Mythical siblings, very good. Considering the subject under discussion, most apposite.
Zeus and Hera, along with the Arrhidaeus/Pixodarus story (and Ptolemy's Argaed lineage), I consider to be mythical (2) as well.
Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers???
Moderator: pothos moderators
Last edited by Paralus on Sat May 06, 2006 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
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
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Sibling marriages in the Macedonian & Epirote royal fami
Another example would be Olympias the daughter of Pyrrhus, who seems to have married her (half?) brother, Alexander the son of Pyrrhus (Justin 28.1). I think there were other similar cases, if you would like to track them down, but this is getting a little bit "What have the Romans done for us?" (Great Python sketch that!)
I have a couple of new comments to add to this older thread. First of all, quite by accident I found the article about Ptolemy's parentage that is mentioned in Note 3 on the Ptolemy I website. This is a study called The Various Fathers of Ptolemy I, by N.L. Collins of the University of Leeds, Department of Theology and Religious Studies. And it's a gem! Forty-one pages in all, with a conclusion that Ptolemy was not Philip's son, but an illegitimate with father unknown. Obviously, I'm going to favor this work because I agree with the conclusion, but I do think it should be read by everyone with an interest in the subject even if they have an opposing viewpoint. It would be way too time consuming for me to attempt to condense the article for this forum, so please feel free to send me a private message or email if you are unable to locate the article online. (I found it through my local library's journal access search engine.)
Now to the matter of brother/half-sister marriages, a topic which I originally raised but which slid into frivolity towards the end of this thread. (And, Andrew, your reference to Olympias and Pyrrhus is post-Alexander so it didn't answer my question.) The issue of a potential brother/sister marriage between Ptolemy and Cleopatra isn't even mentioned in Collin's article so it's become a moot point as far as the bastardy argument is concerned, however, having asked the question as to whether there were any historical records of brother/half-sister marriages prior to Alexander's reign, I wasn't going to give up until I had a satisfactory answer. And the answer turned out to be a resounding Yes!
I haven't been able to locate the ancient source, but I'm informed that a law of Athens allowed a man to marry his half-sister on his father's side, but not his half-sister on his mother's side, in order to prevent the union under one owner of two estates, and consequently of two inheritances. In the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay I learned that: Cimon married his half sister (although many chose to believe this a malicious rumor); verse 1271 of Aristophanes The Frogs says: "He began reciting some verses from Euripides where one perceives a brother miserable, having married his uterine sister"; Demosthenes in his Appeal against Eubulides of Miletus, asserts, "My grandfather had espoused his sister not uterine." I found out elsewhere that Dionysius I of Syracuse marked out his son Dionysius II as heir by marrying his half-sister to him. And, closer to home, Aristotle Politics 1311b tells us that the Macedonian king, Archelaus, "gave his elder daughter to the king of Elimeia, under constraint of the war against Sirrhas and Arrhabaeus, but the younger one to his son Amyntas, in the belief that Amyntas would quarrel less with the son by Cleopatra." These last two references were found in Daniel Ogden's Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death which I'm currently reading. You will definitely hear more from me on this book in the near future!
As I said above, all discussion of brother/sister marriages is now moot, but I thought I'd record it here anyway, lest it be said that I would never admit to being mistaken, misinformed . . . or just plain wrong!
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Now to the matter of brother/half-sister marriages, a topic which I originally raised but which slid into frivolity towards the end of this thread. (And, Andrew, your reference to Olympias and Pyrrhus is post-Alexander so it didn't answer my question.) The issue of a potential brother/sister marriage between Ptolemy and Cleopatra isn't even mentioned in Collin's article so it's become a moot point as far as the bastardy argument is concerned, however, having asked the question as to whether there were any historical records of brother/half-sister marriages prior to Alexander's reign, I wasn't going to give up until I had a satisfactory answer. And the answer turned out to be a resounding Yes!
