Appendix 137
cannot be treated as objective fact, no matter how appealing the anecdote in which they are imbedded. More specifically, Plutarch’s characterization of Olympias in his Alexander is no more or less reliable than the quite different image of her he offers in his essays. Neither can function as a dependable basis for evaluating her career or policies. That said, the few surviving contemporary inscriptions and speeches relevant to Olympias’ life become vital sources in themselves as well as important correctives to material from narrative sources.
List of terms
Aeacid Royal house of Molossia, the descendants of Aeacus.
Alexander Romance A historical novel about Alexander that developed in antiquity and endured in a plethora of forms until the Renaissance.
Argead Royal house of Macedonia, the descendants of Argeas (also known as the Temenids).
basileia Kingdom or monarchy.
contorniate Roman cast medallions, fourth to fifth century CE, possibly connected to the games.
epitome Shortened, summary version of a literary work.
Hetairos (Pl. Hetairoi) Companion (later called Philoi), a member of the group of elite men who traditionally accompanied and served (personally, administratively, militarily) the Macedonian king. Ordinarily there would have been a small inner circle within the larger group. The term is also applied collectively to an even larger body, the Macedonian cavalry.
Hypaspist A member of the king’s personal foot guard, an elite infantry unit within the Macedonian army.
maenad A female worshiper of Dionysus, usually assumed to be inspired to ritual frenzy.
oikos The household, the house, a royal house.
philia Friendship and affection, including formal and informal good relations between states and/or individuals.
Philos (Pl. Philoi) Friends, family members, those with whom one has good relations, possibly of a formal sort. In Hellenistic times, this term was used instead of Hetairos.
polis (Pl. poleis) City-state, often refers to the public community of citizens.
Royal Youths (Sometimes called Pages) Elite youths under (roughly) eighteen who served and guarded the king. They accompanied him on the hunt and in battle.
Somatophulax Bodyguard, ordinarily Macedonian kings’ seven bodyguards, typically their closest associates. Occasionally ancient authors apply the term to other groups that guarded the king.
Successors ( Diadochoi) The generals of Alexander who contended for control of his empire after his death. Many became kings.
List of terms 139
timé Honor, often external in nature, signifying the esteem of others.
xenia Ritualized friendship or guest friendship, a bond between people belonging to separate poleis or communities.
1
2
Notes
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
1 Olympias the Molossian
14
1 Cross 1932: 9, followed by Heckel 1981b: 80. The degree of Hellenization of 15
Molossia outside the royal family is debatable; see Whitley 2001: 400.
16
2 Some (Cross 1932: 6–8, 100–2; Hammond 1967: 490; Ameling 1988: 663) believe (on the basis of Pind. Nem. 7.64–6) that Pindar was a Molossian 17
proxenos (formal friend in Thebes of the Molossian state) and that he referred 18
to the descent of Molossian kings from Neoptolemus; others (Perret 1946: 19
8–11; Woodbury 1979: 121–3) reject it. Heckel 1981b: 80–1, ns. 9 and 10, 20
though recognizing evidentiary problems, argues convincingly that it is likely 21
the genealogy goes back to Pindar.
3 Plut. Pyrrh. 1.3 asserts that Achilles received cult in Epirus under the cult name 22
“Aspetus.”
23
4 Hammond 1967: 505, citing Athenian desire for Molossian alliance and 24
interest in flattering the king Tharyps, then present or recently present in 25
Athens. See Robertson 1923; Perret 1946.
26
5 Hammond 1967: 505 thinks that Euripides may have invented Andromache’s marriage to Helenus.
27
6 Heckel 1981b: 82.
28
7 Homer more often calls the most notorious son of Priam “Alexandros” than 29
he does “Paris.” “Troas” replicates the name of Priam’s city, Troy. See below 30
for the likelihood that Olympias’ earliest name was Polyxena, the name of a 31
daughter of Priam.
