Olympias and Eurydice

[robbie]

Thank you Marcus

Btw, hope you're having a great time wherever you are




1. But, all in all, is Pausanias a LATE source?



All the best
Robbie

[agesilaos]

He is as late as Arrian and Plutarch but not as late as Justin or Metz; but the real questions are how good was his source and how accurately did he transmit it?

We know he used Hieronymos for instance and used him critically even comparing his account of Lysimachos with at least one other source, he is not a senseless compiler then but where he does not give his source it is generally pure speculation whom he is using and putting a name to it is often, as much about the source critic's bias as any clues in the text, I am not immune to it myself.

[robbie]

OK, thanks Agesilaos...


1. But what other LATE sources wrote about the "burning/execution story"?(Another source-don't know which one-says that one of them,with regard to the execution-burning story, was pushed face down into a charcoal brazier, or something to that effect. Read it on the web)



2. But generally Pausanias along with Arrian could be labeled as late sources?

[agesilaos]

No other source mentions the burning at all as far as I know, sounds like an expanded paraphrase of Pausanias. Pausanias is not really counted as a source per say although his work does contain snippets like this, he stands in a similar place as Strabo; neither are narrative sources but their works contain useful asides. All are late and we can only guess at their sources unless they name them.

[Paralus]

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.

Best get yourself somewhere conducive to typing and posting. Another long day and I'm to bed... but... it is half written and, in a famous Calafornicated drawl: "I'll be back."

[marcus]

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.

Best get yourself somewhere conducive to typing and posting. Another long day and I'm to bed... but... it is half written and, in a famous Calafornicated drawl: "I'll be back."

That sounds like fightin' talk!

[robbie]

- OK, agesilaos, so as far as you know no other source mentions the burning story except pausanias.




- and one of the earliest sources could be said to be Diodorus...?

[agesilaos]

Of the narrative sources Diodoros is the earliest, though still three centuries after the event; when you consider the sources then those parts of Plutarch based on Chares are perhaps the earliest, though it is difficult to decide between him or Niarchos or Onasekritos, these three seem to belong to the decade after Alexander's death; Arrian's main sources, Aristoboulos and Ptolemy belong to the early third century as, in all probvability does the main Vulgate source, Kleitarchos, although a papyrus fragment seems to place him much late, at the end of the Third Century. Justin's source, Trogus was a contemporary of Diodoros but drew on earlier material and Curtius besides Kleitarchos used Ptolemy and a more recent author, Timagenes. This is not an exhaustive list but gives the broad outline.

[Paralus]

He is as late as Arrian and Plutarch but not as late as Justin or Metz; but the real questions are how good was his source and how accurately did he transmit it?

You've read Unz (JHS Vol. 105 (1985), pp. 171-174) and, so, the following will be nothing new.

Marcus : Justin cannot be referring to Cleopatra's child in the disputed passage unless, as Heckel observes (Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Books 11-12, p 82),Trogus inadvertently thought that Caranus was Cleopatra’s son. The fact is that Justin nowhere states that Cleopatra bore a son; he does state, unequivocally, that the child was female (9.7.12 when killed by Olympias) as do all other sources other than Pausanias. The latter stands in contrast and the language used is weak - the word "son" (υιός) is never used (see Unz, p172, n. 16). One needs to suppose - if Pausanias is taken as translated - that Cleopatra bore Philip two children. Most unlikely given the time frame involved. Also, Justin refers to a brother (or brothers) more than once. Not mentioned above is 9.8.2-4:

[Philip] had, by a dancing girl of Larissa, a son named Aridaeus, who reigned after Alexander. He had also many others by several wives, as is not unusual with princes, some of whom died a natural death, and others by the sword.

Now there is no real reason for any troupe of sisters to be killed by the sword (unless he refers to Cynane and Cleopatra daughter of Olympias). As well, as he leaves for Persia Alexander removed those who could constitute a threat and, in doing so, Justin (11.5.2) noting that “nor did he spare any of his own family who appeared likely candidates for the throne”. Only males can be thought of as candidates for the throne – Arrhidaeus excepted. After Alexander murders Cleitus he moved to think upon others he has murdered: Parmenio and Philotas, his cousin Amyntas, his murdered stepmother and brothers, with Attalus, Eurylochus, Pausanias, and other slaughtered nobles of Macedonia”. One notice might be questionable; several - distinct and yet related - cannot be the invention of a fertile imagination. If it be error it is a strangely recurrent error; if it be invention then Justin is exceedingly consistent. No matter his reliability or lack thereof, Justin surely found these scattered notices in his source. But this is an argument better presented by Unz (above).

