a son of Alexander in 326

[Kit]

I'm with you Marcus.I find it difficult to believe that Plutarch, at least, would have failed to mention a child of Alexander's having died. That would be precisely the sort of personal detail that he would have made 'something' of, surely?ATBKit.

[beausefaless]

I completely agree... Though I feel I must infuse some fiction and exiting logical guess work within the sources.


There appears to be at least a few books (maybe a script) a year on ATG and I feel a lack of self esteem to try and compete with these fine authors. So I'm going to enter through the back door by means of Bucephalus, horses are just my game. I'm sure you all will experience a new and fresh surprise.

[ruthaki]

I don't have time to read all these posts just now cause I have to go to work. But...in my mounds of research, yes, there was mention of Roxana having had a miscarriage (it didn't say son or daughter) when they were in Taxila. When I get time to figure out where this source(s) came from I'll post it.

[marcus]

As far as I'm aware, Metz Epitome 70 is the only place where it's mentioned, Ruth. Don't trouble yourself to look it up, 'cos you won't find another reference.ATBMarcus

[abm]

Hi Kit,what do you think Plutarch would have made of it? His main aim in the Lives was to provide moral examples, and he might have thought this was quite trivial and not really suited for his purposes. Also, since he doesn't belong to the vulgate-branch of the tradition, it might simply not have been in his sources.regards,abm

[Kit]

Plutarch, in his own words, said; "it is my task to dwell upon those actions which illuminate the workings of the soul, and by this means to create a portrait of each man's life", "a chance remark or a joke may reveal far more of a man's character than the mere feat of winning battles".I feel sure that the death of a child, whether as an infant or due to miscarriage, would have interested Plutarch sufficiently to explore the potential psychological impact on Alexander's character. It would seem to me more likely that a personal incident such as this would have been recorded by Plutarch, rather than the 'vulgate'(After all, Plutarch did find worth in mentioning the 'Amazon Queen' story!).

The fact that it isn't and, indeed, only one vulgate source mentions it (and that a late one),makes me suspicious. As Plutarch did not always mention the sources he used we cannot know one way or the other whether he would have had access to a story of Alexander's 'dead son'. Although, of course, he would not have been aware of something that never happened either!regards,Kit.

[abm]

Hi Kit,I can't deny that this is mostly sound reasoning in itself, but first of all I don't agree that Plutarch would not have been aware of something that never happened, since he might have known a lot of stories about Alexander of which it was impossible to determine the degree of reality. But this doesn't really concern my argument. I do think, however, that it is impossible to assert what Plutarch should have mentioned or what was in his sources of those things he doesn't mention. My principle remains one source is one source (as Marcus put it) and we need better agruments than it's the only source and the others would have mentioned it if it were true.Unlike for contemporary events, that we have only one source doesn't mean that only one source exists. A lot of ancient sources on ALexander are lost and the Metz epitome is a case in point, as it is lost since World War II. It might well be that there are 10 papyri to be discovered in Egypt (or among the recently read Oxyrhynchus papyri) mentioning the child. Of course all of this is pure speculation and doesn't prove anything on Alexander's son, but does indicate, I think, that we should be careful with the only-source-argument when talking about antiquity.regards,abm

[Kit]

Alexander,I accept that the point you are making is valid, and indeed, I am open to the possibility that Alexander the Great had a child that died in infancy (or was miscarried). I do, however, have reservations about any story recorded in a single source; especially where we have no way (at present) of testing it's accuracy by some other means (archeological etc). The story is certainly worth mentioning, but that is about as far as we can go with it at present. I do live in hope that there may yet be undiscovered sources for ATG out there, somewhere, that would shed further light on this and many other stories surrounding Alexander!regards,Kit.

[marcus]

It would be ideal, of course, if the Oxyrrhynchus Papyri revealed some lost historian, closer to Al's time, which corroborated the story of the miscarried child ... perhaps it's too much to hope?ATBMarcus

[ruthaki]

Marcus, I've never read Mez Epitome 70 so it wasn't there I saw that info though perhaps the author was quoting from that source. I haven't had time to look for it. I've busy teaching classes and working on my novel. But I know I didn't imagine seeing this info as I am using reference to the 'miscarriage' in my novel.

[abm]

indeed, i can not say it's a certainty, but on the whole, i remain more "positive" in assessing a single source.well, we can always hope for a new discovery: after all, Alexander was very popular in Antiquity too. If you could chose, who would it be? I'm not sure myself. Iwould be inclined to say Ptolemy (because of my interest in the Successor age), but in the other hand, if really is biased, his work alone of the contemporary historians might give us a very distorted image of ALexander.regards,abm

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,I hope my previous post didn't seem ... I don't know - petulant? I was merely trying to save you time looking up your reference (which, therefore, would have got it from the Epitome).All the bestMarcus

[ancientlibrary]

I feel the issue can never be solved, but that I'd put a lot of weight into how miscariages, still-borns and the death of newborns were noticed by other historians and by the culture generally. Here we leave fields I can pretend to know: what I know about Greek attitudes to newborn death can be fit on the back of an index card. Er, Um, Daphnis and Chloe got exposed, right?Does anyone have a good social history background?

[amyntoros]

It's difficult to respond in depth, especially as this thread is about to disappear - and once, again, this isn't a question that can be answered quickly or easily.For Roman attitudes (after all, they were the writers of the histories) I understand that very young children were "sub-mourned", i.e., the mourning period was greatly reduced. And then there's a letter from Seneca - I didn't keep the reference, I'm afraid:"Well you have lost a little child, he was only two years old, he was basically not GÇô you didnGÇÖt know him, did you? He was only known by his nurses. ItGÇÖs a very short little span of time, actually a little point in time that has perished, not a person."As far as the Greeks were concerned, I've read that there was a law that dictated a newborn baby was not really a child until seven days after birth, so that an imperfect child could be disposed of with a clear conscience. However, I haven't found the source for this information yet.There have been some articles on responses to infant death in the ancient sources.J.-P. N+¬raudau, "La loi, la coutume et le chagrin - r+¬flexions sur la mort des enfants", in La mort 195-208; M. Golden, "Did the ancients care when their children died?", Greece and Rome 35 (Oct.1988): 152-163. Haven't yet been able to locate the Golden article, but reviews have said that he uses modern comparisons to conclude that they *did* care, despite the lack of evidence. Well, you know how I feel about modern comparisons! :-)Best regards,Amyntoros