Alexander (mk-Kmt “The Defender of Egypt”; hoA-onw tkn-xAswt “Strong Ruler, Approaching Foreign Lands”, with variants hoA-onw “Strong Ruler” and onw “The Strong”) conveyed the “belligerent” motif of Egypt’s defense and at the same time of its expansion in the outside, quite expectedly for Alexander’s reign. The form mk-Kmt is attested only in the sanctuary of the bark of Amun-Re at Luxor, which was rebuilt under Alexander, perhaps, at the very start of his reign (see the date for the start of its rebuilding as Alexander’s “Year 1, 1 Axt I”: Jansen-Winkeln, ÄAT 45, 2001, 180); thus, this form of the Horus’ name was probably introduced at the advent of Alexander into Egypt and eventually, with his successes at Asia, modified into a more “expansionist” version, which was attested in Egypt wider. The first three names of Philip Arrhidaeus show no definite concept of his reign; and the existence of two versions for his nzw-bity name (mry-Ra stp.n-Imn in the bark of Amun-Re at Karnak and mry-kA-Ra stp.n-Imn in the monuments outside Thebes) finds no explanation relevant of their meaning and ideological background. The bleak protocol of Philip Arrhidaeus marks probably the transitional character of his reign, as a half-way from the incorporation of Egypt into the world-empire of the Argeadai to its actual independence under the Satrap Ptolemy; at the time when this process was afoot but still unaccomplished one would expect some inobservance for the royal protocol that must have led to the lack of its definite program and to its high variability. Symptomatically, the only full titulary of Philip Arrhidaeus comprising all five traditional royal names is attested at Hermopolis (Urk. II. 9. 7-12); it was perhaps compiled specifically to mark the completion of building works at this important cult centre. Just the other way round, the royal names of the son of Roxane (Horus’ name Hwnw wsr-pHty “Youth, Strong with his Might” or Hwnw “Youth”; the name of Two Ladies mry-nTrw rdi-n.f iAwt-n-it.f “Beloved by Gods, the One to whom the Rank of his Father is Given”) are quite uniform in his Egyptian monuments and reveal a definite concept of his equation to Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, probably intended to highlight not the sacral status of the ruler but rather the direct reign of the god himself presented on earth in king’s person (see the contemporary affinities in the Satrap Stela, Urk. II. 17.15-18.6, and the clepsydra of the State Hermitaga, St.Petersburg, No ДВ 2507а). For the nzw-bity names of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus the article accepts the reading proposed by H. De Meulenaere (CRIPEL 1991, 54-57); the epithet mry-Ra in these names might go back to the Horus’ name of Shoshenq I kA-nxt mry-Ra; and their subsidiary epithet stp.n-Imn (also attested in the nzw-bity name of the son of Roxane) might be inspired with the famous recognition of Alexander as the son of god and the legitimate king at Siwa Oasis in 331 B.C.
