Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:You are wrong to compare the probabilityof 14 with the probability of fatherhood at all other ages, because the latter allows a much greater duration to achieve fatherhood. Rather the probability at 14 should be compared with the probability for some other single year. We can say for example that in a town like Rochester in the modern US it is about ten times more likely that a man will conceive a child at the age of 20 than at the age of 14. Thus it is not even significantly statistically unlikely that Philip could have conceived Ptolemy at 14. It is quite wrong to cite Philip's age as a reason to disbelieve the story.

As for Pausanius, I cannot see any problem for the view that Ptolemy was fathered by Philip. It is either possible that Philip as a royal prince really did negotiate the marriage to Lagos, else Pausanius is reading something into the story which was not in the ultimate source, else Lucian is wrong about Ptolemy's age and he was fathered when Philip was already king.

On the matter of Diodorus you continue to pursue arguments from his silence, even though there are good reasons for Hieronymus (Diodorus' source) to have exercised discretion in these matters. This is not sound historical method. Arrian does not mention the Branchidae, but that is not a sound reason to argue that they did not exist.

Best wishes,

Andrew
You're getting remarkably huffy about this.

My (one-off) comment about Diodorus was a joke -- hence the emoticon!

Putting aside your suggestions that Pausanias and Lucian were simply wrong (which is a line of argument you can use to support any conclusion you like), can you give any precedent or example for Philip to have married Arsinoe off to a compliant patsy when he was only 14 and just a minor princeling between hostageships?

As a general principle in genealogical reconstructions, those which push people to biological extremes are usually regarded as improbable unless there is strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary. 14 is an extremely young age for paternity, and the circumstantial evidence for the veracity of the story is weak.

Chris
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

The Straw Man

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:I am shocked that you should think...
Nice phrase. I assume that is meant to imply that Chris Bennett's view is ridiculous, na+»ve, totally ill-informed and thoroughly unworthy? I don't find his view "shocking" in any way.
Taphoi wrote:You are wrong to compare the probability of 14 with the probability of fatherhood at all other ages, because the latter allows a much greater duration to achieve fatherhood.
My reading of the posts by Chris Bennet suggests it is you who is wrong Taphoi. You make much of historical method and disparage many for the argument from silence. Here you create the classic "straw man". Twice Chris has made the point that it was "unlikely" GÇô not impossible. Your line of rebuttal is to create a false argument: that Chris is comparing the statical probabilities of a fourteen year old becoming a father to "all other ages". Rubbish that is your construct.

What Chris is arguing is the likelihood of Philip, a minor prince (of a besieged kingdom) of fourteen, being in the position to arrange such a "disposal" of his pregnant girlfriend. I agree.
Taphoi wrote:. It is either possible that Philip as a royal prince really did negotiate the marriage to Lagos, else Pausanius is reading something into the story which was not in the ultimate source, else Lucian is wrong about Ptolemy's age and he was fathered when Philip was already king.
And it is just possible that none of the above applies. As Chris notes: you can have that any way you want to suit any argument. You have, though, already expressed the following:
Taphoi wrote: It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.
Should Philip have accomplished all of this during said stints, he was a remarkably active lad.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

My point is that 14 is demonstrably not a biological extreme even in modern western contexts and even less so in ancient Macedonia. It is well within the normal range for paternity.

There is plenty of evidence that Macedonian princes behaved precociously. Alexander negotiated the purchase of Bucephalus at about 12 and acted as Regent and led adult men in warfare at 16. Thus there is no need for you to believe that there is a contradiction between Lucian and Pausanius. Even if you insist on seeing a contradiction, then it is most likely that Lucian is wrong and Pausanius is right and this actually makes it easier for you to believe that Philip was Ptolemy's father, because you will no longer have your age problem. Even if you insist on believing that Pausanius is wrong, then he need not be wrong about anything but the degree of involvement of Philip in the marriage arrangement. Hence your point does not seem to me to impact on the issue of whether Philip was Ptolemy's father.