Inventive arguments that Cleopatra bore two children (or was pregnant prior to marriage) aside, the case against Justin almost always comes back to testis unis; testis nullus. That is, he alone as a source records it whereas all other sources do not. This silence is then used to dismiss Justin. Agesilaos has discussed the “late” nature of the sources. What goes terribly unnoticed is their extremely patchy and capricious nature. In the period of the Diadochoi, for example, an entire war between Antigonus Monophthalmos and Seleukos disappears from the Greek corpus; our knowledge of it coming courtesy of the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors. As Bosworth (The Legacy of Alexander, p 21) has acutely observed it is “a melancholy indication of how defective our historical knowledge must be”. Much of what was recorded has not made it down to us and that which has relies upon the tastes of epitomators and derivative writers. When it comes to the early years of Alexander - and indeed the reign of Philip II - this is even more marked and one must hesitate before consigning anything noted in one source to the rubbish heap on the basis of the silence of other sources.

With that in mind, it is instructive to look at the accession of Philip II. Justin and Diodorus are the two “fulsome” literary sources. Justin, at 7.4.4-5, describes the children of Amyntas III thus:

By his wife Eurydice he had three sons, Alexander, Perdiccas, and Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and one daughter, named Eurynoe; he had also by Gygaea Archelaus, Aridaeous, and Menelaus

.

The sons by Gygaea, then, are Philip’s half-brothers by his step-mother. Later (8.3.10), in the context of the crushing of Olynthus, Justin says that “(Philip) fell upon the Olynthians, because, after the death of one of his brothers, they had, from pity, afforded a refuge to two others, whom, being the sons of his step-mother Philip would gladly have cut off, as pretenders to a share in the throne”. The dead brother is Archelaus. No other source for the period, Diodorus included, has a mention of Archelaus (and Diodorus never mentions the half-brothers). Yet this silence, as far as I can find, is not held against Justin and many a scholar accepts the existence of these half-brothers and Archelaus. Were we to apply the same logic used to dismiss Caranus, these men, too, would disappear from history.

Another infamous silence, that of Arrian, is deployed to dismiss the handing on of the signet ring of Alexander. Here the authority of the “better” or “more trustworthy” source is ranged against the Vulgate and Arrian’s auctoritas is said to carry the day against the “stories” of the “less trustworthy” tradition.

Whilst on Arrian, in Photius' epitome it is noted that one Amphimachus is given the satrapy of Mesopotamia and Arbelitis. This Amphimachus is explicitly noted as the “brother of the King”. This time, Arrian being the sole source, many scholars dismiss the notice on the basis of confusion with the satrap Arrhidaeus. Yet Photius seems quite at home with lists and seems to get his names correct elsewhere. There is no real reason that Arrhidaeus (Philip III) cannot have had a brother – a child born to his mother prior to Philip II politically marrying her. The dismissal of the relationship is purely a case of testis unis; tesis nullis and the fact that one might invent other explanations. As any scholarly debate (and those here on Pothos ) show, alternative explanations are a ready coin.

I don’t think it unlikely at all that Alexander had a half-brother called Caranus. I also do not think that we have enough evidence to dismiss such notices where they are not countermanded by other sources.

[marcus]

Marcus : Justin cannot be referring to Cleopatra's child in the disputed passage unless, as Heckel observes (Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Books 11-12, p 82),Trogus inadvertently thought that Caranus was Cleopatra’s son. The fact is that Justin nowhere states that Cleopatra bore a son; he does state, unequivocally, that the child was female (9.7.12 when killed by Olympias) as do all other sources other than Pausanias. The latter stands in contrast and the language used is weak - the word "son" (υιός) is never used (see Unz, p172, n. 16). One needs to suppose - if Pausanias is taken as translated - that Cleopatra bore Philip two children. Most unlikely given the time frame involved. Also, Justin refers to a brother (or brothers) more than once. tioned above

Ah, Paralus, I think you misunderstood me when I wrote that (now) much earlier post. Forgive me if I wasn't entirely clear about my position when I wrote it.

In no way was I suggesting that Caranus was Cleopatra's son. This was in response to a point made by Alexias, following one of Robbie's questions. Alexias said that the passage only implied that Caranus was Cleopatra's son, and my response was that I didn't agree, and that the passage clearly identified Caranus as Cleopatra's son.

The fact that Justin made an error is a different matter entirely, which was not what I was addressing in that post.

All the best

[Paralus]

Ah, Paralus, I think you misunderstood me when I wrote that (now) much earlier post. Forgive me if I wasn't entirely clear about my position when I wrote it.