8 Klotzsch 1911: 54–5; Cross 1932: 32 is non-committal; Macurdy 1932a: 23
32
considered the suggestion possible whereas Heckel 1981b: 81, Ameling 1988: 33
663, and Mortensen 1997: 5 take it as a certainty. However, an inscription 34
from Epidaurus ( IG IV2 1.122 iama 31) complicates the matter. It refers to a 35
woman named Andromacha, married to a man named Arybbas. (See further 36
discussion of this inscription below.) Tod 1948: 2.217, following Dittenberger, the original editor of the inscription, thinks that her husband was an Aeacid 37
but does not consider the possibility that he was the king himself. Klotzsch 38
1911: 229 considers it likely that the inscription refers to the king. Assuming 39
that this Andromacha was a royal wife, her “Trojan” name could mean one of 40
several things: Arybbas and Neoptolemus both married members of the 41
Chaonian royal house, possibly sisters; a Chaonian marriage had occurred earlier and this generation chose to emphasize genealogy by name choice, just 42
as the Aeacids claimed descent from Achilles long before they chose names 43
suggesting that descent; Andromacha was, like Troas, an Aeacid by birth as 44
well as by marriage.
45
9 Perret 1946: 5.
46
47
Notes 141
10 Ameling 1988: 658, 664. Many authors refer to Alexander’s Aeacid origins, suggesting that he, like his mother, stressed them: Arr. 4.11.6; Paus. 1.9.10; Vell. 1.6.5; Curt. 8.4.26; Plut. Alex. 2.1; Diod. 17.1.5. Arrian (1.11.8) even reports a story which has Alexander sacrificing at the tomb of Priam, asking for him not to be angry at the genos (clan or house) of Neoptolemus, of which he was the descendant. Greek focus on the male line of descent is normal; Alexander’s apparent stress on his maternal descent is unusual.
11 Ameling 1988: 664.
12 See Carney 2000a: 275–6 and Ameling 1988 for references and discussion.
13 See discussion of the actions of Olympias and other royal women as possibly influenced by Greek literature, particularly Greek tragedy in Carney 1993a: 315–16 and Carney 1993b: 51–4.
14 Mortensen 1997: 25 suggests the character of Polyxena in Hecuba as a model.
15 Demand’s discussion of recent women’s and gender studies in the Greek world (Demand 2002: 31–41) prefers the earlier scholarship to more recent work which she is inclined to see to some degree as apologetic for Athenian democracy and anti-feminist. In my view, Pomeroy’s association of the subordination of women and the development of democracy (Pomeroy 1975: 78) remains persuasive. Like Demand, I find much recent work too rosy on the situation of women. The reaction of Greek writers to Olympias (see Carney 1993b: 33–4) makes only too clear how powerful the polarity paradigm remained for centuries. However, I also value the recognition that public and private, polis and oikos, were not always antagonistic opposites (e.g., Foxhall 1989: 22–43), that what people said was not always what they did, and that women need to be understood as actors and negotiators within the system (e.g., Goldberg 1999: 146).
16 For instance, recent work has demonstrated that the gunaikonitis (women’s place) so frequently mentioned by Greek w
riters was not, as was previously assumed, a physical place but rather an idea (Morgan 1985; Jameson 1990; Nevett 1995; Goldberg 1999: 149–58). Similarly, statements that women were unseen even by male kin (Lys. 3.6–7) were taken too literally (Cohen 1989).
17 Carney 1993a: 315–18.
18 Variants of the tale appear in Diod. 11.56.1–3; Plut. Them. 24.1–3; Nep.
Them. 7; Stesimbrotus FGrH 107 F 3. As Hammond (1967: 493) notes,
“Phthia” is the name of at least two Aeacid women. Hammond seems to consider the story historical, but Woodbury 1979: 122 is less certain.
19 Dillon 1997: 185.
20 See discussion in Carney 2000c: 35–7. Both Molossia and Macedonia were more Hellenized by the time documents indicating the legal and social circumstance of ordinary women are available, but this probably means that it is significant that Macedonian documents indicate that women’s legal situation was much like that of their southern Greek sisters (Pomeroy 1984: 3; Tataki 1988: 433). On the other hand, Hammond (1989: 5) is probably right to conclude that women’s lives were somewhat less narrowly circumscribed in Macedonia than in the south.
21 See Cabanes 1976: 407–13; 1980: 329, 333, who connects the comparative independence of Molossian women to the nature of Molossian society, particularly to pastoral transhumance. The absence of a kurios (guardian) is particularly striking (see Cabanes 1976: 412, especially n. 45). While the Buthrotum documents Cabanes discusses date to the third and second centuries, the inscriptions discussed below are much earlier, yet suggest a similar situation.
