Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???

[amyntoros]

Apologies in advance if this post rambles more than usual (were that even possible!). I've spent seven hours today buying and assembling an HDTV and cable box and then trying to get them to work properly while two teenage boys chafed at the bit because they were waiting to play video games. It's now 3:30 a.m. and I just realized that I forgot to eat dinner! Here's hoping that I still make sense.

I've gone back through this thread and summarized some of most important and/or relevant arguments (IMO) in favor of Ptolemy being the son of Philip, plus a couple of relevant points against him being so.

AGAINST: Arrian's sources, Ptolemy, Aristoboulos, Nearchos, Diodorus, Hieronymos, etc. make no mention of Ptolemy's alleged parentage - it seems not unscientific to place more value in their silence . . . All evidence other than Liber de Morte states that it was "believed" or rumored that Ptolemy was the son of Philip.

FOR: Diodorus was probably using Hieronymus of Cardia as his source (probably published early 3rd century BC) who was careful to avoid calling Ptolemy the son of a whore, hence his silence on this subject .... Arguments from silence are invalid unless the silence can be shown to be significant .... It was considered impolite in ancient times to discuss parentage of illegitimate persons - Ptolemy did not make an issue of his parentage - could not do so without impugning the honor of his mother - unlikely that he encouraged the rumor privately .... Assertion that Ptolemy was son of Philip occurs in the Liber de Morte, this being legitimate proof of the relationship. Pamphlet probably composed by Holkias in about 317 BC (but has been argued it could have been as late as 309 BC) .... Cleitarchus the likely source for Curtius and Pausanias - wrote within living memory of Alexander - Cleitarchus would not have made up story or he would have been ridiculed.

The relevant excerpt from the Armenian Romance (Liber de Morte) is as follows:

And when it was day, he ordered Perdikkas and Ptlomeos and Lysimachos to come in. He told them that no one else should approach him until he wrote a will about his affairs. And they went out. And then he seated near him the will makers, Kombaphe and Hermogenes, who were young men. And Perdikkas thought that Alexander would leave all his goods to Ptlomeos because he had often spoken to him of Ptlomeos' lucky birth. And Olympias, too, had made it clear that Ptlomeos had been fathered by Philip. So he had made him promise privately that he would in turn be a recipient of Alexander's possessions at the time of the division of the goods.

Now, if we are to accept that what is written above is true; then Perdiccas knew that Philip was Ptolemy's father because both Alexander and Olympias had often spoken about it. Others obviously knew about it too because Holkias (the claimed author) wrote about it! (It seems none of these people thought it impolite to discuss Ptolemy's parentage!) Yet apparently not a single one of the other original and/or extant sources - Ptolemy, Nearchus, Aristobulus, Chares, Hieronymus, Cleitarchus, Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, or Curtius - says one word about Ptolemy being acknowledged as the son of Philip at or before Alexander's death. We are to believe that both Alexander and Olympias said it was so, yet no one else recorded this?! Pausanias says only that the Macedonians believed Ptolemy was fathered by Philip. Curtius says only that some believed Ptolemy was Philip's son. Neither of them, nor the other sources, appears to be aware of what Alexander and Olympias (and the Liber de Morte) had said. Hmmm, a very significant silence, I would say.

In addition, if the news was OUT in 317 or 309, then PtolemyGÇÖs later silence on the subject is also significant. Remaining silent to protect the reputation of his mother wouldnGÇÖt have had much effect if the claims in the Liber de Morte had already been made public. Same argument applies to Hieronymus. Any objection by Hieronymus to revealing the info is moot if it everyone already knew about it. (Unless, of course, everyone didn't - because it hadn't been published and/or wasn't true!) As for Cleitarchus, if he was the source for Pausanias and Curtius why did he only write about the rumors? If he wrote before the proposed publication date of Liber de Morte, surely he would have had access to the same sources or contacts? And if he wrote after it, he would have been well aware of its contents. It would be impossible to argue that Cleitarchus avoided writing about the proof of paternity in order to not to discredit Ptolemy's mother, while at the same time being the source of the various rumors about Ptolemy's parentage!! Personally, I doubt that Cleitarchus was the source because I don't believe the rumors originated in Ptolemy's lifetime. But if he was, my argument stands.

In summary, I see no logic to the claim that the relevant excerpt from the Armenian Romance was published in the late fourth century, there being not one mention of it in any other ancient source, or by Ptolemy or any other member of the Ptolemaic dynasty. I'll say it again - the silence IS significant.

