Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???

[Aspasia]

Came across this on Wikipedia.

Ptolemy I Soter....Macedonian general....son of Arsinoe of Macedonia- either by her husband Lagus.....or by her lover Philip II of Macedon!!

Arsinoe, mother of Ptolemy I Soter.....was originally a concubine of Philip II, King of Macedon ...and it was said she was given to Lagus of Macedonia while she was pregnant with Ptolemy......Ptolemy was regarded by the Macedonians as the son of Philip. Which means Ptolemy was not only a successor of Alexander but could have been his half brother!!!??? A reference is given under -Arsinoe- on Wiki..

Does anyone know more about this and how credible is it??

[Paralus]

G'day Aspasia.

Philip II most likely had more children than he'd bother to count. I'm certain we do not have recorded all the political marriages - let alone all the dalliances - he indulged in what remains to us from the sources. I doubt very much though that Ptolemy (I) Soter was such.

The story comes from Pseudo-Callisthenes and so is immediately open to question. Nowhere in the other "main" sources do we have this familial relationship attested. It is generally viewed as Ptolemaic propaganda and little more. It goes so far as to claim that not only Olympias, but also Alexander recognised this as fact.

Given the treatment of other claimants or "half-claimants" to the throne by Alexander, Ptolemy's relationship with Alexander stands out as the exception to prove the rule? I think not.

Ptolemy, son of Lagus ; nary a Philip to be found.

[marcus]

The story comes from Pseudo-Callisthenes and so is immediately open to question. Nowhere in the other "main" sources do we have this familial relationship attested. It is generally viewed as Ptolemaic propaganda and little more. It goes so far as to claim that not only Olympias, but also Alexander recognised this as fact.

If I recall correctly, and being too lazy to check at the moment, the 'rumour' that Ptolemy was Philip's son is mentioned in Pausanias. Now, that is post the earliest versions of the Romance, but to me it sounds as if the PR agency had done more than just leaking it to the Ancient equivalent of the National Enquirer ...

If I check Pausanias, now, I'll probably be wrong, and then we can all ignore this post!

ATB

[Taphoi]

Pausanius 1.6.2, Curtius 9.8.22 and the Alexander Romance all say that Ptolemy was the illegitimate natural son of Philip II by Arsinoe and only the adoptive son of Lagos (see also Aelian in the Suda sv. Lagos). No ancient source says otherwise. It seems to be an entirely modern fiction that he was the natural son of Lagos (a good example of what can happen when modern sources quote one another and don't refer back to the ancient evidence, since I don't know of any ancient source material to support the view - but perhaps Paralus will share his evidence with us). It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.

[amyntoros]

Pausanius 1.6.2, Curtius 9.8.22 and the Alexander Romance all say that Ptolemy was the illegitimate natural son of Philip II by Arsinoe and only the adoptive son of Lagos (see also Aelian in the Suda sv. Lagos). No ancient source says otherwise. It seems to be an entirely modern fiction that he was the natural son of Lagos (a good example of what can happen when modern sources quote one another and don't refer back to the ancient evidence, since I don't know of any ancient source material to support the view - but perhaps Paralus will share his evidence with us). It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.

Surely this was just a rumor, if not put about by Ptolemy himself, then certainly one that he chose not to discourage? I know of no evidence that Ptolemy personally claimed to be the son of Philip. In fact, there's one source excerpt that shows he clearly had an opportunity to do so and did not take advantage of it.

Plutarch, Moralia 458 A-B "So also Ptolemy, when he was jeering at a pedant for his ignorance, asked him who was Peleus' father; and the pedant replied, 'I shall tell you if you will first tell me who was the father of Lagus.' This was a jest at the dubious birth of the king, and everyone was indignant at its improper and inopportune character; but Ptolemy said, 'If it is not the part of a king to take a jest, neither is it to make one.'"

Curtius 9.8.22 says only that "He was a blood-relation, and some believed him to be a son of Philip; at any rate it was known for certain that he was the offspring of one of that king's concubines. Pausanias 1.6.2 states that the "Macedonians consider Ptolemy to be the son of Philip, the son of Amyntas, though putatively the son of Lagus, asserting that his mother was with child when she was married to Lagus by Philip." Seems to me to be more feed for the rumor mill rather than a factual claim. In fact, Pausanias 1.6.8 questions it himself, in a manner of speaking: "If this Ptolemy really was the son of Philip, son of Amyntas, he must have inherited from his father his passion for women . . . "

I consider it more likely that the claim of Ptolemy being the son of Philip is based on ancient fiction, rather than modern fiction denying it. Personal opinion, of course.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

There is no dispute that Ptolemy did not claim to be Philip's son. He could not do so without impugning the honour of his beloved mother Arsinoe. For that reason also, it is most unlikely that he encouraged the rumour privately.

My point is that ALL the ancient commentators that discuss the matter of Ptolemy's birth suggest that he was a bastard and that it was believed that he was Philip's bastard. No ancient commentator argues that it was a fiction. They all imply that it was instead the general belief. Furthermore, the quotes show (especially your latest quote) that it was the general belief AT THE TIME. People from the Macedonian court would have known the truth within living memory. How could they not? Arsinoe would have had to confess who the father was.