I haven't been able to locate the ancient source, but I'm informed that a law of Athens allowed a man to marry his half-sister on his father's side, but not his half-sister on his mother's side, in order to prevent the union under one owner of two estates, and consequently of two inheritances. In the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay I learned that: Cimon married his half sister (although many chose to believe this a malicious rumor); verse 1271 of Aristophanes The Frogs says: "He began reciting some verses from Euripides where one perceives a brother miserable, having married his uterine sister"; Demosthenes in his Appeal against Eubulides of Miletus, asserts, "My grandfather had espoused his sister not uterine." I found out elsewhere that Dionysius I of Syracuse marked out his son Dionysius II as heir by marrying his half-sister to him. And, closer to home, Aristotle Politics 1311b tells us that the Macedonian king, Archelaus, "gave his elder daughter to the king of Elimeia, under constraint of the war against Sirrhas and Arrhabaeus, but the younger one to his son Amyntas, in the belief that Amyntas would quarrel less with the son by Cleopatra." These last two references were found in Daniel Ogden's Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death which I'm currently reading. You will definitely hear more from me on this book in the near future!
As I said above, all discussion of brother/sister marriages is now moot, but I thought I'd record it here anyway, lest it be said that I would never admit to being mistaken, misinformed . . . or just plain wrong!
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Last edited by amyntoros on Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Thanks Amyntoros. It is valuable that you have demonstrated that the objection to Ptolemy being the illegitimate son of Philip based on the proposed incest of Ptolemy with Cleopatra is untenable. I think that (pending any new arguments or evidence) we have shown that all the modern attempts to find objections to Ptolemy being the illegitimate son of Philip seem to be untenable in the ancient evidence. 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.
I have the Collins article myself and I have actually read most of it. In fact it was discussed in the earlier Pothos thread on this subject in December 2004. As you say, it is complicated in detail and much of it I wouldn't wish to argue with, but I do find the idea that Keraunos invented the idea that Philip was Ptolemy's father to be dubious. It certainly causes much more difficulty than it solves. For example, the assertion that Ptolemy was the son of Philip occurs in the Liber de Morte (in the version in the Armenian Alexander Romance). Whether you prefer Heckel's date of 317BC or Bosworth's date of 309/8BC for the Liber de Morte, both antedate Keraunos' exploits in Macedon.
Best wishes,
Andrew
I have the Collins article myself and I have actually read most of it. In fact it was discussed in the earlier Pothos thread on this subject in December 2004. As you say, it is complicated in detail and much of it I wouldn't wish to argue with, but I do find the idea that Keraunos invented the idea that Philip was Ptolemy's father to be dubious. It certainly causes much more difficulty than it solves. For example, the assertion that Ptolemy was the son of Philip occurs in the Liber de Morte (in the version in the Armenian Alexander Romance). Whether you prefer Heckel's date of 317BC or Bosworth's date of 309/8BC for the Liber de Morte, both antedate Keraunos' exploits in Macedon.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Umm, can't find my copy of the intro to the Armenian Romance ('cause I'm terribly disorganized), but I'm certain that the earliest extant manuscript dates from considerably later than 317 or 308 BC! Lots can happen to change a story over several hundred years, as we well know - especially a Romance version of someone's life.Taphoi wrote: For example, the assertion that Ptolemy was the son of Philip occurs in the Liber de Morte (in the version in the Armenian Alexander Romance). Whether you prefer Heckel's date of 317BC or Bosworth's date of 309/8BC for the Liber de Morte, both antedate Keraunos' exploits in Macedon.
However GÇô and IGÇÖve edited this part of my post since last night GÇô IGÇÖve been doing some reading this morning (ATG in Fact and Fiction and the internet) and have realized that I probably shouldnGÇÖt be participating in a debate that concentrates on the dating of the Liber de Morte. I have an interest in its contents, certainly, but insufficient knowledge to properly discuss dates of publication and authorship, etc. My thoughts this a.m. are thus: Why donGÇÖt you write to Collins about this? One of his arguments centers on there being no early record of Ptolemy being called the son of Philip. You are presenting the Liber de Morte as just such a record, therefore your argument on the (dating of the) Liber de Morte would blow his conclusion out of the water. So why not discuss this with him? I would. . . You know I would!
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Hi Amyntoros,
The dating of the Liber de Morte is largely based on arguments about when it could have been written and still have had any point as a piece of propaganda. Most scholars have concluded that it must have been composed within a decade or two of Alexander's death for this reason. It is certainly possible to argue that almost any element found within it is a later addition, but it amounts to special pleading to do so purely to save the Collins hypothesis that Keraunos invented the claim that Ptolemy was Philip's son. In the Armenian Romance, which is the most complete text in some respects at least, the assertion that Ptolemy was the son of Philip occurs in a fairly natural extension of paragraph 103 in the Metz Epitome (which is known to be lacunose).
