Olympias and Eurydice

[robbie]

Thanks Marcus

Couple of more questions, if you don't mind...


1. what does Lane Fox mean, with regard to the Caranus torture story, when he says: "Justin ,epitome of Trogus may ultimately be using the gossiping and scandalous contemporary tHEOPOMPUS- we do not know this_ for the Caranus death story"[/b]

2. What does Fox mean when says, with regard to the burning story: "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby..." Was this source Justin as well?

3. But who was Pausanias whom you referenced as a source? Is he a late source?

4. OK, but were there flames raging on the oven as well, where the victim would have been dragged?

5. Is justin considered a LATE Alexander source?

6 . Was Europa a baby/infant?

[marcus]

Thanks Marcus

Couple of more questions, if you don't mind...


1. what does Lane Fox mean, with regard to the Caranus torture story, when he says: "Justin ,epitome of Trogus may ultimately be using the gossiping and scandalous contemporary tHEOPOMPUS- we do not know this_ for the Caranus death story"[/b]

2. What does Fox mean when says, with regard to the burning story: "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby..." Was this source Justin as well?

3. But who was Pausanias whom you referenced as a source? Is he a late source?

4. OK, but were there flames raging on the oven as well, where the victim would have been dragged?

5. Is justin considered a LATE Alexander source?

6 . Was Europa a baby/infant?

This will have to be very quick, Robbie, because I'm about to go away for a couple of days. I might be able to log on while I'm away, but can't guarantee it ... and won't have all my reference materials to hand, anyway.

1. This is all to do with the sources that the later writers used for their material. Remember that Justin was epitomising Trogus, so his account is already second-hand. But Trogus was writing much later, as well, and there is a suggestion that he used Theopompus as one of his sources. Theopompus was a contemporary of Philip and Alexander, but his writing is notorious for being full of gossip and scandal - a bit like the gossip magazines of today. Theopompus is very likely to have created lurid details in order to excite his readers.

2. I imagine (without checking) that Lane Fox means Justin. Justin was for a long time considered to be a very unreliable source, although he has undergone something of a rehabilitation in recent years.

3. Pausanias wrote a "Guide to Greece" in the 2nd century AD. His work describes all the places in Greece, and he recounts stories associated with those places.

4. I really don't know, but I don't think so. Maybe Agesilaos is better for answering this one!

5. Yes - Justing was writing in 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. But despite being "late" he is still one of the main sources.

6. Very likely an infant, but definitely a baby - considering Philip married Cleopatra some time in 337BC, Cleopatra most likely gave birth in 336BC, although how early or late we don't know. So she might have given birth only shortly before Philip's murder, making Europa an infant; or earlier in the year, making her a baby. We simply do not know in this case; but Europa was definitely still a very small child when she died.

[robbie]

OK, thanks Marcus

Just one quickie...

1. Does Justin mention anything about them being burned?



Btw, just read a passage from "Olympias:Mother of Alexander the Great", where it says that Pausanias claims that Olympias killed Cleopatra and her infant son by dragging them over a burning brazier; thus, I gather it being the source Lane Fox is talking about, since he stated, "and it only concerns the baby", (when asked if the two children were burned) and Pausanias in fact mentions only one child(infant son).The book goes on to say that Pausanias version is the least credible due to his generally poor reputation for accuracy and his hostility towards the macedonian royal house. So I guess Lane Fox was talking about Pausanias.

[marcus]

1. Does Justin mention anything about them being burned?

I'm practising my laconic replies.

"No."

[robbie]

Thank you, Marcus

In my former question, I asked:

"2. What does Fox mean when says, with regard to the burning story: "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby..." Was this source Justin as well?"

And you answered (without checking) that he probably meant Justin. As I wrote earlier:

"Btw, just read a passage from "Olympias:Mother of Alexander the Great", where it says that Pausanias claims that Olympias killed Cleopatra and her infant son by dragging them over a burning brazier; thus, I gather it being the source Lane Fox is talking about, since he stated, "and it only concerns the baby", (when asked if the two children were burned) and Pausanias in fact mentions only one child(infant son).The book goes on to say that Pausanias version is the least credible due to his generally poor reputation for accuracy and his hostility towards the macedonian royal house. So I guess Lane Fox was talking about Pausanias."

Lane Fox must've meant Pausanias, because he can't very well respond to a question pertaining to the "burning", and derive the answer from a source (Justin) that doesn't mention anything about it. And he (Lane Fox) did respond specifically with regard to the "burning alive" question, "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby" And since Justin mentions nothing about the "burning" it stands to reason that Lane Fox was referring to Pausanias - who btw is a LATE source.


PS: Visiting your profile, I noticed your occupation was listed as a History teacher. Wow! I'm honored to be dialoguing with you

[agesilaos]

No, Justin mentions the forced hanging, which is how Eurydike/Adea met her end.