22 As is demonstrated by an inscription ( SEG XV 384) dated to the reign of Olympias’ father Neoptolemus. Harvey 1969: 228 suggests that one grant is given to a widow, the other to a woman with a living husband. While these
142 Notes
grants are doubtless honorific for some circumstance unknown to us, Harvey rightly notes (1969: 228–9) that they clearly honor the women, not their sons or husbands. See also Larsen 1964 and 1967.
23 Carney 2000c: 28. Recently, based on archaeological evidence from Macedonia, some scholars have entertained the idea of a larger role in drinking for elite Macedonian women, despite contradictory literary evidence. Female burials do not typically include the sets of banqueting vessels so commonly found in male burials, but Hoepfner (Hoepfner 1996: 13–15) has suggested that the double andron (dining-room) pattern found in the palace at Vergina/Aegae, private houses at Pella, and elsewhere may have been intended for separate but parallel male and female symposia. The “Palmette Tomb” at Lefkadia may signify that elite Macedonian women sometimes banqueted with men (Rhomiopoulou 1973: 90). Kottaridi 2004a: 140 and 2004b: 69 and Lilibaki-Akamati 2004: 91 believe, based on an elaborate late Archaic female burial at Aegae and other such burials of the period (the presumption is that these are the graves of royal women), that such royal women were priestesses who, among other things, participated in public banquets and symposia. In terms of Molossia, Plutarch ( Pyrrh. 5.5–6) refers to a komos (revel or band of revelers) at the house of Cadmeia attended by her brother Neoptolemus, apparently herself and at least one other respectable woman. Cadmeia and Neoptolemus were Aeacids, probably Olympias’ grandchildren (see Chapter 4). The evidence, such as it is, supports the notion that such Macedonian women engaged in symposia more than it does the idea that they attended mixed symposia.
24 See Carney 2000c: 29, n. 113 for references.
25 Cole 1981: 230, followed by Carney 2000c: 29.
26 Pomeroy 1977: 61; Cole 1981: 230; Carney 2000c: 29.
27 Carney 2000a: 29.
28 On the variability of southern Greek perceptions of Epirote ethnicity, see Malkin 2001.
29 Hammond 1967: 1–45; Cabanes 1980: 328–9.
30 Lévêque 1957: 92–3.
31 Lévêque 1957: 91.
32 Hammond 1967: 510 notes growing signs of wealth in late fifth and fourth-century graves and in the archaeological remains from Dodona.
33 For instance, an Athenian decree re-granted citizenship to Arybbas and his descendants. Moreover, Arybbas may have won two Olympic victories and one Pythian victory, apparently in the chariot race (Tod GHI 2. 173, l. 48).
Panhellenic competition in chariot racing was literally the sport of kings.
34 Strabo 7.7.11 says that Dodona was originally controlled by the Thesprotians, not the Molossians (see Hammond 1967: 453, 491); if so, Dodona cannot have been the original seat of the Molossian kings. Decrees of the Molossian state set up at Dodona in the fourth century (Hammond 1967: 525–30) suggest that it did become some sort of central seat of government. Later Pyrrhus made Passaron (modern Arta) his capital (Cabanes 1980: 345), but it was a Corinthian foundation and did not even pass into Aeacid control until 294
BCE.
35 Three authors, all of Roman date, are the major narrative sources: Pausanias 1.11.2–5, 4.35.3–5; Plutarch Pyrrh. 1.1–3.3; Justin 17.3.1–21. This is not an impressive list. Pausanias’ reputation in terms of accuracy is poor, his sources uncertain, and his material often overtly hostile to Olympias and other members of her dynasty. See Habicht 1998: 95–109 and Carney 1993b: 37, n.
21. Justin, the epitomator of an earlier Roman history, has an equally poor reputation for dependability and his florid account is also often hostile to
Notes 143
Olympias. Plutarch, the great biographer, is generally a much more creditable source, but the passage in question is simply a quick summary of the Aeacid past and present, written to put the career of Pyrrhus, Olympias’ great-nephew and the best known of Molossian kings, in context. See further discussion of these authors in the Appendix.
36 For instance, Just. 17.3.16 calls Aeacides the brother of Alexander (I), thus making him the son of Neoptolemus and brother of Olympias whereas Plut.
Pyrrh.1.3 calls him (correctly) the son of Arybbas and Troas. This identity problem becomes extreme in the period after the death of Alexander the Great; see below, Chapter 3.
