Page 2 of 2
Re: heirs Part deux
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:41 pm
by manny05
Alexander had Homeric plans, plans that required a Homeric pedigree. He had Homeric parents all right, but divine parents under the worst possible track lighting: Philip was a philandering Zeus, Olympias a cantankerous Hera. He just wanted to get the hell out of THIS waking Hades! And what? Sire a son and leave it with either of THEM? No way Praxiteles!Manny E
Institute of Psychonalysts Ten Tokes Over The Line
Re: heirs
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:51 am
by amyntoros
No prob! I figured you didn't have your computer files handy.

Re: heirs
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:09 pm
by marcus
Well, 'handy' in that I *could* get to them ... not handy in that I was too lazy! :-)M
Re: heirs Part deux
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:49 am
by abm
Hi Marcus,it is mentionned in the Metz Epitome."it's fair to say that the reasons for disbelieving it are, in fact, just as good"i'm afraid i cannot agree with you here. The sources are all we have and the "testis unus testis nullus"-principle doesn't really work for antiquity, especially since, as you said, there are very good reasons why the other sources would not mention it.regards,abm
Re: heirs Part deux
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:18 am
by marcus
Hi Alexander,It looks as if we'll have to disagree, then :-)However good the reasons for believing the story to be true are, the fact that it is *only* mentioned in the Metz Epitome (thanks for correcting me on that) is a perfectly good reason to doubt its veracity.Personally I am inclined to believe it, but I can't say that there is any better reason to do so.CheersMarcus