pothos.org

Continuing http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... geID=21512 , an interesting thread is falling off. (Indeed, this message will give it the final push.) The last message included some handy bibliography on attitudes toward a child's death by Amyntoros ( http://www.pothos.org/forum/showmessage ... geID=21648 ). I also invited (okay, begged) Alexander to write an entry on the topic in the WCD. If it comes, it will end up on "Alexander the Great, children" http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Alexa ... C_children ).Anyway, I'm adding what I find in a recent edition of Plutarch's "A Consolation to His Wife." The edition (Oxford, 1999) was edited by Sarah Pomeroy, also includes his "Advice to the Bridge and Groom," translations and essays on the works by various scholars. Plutarch wrote the letter on learning of the death of his 2-year-old daughter, Timoxena. (I would just like to pause a moment, and solicit consolations for spilling a Diet Coke all over the book, my desk and nearly my laptop. What I suffer for scholarship!)Anyway, Pomeroy points up a quite impressive genre of consolatory epistles, much of it for dead children. Indeed three more of the type are ascribed to Plutarch, one probably spurious, the other two lost. There's been a slew of dissertations and articles on the genre and subgenre. Apparently they crop up both as showpieces and in non-literary papyri, where "there are more letters inspired by the death of children than of adults." (Of course, various explanations there.) Unfortunately, Plutarch's piece has no historical examples or allusions of any sort.Again, I can't speak to whether the genre represents 4c Macdonian concerns as well as Imperial-era Greek and Roman ones. Absent some reason, however, I see another missing piece of evidence. With a flourishing genre of child-death consolations, one might expect the death of the world's most important child to rate some more substantial mentionGÇöa mention in the Suda of a consolation addressed to Roxane, or a reference in the various fake letters from Diogenes or Aristotle, etc.

There's more than one way to look at this number of child-death consolations. Before the advent of modern medicine, as well as a great many deaths of women during childbirth, there were high numbers of stillborn babies and premature deaths of infants and young children. Statistically, when there is a higher death rate, we should expect to see proportionate evidence of mourning and consolation - it would be unkind for us to think that that all the ancients became inured to the deaths of their own children. However, this concern does not necessarily apply to other people's offspring. There existed no cult of the child in ancient Greece and Macedonia! The ease with which children, (along with women) were thrown into slavery demonstrates a known lack of general concern for children as individuals. Outside of the immediately family - and this is very important - there was little or no sentimentality attached to a child. In Roxane's case, her supposed son must have been a very young infant, perhaps even a newborn, which bears even less consideration by the all-male historians. This may explain why consoling "letters" to or about Roxane don't exist. Regarding this single report of the death of Alexander's first son, I started to consider the evidence we have on another person close to Alexander - his father, Philip. We know he was a virile man with a strong sexual proclivity, yet during the roughly twenty-two years of his reign he had only six children by seven wives. Statistically, this is a smaller child-to-parent ratio than the average family in most of the last century, where we find excellent methods of birth control and the increased desire for smaller families. It literally makes no sense then that these would have been the only births or pregnancies connected with Philip and his wives. Yes, the Greeks also had forms of birth control, but a woman married to a king would have been extremely unlikely to use them, at least until her position in the household was assured by the birth of a healthy son or two. I'm willing to concede that Olympias may have taken to using precautions once both her children were past a certain age, but the same reasoning doesn't apply to Philip's other wives. None of them had given Philip a "healthy" son and potential heir.continued...