Cordially,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Chris Bennett »

Andrew --
Taphoi wrote:There is plenty of evidence that Macedonian princes behaved precociously. Alexander negotiated the purchase of Bucephalus at about 12 and acted as Regent and led adult men in warfare at 16.
Lets agree to disagree about whether it was unusual for a boy to father a child at 13 or 14.

I still find it hard to accept that Philip could have been in a position to marry Arsinoe off at that time. First, he was only 14. Second, the kingdom was ruled by Ptolemy of Alorus, his mother's lover, who was contending for power with his older brother Alexander II -- a dispute that led to Philip being sent to Thebes as a hostage in very short order. By contrast, Alexander at the same age was not only a unique individual he was also clearly the king's heir apparent. And, still, Philip came down on Alexander like a ton of bricks when he tried to involve himself in marriage politics -- the proposal to marry Arrhidaeus to the daughter of Pixodarus of Caria. You seriously imagine that Ptolemy of Alorus would give Philip a free hand in the Arsinoe affair? But that is what Pausanias' text requires.

Finally, bottom line is that these are some of the reasons that carry weight for me in doubting the story. Your mileage may vary; fair enough. That's what makes ancient history interesting.
Taphoi wrote: It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.
By the way, what's your source for Philip as a hostage in Illyria?

Chris
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Hello Chris,
Chris Bennett wrote:By the way, what's your source for Philip as a hostage in Illyria?
I'll get this one :) - was reading it only a couple of days ago. It's Justin 7.5
Alexander, at the very beginning of his reign, purchased peace from the Illyrians with a sum of money, giving his brother Philip to them as a hostage. Some time after, too, he made peace with the Thebans by giving the same hostage; a circumstance which afforded Philip fine opportunities of improving his extraordinary abilities; for, being kept as a hostage at Thebes three years, he received the first rudiments of education in a city distinguished for strictness of discipline, and in the house of Epaminondas, an eminent philosopher, as well as commander.


Btw, I see that your own website is the same one that I referred to earlier in this thread, Egyptian Royal Genealogy. (Well, I referred to the Ptolemy I page, anway.) It's good to see you here on Pothos.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:My point is that 14 is demonstrably not a biological extreme even in modern western contexts and even less so in ancient Macedonia. It is well within the normal range for paternity.
I believe your point is nothing of the sort. No one has argued the "biological possibility" (or otherwise) of Philip siring a child at fourteen aside from yourself. What is being questioned are the circumstances of the paternity and the position of the father at the time of the alleged paternity: a transitory hostage. A point you resolutely gloss over.

As to Alexander/Philip as a prince/prince comparison, it is as relevant as the comparison between the Sparta of Cleomenes (I) and Agis III. There is none.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Chris Bennett »

Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:My point is that 14 is demonstrably not a biological extreme even in modern western contexts and even less so in ancient Macedonia. It is well within the normal range for paternity.
I believe your point is nothing of the sort. No one has argued the "biological possibility" (or otherwise) of Philip siring a child at fourteen aside from yourself.
To be fair to Andrew, we have indeed been arguing about the likelihood (as opposed to the possibility) of Philip siring a child at fourteen. No one doubts that it is biologically possible, the question is whether it is probable, especially given the circumstantial evidence.

I have found the discussion useful. As Amyntoros has noted, I maintain a website on Ptolemaic genealogy, and debates of this sort help me to clarify (and sometimes change) the arguments and conclusions presented there. In this case, I had noted the concern about his age, but not the further concern about his ability to influence a marriage decision at that age. I have edited the text to add this, though I won't be putting it up for a bit since I am deep into a review of the debate on whether the Ephemerides are real or fake documents, which affects other material on that page. (Trawling the net for material about this is what led me to this forum.)

Chris
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Chris Bennett »

amyntoros wrote:Hello Chris,
Chris Bennett wrote:By the way, what's your source for Philip as a hostage in Illyria?
I'll get this one :) - was reading it only a couple of days ago. It's Justin 7.5
Thanks! There's lots of material discussing his time in Thebes, but I hadn't come across any mention of this one. At a guess, it is not regarded as being highly reliable. I have to say that if Philip was the hostage du jour it doesn't speak well for his standing at the time!

