Ptolomy - son of Philip?

[me]

I have just come acrosst this site, via the rougeclassicism blog on the geneologies of the Ptolomies. Lots on whether Ptolomy was the son of Philip, or not.http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbe ... ealogy.htm
rougeclassicsmhttp://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism/Linda

[marcus]

Thanks, Linda. I've never come across Rogue Classicism before - it looks rather good.The question of Ptolemy's father is an interesting one. I'd always dismissed the claim that Philip was his father as propaganda pure and simple. However, I'm more open to the suggestion that Pt was Philip's son since reading Andrew Chugg's book on the Lost Tomb (excellent book, by the way). Andrew doesn't claim that Philip *was* his father, by the way, but he presents interesting arguments that suggest that he could/might have been. Certainly there were some angles I'd never considered before.Definitely not proven, but definitely not to be completely dismissed as propaganda.All the bestMarcus

[Taphoi]

The article, whilst interesting, omits some things and appeals to modern sensibilities on some points, which are invalid in the context of the Macedonian court in the 4th century BC. For instance, it may seem reasonable to a modern citizen of the US or Europe (though not of the 3rd World!) that a 14 year old boy would not have had time to father a child. However, it would actually be unlikely that a prince of ancient Macedon would not have been sexually active at the age of 14 (and indeed from puberty). We have the obvious example of Olympias foisting Callixeina on the teenage Alexander, because she thought he wasn't sowing enough wild oats! Although it might seem unreasonable to us for illegitimate children to be overlooked when discussing families, it was completely standard practice for them to be ignored in this way in the ancient world. It is a rule of historians that failure for an ancient source to mention something should not be construed as evidence that it didn't happen, unless there is a really strong argument that it should have been mentioned in the context: bastards were in fact constructively ignored, so we should not believe Collins' negative evidence. Philip probably fathered tens of illegitimate children. No ancient historian would have bothered to keep track of them. The story of Ptolemy having been the son of Philip also occurs in a part of the Alexander Romance, that is believed to date back to the generation after Alexander's death. Furthermore, Theocritus stated that both Alexander and Ptolemy were descended from Heracles at the court of Ptolemy II. This was a special Argead claim, which is very unlikely to have been repeated by any of their subjects. These things tend to suggest that the story is early and comes from Egypt, rather than from Ptolemy Ceraunus' exploits in Macedon in the 3rd century BC. I feel a slight tugging sensation in my left leg at the suggestion that Ceraunus could have got away with this as a false claim and been believed at such a late date (281BC). It is much easier to believe that his claim was true. The matter is bound to have been an open secret at the Macedonian court. I respectfully submit that all the ancient evidence remains consistent with Ptolemy being the illegitimate son of Philip II, though the matter cannot of course be proven.

[marcus]

Absolutely, Andrew. As you say, just because something isn't mentioned in the sources doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, I am sure there are cases where the omission of something is an indication that it *did* happen, particularly within biographical contexts, where things that were out of the ordinary were not felt to merit attention.Although there are many reasons why citing "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in a historiographical discussion is hardly appropriate, I do remember one thing in the book that I found quite perceptive. The contention in the book that Jesus was probably married (I think they left out the word 'probably' for most of the book) was based on the omission in any of the texts of any mention that he *wasn't* - as a rabbi, where marriage, while not exactly a job requirement, was to be expected, the failure of a rabbi to marry would have been seen by most as out of the ordinary. While omission of any mention of marriage is by no means proof that Jesus *did* have a wife, I did find it quite an interesting contention, and worthy of serious speculation, despite what else one might think of the arguments of the book.All the bestMarcus

[Taphoi]

I use a negative argument myself in the Lost Tomb, when I argue that the omission of any mention of the transfer of Alexander's corpse to Alexandria by the Parian Marble suggests it wasn't moved until the 3rd century BC. However, I only use this argument in support of the positive statement by Pausanius that it was moved in the early 3rd century and I argue strongly that the omission would have confused the reader of the inscription otherwise. In the case of Philip's fathering of Ptolemy, there are three seemingly independent ancient sources that explicitly state it to be true. There are at least half a dozen other ancient bits of evidence that strongly imply that it was true. I could add one other now: there is a statuette of Ptolemy II in the British Museum which shows him with Alexander's elephant scalp headdress AND Heracles club - this is a strong hint that he was an Argead. There is no positive ancient evidence to contradict the story and it is difficult to see how the Ptolemies could have got away with such an invention, given that there were lots of people around who must have known the truth. (Of course some sources call Ptolemy the son of Lagus, but this need not mean more than the adoptive son.) The idea that the story is a fiction is entirely the invention of modern historians and the only evidence they cite is negative: "so and so really should have said something about this". As a matter of propriety and politics ancient historians were reluctant to discuss illegitimacy. We only get any information about Ptolemy, because he became so important and because, very unusually, it became politically expedient for his family to admit their connection with the Argeads, despite its illegitimacy. Best wishes, Andrew

[marcus]