I think that what is really required is a proper academic article giving a more balanced evaluation of the evidence on the matter of Ptolemy's ancestry and pointing out the horrible difficulties that arise, when you try to contradict the ancient sources on this matter. I feel that modern historians have jumped on this as a seemingly bizarre and suspicious connection, which superficially looks like it might be a false rumour. But first impressions can be deceptive. There is no great point in addressing the argument to Collins alone, because he is only reflecting a widespread intuitive unhappiness with the rumours about Ptolemy's ancestry among modern scholars (and which many Pothosians obviously share). Unfortunately, the past is another country and modern intuition doesn't always work well there. We may need to be more scientific in our approach to these instances.
Cordially,
Andrew
The dating of the Liber de Morte is largely based on arguments about when it could have been written and still have had any point as a piece of propaganda. Most scholars have concluded that it must have been composed within a decade or two of Alexander's death for this reason. It is certainly possible to argue that almost any element found within it is a later addition, but it amounts to special pleading to do so purely to save the Collins hypothesis that Keraunos invented the claim that Ptolemy was Philip's son. In the Armenian Romance, which is the most complete text in some respects at least, the assertion that Ptolemy was the son of Philip occurs in a fairly natural extension of paragraph 103 in the Metz Epitome (which is known to be lacunose).
I think that what is really required is a proper academic article giving a more balanced evaluation of the evidence on the matter of Ptolemy's ancestry and pointing out the horrible difficulties that arise, when you try to contradict the ancient sources on this matter. I feel that modern historians have jumped on this as a seemingly bizarre and suspicious connection, which superficially looks like it might be a false rumour. But first impressions can be deceptive. There is no great point in addressing the argument to Collins alone, because he is only reflecting a widespread intuitive unhappiness with the rumours about Ptolemy's ancestry among modern scholars (and which many Pothosians obviously share). Unfortunately, the past is another country and modern intuition doesn't always work well there. We may need to be more scientific in our approach to these instances.
Cordially,
Andrew
I think that (despite all other issues raised here) the intuitive unhappiness originates with the recorded events after Alexander's death in that there is no mention of Ptolemy's relationship with Philip at this crucial point in time - except for the lines from the Armenian Romance wherein lies the only direct contradiction, IMO. I suspect that even a "proper academic article" will not convince me otherwise, but it would probably cause quite a stir. So . . . are you going for it?Taphoi wrote:There is no great point in addressing the argument to Collins alone, because he is only reflecting a widespread intuitive unhappiness with the rumours about Ptolemy's ancestry among modern scholars (and which many Pothosians obviously share).
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
my two obols worth
Adopting a scientific approach would mean assessing the relative values of the source material; Now on the face of it Lucian's tale of the fourteen year old Philip passing on his pregnant mistress seems attractive, but Philip only held a low position at a turbulent court and unfortunately for Lucian was a hostage at Thebes during the ages of fourteen and fifteen being redeemed when Ptolemy Aloros killed AlexanderII and the Theban hostages were replaced with others whom Aloros held dear. Clearly a late story picked up uncritically by a late polymath.
The Plutarch story supports an anti-son of Philip line since it is the obscurity of Lagos' lineage that is the point not Ptolemy's bastardy.
Pausanias is similarly not a sound source for history when he can be checked he can be shown to be slovenly and in any case is merely reporting what the Macedonians 'believe' erroneously in his view. In the same way that most Americans believe that JFK was the victim of an assassination plot, this hearsay has little bearing on the truth.
Curtius too reports a rumour, sceptically; it could be that he got this line from a version of the Liber de Morte since his closing critique implies familiarity therewith.
So what of the LDM? It would certainly be the oldest source to mention it the sources for the story's above being later than Ptolemy's assumption of kingship. But the story is not in the Liber de Morte we possess only a later redaction in the Armenian Romance. The question then is does the Romance represent a fuller version of the original or an embroidery upon a sparer tale ? The metz version is appended to an epitome of a history, a history that contains fantastic elements but is essentially sober and is probably that of Kleitarchos to this is appended our Liber de Morte which does not appear to be an epitome, otherwise the letter to the Rhodians is otiose. It is lacunose and corrupt but is there a lacuna where it is required? Having just checked the answer is no so on balance it seems scientifically more likely that the Armenian version represents an improvement upon the original.