Best regards,

[agesilaos]

Andrew you have the advantage of me on the Plutarch as I have not got the text only the summary in an earlier thread. But the Armenian Romance is distinct from the Liber de Morte in the Metz corpus and the two should not be used interchangeably; it will always be moot which is truer to the original as both are late and even in Arrian's time many versions seem to have existed, viz the exgesis in Book VII on the poisoning tales.

The convoluted genealogy through Arsinoe is true of course but the Adulis monument explicitly puts the descent from Herakles as from the paternal line. It would be helpful to have the actual text to be sure of this as, as we are all aware, Greek can sometimes be translated more in line with what the translator expects than what is actually said - the persistent translation of 'taxis' in Arrian as Battalion instead of unit or something equally non-specific being a case in point.

That Kleitarchos would not have put anything in his history that could be shown to be untrue is a patent blind alley since he DID put Ptolemy at the town of the Oxydracae. Ancient historians were not so concerned with accuracy getting in the way of a good story - just think of Ptolemy and his loquacious serpents! - or the ants the size of dogs in India.

Indeed the whole of the Indian story in the Romances warns us against the historiographical method of accepting things in late minor sources unless they are contradicted by the major ones else we'd have to accept the talking trees and wierd river beasts like an aquatic triceratops - extreme examples but what the heh.

Hieronymous as a Royalist turned Antigonid would have no qualms about dishing any dirt on Ptolemy and enemy of both Eumenes and Antigonos, and almost as inveterate an enemy of Demetrios as Lysimachos. If there is a reason for his silence it would be that he percieved this rumour as advantageous to Ptolemy.

The date of Kleitarchos will remain contentious, but then that's the fun of the subject.

If someone could post the complete Plutarch story with an anglicised greek transliteration that would be helpful. Taphoi is quite right that the sources must be given weight but they are not all of equal avoirdupoids.

[Taphoi]

Well it seems you are going to uphold the silence of some sources on the matter as being more significant than the words which a range of other sources actually wrote, which is contrary to established historical method.

There is evidence that it was considered impolite to mention the bad-birth (dysgeneia) of an illegitimate person in the Plutarch reference itself:

"Ptolemy, when he was jeering at a scholar for his ignorance, asked him who was Peleus' father. And he [the scholar] replied 'I shall tell you if you will first tell me who was the father of Lagos.' This was a jest at the bad-birth of the king, and EVERYONE WAS INDIGNANT AT ITS UNSUITABLE AND ILL-TIMED CHARACTER." Plutarch, Moralia 458A-B

So we can see that there is also evidence that silence is what we should expect in polite sources, hence it is insignificant and nothing can be inferred from it.

Cordially,

Andrew

NB In case anyone is confused about this: Ptolemy I Soter was the (adoptive) son of Lagos and also the father of a prince whom he named Lagos!

[amyntoros]

So we can see that there is also evidence that silence is what we should expect in polite sources, hence it is insignificant and nothing can be inferred from it.

Well it seems you are going to uphold the silence of some sources on the matter as being more significant than the words which a range of other sources actually wrote, which is contrary to established historical method.

Again, you appear not to have understood my post. I'm not upholding the silence of some of the sources - I'm upholding the silence of ALL of the sources as to the events recorded in the Armenian Romance. Every single source fails to record that both Alexander and Olympias "knew" Philip was Ptolemy's father, despite the fact that you consider this to be truthful (albeit impolite) information which you assert was published in the late fourth century. Are you saying that the reason no one else repeated this story is because they were too polite? So . . . those who recorded the separate rumors regarding Ptolemy's birth were impolite? . . . But not impolite enough to repeat the Liber de Morte tale? Is that it?

Well, I'm obviously not in agreement, however I wasn't aware that my application of logic and use of common sense is contrary to established historical method. I should probably take a refresher course in historiography. It's been a whole year since I sat in on one and apparently the field is changing faster than I realized.

By the way, you left the Plutarch quote incomplete - in mid sentence, actually. The sentence continues: " . . . but Ptolemy said, 'If it is not the part of a king to take a jest, neither is it to make one.'" How curious that you omitted this.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Hi Amyntoros,

My position is not that it is true that Philip was Ptolemy's father. The evidence certainly does not justify that assertion. All I say is that it is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Other explanations nevertheless remain possible.

I am just trying to warn you that arguments from silence will be viewed very sceptically by academic historians. You need not take my word for it:

"As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or not detailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times ... are especially perilous." Page 14, Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 2000

I found this at http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm

You should be able to get a good impression of attitudes to arguments from silence by googling the phrase.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

My position is not that it is true that Philip was Ptolemy's father. The evidence certainly does not justify that assertion. All I say is that it is the most likely explanation of the evidence. Other explanations nevertheless remain possible.