37 The incident, if historical (see above), would date to c. 470 BCE
38 Cross 1932: dated his reign to c. 440– c. 400, but Franke 1954 to c. 430–385.
Heckel 1981b: 81, n. 11 suggests that he is the same man said to have been the lover of Menon of Pharsalus (Xen. Anab. 2.6.28); see Chapter 2.
39 Hammond 1967: 508 points out that the earliest-known inscribed Molossian decrees date to c. 370, though the institutions they describe may have developed earlier.
40 See Hammond 1967: 525–6 for discussion of a Dodonian decree dated between 370 and 368 that lists only Neoptolemus, son of Alcetas, as king.
41 Pausanias 1.11.3 says that Molossian monarchy was unified through the reign of Alcetas, but that his sons, having first formed factions against each other, then changed their minds and ruled equally, each abiding by the agreement. Granted that only Neoptolemus’ name follows his father’s on the list of Athenian allies, the co-reign would appear to have been a subsequent development.
42 Heskel 1988: 194 suggests c. 361.
43 Cross 1932: 15 may go too far in describing it as a kind of hereditary
“magistracy” but he is right to point out that the neighboring Chaonians actually did turn their monarchy into a kind of magistracy (two members of the royal house chosen annually). Hammond 1967: 549 notes that the Molossian kings had no power to coin in their own names (Alexander I did, but only during his Italian campaign).
44 Cross 1932:16; Cabanes 1980: 342–4, who assumes the chief magistrate (called a prostates) was elected and meant to defend the interests of the common people against the king. Just. 17.3.12 mentions a “senatus,”
presumably some sort of council, perhaps made up of tribal representatives, in connection with the reforms of Tharyps. Hammond 1967: 528 cites inscriptions showing changes.
45 Cabanes 1980: 341 asserts that the exchange of oaths signified that a king who broke his oath could be overthrown, citing Diod. 19.36.4 and Plut. Pyrrh 4.
The Diodorus passage, however, describes the overthrow of Aeacides
by one faction while another was absent on campaign with him. Though Diodorus does refer to a public decree of expulsion, he goes on to say that such a thing had never happened before. The Plutarch passage describes the expulsion of Pyrrhus by a faction, but again lacks a clear legal or constitutional context. See further Chapter 6.
46 Cross 1932: 32 dates Molossian acquisition of coastline to c. 373, when the Molossian king Alcetas was able to help the Athenians move foot soldiers from the coast to Corcyra (Xen. Hell. 6.2.10); Hammond 1967: 523 dates the acquisition of coastal territory to c. 380–60.
47 Mortensen 1997: 15.
48 Paus. 1.11.3 reports that Arybbas and Neoptolemus, the sons of Alcetas, contended for power at one point. He tells us (1.11.5) that Arybbas expelled his older son, Alcetas, in favor of his younger one, Aeacides; after the death of
144 Notes
Aeacides, Alcetas briefly took power only to be murdered (along with his children) and replaced by Aeacides’ son Pyrrhus. The identity of the Aeacids who then contended against Pyrrhus is under dispute (see Chapter 3) but they were probably descendants of different royal brothers.
49 So Ogden 1999: ix–xxxiv.
50 Cross 1932, followed by Lévêque 1957: 102, thinks Arybbas’ sons were by different mothers. They could well have been. Plut. Pyrrh. 1.3 says that Aeacides was the son of Arybbas and Troas. This is confirmed by the fact that Justin 7.6.11 says Arybbas was married to Troas, daughter of Neoptolemus and sister of Olympias and strongly suggested by the fact that one of Aeacides’
daughters was named Troas (Plut. Pyrrh. 1.4), as Herzog 1931: 73 observed.
Alcetas was probably not Troas’ son. Pausanias 1.11.5 says merely that Alcetas was the older of Arybbas’ two sons and not his father’s favorite. It is likely, however, that Arybbas had married before his marriage to Troas, granted that he and Troas were a generation apart in age. If the Andromacha of Epirus, wife of Arybbas, who made a trip to Epidaurus, was indeed the wife of Arybbas the king (see above, n. 8), then she was probably the earlier wife ( contra Klotzsch 1911: 229 who forgets the testimony of Plutarch ( Pyrrh. 1.3)). Herzog 1931: 73–4 argued that Andromacha and Troas were one and the same person.
Olympias Page 24