So since Arrian and his sources Ptolemy, Aristoboulos and Niarchos, Diodoros' source for the successors Hieronymos, and even Plutarch's sources for the early years make no mention of Ptolemy's alleged parentage by Philip it seems not unscientific to place more value in their silence, which profits them nothing, than the amusing gossip of later writers or even more sensationalist contemporaries.
It represents the dynastic propaganda ofthe Ptolemies as the claim to Heraclid descent on the aulis stele indicates. At a guess I would point the finger at our old friend Kleitarchos writing late for Ptolemy II as Curtius' source for the rumour although I know Taphoi favours an early date. We really must go with the more reliable ancient evidence and not later fictions with a purpose.
The Plutarch story supports an anti-son of Philip line since it is the obscurity of Lagos' lineage that is the point not Ptolemy's bastardy.
Pausanias is similarly not a sound source for history when he can be checked he can be shown to be slovenly and in any case is merely reporting what the Macedonians 'believe' erroneously in his view. In the same way that most Americans believe that JFK was the victim of an assassination plot, this hearsay has little bearing on the truth.
Curtius too reports a rumour, sceptically; it could be that he got this line from a version of the Liber de Morte since his closing critique implies familiarity therewith.
So what of the LDM? It would certainly be the oldest source to mention it the sources for the story's above being later than Ptolemy's assumption of kingship. But the story is not in the Liber de Morte we possess only a later redaction in the Armenian Romance. The question then is does the Romance represent a fuller version of the original or an embroidery upon a sparer tale ? The metz version is appended to an epitome of a history, a history that contains fantastic elements but is essentially sober and is probably that of Kleitarchos to this is appended our Liber de Morte which does not appear to be an epitome, otherwise the letter to the Rhodians is otiose. It is lacunose and corrupt but is there a lacuna where it is required? Having just checked the answer is no so on balance it seems scientifically more likely that the Armenian version represents an improvement upon the original.
So since Arrian and his sources Ptolemy, Aristoboulos and Niarchos, Diodoros' source for the successors Hieronymos, and even Plutarch's sources for the early years make no mention of Ptolemy's alleged parentage by Philip it seems not unscientific to place more value in their silence, which profits them nothing, than the amusing gossip of later writers or even more sensationalist contemporaries.
It represents the dynastic propaganda ofthe Ptolemies as the claim to Heraclid descent on the aulis stele indicates. At a guess I would point the finger at our old friend Kleitarchos writing late for Ptolemy II as Curtius' source for the rumour although I know Taphoi favours an early date. We really must go with the more reliable ancient evidence and not later fictions with a purpose.
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Unfortunately, Agesilaos, I have to point out that you don't actually cite any evidence against Ptolemy being Philip's son - only scepticism about what evidence there is (which is all in favour). If you check the dates, there is room for Ptolemy to have been fathered just before Philip was packed off to Thebes as a hostage, but if Lucian is wrong and Ptolemy was younger, then it actually makes it easier for him to be Philip's son! In fact getting Arsinoe into trouble provides a possible explanation as to why he was chosen to be sent to Thebes. If you are going to elevate modern speculation over ancient evidence, then you can believe anything about anything.
Arguments from silence are invalid unless the silence can be shown to be significant. As I have pointed out before, it was considered impolite in ancient times to discuss the parentage of illegitimate persons, so silence is actually what you would expect, unless the illegitimate person himself made an issue of the matter. Ptolemy clearly did not.
Amyntoros: I have rather a lot of projects on the go at the moment and I think it would be uphill work to get an article on the parentage of Ptolemy accepted unless it toed the modern line, but I will put it on my long-term list anyway.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Arguments from silence are invalid unless the silence can be shown to be significant. As I have pointed out before, it was considered impolite in ancient times to discuss the parentage of illegitimate persons, so silence is actually what you would expect, unless the illegitimate person himself made an issue of the matter. Ptolemy clearly did not.
Amyntoros: I have rather a lot of projects on the go at the moment and I think it would be uphill work to get an article on the parentage of Ptolemy accepted unless it toed the modern line, but I will put it on my long-term list anyway.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Taphoi wrote:If you are going to elevate modern speculation over ancient evidence, then you can believe anything about anything.