The Greek just says 'skeuos' which is a vessel, I imagine an upturned cauldron or the like, nor does the Greek mention burning the word is 'diaphtheirein' which is 'to destroy utterly', obviously burning was involved as the 'vessel was filled with fire' but the word used is is not about burning, that was incidental to the destruction which is dependant on the dragging. So, no flames just a hot metal surface.

Theopompos was no 'gossip-monger' he criticised the morals of Philip's court but as usual not enough of his work survives to form an opinion, Polybios (Bk VIII, 11) has left a hatchet job but one has to take his judgement with a pinch of salt, he has to quote the introductory passage from the forty-ninth book, was there nothing scurrilous before that? There is a fair chance that Theopompos lies behind Diodoros XVI and there is not too much trash therein.

I merely meant by 'missing the point' that you two had mistaken in thinking Pausanias meant 'burning' or 'boiling' the method is much worse.

I do think the reason was personal, Olympias had been humiliated and lost her place at Court, if Kleopatra was as tactful as her uncle Attalos there would have been even more cause for rancour. Cruelty is a marker for the punishment being personal; Adea provides a perfect example of Olympias acting on political motives, although even there the confinement prior to execution speaks of redressing a humiliation. This does not mean we should simply accept the story, of course, but it makes the grounds for rejecting it weaker.

Lane-Fox makes plenty of dodgy calls, he believes in a double battle at Granicus for instance.

Alexias, if Karanos did exist he would have to be the son of Nikesipolis, I posted this is a thread called 'Karanos Philippou'; pretensious, moi?

All our literary sources are Late
Diodoros late 1st C BC
Curtius early/mid !st C AD
Arrian and Plutarch early 2nd C AD
and Justin Late 2nd to 3rd C AD
The Itinerary and the Metz Epitome 4th C AD

[Alexias]

Thank you, Marcus. Thank you, agesilaos.

The Justin bits on Caranus are:

Book XI

His first care was about his father’s funeral, when he caused all who had been privy to his murder to be put to death at his burial-place. The only one that he spared was Alexander Lyncestes his brother, preserving in him the man who had first acknowledged his royal authority, for he had been the first to salute him king. His brother Caranus, a rival for the throne, as being the son of his step-mother, he ordered to be slain.

This doesn't associate Caranus with Eurydike/Cleopatra, and you are right it does imply a teenager who would be a viable alternative king, rather than an infant. (But Alexander Lyncestis a brother? Or comrade?)

Book IX

It is even believed that he was instigated to the act by Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and that Alexander himself was not ignorant that his father was to be killed; as Olympias had felt no less resentment at her divorce, and the preferment of Cleopatra to herself, than Pausanias had felt at the insults which he had received. As for Alexander, it is said that he feared his brother by his step-mother as a rival for the throne; and hence it happened that he had previously quarrelled at a banquet, first with Attalus, and afterwards with his father himself, insomuch that Philip pursued him even with his drawn sword, and was hardly prevented from killing him by the entreaties of his friends.

It is easy to see from this passage why Caranus would be associated with Cleopatra, although the text itself doesn't seem to make that association, just acknowledges the existence of a half-brother at Philip's death.

[marcus]

It is even believed that he was instigated to the act by Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and that Alexander himself was not ignorant that his father was to be killed; as Olympias had felt no less resentment at her divorce, and the preferment of Cleopatra to herself, than Pausanias had felt at the insults which he had received. As for Alexander, it is said that he feared his brother by his step-mother as a rival for the throne; and hence it happened that he had previously quarrelled at a banquet, first with Attalus, and afterwards with his father himself, insomuch that Philip pursued him even with his drawn sword, and was hardly prevented from killing him by the entreaties of his friends.

It is easy to see from this passage why Caranus would be associated with Cleopatra, although the text itself doesn't seem to make that association, just acknowledges the existence of a half-brother at Philip's death.

Hi Alexias,

As the passage is all about Philip's death and Olympias' resentment towards Cleopatra, and as it mentions Attalus' insult at the wedding feast, the text is very clear that the "brother" being talked about is Caranus, as the son of Cleopatra. Not just very clear - I would say that the text makes the association absolutely clear. In fact, if it didn't mean Caranus and Cleopatra, then it is a very poorly constructed piece of writing!

[robbie]

Hey Marcus!

Good to have you back!

Did you catch my last post?


Best
Robbie

[Paralus]

As the passage is all about Philip's death and Olympias' resentment towards Cleopatra, and as it mentions Attalus' insult at the wedding feast, the text is very clear that the "brother" being talked about is Caranus, as the son of Cleopatra. Not just very clear - I would say that the text makes the association absolutely clear. In fact, if it didn't mean Caranus and Cleopatra, then it is a very poorly constructed piece of writing!