I have been observing the re-opening of argument in this thread. The above statement GÇô whilst true in a narrow and quite technical sense GÇô is at the very best disingenuous and represents something of a polite, if decided, backing away from the definitive dogma of earlier posts:

Pausanius 1.6.2, Curtius 9.8.22 and the Alexander Romance all say that Ptolemy was the illegitimate natural son of Philip II by Arsinoe and only the adoptive son of Lagos (see also Aelian in the Suda sv. Lagos). No ancient source says otherwise. It seems to be an entirely modern fiction that he was the natural son of Lagos ...

It seems that Philip fathered Ptolemy when he was 14 (Lucian, Makrobioi 12), between stints as a hostage in Illyria and Thebes.

My point is that ALL the ancient commentators that discuss the matter of Ptolemy's birth suggest that he was a bastard and that it was believed that he was Philip's bastard. No ancient commentator argues that it was a fiction. They all imply that it was instead the general belief. Furthermore, the quotes show (especially your latest quote) that it was the general belief AT THE TIME. People from the Macedonian court would have known the truth within living memoryGǪ

How could they not? Arsinoe would have had to confess who the father was.It is pure supposition that the relationship was fictional. It runs against the flow of all the ancient evidence and it makes it necessary to believe that all sorts of strange behaviour occurred.

My problem remains that you are re-writing history on the basis of no evidence and in doing so you are rejecting the thrust of all the ancient evidence.

None of which absolutely states that "my view is that it is true" Ptolemy was Philip's bastard son. It simply does a very good job of stating it as (an only recently controverted) fact though GÇô even unto the "rewriting of history". One is left with the distinct impression that history - the fact that that Ptolemy is Philip's bastard son - is being rewriten. Not so very different a proposition.

Although I do not say that this proves that Ptolemy was Philip's son, I do say that we should consider this to be the most probable explanation of the facts.

So then, which is it? Are we "rewriting history" or simply considering an "improbable" explanation of said evidence?

It is correct that an argument from silence is fraught with danger. It is, though, necessary from time to time to consider such. Often scholars of Thucydides will argue that his silences on certain subjects or actions speak more than his actual words. You yourself have used the same argument. As I wrote earlier, one of Arrian's strengths is his close attention to detail with respect to names and parentage. Yet you state that Arrian's description of Ptolemy as son of Lagos GÇô because Arrian does not mention adoptive or the bastard birth GÇô is irrelevant as it is not evidence one way or the other.

I would say that, given Arrian's care in clearly delineating the provenance of the names of Macedonians in his work, his silence in failing to report GÇô at all GÇô "a history" that was "well known" to the Macedonians at the time, is significant. Along the lines of Thucydides failing to record anything that would significantly contrast Cleon (badly) with Pericles.

That, though, is my opinion only. I would argue that it is "most likely explanation" for Arrian's lapse though GÇô given what we know of his approach.

[amyntoros]

Hello Andrew,

I am just trying to warn you that arguments from silence will be viewed very sceptically by academic historians. You need not take my word for it:

Let's try and lay this "argument from silence" to rest. First of all there are no strict rules for historiography, only guidelines. The study of history is not an exact science and if every academic or interested party was required to follow precise rules there would be no room for disagreement. We would have one book on Alexander and no need for this forum.

This most recent debate is about dating the publication of a specific passage from the Romance. You are assigning the passage to a particular period with no evidence for this. The onus is on YOU to convince on the publication. My argument that there is no evidence for your chosen date is quite cogent. As is pointed out in Loud Arguments from Silence: "An argument from silence is entirely proper, for example, when it can be shown that if assertion X were a fact, written source Y would have been compelled to mention it." I have argued that if the excerpt had been published when you say, those who reported on the rumors of Ptolemy's parentage would have used the information therein. There is absolutely no logical reason for them not to have done so. Your repeated contention that mine is an argument of silence (and now poor methodology) is beginning to seem a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the issues. Also, declaring my objections as invalid because they are "from silence" does not mean that, contrariwise, your theory is proven.