Wasn't going to get too involved again, but I find it disconcerting to see others accused of elevating modern speculation over ancient evidence when you are speculating yourself - as in ". . . if Lucian is wrong and Ptolemy was younger . . . getting Arsinoe into trouble provides a possible explanation . . ." This is modern speculation Andrew. We all do it, academics included, and you are no exception. Also, you have an opinion that the evidence is all in favor of Ptolemy having been fathered by Philip. As is evident here and elsewhere, there is plenty of room for disagreement on this. However, I would never say that your opinion means you will believe anything about anything. You simply have your own interpretation of the evidence. As does Agesilaos. As do I.
As Collins has established, there's high probability that Ptolemy was a bastard, however it does not follow from his silence that Philip was his natural father. Ptolemy's silence means only that he did not want to discuss his illegitimacy, and (given the events after Alexander's death) to me that's pretty indicative of Ptolemy having no familial relationship with Alexander.Arguments from silence are invalid unless the silence can be shown to be significant. As I have pointed out before, it was considered impolite in ancient times to discuss the parentage of illegitimate persons, so silence is actually what you would expect, unless the illegitimate person himself made an issue of the matter. Ptolemy clearly did not.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
I don't have a problem with speculation in general, especially when it's directed at showing how the ancient evidence makes sense. Nor do I have a problem with attempts to reveal contradictions in the ancient evidence.
The problem here is that modern opinions about Ptolemy's parentage are being given more weight than all the ancient evidence. To reject the ancient evidence solely on the basis that modern opinion finds the thrust of the evidence to be suspicious is an approach that would move history into the realms of theology and the occult.
The challenge stands: find me some ancient evidence that asserts that Ptolemy was not Philip's bastard, or that he was the natural son of any other man (accepting of course that he was called the son of Lagos, but that this need only mean adoptive son - as endorsed by Collins). This may not be an impossible challenge - there's lots of evidence out there. I am open to being convinced, but only by evidence - not by mere opinion.
Silence of any kind is not evidence for anything unless you can show some really overwhelming reason why the silence should have been broken.
Cordially,
Andrew
The problem here is that modern opinions about Ptolemy's parentage are being given more weight than all the ancient evidence. To reject the ancient evidence solely on the basis that modern opinion finds the thrust of the evidence to be suspicious is an approach that would move history into the realms of theology and the occult.
The challenge stands: find me some ancient evidence that asserts that Ptolemy was not Philip's bastard, or that he was the natural son of any other man (accepting of course that he was called the son of Lagos, but that this need only mean adoptive son - as endorsed by Collins). This may not be an impossible challenge - there's lots of evidence out there. I am open to being convinced, but only by evidence - not by mere opinion.
Silence of any kind is not evidence for anything unless you can show some really overwhelming reason why the silence should have been broken.
Cordially,
Andrew
Hello,
I hate to state the obvious but if Ptolemy was Alexander's brother then through rumour or on the grape vine or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't the cat have got out of the bag? Wouldn't have Ptolemy via Arrian have told us so and wouldn't have Ptolemy have stepped forward to place the ring on his hand? Is there any mention in Arrian or Curtius affirming this? What value should we give this pamphlet?
If Arrideous was considered royal material and capable of holding the Macedonian empire together then a hundred fold more so Ptolemy....and he must have known it!!!
Looking at it objectively there can't be any basis of truth in the idea because Ptolemy who took Alexander's embalmed body to Alexandria for exhibition purposes would have milked it dry or wouldn't he?
Must reread Renault because she tries to imply this for reasons unknown that Ptolemy and Alexander were blood related and her intuitions seem to outweigh the mightiest of academics but again I just find that the whole idea has this fantastic "willo the wisp" quality.
Best regards,
Dean
I hate to state the obvious but if Ptolemy was Alexander's brother then through rumour or on the grape vine or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't the cat have got out of the bag? Wouldn't have Ptolemy via Arrian have told us so and wouldn't have Ptolemy have stepped forward to place the ring on his hand? Is there any mention in Arrian or Curtius affirming this? What value should we give this pamphlet?
If Arrideous was considered royal material and capable of holding the Macedonian empire together then a hundred fold more so Ptolemy....and he must have known it!!!
Looking at it objectively there can't be any basis of truth in the idea because Ptolemy who took Alexander's embalmed body to Alexandria for exhibition purposes would have milked it dry or wouldn't he?