I disagree. And, as it's past my bed-time, I'll go into some detail at a more comfortable time. Suffice to say that Alexander, out of fear of "his brother by his step-mother as a rival for the throne", could hardly therefore be moved to argue at a banquet "first with Attalus, and afterwards with his father" over a supposed brother yet to be born (or conceived for that matter).

[marcus]

As the passage is all about Philip's death and Olympias' resentment towards Cleopatra, and as it mentions Attalus' insult at the wedding feast, the text is very clear that the "brother" being talked about is Caranus, as the son of Cleopatra. Not just very clear - I would say that the text makes the association absolutely clear. In fact, if it didn't mean Caranus and Cleopatra, then it is a very poorly constructed piece of writing!

I disagree. And, as it's past my bed-time, I'll go into some detail at a more comfortable time. Suffice to say that Alexander, out of fear of "his brother by his step-mother as a rival for the throne", could hardly therefore be moved to argue at a banquet "first with Attalus, and afterwards with his father" over a supposed brother yet to be born (or conceived for that matter).

I'm not in the best position for typing and thinking hard about these things at the moment either (for various reasons), but it does say "he had previously quarrelled with Attalus" (my italics), and the context, I would say, makes it very clear that this is to do with the 'step-mother', therefore identifying the step-mother as Cleopatra.

ATB

[robbie]

Hi Marcus


I just wondered if you read what I'd written earlier... I'll repeat it to save you the trouble of scrolling :


In my former question, I asked:

"2. What does Fox mean when says, with regard to the burning story: "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby..." Was this source Justin as well?"

And you answered (without checking) that he probably meant Justin. As I wrote earlier:

"Btw, just read a passage from "Olympias:Mother of Alexander the Great", where it says that Pausanias claims that Olympias killed Cleopatra and her infant son by dragging them over a burning brazier; thus, I gather it being the source Lane Fox is talking about, since he stated, "and it only concerns the baby", (when asked if the two children were burned) and Pausanias in fact mentions only one child(infant son).The book goes on to say that Pausanias version is the least credible due to his generally poor reputation for accuracy and his hostility towards the macedonian royal house. So I guess Lane Fox was talking about Pausanias."

Lane Fox must've meant Pausanias, because he can't very well respond to a question pertaining to the "burning", and derive the answer from a source (Justin) that doesn't mention anything about it. And he (Lane Fox) did respond specifically with regard to the "burning alive" question, "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby" And since Justin mentions nothing about the "burning" it stands to reason that Lane Fox was referring to Pausanias - who btw is a LATE source.


Best wishes
Robert

[Alexias]

Justin is talking about reasons why Alexander was complicit in his father’s murder. What he probably intended to say was that Alexander feared any future brothers by his new step-mother Cleopatra but, because Justin is aware of the existence of Caranus at the time of Philip’s death, he has muddled his tenses. He has ended up saying that Alexander feared his brother as a rival and this caused him to quarrel with Attalus and his father, implying that his brother was already alive at the time of the wedding quarrel.

It is subtle, I grant, but it is possible that Justin has confused an existing brother whom Alexander feared as a rival with any future brothers that might arrive from Cleopatra’s marriage, whom Alexander may have feared would push him further from Philip’s, and perhaps more importantly, the army’s favour because the child would be half-Macedonian (which was more than he was).

It is very possible that Alexander was ruthless enough to execute a baby, despite his (later) vaunted nobility, even though the child might have been his only viable heir. But this means accepting the existence of two babies born to Cleopatra. Yet if Caranus were of military age, if not older than Alexander, by another of Philip’s wives, and if he were known to the army as a potential leader, as Amyntas was, and his loyalty was suspect, the army would consider Alexander’s elimination of him as justified.

[marcus]

Lane Fox must've meant Pausanias, because he can't very well respond to a question pertaining to the "burning", and derive the answer from a source (Justin) that doesn't mention anything about it. And he (Lane Fox) did respond specifically with regard to the "burning alive" question, "allegations only in the least reliable of late Alexander sources and only concerns the baby" And since Justin mentions nothing about the "burning" it stands to reason that Lane Fox was referring to Pausanias - who btw is a LATE source.

Yes, I agree. In this instance I assume that when Lane Fox talks about "late source" he is referring to Pausanias. But, as Agesilaos (I think it was) ealier showed, all the extant sources are, actually, 'late', and Pausanias is not, in fact, much later than one or two of the others. Justin is at least epitomising an earlier source himself.

ATB

[marcus]

He has ended up saying that Alexander feared his brother as a rival and this caused him to quarrel with Attalus and his father, implying that his brother was already alive at the time of the wedding quarrel.

But he hasn't. The quote clearly says that Alexander had previously quarrelled with Attalus and Philip, and does not suggest that Caranus was already born when the argument took place.

I'm not typing on a very good screen for this sort of thing, so I will have to leave this here. I'm away from home, don't have my books, and am typing on a tiny netbook. Aaarrgghh!

Will have to respond properly when I'm at home, by which time this might have moved on.

ATB