Yep, it all sounds pretty good to me, Andrew.Thanks for the hint about the Ptolemy II statuette. I'm hoping to get in a BM trip next week so I'll look out for it - I can't say I've noticed it before, despite many, many visits.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Fascinating conversation going on here. I can't say yet that I agree or disagree with you about Ptolemy's parentage, but I'm always open to a new perspective on events and you have made some very interesting points. Have to question the following though:"There is no positive ancient evidence to contradict the story and it is difficult to see how the Ptolemies could have got away with such an invention, given that there were lots of people around who must have known the truth."How would anyone have known the truth? When it gets down to it, only Ptolemy's mother would have known for sure, and under some circumstances even a mother can have doubts. For it to be "known" that Philip was Ptolemy's father, the circumstances would have had to be self-evident and witnessed by many people close to Philip - for instance, Philip alone having had a relationship with Ptolemy's mother, then marrying her off after she became pregnant or gave birth, etc. (Which is beginning to sound very much like some English kings we have known.) Alternatively, Philip would have had to have told people around him that Ptolemy was his son.As neither of the above events are recorded in the histories, how can we know for sure that there were "lots of people around who must have known the truth"? And should neither of these events have happened, then the ancients would have had no proof either, and it all comes down to supposition and hearsay. Surely the Ptolemies could have "got away with it" simply by saying it was so? Who would have openly (and on record) questioned the word of a king about something so intimate?Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Perfectly reasonable questions. I'm certainly not convinced, but I consider it much more likely than I did a little while ago!Slightly facetiously ... perhaps Ptolemy was the spitting image of Philip, and so different from Lagos in looks that no-one had any doubts? A sort of 4th century 'begat by the milkman' situation :-)M

[smittysmitty]

W.S Greenwalt's article titled 'Proto-Historical' Argead Women (A.H.B 1996) presents' excellent insight into the somewhat confusing status of Ptolemy's claim to Argead lineage. Greenwalt introduces a papyrus fragment of Satyrus which preserves the names of female Argeads and makes comparison with the work of Theophilus to support his suggestion that Ptolemy indeed was an Argead, however, his connection to the Argead line is to be found through his mother Arsinoe and not Philip II as has been suggested by some.Arsinoe, according to this papyrus, was the great grand daughter of Alexander I.Ultimately, Greenwalt concludes, that it was as easy for the Ptolemies to publicize the Philip II connection by the second century B.C as it was to adopt the maternal connection through Arsinoe however, they chose not to do so and continued with the maternal link.Makes good sense to me!cheers!

[Taphoi]

Philip II was a notorious philanderer with both boys and girls. He never seems to have made much effort to conceal his affairs. For example, there was the terrible public scandal that blew up around his ex-boyfriend Pausanius, which eventually led Pausanius to assassinate Philip. There are other affairs and liaisons mentioned in the ancient literature. An ancient Macedonian court was like an extended family. It is difficult to imagine that courtiers would not have had a good idea of whom members of the royal family were sleeping with. Certainly, when a girl became pregnant, there would have been some kind of inquiry to establish the identity of the father. Why should Arsinoe have concealed that the father was Philip? It was at least as difficult then for a father's identity to remain secret as it is now. How many illegitimate offspring do you know, who don't know who their father was? A very small proportion I suspect. This is why I say it should have been an open secret. This is why it is a difficult lie to plant within living memory of the events. Best wishes, Andrew

[marcus]

I bet Philip II never had any problems arranging visas for his mistresses' slaves ... and I bet nobody complained when he paid all their travel expenses out of the royal exchequer ...(Oops, bit of politics, very Ben Elton ...):-)Marcus

[xxx]

I think it's also interesting because around the purported time Ptolemy was conceived/born, Philip was in Thebes...

[Taphoi]

Philip was sent to Thebes late Summer or Autumn of 368BC. He would have been in Macedon when Ptolemy was conceived (according to Lucian's date for Ptolemy's birth, which is not itself above question.) Best wishes, Andrew

[amyntoros]

understand what you are saying, Andrew, but if Ptolemy was the son of Philip and it *was* an open secret, then Olympias would have learned about it and Alexander would have surely known, and yet there's nothing in the histories to indicate this. I know that people were hinting about it during Ptolemy's lifetime (can't remember the quote offhand) yet Ptolemy seems never to have come out and said "this is so." There may be truth in what you are saying. I'm just not quite convinced...:-)Linda Ann

[Taphoi]

Ptolemy could not be open about it, because it would have shamed his beloved mother Arsinoe. Alexander could not be open about it, because Ptolemy was his friend. The Ptolemies do not ever seem to have been completely open about it. They claimed kinship with Alexander and the Argeads, but they did not openly claim it through Ptolemy Soter's father. There does seem to have been a convoluted attempt improbably to connect them with the Argeads through Arsinoe in order perhaps to sanitise the interrelationship. However, none of the Ptolemies nor any other ancient source made any attempt to deny the widespread literary hints and assertions of Ptolemy Soter's paternity by Philip. All the ancient evidence and behaviour is exactly what you would expect if the rumours were true. It is very difficult to explain how a false rumour on such a matter could have been believed and never disputed until modern times. But I do not ask you to be convinced. I am not absolutely certain of the truth myself. However, it is quite wrong for modern historians to conclude (as some have) that the story was a fiction purely on the basis of what is not said by the ancient sources. Silence should not be construed as denial, especially when it is dictated by propriety. Best wishes, Andrew