I don't think that the oft heard argument that Philip "moved on" to the next wife each time he married is very convincing either - an argument that could be used to supposedly explain why his wives didn't continue to have children. Philip was in a polygamous relationship and not practicing some sort of chain-link monogamy, discarding each wife as he married the next! Although, given the number of years between wives, even if he did stop having sexual relations with each previous wife, it still wouldn't explain the significant lack of progeny amongst so many women. What *would* explain it is if there had been miscarriages and/or deaths of infants that have not been recorded. In fact, it's even possible that particular wives could have died in childbirth as they seem to disappear very early from the pages of history.Thus it follows that stillbirths and deaths in infancy, even when the father was a king, were not considered important enough to be written about. The historians are only interested in any offspring surviving long enough to become potential heirs to the throne - and lets face it, they don't even appear to be too interested in them until they reach adulthood! There are missing chapters at the beginning of Curtius where he may or may not have written about Alexander's youth, but with the exception of Plutarch, not one of the other extant writers (or even any fragmentary evidence) shows any curiosity about Alexander's early years. You described Roxane's firstborn as "the world's most important child," but that's a twenty-first century attitude. There's no historical evidence to support that the ancients gave any particular import to other people's infants, even the kings. That's why their lack of interest in Barsine's child until after Alexander's death has actually had many people arguing that Hercules didn't really exist in the first place! And it would also explain why there is the confusion about the offspring of Philip's last marriage, with only Justin recording that there was both a daughter and a son. (As an aside here, I'm also intrigued by the quote in Strabo at 15.3.17 where, probably quoting from Herodotus, he says that Persian children are not brought into the presence of their parents until they are four years old!)

(Darn it - another three page response!)So, applying these considerations to the reported death of Roxane's infant, I can see no reason why it would have been included in the histories, and I find it remarkable that we have any record of it at all. The lack of supporting evidence simply does not prove that it didn't happen.One more thing I must add here. I've never given much credence to the Metz Epitome and did not start out with a conviction regarding the birth of Alexander's son. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I've never previously believed the story to be true. So, approaching this from a different aspect as laid out above, I'm more than a little shocked to find out that I have formulated an argument in support of the record in the Metz Epitome! :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

That's a lot to respond to, and hard too as your arguments are quite convincing. My apologies for not doing it tonight. I just spent hours do a comprehensive editorial shakeup of the WCD.

Although, amyntoros, just because a thing is possible, does not mean that it is probable, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes. I really don't think we can know, unless more evidence emerges. You can say it is likely a new-ish wife would have become pregnant fairly quickly, indeed that would have been expected. And given that she seemed to become pregnant very quickly after Hepahestion's death: commentators made some connection between the two events (rightly or wrongly): then husband and wife did not have problems conceiving. On the other hand, the fact that it isn't even alluded to could be seen as unusual, but not, as you say, overly so. Isn't it mentioned in Herodotus that a Persian father does not pay attention to his child before the age of two, in case he gets attached to it, only for it to die?As for Philip - wasn't he away fighting a lot? He obviously had enough other children to worry Alexander.I get the feeling that in precontaception days, childbirth and conception was much more uncertain, and random, and perhaps mysterious. No birth registration. The royal queens and mistresses probably had their time allocated to the King, and he may have been doing his duty was a few of them. More casual encounters would not have been recorded. Philip did not seem to be the loyal type - there is no grat love affair, no special mistress mentioned. And he had his young men as well..

"Although, Amyntoros, just because a thing is possible, does not mean that it is probable, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes."You're absolutely right - no argument from me there! However, it wasn't my intention to try and prove or disprove whether Roxane had a baby that died. Right at the end of the previous thread. Tim asked if anyone had any knowledge of the sociology of the period, especially concerning how the ancients viewed the death of an infant, so that we could look at the problem from a different angle. Now, I'm no expert, but you've probably figured by now that I'm very interested in the sociological and cultural aspects of the time - sometimes I approach the study of Alexander through a back door, so to speak.As for Philip, yes he was often away on campaigns, but just as often back at court and I remain convinced that there must have been other pregnancies with various wives. (I think it is unlikely that the wives might have had "time with Philip" allotted to them. It suggests a formality that isn't present in any other aspects of Philip's court. Just my opinion, though.) Like all kings, Philip knew the necessity of having a viable heir (unlike Alexander!), and even after Alexander was born, there was no guarantee that he would survive to adulthood. From what the histories tell us, it was known quite early that Arrihidaeus wasn't going to be a suitable prospect, despite Alexander's fears. Philip *knew* he had to secure the line of succession, so the more sons the merrier. Philip's sexual predilections, casual affairs, relations with boys are completely independent of his need to procreate. I agree with you again about childbirth and conception being more uncertain and that there were no birth records. This actually supports my conjecture that there must have been other, unsuccessful pregnancies and births, but that historians paid no attention to them because they were considered unimportant and had no impact on the histories they were writing. And the same would have applied to the birth and death of Alexander's first son, if he actually existed. One of the problems with Pothos is that still-active threads slip off the page. My post was intended to contribute to a discussion where many other issues were covered and views expressed. It wasn't supposed to stand alone and/or give a definitive answer. I'm not saying that I have proved the child did exist. I am just saying that the doubtful nature of the Metz Epitome combi