Actually the Ptolemies did claim to be Heraclids just like Philip, but not I think Aeacids, like Alexander (which came from Olympias). A complicated connection between Arsinoe and the Macedonian royal family was created to explain the claim, but I think it had a more straightforward origin! I believe Ptolemy's son Keraunos did claim to be the legitimate king of Macedon by birth!

It is pure supposition that the relationship was fictional. It runs against the flow of all the ancient evidence and it makes it necessary to believe that all sorts of strange behaviour occurred. Conversely, if you accept that the rumour was probably true (and this type of rumour nearly always is true), then all the known events make perfect sense.

[Paralus]

Without regurgitating the above by Amyntoros, that the Macedonians considered such was the case in Pausanias' time does not make it so. And, I would agree that none of those quotes confirm a lineage to Philip II.

For someone sired by Philip, Ptolemy made remarkably - absolutely none to be precise - use of the fact until the story was put about after Alexander's death. In fact one might reasonably expect such a familial relationship to come to the fore at the time of his abduction of the royal corpse. Not to mention the invasion of Egypt launched by Perdiccas as "regent". An invasion that, had not the Nile intervened, would certainly have seen the Ptolemaic dynasty dead before it had begun. At such a time anything to curry favour amongst the Macedonian troops might be used.

It could be argued that such a thing was best (for obvious reasons) kept to oneself whilst the king was extant. That would not do either if this matter was known to both Olympias and Alexander.

If a reading of the actions of these marshalls indicates anything, it is that they were incapable of not acting vigorously in their own interest. This was definitely the case with this story. I find it difficult to countenance such a hard bitten bastard (pardon the pun) being so concerned for his mother's feelings - given both his dynastic troubles and the fact that this was "widely known", "supected", "considered" and believed by Olympias and Alexander.

If the story - that Ptolemy was a bastard - was widely believed, a father was easy to invent, especially after the death of those in a position to confirm or deny. Such things are easily constructed and maintained even today.

Arrian assiduosly refers to him as "son of Lagos", which would indicate he did not truck with the fiction or his sources - including Ptolemy - were either completely in the dark or mendacious over the matter.

It's a bit like the fiction over Alexander offering himself in place of Arrhidaeus to Pixodarus.

So many stories and which to believe?

[amyntoros]

Reading (and agreeing with) Paralus' post, I'm drawn back irrevocably to the discussion on Arrhidaeus. He was called the illegitimate son of a Thessalian whore, yet Philip supposedly attempted to arrange a dynastic marriage for him. Why try and hide one bastard by marrying off the mother, while officially recognizing the other one? Either one story is true and the other is false, or, more likely IMO, both are false.

It is pure supposition that the relationship was fictional. It runs against the flow of all the ancient evidence and it makes it necessary to believe that all sorts of strange behaviour occurred.

To me, the strange behavior would be Philip not openly acknowledging a bastard son. What would the rough and ready Macedonians have done - condemn Philip for siring the child? Hardly.

Best regards,

[Aspasia]

Paralus, I have to agree with you again!! Taking the status of Alexander into consideration, claiming to share the same blood as him would be absolute political gold (for want of a better word). The fact that it was not capitalised on, makes me weary of the claim. (Unless of course, Ptolemy and friends, couldn't claim to be related to Alexander, because that would put into dispute, the even better claim, that Alex was the son of "Zues/Ammon", not Philip). I think this is a classic case of the need for good old paternity testing all round!!!

Actually, if at the time Alex is being revered as a God, especially in Egypt, why muddy the waters bringing up mortal blood relation issues??? i mean, we all know Alex was the son of Zeus, just like Hercules, Perseus, Achilles etc (In fact i'm starting to see parallels between Philip and Zeus in the offspring area). Seriously, if Ptolemy did share a common ancestor with Alexander, i am sure he'd advertise the point to gain all sorts of advantages for himself. Unless the fact would have some serious negative implications or it wasn't that important or it wasn't true.

[Paralus]

Actually, if at the time Alex is being revered as a God, especially in Egypt, why muddy the waters bringing up mortal blood relation issues???

Quite a good point. The Egyptian exit taken by Alexander's corpse really has only one explanation: in the "funeral games" (thank you P Green) that ensued upon Alexander's death, propaganda was everything. That the remains of the ersrtwhile deity might remain in Egypt was, of course, no help to a marshall nearly bereft of Macedonian troops. When Perdiccas followed (with some 5,000 Macedonian troops including the Silver Shields), did Ptolemy proclaim any right to the throne by blood? Meleager had already forced the "bastard" Arrhidaeus upon him don't forget. I don't think so. Nor do I believe that omission anything to do with the sensibilities of his mother.

Ten or more (311/08) years later and we have adifferent situation. Ptolemy approaching the zenith of his ambitions (and power) and in need of some "justification": the Liber de Morte.