Every theory should be addressed on its own merits, and dismissing arguments against one out of hand by throwing out generalizations rather than attending to its details can encourage unsound scholarship. I could claim, for instance, that Iolas was Alexander's lover. Historically, the female courtesan Cleino was Phildelphus' cup-bearer, while Philopater's male sexual partner Agathocles was his cup-bearer also. In fact, cup-bearing was a traditional role for catamites going back to Zeus and Ganymede. (You don't mind me using myth as historical evidence; do you? You've already done the same earlier in this very thread.) Of course, no historian has ever suggested Iolas was a sexual partner of Alexander, but perhaps they didn't know or were too polite to mention it. Their silence is insignificant; don't you agree?

I stand by my argument (not the frivolous one above) and would happily submit it to any academic historian for consideration were I not aware that they have better things to do than get involved in a Pothos debate. You have described historians in this thread has having "intuitive unhappiness with the rumor about Ptolemy's ancestry," and stated that your viewpoint does not toe the modern line. This suggests that you are expecting the academic world to view your argument with skepticism. If you did submit an article I would hope that any historian who disagreed would attend to the details and counter with more than an accusation of poor methodology.

Best regards,

[agesilaos]

And Perdikkas thought that Alexander would leave all his goods to Ptlomeos because he had often spoken to him of Ptlomeos' lucky birth. And Olympias, too, had made it clear that Ptlomeos had been fathered by Philip. So he had made him promise privately that he would in turn be a recipient of Alexander's possessions at the time of the division of the goods.

Since this is the only real bone of contention, as it may push the story back to the fourth century BC let's analyse this piece and the claims for it. (accepting the unsourced statements of authors six hundred years removed does not impress too much)

The first question is what is the propaganda message here? It is surely that Ptolemy has a birth-rite to Alexander's possessions but has struck a secret deal with Perdikkas and that this explains why Perdikkas became regent rather than Ptolemy.

This might just fit with the situation in 321 but the citing of Olympias as affirming the issue ought to ring alarm bells, the witnesses to propaganda must be firmly onside, dead or even fictional. Olympias' interests were not in making an heir without her blood of Ptolemy. Her future lay in the infant Alexander IV- not firmly onside, then and not dead til 316BC. 317 has been positted and the propaganda Polyperchontid but Olympias was firmly in the opposite camp to Ptolemy then so we can dismiss this context too.

In 309 and indeed anytime during his lifetime why would Ptolemy be issuing propaganda showing that he had surrendered his well attested, apparently, birth right to the empire and chosen to skulk in Egypt?

It makes no sense. But once the kingdoms are established and seeking legitimacy in the second generation thier may well be a neeed to explain why Alexander did not designate his half brother heir but his vizier Perdikkas. The reference to 'lucky birth' may well be a nod to the story that the infant Ptolemy was exposed and protected by an eagle. This dynastic myth marches with the Seleukid story of Nikator's possible fathering by Dionysus all developing post Issos but solidifying with the Epigonoi and it is in that context that this propaganda fits best.

Ptolemy II is making a claim for greater empire or a later Ptolemy still (the Adulis monument is Ptolemy III and that does seem to claim this genealogy however cautiously). Now we come to the question of sources and we are agreed that Kleitarchos seems to be the source for Pausanias I have argued elsewhere for a Ptolemy II date for him and this would fit.

So by setting the propaganda, which we all agree it is, we arrive at a context that negates any likelihood of realityin the claim unless we want to credit Saviour Eagle. That the story gained currency is not surprising given Kleitarchos' great popularity. But late propaganda for the new Dynasty is all it represents.

[Taphoi]

Hi agesilaos,

Hate to point this out, but your argument about Olympias having to be dead only works, if you assume that the rumour about Ptolemy's birth isn't true. Since what you are trying to prove is an assumption of your argument, the argument is circular! I think in general we are going round and round on this one. Are you dizzy yet?

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Nice try, but the argument is not circular nor does it only hold if the rumour is false. The point is that Olympias was never in Ptolemy's camp and therefore could not be expected to back any claims in Ptolemaic propaganda true or not. In 317 Ptolemy sided with Antigonos against the Kings and Olympias and Polyperchon, viz his vain attempt to seduce the Argyraspids from their allegiance to Eumenes. Earlier, Olympias whose position rests on the memory of Alexander and whose future lies with his infant son would be hardly likely to promote the claims of a full Macedonian, popular with the army against the semi-barbarous babe.

[agesilaos]

Just a little add on extra, whilst reading T S Brown 'Alexander and Athletics' I came across several references to matters in the Armenian version of the Greek Romance. In each case the Armenian improves upon the Greek, even making Boucephalos a flesh eater before being tamed. Which naturally means it is later and less accurate, why the story of Ptolemy being son of Philip and dealing with Perdikkas may reflect a situation in Armenian history rather than a late strand of Hellenistic propaganda.