I am just saying that the doubtful nature of the Metz Epitome combined with the failure of other historians to tell us of this birth does *not* prove that he didn't. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros(I write these posts offline and then copy them to the forum, hoping on occasion to limit them to one page. Obviously I fail much more than I succeed! The word laconic does not apply to me in any shape or form.)

But of course there is the dangerous assumption that Philip preferred women to men as lovers. It was much more safe to have the latter.Mutiple wives necessarily makes one less potent. The obligation was to provide the wife with a child, not necessarily a male - that was up to the gods. He gave Olympias two because her first was a boy. One should not assume Philip gave frequent attendance to his wives because he had more than one.As for Alexander - since he was derrided for his lack of offspring and in fact his potency after his death (Theophrastus), it is highly unlikely that sons born to this particular King were worthy of no mention.

Well, I didn't base any argument on someone else's assumption that Philip preferred women to men as lovers, but I don't think it is relevant anyway. Whether or not it was *safer* to have the latter, it doesn't really bear argument when we are talking about his wives - safety wasn't an issue in the marital bed. Frankly, I think the evidence shows that he didn't care about the sex of his partner as long as he was attracted to them. He may not have been particularly attracted to all of his wives, but I doubt he was revolted by them either. His marriages served two purposes - they secured a political alliance and they produced progeny.He gave two children to Olympias because the first was a boy? So he *rewarded* her by sleeping with her again because she had a successful birth? This is an assumption that presumes *so* much about Philip's nature. My reasoning isn't based on any personal insight that I think I may have on Philip's character or the way he felt about sex with women. It is based on a king's need to secure the succession. Because of the high mortality rate amongst infants and young children, he would want as many sons as possible. Philip can't possibly have known that Alexander was going to survive to adulthood - or that once he was an adult he wasn't going to die in battle. And following your argument, why wouldn't Philip have *rewarded* the mother of Arridaeus? The boy showed no evidence of disability when he was a baby. Why wouldn't he have tried for a son with the women who had succesfully given birth to girls? Logic says that he would."Multiple wives necessarily makes one less potent." Is there some scientific theory or proof for that? A hypothetical question: if a man had sex every night with the same woman, and sex with seven women, a different one each night of the week, is he going to be less potent? Are you saying that the odds of having children are reduced because he's sleeping with different women? Or is this based on some sociological study of polygamy - presumably ancient polygamy? I'm not an expert on polygamy amongst the Mormons, but I've seen and read enough to know that marriages to multiple wives have produced a plethora of offspring by different women. As for Alexander: so Theoprastas derided Alexander for his failure to reproduce and his potency If he had mentioned one son that died, would it have made any difference to what he was saying?

what can I say? Amyntoros said it all.regards,abm

HiI suppose my main point is that because Philip did not have a lot of children, doesn't necessary mean that babies died. I don't know what the infant mortality was in those days - was it greater than in Victorian England (a very unhealthy time..)However, I do think it *likely* that there were children not mentioned - by-blows, unknowns and some of them may have lived and some may have died.BTW - do you have the link for the sources page that you and Susan were working on? I feel the need to expand my reading. CheersLinda

