pothos.org

The symposium is taking place in Thessaloniki from the 14th till the 18th of October. Some initial presentations refer to the assassination of Philip II. So here's a briefing:
Prof. Daniel Ogden (Uni. of Swansea) is estimating based on Plutarch and Heracleitus that there was intense antagonism between Philip's two wives (Filinna and Olympias). They were both promoting her son as heir to the throne (ok, we already new all that!). BUT Mr. Ogden based on some pieces from "Fyllina's papyrus" (sorry, never heard of this before, anyone else?) claims that there were rituals of black magic involved. Kate Morgensen (Uni. of New England) on the other hand claims in the conference that Philip and his murderer Pausanias were lovers and that homosexuality was widely spread in the Macedonian court (we also know that!) BUT she pinpoints Pausanias motive to the following incident:
Pausanias hated Philip because he did not support him as the innocent victim of a rape that was organized against him by Attalus (with the purpose to humiliate him). Mrs Morgensen also claims that Philip was not the first monarch who was assassinated by a former lover.Your comments everyone?
I'll keep you posted during the following days for any new developments.regards,
Yiannis

Hi Yiannis!Are you in Thessaloniki?Anyway, thanks for sharing with us people what's going on in the symposium.
Let's see if them phd's give us some good new points to discuss here, no? And see if they are entitled to their scholarships ;)susa

1. Philinna's papyrus - this sounds like it came from the Alexander romance which is full of references to magic and ritual from papyrus - as you would expect given its likely Egyptian origin. I've never heard of a real historical papyrus relating to Philinna and indeed there is little known of her. (There were traditions that she was a low-born whore but this was just propaganda as I can't see why Arrhidaeos would have been regarded as an heir if this was the case). Maybe your professor will surprise us with new evidence.2.Pausanius' motive. This was the motive usually given for Pausanius part, and it would explain why he was the assassin, but plenty people had reason to want Philip out of the way and could have helped him along. It depends how far you want to go in the way of conspiracy theory see for instance the death of Kennedy and how many books have been written on that.Is there any website where we can see details of their papers ?

There's no site yet, but there's the promise that the outcome of this symposium will be published, I think, at the Thessaloniki Aristotle University site. Anyway I'll do my best to keep you posted. I'm located in Athens, otherwise I'd go and attend the symposium myself (i'm sure I'd an invitation somehow!)Cheers,
Yiannis

There's no site yet, but there's the promise that the outcome of this symposium will be published, I think, at the Thessaloniki Aristotle University site. Anyway I'll do my best to keep you posted. I'm located in Athens, otherwise I'd go and attend the symposium myself (i'm sure I'd obtain an invitation somehow!)Cheers,
Yiannis

Gee I wish I was going to be there for this one!
Regarding 'witch craft' I dont doubt that anything Olympias was involved with was influenced by her cult practices. I haven't heard of any 'papers' re Filinna but no doubt the 'accident' involving her son Arridaios must have created great animosity.
I'd have thought the 'new bride', Kleopatra (neice of Attalos) might have been conniving against her too. As for the Pausanias story, I believe it's the most common theory but I think he was merely a 'tool' of Philip's other enemies (and that could include the Greeks, the Persians and Olympias.) And yes, having male lovers was a common practice throughout all the Greek world. (The Sacred Band of Thebes fought as partners and one would die for the other) so no surprise. Philip seemed to have a great appetite for men and women apparantly. (We can't put our modern morality values on their time in history as it was looked upon quite differently then than now.)