[Taphoi]

Hi Agesilaos,

As I already mentioned, the episode concerning Ptolemy's birth in the Armenian Romance has a corrupted echo at the same point in the Syriac Romance, sufficient to show a common source:

"...Then he ordered a testament to be written. And Kriskos was doubtful in his mind, for he thought, 'Peradventure he will give all his possessions to Ptolemy alone, for he loved him very much during his life, and Olympias his mother loved him.' Then Kriskos swore an oath with Ptolemy, 'If Alexander gives all his property to me, thou shalt have one half of it; and if he gives it to thee, do thou give me a half.'"

The Syriac Romance is not believed to be derived from the Armenian, but from a recension known as delta-star (this is demonstrable by careful textual analysis). The common ancestor of both the Armenian and the Syriac is the alpha recension (i.e. the original version of the Romance). Therefore your idea that the Armenians invented the story does not appear to be true.

Cordially,

Andrew

[dean]

Hello,
a couple of things redirected my attention to this theme.
First I read the opening of Fire from Heaven and I know that Renault here is writing the book and setting the scene and characters etc but she does introduce the idea that Ptolemy of Lagos was Alexander's half brother.
Another thing that reminded me of this post was that while reading RL Fox's book he states that Arrideous' mother, Philip's mistress was a Thessalian "dancing girl" So looking at it Arrideous was an illegitimate half witt who Philip later was considering marrying off to the daughter of a satrap of Caria.
I know that illegitamacy was considered at this time a terrible thing but it can't have been that bad if Philip was willing to use his "illegitimate" son as a pawn to help him bridge his crossing over to Asia. If Arrideous was recognised then why not Ptolemy?

Best regards,
Dean

[Taphoi]

Hi Dean,

It wasn't really the illegitimacy that mattered. What mattered was whether your father publicly recognised you as his son if your mother was not his wife. If your father had other legitimate sons, it was very difficult for him to do so, because you would share in being his heir with the legitimate sons once you were recognised. Consequently, there would have been huge opposition from the legitimate sons and their mothers and their families.

In the case of Arrhidaeus, because he was an imbecile, Philip seems to have believed he was no threat to Alexander. Therefore Philip tried to make use of Arrhidaeus by using him to make a useful marriage alliance. In order to do this, he had to recognise Arrhidaeus as his son. However, Alexander doesn't seem to have been completely convinced that Arrhidaeus was no threat, hence the Pixodarus Affair. Imagine Alexander's reaction (not to mention Olympias and the Molossian royal family) if Philip had recognised Ptolemy.

It is ironic that Renault's fiction may be more accurate than some modern histories on this matter. It is because she often simply followed the sources and ignored modern speculation. She usually made up her own mind about what made sense. Perhaps that is why her portrait of Alexander is so powerful.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I know that illegitamacy was considered at this time a terrible thing but it can't have been that bad if Philip was willing to use his "illegitimate" son as a pawn to help him bridge his crossing over to Asia. If Arrideous was recognised then why not Ptolemy?

Many scholars today consider the allegations against Arrhidaeus and his mother to be just that - allegations; the slanderous kind that originated during struggles for the succession by the sons of different mothers in a polygamous royal marriage. The fragment of Satyrus, preserved in Athenaeus, states that Philip "Wanting to bring into his camp the Thessalian people, he made children from two Thessalian women . . . " Daniel Ogden in Polygamy, Prostitutes, and Death points out that "to have reared such children under the title of 'bastard' would have been to insult the in-laws it was his (PhilipGÇÖs) design to conciliate. . ."

It is ironic that Renault's fiction may be more accurate than some modern histories on this matter. It is because she often simply followed the sources and ignored modern speculation. She usually made up her own mind about what made sense. Perhaps that is why her portrait of Alexander is so powerful.

By making up her own mind about what made sense Renault was choosing which source excerpts to believe, as do all modern historians, so she isn't distinguished from them by this. Her portrait of Alexander is powerful, I agree, and one that's preferred by many, but preference can not be taken as an indication of accuracy.

Mary certainly didn't disdain modern speculation either, and she did a fair amount of it herself, her biography of Alexander not excluded. And when Mary conjectures, she can go over the top; witness her suggestion that Alexander might have had a love affair with Philotas' younger brother Hector - an affair of which Philotas had not approved. According to Renault, this could have been the reason why Alexander did not pursue action against Philotas in Egypt when he first learned of his disloyal words. After Hector's bereavement "it would be a time for tact." Way to go, Mary.

Best regards,