Well, I didn't base any argument on someone else's assumption that Philip preferred women to men as lovers, but I don't think it is relevant anyway. Whether or not it was *safer* to have the latter.It would matter GÇô if he preferred men, he would have spent less time with the women. His met his obligation was one child with the wives. When I say safer, that means no families to deal with and offspring with men as lovers. You might have to worry about them getting you, but heirs were far more dangerous. No one is going to elect your male lover to succeed you. Sleeping around was a very dangerous business for a King. Has nothing to do with the mortality of infants or wives.He gave two children to Olympias because the first was a boy? So he *rewarded* her by sleeping with her again because she had a successful birth? This is an assumption that presumes *so* much about Philip's nature.I could be wrong on this but as I recall Olympias is the only wife with multiple children from Philip. The chances of her having a second son would have been considered better as she GÇÿproduced.GÇÖ That apparently stopped with Cleopatra GÇô and the histories tell us he stopped sleeping with her. Philip had his three sons, the proper amount GÇô Amyntor, Arrhidaeus and Alexander, despite one being defective. He had fulfilled his obligations. But do not presume that succession was the be all and end all of being King. They lived in the now, not in the future. Fame was what it was about, not our modernistic views of Monarchy. My reasoning isn't based on any personal insight that I think I may have on Philip's character or the way he felt about sex with women. It is based on a king's need to secure the succession. Because of the high mortality rate amongst infants and young children, he would want as many sons as possible. Philip can't possibly have known that Alexander was going to survive to adulthood - or that once he was an adult he wasn't going to die in battle. And following your argument, why wouldn't Philip have *rewarded* the mother of Arridaeus? The boy showed no evidence of disability when he was a baby. Plutarch states that in a logos connected with Olympias supposedly poisoning Arrhidaeos. He may have been defective from birth. We also know there were questions about his legitimacy GÇô the stories of her being a dancing girl from Larissa. That the Macedonians would pick him suggests Philip had no other sons, or at least anyone who was believed to b

That the Macedonians would pick him suggests Philip had no other sons, or at least anyone who was believed to be one. As for AlexanderGÇÖs survival potential, he put him in the teeth of the enemy at Chaironea. That is not one who is concerned with the survival of his empire. He sends Alexander to Athens as a great honor and while the Prince is gone, Philip starts making plans for the new successionGǪthatGÇÖs what I mean about assuming itGÇÖs all about the future of the empireGǪno, itGÇÖs all about your Kingship.Why wouldn't he have tried for a son with the women who had successfully given birth to girls? Logic says that he would. But we have no evidence of any other boys or multiple children from wives except for Olympias. "Multiple wives necessarily makes one less potent." Is there some scientific theory or proof for that? Yes. A hypothetical question: if a man had sex every night with the same woman, and sex with seven women, a different one each night of the week, is he going to be less potent? Are you saying that the odds of having children are reduced because he's sleeping with different women? Or is this based on some sociological study of polygamy - presumably ancient polygamy? I'm not an expert on polygamy amongst the Mormons, but I've seen and read enough to know that marriages to multiple wives have produced a plethora of offspring by different women. Your assuming men always have a loaded gun. ItGÇÖs not math, itGÇÖs biology. And Philip was rarely home.As for Alexander: so Theoprastas derided Alexander for his failure to reproduce and his potency If he had mentioned one son that died, would it have made any difference to what he was saying?Not that Theophrastus would have mentioned it, but the charge had been made. I would certainly have expected any children to be mentioned to stifle such a charge, including by-blows (I hate that term). Clearly there werenGÇÖt any, so Theophratus was quite comfortable in making such accusations. And he was correct, but not for the reasons he mentioned.What I am stating is that one cannot matter of factly assume history based on some words written in a book, without analyzing it from different perspectives. I am not saying I am correct, but that thereGÇÖs more to it than just reading history.

I am well aware Amyntor is not Philip's biological son, but he was a legitimate heir.