Ruth said:(We can't put our modern morality values on their time in history as it was looked upon quite differently then than now.) I wonder what that means? That it is wrong? Because someone who believes it (bisexuality or homosexuality) is wrong now has to believe it was wrong then. 2,000 years isn't a huge gap in history. Hell, Chaucer wrote 700 years ago, and his people are completely recognisable. Philip having affairs caused trouble, just as any man or woman now who has lots of affairs is going to cause trouble. They get away with it more when they are rich. Polygamy is still common in some societies - I wouldn't say it was immoral - just more in the male's favour than the female's. I ask what that statement means this because it often comes up in these discussions,a nd is written in books. You can understand why people perhaps acted differently in different social and cultural situations, but I think that you can apply your own moral values to any time in history. Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different. For example, murder. It was wrong for Alexander to kill Cleitus - everyone knew it, everyone condemned it, but he got away with it because of the social structure. It doesn't mean that we cannot apply the moral value to that time. I don't see the *point* of saying that we can't apply our values then, particularly to sexuality. We can say - it was more openly acceptable in society than it is in many parts of the world now, although that is changing, particularly in post-Christian societies. I think that is different to saying "we can't apply our modern moral values". Just what I think..

Hi Linda,I don't really have enough time to give a long response, but I was intrigued by one paragraph in particular:>>Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different.>Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different.>Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different.Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different.Slavery was wrong then, and it is wrong now. They may not have thought it was wrong, but it was. Similarly, prejudice against homosexuality is wrong now, where it occurs. Homosexuality wasn't any different then from how it is now. Conventions etc may have been different.

Marcus, I couldn't agree more!
It's all about perception. E.g. in Homeric times there were no courts. If one killed someone from your family, it was the family's duty to track the killer and kill him as well. It wasn't "wrong" to kill; it was your duty instead. We cannot accept this, certainly, in nowadays.
The same goes for homosexuality. I'm not going into the debate: it's "bad", "good", "acceptable" or not. In ancient Greece it was a part of social life as long as the man who practiced it also exercised his "duties" at home as well. A man who would be feminine would be a subject of contempt and laughter even in liberal Athens as Euripides and others comedies have shown.
So, Linda, I don't see the point in arguing if it was "wrong" then or now because it is really not our subject. We care for the historical not the ethical aspect of this matter.Regards,
Yiannis

Hmm - I was responding to Ruth's comment, Yannis and Marcus, that you cannot apply modern morality to ancient cultures. I don't have time to reply really, but I thought it was an interesting point of view - absolute and moral relativism. But if *you* say, Yannis, that is not what we are here to discuss, then well, who am I to disagree? I am afraid I always get into fights in this forum with this homosexuality thing, so I am not going to continue. It is all how we understand language - Alexander slept with men, but he wasn't gay/bisexual. Fine, as long as we can say that Aristotle slept with women but he wasn't straight, as that is a modern concept, as well.If you believe that Alexander would have been different sexually if he had lived now, the ok, but I am afraid I don't.

Linda, sorry but you either misunderstood me or I didn't make my point clear enough. I understand what you mean and I agree with it, from a moral point of view. From it's historical though, Alexander would not have been perceived as homosexual (with the present meaning of the word)amongst his contemporaries because there was no separation between "straight" and homosexuals at that time in history and place. I don't judge if homosexuality in nowadays and under the Christianity prism is "wrong" or not. I think it's a human right that has to be preserved to be able to sexually identify oneself.
I totally agree, that you cannot apply modern morality to ancient cultures. This is my point in the above posting as well. In any case feel free to discuss in the forum anything that you like and we can debate about it.
Who am I to tell you what to discuss after all:-)Regards,
YiannisPS
For us, members of this forum that English is not our mother tongue, it's sometimes hard to express some diverse meanings. I often go back to some of my posting and go "oh, what am I saying here!". So please try to read between the lines as well...

Hi Linda,I second Yiannis' last posting - sorry if we misunderstood you, but I was responding to a specific comment you made.Lord knows we have discussed the gay/not gay issue offline so I'm not deliberately trying to give you a hard time, I promise! :-)All the bestMarcus

Would appreciate recieving at the above e-mail address any papers, notes, etc you have in English from the Symposium. thanks

Hi Yiannis and MarcusNo offence taken. Even though English is supposedly my first language, I don't think I will ever be able to explain what I mean, properly.Dead, horse and flogging spring to mind, so I won't. :)Linda

Richard,I'll post all updates in the Forum so make sure you visit often :-)regards,
yiannis