pothos.org

I remember being puzzled by this person in the past, but forgot about the issue for a long time. He is mentioned in Arrian (1.15,16) as one of the Persian nobles killed during the battle of Granicus. I came across him again while reading a very interesting book by John Freely "Children of Achilles" (about Greeks of Asia Minor from the Trojan war till modern times).

Son-in-law of Darius; it means that this Mithridates was married to one of the Darius' daughters. But both Stateira and Drypetis were too young to be married at the time (I presume). Could he be called son-in-law if he was only betrothed to one of the daughters? Or may it be that son-in-law is incorrect English translation? I checked my Russian version of Arrian book, and the translation from the original uses the word equivalent to English son-in-law.

Does anybody here can shed some light on this puzzle?

The word used is 'gambros', I 16 iii LSJ has

γαμβρός , ὁ,
A. [select] connexion by marriage, Pi.N.5.37, A.Ag.708 (pl.): hence,
I. [select] son-in-law, Il.6.249, Hdt.5.30,67, Democr. 272, E.Ph. 427, etc.
II. [select] brother-in-law, i.e. sister's husband, Il.5.474, 13.464, Hdt.1.73, etc.; or, wife's brother, S.OT70.
III. [select] = πενθερός, father-in-law, E.Hipp.635, Andr.641, LXXEx.3.1.
IV. [select] Dor. and Aeol., bridegroom, wooer, Sapph. 103, Pi.P.9.116, Theoc.18.49, 15.129, Arat.248. (Cf. Skt. jārá- (from ĝ[mmacrnull]ró- 'lover'.)

So the connexion is not as specific as son-in-law, Mithradates have married a daughter of Oxyathres, Darius' brother or a sister we do not hear of all that is stated is a 'connexion by marriage'.

If Mithridates' widow was a daughter of Darius, either an older sister of Stateira and Drypetis, or by another wife, she surely would have been a hot property on the marriage market after his death. One of the other Persian nobles would have married her to bolster Darius's support, as Stateira appears to have been betrothed, or promised in her absence, to Mazeus of Babylon before Gaugamela. Her husband would then have been a major threat to Alexander after Darius's death. Is there any further mention of her? If not, I would suspect she wasn't his daughter (or she was dead).

Thank you, Agesilaos. "Connected by marriage" makes more sense since it presents a wide range of possibilities. Strange, though, that at least two different translations into two different languages make the same mistake in translation. Maybe not mistake per se, but at least carelessness. I am quite sure (though without any proof for that) that if Darius had other daughters (e.i. in addition to Stateira and Drypetis), such daughter would have been mentioned.

They would only be mentioned when they impinged upon Alexander's own story, Dareios' son was captured at Issos, for instance, but we are not told his name! Diod XVII 38 ff also mentions the capture of daughters, though by implication they are unmarried (and may be Stateira and Drypetis, in fact). Further, at 21 iii

3 After this, several of the other noble Persians fighting against him fell, of whom the most illustrious were Atizyes and Pharnaces, brother of Dareius's queen, and also Mithrobuzanes who commanded the Cappadocians.

It would not be impossible for Mithrobuzanes to be Mithrodates and for the note of his kinship to Queen Stateira to have been mistakenly applied to Pharnaces; names are frequently garbled in transmission and that Diodoros could muddle his notes can be seen from his placing Neoptolemos, a traitor in Arrian(I 20 x), on the side of Alexander, for instance (25 v).

The same Mithridates (identical spelling), it seems, is quoted only another time by Plutarch, Mor. 326f, together with Spithridates, as being both killed at Granicus' battle.

delos13 wrote:I am quite sure (though without any proof for that) that if Darius had other daughters (e.i. in addition to Stateira and Drypetis), such daughter would have been mentioned.

Unless she was already dead, of course.