Chris
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Chris Bennett wrote: I am deep into a review of the debate on whether the Ephemerides are real or fake documents, which affects other material on that page. (Trawling the net for material about this is what led me to this forum.)
I have an article on the authenticity of the Ephemerides scheduled to appear in the Ancient History Bulletin 19.3-4. The latest information is that I may receive the proofs in the next month or so and it will go to press later this Autumn. I tend to regard the Ephemerides as genuine and I give detailed reasons in this article.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Chris Bennett »

Taphoi wrote:
Chris Bennett wrote: I am deep into a review of the debate on whether the Ephemerides are real or fake documents, which affects other material on that page. (Trawling the net for material about this is what led me to this forum.)
I have an article on the authenticity of the Ephemerides scheduled to appear in the Ancient History Bulletin 19.3-4. The latest information is that I may receive the proofs in the next month or so and it will go to press later this Autumn. I tend to regard the Ephemerides as genuine and I give detailed reasons in this article.

Best wishes,

Andrew
I would be very interested to read it. Since they took AHB offline a while back, :cry: I'd appreciate an ecopy or an offprint when you get one, pls contact me offline for my address.

My particular concern is that I am looking into the Macedonian calendar in Egypt, and I want to reconcile the death dates of 28 Daisios (ephemerides) and 30 Daisios (Aristobolus) for Alexander's death. The key document is the Babylonian astronomical diary dating his death to 29 Ayyaru. This used to be interpreted as the night half -- i.e. 10 June 323 -- which allowed people to suppose that the diarist used days that ran from dawn to dawn while Aristobulos' days ran from dusk to dusk. Depuydt developed a good argument for dating his death to the daylight half of 29 Ayyaru -- ie 11 June -- which blows away that particular solution for reconciling the two sources, and I think its unlikely that Aristoboulos was using a Babylonian calendar. Depuydt's own suggestion for reconciling the two is not very credible.

It has surprised me that this date discrepancy has not been mentioned in any of the arguments I have seen concerning the authenticity of the Ephemerides. FWIW my current view is that they are almost certainly authentic. Reviewing the literature has also led me into some very intersting arguments about the origins of Serapis, eg Bivar's view that he was already a widespread Iranian cult.

While I'm at it, I might as well mention another document. The earliest Macedonian calendar synchronism I know of is contained in a document that purports to be a letter of Philip cited by Demosthenes in De Corona. This is universally dismissed out of hand as a forgery. I'm perfectly willing to believe it but I'm having a devil of a time finding an analysis that proves it. I think I tracked one down yesterday, but it'll take a while to get it and its rather later than I expected -- 1940. This view it is a forgery clearly goes well back into the 19th century. You don't happen to know who first came to this conclusion and where?

Chris
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Chris's website

Post by marcus »

Hi Chris,
amyntoros wrote:Btw, I see that your own website is the same one that I referred to earlier in this thread, Egyptian Royal Genealogy. (Well, I referred to the Ptolemy I page, anway.) It's good to see you here on Pothos.
I've only now just had a look at your site. Very impressed, sir. I haven't had a chance to do more than glance at a couple of entries, but I admire the hard and detailed work you've put in.

So ... when will you have finished all the Pharaonic dynasties? :shock:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Chris,

The fundamental reference on these issues would be A E Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology, Munich 1962. Pages 46-9 deal with the dating of Alexander's death and there is a whole chapter on the Macedonian calendar. Personally, I think that the arguments for discrediting the 28th Daisios as given by Plutarch from the Ephemerides are weak. There is no great difficulty in believing that the fact that Alexander had been pronounced dead on the evening of the 28th Daisios was not generally proclaimed by the Friends until the next morning. Hence Aristobulos would not have heard until the next morning, which he called the 30th Daisios, because Daisios was a hollow month and had no 29th. Similarly the entry in the Babylonian astronomical diary shares Aristobulos' date.

