1 The epithet Theos is mentioned by Appian, Syriake 65, and by Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 249-252. See footnote 2. Note he is called Nikator (“the Victor”) on commemorative tetradrachms struck by the Baktrian king Agathokles in the first half of the 2nd century BC (see, e.g., the Collection of the American Numismatic Society, coin No. 1966.150.2).

2 Appian, Syriake 65: After the death of Seleucus (Seleukos I), the kingdom of Syria passed in regular succession from father to son as follows: the first was the same Antiochus (Antiochos I) who fell in love with his stepmother (Stratonike I), to whom was given the surname of Soter, “the Savior”, for driving out the Gauls who had made an incursion into Asia from Europe. The second was another Antiochus (Antiochos II), born of this marriage, who received the surname of Theos, “the Divine”, from the Milesians in the first instance, because he slew their tyrant, Timarchus. This Theos was poisoned by his wife. He had two wives, Laodice and Berenice, the former a love-match, the latter a daughter pledged to him by Ptolemy Philadelphus (Ptolemy II). Laodice assassinated him and afterward Berenice and her child.

Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 249-252: When he (Antiochos I) died, he was succeeded by Antiochus called Theos (Antiochos II), in the fourth year of the 129th Olympiad (261 BC). After 19 years, Antiochus Theos fell ill, and died at Ephesus in the third year of the [133rd] Olympiad (246 BC), after living in all for 40 years.

Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 14, notes: Certainly Laodike later procured the killing of Berenike and her baby, but accusations of death by poison are too easy to make and were made too frequently to be all credible. That a man of forty, perhaps weakened by drink, should die in a seaport in Ionia (Ephesos) in summer is not such an unlikely event that poison needs to be invoked as the cause, even if he was king.

3 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 9: born c. 323 BC; Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Vol. 1, p. 111: born 324 BC

4 Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Vol. 1, p. 111

5 Appian, Syriake 59-61: Seleucus (Seleukos I), while still living, appointed his son, Antiochus (Antiochos I), king of upper Asia in place of himself. If this seems noble and kingly on his part, even nobler and wiser was his behavior in reference to his son’s falling in love, and his self-restraint in suffering; for Antiochus was in love with Stratonice (Stratonike I), the wife of Seleucus, his own stepmother, who had already borne a child to Seleucus.

Recognizing the wickedness of this passion, Antiochus did nothing wrong, nor did he show his feelings, but he fell sick, took to his bed, and longed for death. Nor could the celebrated physician, Erasistratus, who was serving Seleucus at a very high salary, form any diagnosis of his malady. At length, observing that his body was free from all the symptoms of disease, he conjectured that this was some condition of the mind, through which the body is often strengthened or weakened by sympathy.

Grief, anger, and other passions disclose themselves; love only is concealed by the modest. As Antiochus would confess nothing when the physician asked him in confidence, he took a seat by his side and watched the changes of his body to see how he was affected by each person who entered his room. He found that when others came the patient was all the time weakening and wasting away at a uniform pace, but when Stratonice came to visit him his mind was greatly agitated by the struggles of modesty and conscience, and he remained silent.

But his body in spite of himself became more vigorous and lively, and when she went away he became weaker again. So the physician told Seleucus that his son had an incurable disease. The king was overwhelmed with grief and cried aloud. Then the physician added, “His disease is love, love for a woman, but a hopeless love.”

Seleucus was astonished that there could be any woman whom he, king of Asia, could not prevail upon to marry such a son as his, by entreaties, by gold, by gifts, by the whole of this great kingdom, the eventual inheritance of the sick prince, which the father would give to him even now, if he wished it, in order to save him. Desiring to learn only one thing more, he asked, “Who is this woman?”

Erasistratus replied, “He is in love with my wife.”

“Well then, my good fellow,” rejoined Seleucus, “since you are so bound to us by friendship and favors, and are a model of goodness and wisdom in matters of small moment, will you not save this princely young man for me, the son of your friend and king, unfortunate in love but virtuous, who has concealed his sinful passion and prefers to die rather than confess it? Do you so despise Antiochus? Do you despise his father also?”

Then Erasistratus changed his tactics, and, as though he were giving him a knock-down argument, said, “You would not give Antiochus your wife if he were in love with her, although you are his father.”