Propaganda plays a part in all. And, as you say Taphoi, "Keraunos did claim to be the legitimate king of Macedon by birth!". And good on him: he - as did those that followed - also claimed to be the legitimate (though quite Macedonian) Pharaoh as well.

In the end, they (the marshalls) all claimed - or would attempt to lay claim to - the Basileus Macedon.

[Taphoi]

My problem remains that you are re-writing history on the basis of no evidence and in doing so you are rejecting the thrust of all the ancient evidence. You are saying that your judgement of the way Philip, Alexander and Ptolemy would have behaved and your judgement of the reliability of the rumours is better than that of their subjects, who clearly believed that Ptolemy was Philip's illegitimate son. Do you think they were all naive and stupid back then? Isn't it presumptuous to think that Ptolemy managed to fool his subjects and countrymen on this point, but that he can't fool you? I have some other problems with believing you rather that the general opinion of the time. For example, you don't seem to appreciate the basic issues on bastards for the people of that period. Almost all important men had some bastard offspring. If they acknowledged them, then the bastards would become rivals to inherit their possessions and domains with their legitimate offspring. Terrible political instability and warfare would have resulted. Philip Arrhidaeus seems to have been formally acknowledged as Philip's son. It is an obvious explanation that he was mentally impaired and did not pose the risk to Alexander's succession that Ptolemy would have, so it was okay to acknowledge him.

[marcus]

Philip Arrhidaeus seems to have been formally acknowledged as Philip's son. It is an obvious explanation that he was mentally impaired and did not pose the risk to Alexander's succession that Ptolemy would have, so it was okay to acknowledge him.

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion ... yet ... but it's probably worth saying that surely Arrhidaeus is a different kettle of fish, anyway, because the ancient evidence doesn't all point to his being an illegitimate son?

This is interesting, though, and thank you for pointing out the fact that there is no ancient source that says Ptolemy *wasn't* Philip's son - a typical case of things being under one's nose for years and years, and one not noticing! Don't know which side of the fence I fall, at the moment, though - I could probably be inclined to argue both ways ...

ATB

[marcus]

OK, so now I'm getting involved, and I should be preparing a Year 7 lesson on the Crusades ... damn you, Pothosians!

Right, you say:

Pausanius 1.6.2, Curtius 9.8.22 and the Alexander Romance all say that Ptolemy was the illegitimate natural son of Philip II by Arsinoe and only the adoptive son of Lagos (see also Aelian in the Suda sv. Lagos). No ancient source says otherwise. .

But what about the sources that call him "Ptolemy the son of Lagus", such as Arrian, and others? I can see what you're saying, but to be honest I do think it's a bit disingenuous to say that "no ancient source says otherwise" when there are ancient sources that refer to him as the son of Lagus without any mention of Philip - because, actually, they are therefore saying otherwise. Now, of course you might well be correct that no source says "by the way, he *wasn't* Philip's son, whatever others might say" ... but it's a bit much to assert that, therefore, those who say he *was* were right. I certainly concede, following your point, that it is more likely than I originally thought; but you ain't convincing me yet.

ATB

[Taphoi]

There is no dispute that Ptolemy was the adoptive son of Lagos. He had no other acknowledged father, so Arrian and others are perfectly correct to call him Ptolemy the son of Lagos. This is not relevant to the issue of Ptolemy's natural parentage.

For another example, Demetrios Poliorketes was called the son of Antigonos, but it is generally acknowledged that he was actually Antigonus' adoptive son and only his nephew by birth (see Plutarch's Life of Demetrios etc).

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I have some other problems with believing you rather that the general opinion of the time. For example, you don't seem to appreciate the basic issues on bastards for the people of that period. Almost all important men had some bastard offspring. If they acknowledged them, then the bastards would become rivals to inherit their possessions and domains with their legitimate offspring. Terrible political instability and warfare would have resulted. Philip Arrhidaeus seems to have been formally acknowledged as Philip's son. It is an obvious explanation that he was mentally impaired and did not pose the risk to Alexander's succession that Ptolemy would have, so it was okay to acknowledge him.

Plutarch, Life of Alexander 77: "This Arrhidaeus was a son of Philip's by an obscure and humbly born woman named Philinna, and was backward as the result of some disease. This was neither hereditary nor was it produced by natural causes. On the contrary, it is said that as a boy he had shown an attractive disposition and displayed much promise, but Olympias was believed to have given him drugs which impaired the functions of his body and irreparably injured him.

Given the above, the obvious explanation does not work. It necessitates accepting that while Arrhidaeus was a healthy boy who displayed much promise, he was NOT formally acknowledged as Philip's son - Philip not wanting to risk terrible political instability and warfare. Then when he suddenly evidenced problems with his mental faculties, Philip decided to acknowledge him. Why? If he was never to stand in line for the throne then what was the point? Kindheartedness on Philip's part?

And if not formally acknowledged, why was it rumored that Olympias poisoned him? If there's no threat, there's no necessity. I won't make more comparisons with this situation and Ptolemy being another supposed illegitimate son because I'd just be repeating myself . . .

Best regards,