Must reread Renault because she tries to imply this for reasons unknown that Ptolemy and Alexander were blood related and her intuitions seem to outweigh the mightiest of academics but again I just find that the whole idea has this fantastic "willo the wisp" quality.
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Yes, Dean, you are absolutely right: the rumour got out. Yes, it's in Curtius (9.8.22)! It's also in Pausanius 1.6.2 and in Section 269 of the Armenian Alexander Romance. There is a garbled echo of it in the Syriac Alexander Romance (3.20) showing that it was very likely in the archetype of the Alexander Romance (known as the alpha recension). Aelian, quoted by the Suda under Lagos, also states that Ptolemy was illegitimate. Plutarch in the Moralia 458A-B tells a story about the "dysgeneias" (literally the bad-birth) of Ptolemy.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Best wishes,
Andrew
It is indeed a great shame that 'Lagou' describes a legal rather than biological relationship but to persist in calling later rumour 'ancient evidence is bad method.
I have read the full Pausanias piece and you will find I 6 i 'But as regards Attalos and Ptolemy, what happenned has had longer to grow old, and the spoken tradition has died out. (The personal historians of those monarchs had come to be disregarded even more rapidly)...[2] The Macedonians believe that Ptolemy was the son of Philip, although nominally Lagos' son since Philip had given the mother to Lagos' when already pregnant. They say among other glorious deeds of Ptolemy in Asia that, when Alexander was in trouble among the Oxydracians, Ptolemy stood out among Alexander's companions for the help he gave him.'
Ecce Kleitarchus, who placed Alexander's wound among the Oxydracae rather than the Mallae and gave Ptolemy a significant part as we know both from Diodoros' epitome and Curtius' criticism. This confirms my hunch that the source of Curtius' story was Kleitarchos too.
The Adulis monument which tells of Ptolemy III's campaign in Syria in propagandist terms (he gets to India!) does say that Ptolemy I was descended from Herakles on the father's side and Dionysos on his mother's. This is clearly dynastic propaganda and late none of Ptolemy I' s monuments proclaim this descent.
So it would seem that the story starts in the court of Ptolemy II in Kleitarchos' history's tentative flattery, after all Ptolemy II was the son of the king's mistress too so there could be something double edged about this line. But the dynasty obviously took it well and absorbed it into there dynastic mythology. The Seleukids also had there divine beginnings stories and such would become an essential starting point for the ruler-cults which flourished at this period - precisely because the dynasts no longer had the cudos of association with the great conqueror nor any legitamate Royal blood.
As for there being no evidence other than silence it would be unusual for anyone to qualify Ptolemy Lagou' but not Philippou' unless the story was current and pertinent I fancy that this was not so when either Ptolemy or Aristoboulos wrote, Kleitarchos coming after them and being the more popular author it is no surprise that it is his story which is carried down and embellished by subsequent writers - this is demonstrable in the case of Pausanias and probable in that of Curtius.
Also you seem to have ignored my point that Plutarch's story questions theorigins of LAGOS and not Ptolemiy the point is not that he is a bastard but that his family was of no account, much like that of Peleus before Peleus was born.
Long live Quellenforschungen!
I have read the full Pausanias piece and you will find I 6 i 'But as regards Attalos and Ptolemy, what happenned has had longer to grow old, and the spoken tradition has died out. (The personal historians of those monarchs had come to be disregarded even more rapidly)...[2] The Macedonians believe that Ptolemy was the son of Philip, although nominally Lagos' son since Philip had given the mother to Lagos' when already pregnant. They say among other glorious deeds of Ptolemy in Asia that, when Alexander was in trouble among the Oxydracians, Ptolemy stood out among Alexander's companions for the help he gave him.'
Ecce Kleitarchus, who placed Alexander's wound among the Oxydracae rather than the Mallae and gave Ptolemy a significant part as we know both from Diodoros' epitome and Curtius' criticism. This confirms my hunch that the source of Curtius' story was Kleitarchos too.
The Adulis monument which tells of Ptolemy III's campaign in Syria in propagandist terms (he gets to India!) does say that Ptolemy I was descended from Herakles on the father's side and Dionysos on his mother's. This is clearly dynastic propaganda and late none of Ptolemy I' s monuments proclaim this descent.