Seleucus swore by all the gods of his royal house that he would willingly and cheerfully give her, and make himself an illustrious example of a kind and good father to a chaste son who controlled his passion and did not deserve such suffering. Much more he added of the same sort, and, finally, began to lament that he could not himself be the physician to his unhappy boy, but must needs depend on Erasistratus in this matter also.

When Erasistratus saw that the king was in earnest and not hypocritical, he told the whole truth. He related how he had discovered the nature of the malady, and how he had detected the secret passion. Seleucus was overjoyed, but it was a difficult matter to persuade his son and not less so to persuade his wife; but he succeeded finally.

Then he assembled his army, which was perhaps expecting something of the kind, and told them of his exploits and of the extent of his empire, showing that it surpassed that of any of the other successors of Alexander [the Great], and saying that as he was now growing old it was hard for him to govern it on account of its size. “I wish,” he said, “to divide it, and so at the same time to provide for your safety in the future and give a part of it now to those who are dearest to me. It is fitting that all of you, who had advanced to such greatness of dominion and power under me since the time of Alexander, should cooperate with me in everything. The dearest to me, and well worthy to reign, are my grownup son and my wife. As they are young, I pray they may soon have children to be an ample guarantee to you of the permanency of the dynasty. I will join them in marriage in your presence and will send them to be sovereigns of the upper provinces now. And I charge you that none of the customs of the Persians and other nations is more worthy of observance than this one law, which is common to all of them, ‘That what the king ordains is always right.’”

When he had thus spoken the army shouted that he was the greatest king of all the successors of Alexander and the best father. Seleucus laid the same injunctions on Stratonice and his son, then joined them in marriage, and sent them to their kingdom, showing himself even stronger in this famous act than in his deeds of arms.

Plutarch, Demetrius 38: To add to this unexpected good fortune, news arrived that Ptolemy (Ptolemy I) had dismissed his (Demetrios I Poliorketes’) mother and children, bestowing upon them presents and honours; and also that his daughter Stratonice (Stratonike I), whom he had married to Seleucus (Seleukos I), was remarried to Antiochus (Antiochos I), the son of Seleucus, and proclaimed Queen of Upper Asia.

For Antiochus, it appears, had fallen passionately in love with Stratonice, the young queen, who had already made Seleucus the father of a son. He struggled very hard with the beginning of this passion, and at last, resolving with himself that his desires were wholly unlawful, his malady past all cure, and his powers of reason too feeble to act, he determined on death, and thought to bring his life slowly to extinction by neglecting his person and refusing nourishment, under the pretence of being ill. Erasistratus, the physician who attended him, quickly perceived that love was his distemper, but the difficulty was to discover the object. He therefore waited continually in his chamber, and when any of the beauties of the court made their visit to the sick prince, he observed the emotions and alterations in the countenance of Antiochus, and watched for the changes which he knew to be indicative of the inward passions and inclinations of the soul. He took notice that the presence of other women produced no effect upon him; but when Stratonice came, as she often did, alone, or in company with Seleucus, to see him, he observed in him all Sappho’s famous symptoms,- his voice faltered, his face flushed up, his eyes glanced stealthily, a sudden sweat broke out on his skin, the beatings of his heart were irregular and violent, and, unable to support the excess of his passion, he would sink into a state of faintness, prostration, and pallor.

Erasistratus, reasoning upon these symptoms, and, upon the probabilities of things, considering that the king’s son would hardly, if the object of his passion had been any other, have persisted to death rather than reveal it, felt, however, the difficulty of making a discovery of this nature to Seleucus. But, trusting to the tenderness of Seleucus for the young man, he put on all the assurances he could, and at last, on some opportunity, spoke out and told him the malady was love, a love impossible to gratify or relieve. The king was extremely surprised, and asked, “Why impossible to relieve?” “The fact is,” replied Erasistratus, “he is in love with my wife.” “How!” said Seleusus, “and will our friend Erasistratus refuse to bestow his wife upon my son and only successor, when there is no other way to save his life?” “You,” replied Erasistratus, “who are his father, would not do so, if he were in love with Stratonice.” “Ah, my friend,” answered Seleucus, “would to heaven any means, human or divine, could but convert his present passion to that; it would be well for me to part not only with Stratonice, but with my empire, to save Antiochus.” This he said with the greatest passion, shedding tears as he spoke; upon which Erasistratus, taking him by the hand, replied, “In that case, you have no need of Erasistratus; for you, who are the husband, the father, and the king, are the proper physician for your own family.” Seleucus, accordingly, summoning a general assembly of his people, declared to them, that he had resolved to make Antiochus king, and Stratonice queen, of all the provinces of Upper Asia, uniting them in marriage; telling them, that he thought he had sufficient power over the prince’s will that he should find in him no repugnance to obey his commands; and for Stratonice, he hoped all his friends would endeavour to make her sensible, if she should manifest any reluctance to such a marriage, that she ought to esteem those things just and honourable which had been determined upon by the king as necessary to the general good. In this manner, we are told, was brought about the marriage of Antiochus and Stratonice.