In general, Plutarch seems to have had a special interest in dates and he evidently knew Timaeus' work on chronology, so he should be believed unless there is overwhelming evidence that he must be wrong. In fact the objections to him seem to me rather pedantic, insisting on excessively precise interpretations of Plutarch's terminology for early evening for example.

Hope this is helpful, though I have no special expertise on ancient chronology.

Cordially,

Andrew
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Date of Alexander's death

Post by Chris Bennett »

Andrew --

I'm very familiar with Samuel's book. While it is the standard work on the subject, it is also deeply flawed, and also much has happened in the last 45 years. It has to be used with great care. It really needs to be superseded.

Depuydt's paper, which moved the death of Alexander from early evening on 10 June to late afternoon on 11 June, is L. Depuydt, "The Time of Death of Alexander the Great: 11 June 323 B.C. (-322), ca. 4:00-5:00 PM", Die Welt des Orients (WO) 27 (1997) 117. I think his analysis of the core Greek and Babylonian data is incontrovertible, as far as it goes, particularly his comments on the structure of astronomical diary entries, but it does have this slightly embarassing side-effect of invalidating the standard reconciliation of the Diaries and Aristoboulos which had prevailed up to that time. Depuydt's attempt to explain it, based on Grzybek's idea that the embolimos day introduced in the siege of Tyre caused a permanent 1-day slip in the Macedonian court calendar, is not very credible for a lunar calendar.

I don't doubt there is a fairly simple explanation, possibly even the one you suggest (i.e. that it represents the lag between the actual death and its announcement), but I thought it was also worth validating the core data. For example, if, as Pearson argued, the Ephemerides are third century forgeries then the date is not very trustworthy. On the other hand, if, as Bosworth argued, the supposed forgeries are nearly contemporary with the events then the date is just about as credible as it is if they are genuine.

There are other reasons to look at these dates. The Ephemerides appear to be primary evidence for the nature of the Macedonian day, and they clearly used a dawn-dawn day count, but Samuel argued that this was not the actual Macedonian day. Is it a good argument? Part of his objection is the decad format in Plutarch, counting down the waning moon. While not absolutely unique, it is extremely rare in surviving Macedonian records from Egypt or elsewhere (though not quite as rare as Samuel thought) -- is that a valid reason to suppose the Diarist was not a native Macedonian and therefore did not use a Macedonian day? If we can't trust his day to be Macedonian, why should we trust his date of the 28th to be the Macedonian date? The reason for the format may lie elsewhere. Aelian's excerpt from the Ephemerides uses the same format as Plutarch for the 28th but uses a regular forward count for the 24th. So does the decad count reflect Plutarch's or Aelian's representation of the dates rather than that of the Diarist?

Plutarch was certainly interested in dates, but his methods for determining them are not necessarily what we think of as historical, so his dates do need to be assessed carefully. An interesting paper on this is A. T. Grafton & N. M. Swerdlow, "Calendar Dates and Ominous Days in Ancient Historiography" Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes (JWCI) 51 (1988) 14, e.g. their explanation of his date of 26 Boedromion for Gaugemela. In the case of the death of Alexander it is interesting that Plutarch gives two different Macedonian dates within a few lines of each other, both from sources he considered trustworthy, without commenting on the dscrepancy.

Chris
Last edited by Chris Bennett on Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:39 am, edited 4 times in total.
Chris Bennett
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Chris's website

Post by Chris Bennett »

marcus wrote:
So ... when will you have finished all the Pharaonic dynasties? :shock:
Considering the time its taking me just to wrap up the Ptolemies, I think I have a lifetime project on my hands.... :D

Chris
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:There is no great difficulty in believing that the fact that Alexander had been pronounced dead on the evening of the 28th Daisios was not generally proclaimed by the Friends until the next morning.
Aristobulos was a man with much privileged information on whom Arrian frequently relies. Yet according to the above I must accept that he was a man of relatively little importance who learned of Alexander's death only when it was proclaimed to the rank and file, and furthermore that he did not have access to anyone who could tell him the details and/or the exact time of Alexander's death! I'm afraid there IS great difficulty in believing it - on my part at least. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Post Reply