No, I think you were clear...

...the "brother" being talked about is Caranus, as the son of Cleopatra...

Doh! Time for a Duff...

[Alexias]

Thank you, Paralus, for the excellent explanation of what I was trying to get at which was that Justin was not saying that Caranus was Cleopatra's son in that muddled sentence.

There is just time for Cleopatra to have borne two children. Diodorus says she had given birth a few days before Philip's death. That gives a conception date of January 336 BC, perhaps 6 weeks after she could have given birth in DEcember 337 BC, putting the wedding in March 337 BC. Attalus, as her guardian, would surely have been present at the wedding and he left in early spring 337 BC for Asia. Philip returned from Greece towards the end of 338 BC so that leaves a 3-4 month window for the wedding.

BTW Justing doesn't actually say either that the quarrel with Alexander took place at the wedding - just 'a banquet' ?

[Paralus]

BTW Justing doesn't actually say either that the quarrel with Alexander took place at the wedding - just 'a banquet' ?

Justin is summarising Trogus - sometimes severely. The context is provided by Plutarch (Alex. 9.4-10) and it is beyond reasonable doubt that Trogus was referring to the marriage banquet.

There is just time for Cleopatra to have borne two children. Diodorus says she had given birth a few days before Philip's death. That gives a conception date of January 336 BC, perhaps 6 weeks after she could have given birth in DEcember 337 BC, putting the wedding in March 337 BC. Attalus, as her guardian, would surely have been present at the wedding and he left in early spring 337 BC for Asia. Philip returned from Greece towards the end of 338 BC so that leaves a 3-4 month window for the wedding.

That would make Philip a very busy bloke and Cleopatra a very fertile woman. The battle of Chaeroneia took place during August. Philip's settlement with Athens will have taken time (and Thebes) and he must then see to matters in the Peloponnese (Achaea had suffered badly enough at Chaeroneia that she had not recovered to take part in the "Hellenic [Lamian] War" in 323) where he adopted, largely, the approach of Epaminondas. This accomplished, he set to organising the "League of Corinth" and having himself appointed hegemon with the concomitant 'declaration' of war against Persia. He likely needed a return to Pella and a good lie down - without a young "maiden" at an age when, as Plutarch so tritely says, "he was past the age for it" ( the daughter would indicate not).

It is not impossible for Cleopatra to have borne Philip two children. It is, to my thinking, very much unlikely though. The sources only mention the one child and that is female (apart from Pausanias' 'agamic' child).

[marcus]

Thank you, Paralus, for the excellent explanation of what I was trying to get at which was that Justin was not saying that Caranus was Cleopatra's son in that muddled sentence.

I still disagree, by the way.

[Paralus]

I still disagree, by the way.

We're left with either the fact that Justin (or Trogus) thought Caranus to be Cleopatra's son or that Trogus means that Alexander feared the possibility of son by Cleopatra. The fly in the ointment is that two passages are, in fact, linked:

9.7.3
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...

Alexandrum quoque regni aemulum fratrem ex nouerca susceptum timuisse ; eoque factum ut in conuiuio antea primum cum Attalo, mox cum ipso patre iurgaret...

11.2.3
His brother Caranus, a rival for the throne, as being the son of his step-mother, he ordered to be slain.

Aemulum quoque imperii, Caranum, fratrem ex nouerca susceptum, interfici curauit

As Unz says, the language (and the sentences) are the same and are related...

There can be little doubt that the two sentences are parallel and refer to the same brother: aemulum imperii matches amelium regnii, fratrem ex nouerca susceptum is exactly duplicated. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that Justin is describing Karanos as an infant son of Kleopatra; he specifically states that Kleopatra's child was a daughter, and describes her death at the hands of Olympias (without Alexander's apparent complicity.

Further, whilst Pausanias is translated as "his infant son by Cleopatra", the reason remains something of a mystery. The words are Φιλίππου παῖδα νήπιον, γεγονότα δὲ ἐκ Κλεοπάτρας. Nowhere is a son mentioned only "Philippou paida nēpion" which, almost like horse breeding, could be rendered "child (merion) descended of Philip" ("born out of " Cleopatra - gegonota de ek Kleopatras ). Satyrus (via Athenaeus 8 557) plainly claims that "Cleopatra bore to Philippus a daughter who was named Europa."

Whichever we decide, I see no reason to dismiss the fact that Alexander had a half brother named Caranus. Just as with Amphimachus, no contrary evidence is recorded and the state of what remains (and its volume) should give pause before wholesale rejection or masterful counter explanations.

I have Unz should any wish to read it.