6 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 67 - Stratonike (3) (he refers to Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries, -253)

7 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 10: execution or murder at Antiochos I’s order probably in 267 BC; Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Vol. 1, p. 113: deposed and executed on suspicion of sedition about 266 BC.

Trogus, Prologues to the Philliopic History, Prologus of Book 26: How in Syria King Antiochus, surnamed Soter (Antiochos I), died after killing one of his sons and naming the other one, Antiochus (Antiochos II), king.

8 See Bennett, Egyptian Royal Genealogy: Apama / Arsinoe and Magas of Cyrene

9 Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 249-250: Antiochus Soter (Antiochos I) had [three] children by Stratonice (Stratonike I) the daughter of Demetrius (Demetrios I Poliorketes); a son Antiochus (Antiochos II), and two daughters Stratonice and Apame, of whom the former was married to Demetrius the king of the Macedonians (Demetrios II), and the latter [to Magas?].

Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 28.1: When Olympias, daughter of Pyrrhus king of Epirus, had lost her husband Alexander (Alexander II), who was also her brother, she took upon herself the guardianship of her sons Pyrrhus and Ptolemy, whom she had by him, and the administration of the kingdom; and finding that the Aetolians wanted to take from her a part of Acarnania, which the father of the boys had received as a recompense for assisting them in war, she addressed herself to Demetrius king of Macedonia (Demetrios II), and gave him her daughter Phthia in marriage (though he was already united to a sister (Stratonike II) of Antiochus (Antiochos I) king of Syria), that she might secure by right of relationship the assistance which she could not obtain from his compassion. A marriage was accordingly solemnized, by which Demetrius gained the love of a new wife, and the hatred of his former one; who, as if divorced, went off to her brother Antiochus, and excited him to make war upon her husband.

Josephus, Against Apion, 1.206f: However, I shall not think it too much for me to name Agatharchides, as having made mention of us Jews, though in way of derision at our simplicity, as he supposes it to be; for when he was discoursing of the affairs of Stratonice (Stratonike II), “how she came out of Macedonia into Syria, and left her husband Demetrius (Demetrios II), while yet Seleueus (Seleukos II) would not marry her as she expected, but during the time of his raising an army at Babylon, stirred up a sedition about Antioch; and how, after that, the king came back, and upon his taking of Antioch, she fled to Seleucia, and had it in her power to sail away immediately yet did she comply with a dream which forbade her so to do, and so was caught and put to death.” When Agatharehides had premised this story, and had jested upon Stratonice for her superstition, he gives a like example of what was reported concerning us...

10 According to Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 251-252, Laodike was daughter of Achaios. According to Polyaenus, Strategemata, 8.50, Laodike was half-sister of Antiochos II Theos (since Antiochos II was son of Antiochos I and Stratonike I, Laodike was daughter of Antiochus I by an earlier wife). Thus Eusebius and Polyaenus contradict one another concerning the paternity of Queen Laodike. See Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 47 - Laodike (1), p. 127 - Achaios (5), and Passehl, Achaidai. Alternative Genealogy of the “Achaid” family, cousins of the Seleukids, pp. 1-2.

Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 251-252: He (Antiochos II) had two sons, Seleucus called Callinicus (Seleukos II) and Antigonus (perhaps a personal name of Antiochos Hierax before he assumed the diadem, but it is not sure; see footnote 14), and two daughters by Laodice (Laodike I) the daughter of Achaeus (Achaios), of whom one was married to Mithridates (Mithridates II) and the other to Ariathes (Ariarathes III).