So it would seem that the story starts in the court of Ptolemy II in Kleitarchos' history's tentative flattery, after all Ptolemy II was the son of the king's mistress too so there could be something double edged about this line. But the dynasty obviously took it well and absorbed it into there dynastic mythology. The Seleukids also had there divine beginnings stories and such would become an essential starting point for the ruler-cults which flourished at this period - precisely because the dynasts no longer had the cudos of association with the great conqueror nor any legitamate Royal blood.
As for there being no evidence other than silence it would be unusual for anyone to qualify Ptolemy Lagou' but not Philippou' unless the story was current and pertinent I fancy that this was not so when either Ptolemy or Aristoboulos wrote, Kleitarchos coming after them and being the more popular author it is no surprise that it is his story which is carried down and embellished by subsequent writers - this is demonstrable in the case of Pausanias and probable in that of Curtius.
Also you seem to have ignored my point that Plutarch's story questions theorigins of LAGOS and not Ptolemiy the point is not that he is a bastard but that his family was of no account, much like that of Peleus before Peleus was born.
Long live Quellenforschungen!
-
Taphoi
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 932
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
- Location: Bristol, England, UK
- Contact:
Hi Agesilaos,
You are wrong to say that Plutarch's story questions the birth of Lagos, because Plutarch states explicity that it was the bad-birth (dysgeneia) of the king (tou basileos) that was being referred to. There was no King Lagos. It must be Ptolemy I who is meant. Collins, for example, points out that everyone assumes this. Similarly, the term dysgeneia is taken by virtually everyone to refer to illegitimacy, rather than to humble origins. Aelian, Curtius, Pausanius and the Liber de Morte (Holkias?) all suggest that Ptolemy I was illegitimate, so this is hardly a surprise. These are the only known sources that discuss the identity of Ptolemy's natural father.
I actually agree with you that Cleitarchus is the most likely source for Pausanius and Curtius on this point (though it is far from certain). The date of Cleitarchus is very uncertain, but he wrote within living memory of Alexander's campaigns. It would have been very hard to invent the story within living memory. It would have been ridiculed, if it had been untrue.
There is no good reason to suppose that the mention that Philip fathered Ptolemy in the Armenian version of the Liber de Morte is not an original element of the LDM.
Actually, the descent from Herakles thing was explained by the later Ptolemies by inventing a complex connection between Arsinoe and an earlier branch of the Heraclid royal family of Macedon (Satyros FGrHist 631 F 1). The 17th Idyll of Theocritus from Philadelphus' court is the earliest reference calling Ptolemy I the son of Lagos, though it also says that Ptolemy I was descended from Herakles. The Ptolemies seem never openly to have claimed descent from Philip. Hence it is particularly unlikely that Cleitarchus would have written that Philip was the father of Ptolemy I to please Philadelphus.
Best wishes,
Andrew
You are wrong to say that Plutarch's story questions the birth of Lagos, because Plutarch states explicity that it was the bad-birth (dysgeneia) of the king (tou basileos) that was being referred to. There was no King Lagos. It must be Ptolemy I who is meant. Collins, for example, points out that everyone assumes this. Similarly, the term dysgeneia is taken by virtually everyone to refer to illegitimacy, rather than to humble origins. Aelian, Curtius, Pausanius and the Liber de Morte (Holkias?) all suggest that Ptolemy I was illegitimate, so this is hardly a surprise. These are the only known sources that discuss the identity of Ptolemy's natural father.
I actually agree with you that Cleitarchus is the most likely source for Pausanius and Curtius on this point (though it is far from certain). The date of Cleitarchus is very uncertain, but he wrote within living memory of Alexander's campaigns. It would have been very hard to invent the story within living memory. It would have been ridiculed, if it had been untrue.
There is no good reason to suppose that the mention that Philip fathered Ptolemy in the Armenian version of the Liber de Morte is not an original element of the LDM.
Actually, the descent from Herakles thing was explained by the later Ptolemies by inventing a complex connection between Arsinoe and an earlier branch of the Heraclid royal family of Macedon (Satyros FGrHist 631 F 1). The 17th Idyll of Theocritus from Philadelphus' court is the earliest reference calling Ptolemy I the son of Lagos, though it also says that Ptolemy I was descended from Herakles. The Ptolemies seem never openly to have claimed descent from Philip. Hence it is particularly unlikely that Cleitarchus would have written that Philip was the father of Ptolemy I to please Philadelphus.
Best wishes,
Andrew