Polyaenus, Strategemata, 8.50 (Smith’s and Shepherd’s translation): Antiochus, surnamed Theos (Antiochos II), married Laodice, his sister on the father’s side, and had by her a son Seleucus (Seleukos II).

Polyaenus, Strategemata, 8.50 (Passehl’s translation): Antiochos, who was called by the name Theos (Antiochos II), married his sister by the same father (= homopatrios adelphe), Laodike, from whom his son Seleukos (Seleukos II) was born to him. (Translated by Mark K. Passehl after the Teubner text of Eduard Woelfflin, revised by Johann Melber 1887. See Passehl, On the Lagid Invasion of Seleukid Asia, 246-5 BC, p. 1.)

11 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 47 - Laodike (1)

12 Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 27.1: On the death of Antiochus (Antiochos II), king of Syria, his son Seleucus (Seleukos II), succeeding in his stead, commenced his reign with murder in his own family, his mother Laodice (Laodike I), who ought to have restrained him, encouraging him to it. He put to death his step-mother Berenice (Berenike), the sister of Ptolemy (Ptolemy III), king of Egypt, together with his little brother, her son (Antiochos). By perpetrating this cruelty, he both incurred the stain of infamy, and involved himself in a war with Ptolemy. As for Berenice, when she heard that assassins were sent to despatch her, she shut herself up in Daphne; and it being reported throughout the cities of Asia, that she and her little son were besieged there, they all, commiserating her undeserved misfortunes from their recollection of the high character of her father and her ancestors, sent her assistance. Her brother Ptolemy, too, alarmed at the danger of his sister, left his kingdom, and hastened to her support with all his forces. But Berenice, before succour could arrive, was surprised by treachery, as she could not be taken by force, and killed. The deed was regarded by every one as an atrocity; and all the cities, in consequence, which had revolted (after having equipped a vast fleet), being suddenly alarmed at this instance of cruelty, and wishing to take revenge for her whom they had meant to defend, gave themselves up to Ptolemy, who, if he had not been recalled to Egypt by disturbances at home, would have made himself master of all Seleucus’s dominions. Such hatred did an unnatural crime bring upon Seleucus; or so much good feeling did the death of a sister, dishonourably killed, excite in behalf of Ptolemy!

Polyaenus, Strategemata, 8.50: He (Antiochos II) also afterwards married Berenice (Berenike), daughter of king Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy II), by whom he likewise had a son (Antiochos); but he died while this son was in his infancy, and left his kingdom to Seleucus (Seleukos II). Laodice (Laodike I) did not think her son (Seleukos II) was secure on the throne, while the son of Berenice was alive, and sought means to procure his death. Berenice invoked the pity and assistance of her husband’s subjects - but too late. The assassins however exhibited to the people a child very like him, whom they had murdered; they declared him to be the royal infant, whom they had spared, and a guard was appointed to protect his person. Berenice also had a guard of Gallic mercenaries, and a fortified citadel appointed for her residence; and the people swore allegiance to her. At the suggestion of Aristarchus her physician, she how considered herself perfectly secure, and hoped to reconcile to her all who had before been hostile to her pretensions. But their object, in the oath they had taken to her, was only to throw her off her guard; once this was achieved, she was secretly assassinated. Several of the women, who were about her, fell while attempting to save her. However Panariste, Mania, and Gethosyne buried the body of Berenice, and placed another woman in her stead, in the bed where she had been murdered. They pretended that she was still living, and likely to recover from the wound she had received. And they persuaded her subjects of this, until Ptolemaeus, the father of the deceased, arrived. He dispatched letters to the countries around in the names of his daughter and her son, as if they were still alive; and by this stratagem of Panariste he secured for himself the whole country from Taurus to India, without a single engagement.

13 All information about Berenike is taken from Bennett, Egyptian Royal Genealogy: Berenice Phernophorus.

14 Two passages in Eusebius’ Chronicle indicates that Antiochos Hierax’s personal name was Antigonos before he assumed the diadem:

Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 251-252: He (Antiochos II) had two sons, Seleucus called Callinicus (Seleukos II) and Antigonus, and two daughters by Laodice (Laodike I) the daughter of Achaeus (Achaios), of whom one was married to Mithridates (Mithridates II) and the other to Ariathes (Ariarathes III).

Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 253-254: Seleucus Callinicus (Seleukos II), the brother of Antigonus, died in the next year, and was succeeded by his son Alexander, who adopted the name Seleucus (Seleukos III), and was called Ceraunus by his army.

However, according to Passehl, Achaidai. Alternative Genealogy of the “Achaid” family, cousins of the Seleukids, a Babylonian cuneiform tablet (Astronomical Diary concerning the year 66 of the Seleukid Era, see footnote 19) shows that this is Eusebius’ error. Passehl writes: The Sachs/Hunger Astronomical Diary No.-245 records (Obv.12-13) the presence in Babylon of An.II Theos’ children Seleukos, Antiochos and Apama on 14 April 246 BC, some three months before the king’s death at Ephesos. This shows that An.Hierax was not born Antigonos and later renamed Antiochos. Therefore Eusebius’ “Antigonos” for Antiochos Hierax is not a case of accurately recording the birth-name of this prince before he assumed the diadem (as with Se.III’s birth name Alexandros), but an error.

The nickname Hierax is mentioned by Justin in Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 27.2: Rejoiced at his misfortune (of Ptolemy III), therefore, and enriched by his loss, he (Seleukos II) made war upon Ptolemy, as being now a match for him in strength; but as though he had been born only for a sport to fortune, and had received the power of a king only to lose it, he was. defeated in a battle, and fled in trepidation to Antioch, not much better attended than after his shipwreck. From this place he despatched a letter to his brother Antiochus, in which he implored his aid, and offered him that part of Asia within Mount Taurus, as a recompense for his services. But Antiochus, though he was but fourteen years old, yet, being greedy of dominion beyond his years, caught at the opportunity, not with the kindly feeling with which it was offered, but, like a robber, desiring to take the whole kingdom from his brother, assumed, boy as he was, a manly and unprincipled audacity. Hence he was called Hierax, because, in taking away the possessions of others, he conducted himself, not like a man, but like a bird of prey.

15 According to Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, 27.2 (see footnote 14 for the quotation), he was fourteen year old when he rebelled against his brother. Since he rebelled sometime between c. 244 BC and c. 242 BC (see footnote 16), the time interval c. 260 - c. 255 BC seems to be a reliable estimate.

16 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 35 - Antiochos (1): king in Asia Minor c. 244 - c. 229/8 BC, killed c. 227 BC; Green, Alexander to Actium, pp. 264-265: driven out of Asia Minor by 228 BC, killed 227 BC; Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Vol. 1, pp. 291-292: as viceroy in Asia Minor c. 245 (?) - c. 242 (?) BC, as king in Asia Minor c. 242 (?) - 228/7 BC, killed 227 BC.

17 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 31.19.6: Of his (of Ariarathes II) three sons Ariamnes (Ariamnes II), the eldest, inherited the kingdom; he arranged a marital alliance with Antiochus (Antiochos II) whose daughter Stratonicê (Stratonike) he married to his eldest son Ariarathes (Ariarathes III).

18 Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer, p. 48 - Laodike (4). See also Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 251-252 (the quotation is in footnotes 16 and 20).

19 A. J. Sachs & H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia II, pp. 66-72, No. -245.A = BM 132276 (1958-4-12, 10) + MNB 1874, obverse (a reading proposed by Van der Spek and Finkel):

See Finkel and Van der Spek, The Ptolemy III Chronicle: Related documents (a part of Babylonian Chronicles). Van der Spek notes: “The daughter in question was unquestionably a daughter of Antiochus (II) and Laodice. Laodice gave birth to three daughters, Stratonice III, Laodice and the mother of Antipater, whose name was hitherto unknown (Porphyrius, FGrH 260 F 32,6; Polybius of Megalopolis 5.79.12). So we now know the name.” However, according to Eusebius, Chronicle, pp. 251-252 (the quotation is in footnotes 16 and 20), Antiochos II had two daughters only.

20 According to Bennett, Egyptian Royal Genealogy: Berenice Phernophorus, he is named as Seleukid king in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 42.994, a letter from the Ptolemaic commander Tlepolemos to the people of Kildara (W. Blümel, Brief des ptolemaischen Ministers Tlepolemus an die Stadt Kildara in Karien, Epigraphica Anatolica 20, 1992).