Olympias

by Elizabeth Carney

  34 Greenwalt 1985a: 71; Hammond 1994: 29; Carney 2000c: 61 suggest that the negative stories of Philinna’s origins derive from propaganda from the period of the Successors, from the fact that her family was not royal, and from Greek misunderstanding of polygamy. Ogden 1999: 25–6 argues persuasively that an additional and perhaps primary factor in the slanders against Philinna and her son was the competition between the two royal wives with sons (Olympias and Philinna) to achieve each son’s succession, the kind of competition that Ogden has termed “amphimetric.” As he notes, in the Pixodarus incident (see discussion below), mentioned by Plutarch ( Alex. 10.2), Alexander has his agent term Arrhidaeus a bastard ( nothos) and charges of bastardy are common features of disputes between royal sons by different mothers.

  35 Ogden forthcoming. Daniel Ogden was kind enough to offer me a copy of his paper in manuscript form.

  36 Ogden forthcoming. See further discussion of religion and magic in terms of Olympias in Chapter 5.

  37 Plutarch ( Alex. 78.5) says that his mental limitations did not exist while he was still a boy ( pais). This presumably means that they became obvious late in childhood or early in adolescence. In modern times, mildly retarded people (the category that I have argued most appropriate for Arrhidaeus) are often not recognized as such until they begin schooling and the discrepancy between their skills and the average begins to increase (Carney 2001: 63–89, especially 80, n. 80).

  38 This represents a modification of my earlier view. Carney 1992a: 172 argues for a brief period of dominance, failing to note the significance of the choice of

  150 Notes

  Aristotle and the likely point at which functionality issues would indicate retardation.

  39 See further discussion in Chapter 5.

  40 See discussion and references in Carney 2000c: 25.

  41 See Heckel forthcoming on the importance of this point, based on Aeschin.

  3.223.

  42 On homoerotic activity at the Macedonian court, see Carney 1981 and 1983

  and more recent discussions in Mortensen 1997: 119–27 and Reames-Zimmerman 1998: 153–9.

  43 In addition to his relationships with the two men whose rivalry led to his assassination and his possible relationship with Olympias’ brother, Philip, while a hostage as a young boy in the house of the Theban general Pammenes (Plut. Pelop. 26.4–6), may also have been the general’s eromenos as the Suda s.v. Karanos claims (accepted by Griffith 1979: 205; Ogden 1996: 122; Mortensen 1997: 145, n.67)

  44 Heckel 1981a: 53; Carney 1987a: 42, n. 23, 46, 53; O’Brien 1992: 12–14, 16–19: Ogden 1999: 22. Jouanno 1995: 213 argues that the Vulgate tradition (Justin, Curtius, Diodorus, and, in this case, Plutarch) stresses the mother–son relationship and sentimentalizes it. Her arguments tend to oversimplify the representation of Olympias in these sources and to exaggerate the similarity and the sentimentality of their representation of Olympias. See below and the Appendix.

  45 For instance, Wirth 1973: 120 speaks of a “mother complex.”

  46 On Alexander’s sexuality, see Carney 2000c: 97–100.

  47 Stafford 1978: 79–100; Carney 1987a: 37 and 2000c: 31; Ogden 1999: 22.

  48 Fredricksmeyer 1990 provides an excellent description of the competitive yet not entirely hostile relationship between Philip and Alexander. See discussion in Lund 1994: 196–8; Fredricksmeyer 1990: 300–15; Carney 2000c: 174–5

  about the difficulties that develop between a ruler and his adult heir.

  49 See Mortensen 1997: 168, fig. 5 for a chart illustrating Philip’s probable absences between the time of Alexander’s birth and 340, when, while his father was gone, he took over the kingdom.

  50. Other examples of Alexander as an Aeacid: Arr. 4.1.26; Just. 11.2.1, 12.15.1, 16.3; Paus. 1.9.8; Curt. 8.4.26; Diod. 17.1.5; Strab. 13.1.27. See Ameling 1988. See Chapter 1 for discussion of Aeacid ancestry.

  51 Lewis 2002: 42 suggests that the problem is primarily evidentiary. Foley 2003: 113–37, utilizing a variety of evidence, contends that the mother–daughter relationship was close and did endure past a daughter’s marriage. Foley points to expectations that mothers play a role in their daughter’s wedding preparations and in the birth of the daughter’s first child. Pomeroy 1997: 126

  notes some continuation of mother–daughter ties. Demand 1994: 4, however, argues that a close relationship between women and their daughters-in-law was more likely than one between mother and daughter, partly because daughters married so young and because sons (and thus their wives), not daughters, were responsible for the care of elderly parents.

  52 See further Carney 2000c: 75–6, 89–90, 123–8.

  53 Justin 8.6.7 says that Alexander was twenty when Philip put him on the Molossian throne, but the date of Alexander’s accession and Arybbas’

  expulsion is uncertain thanks to conflicting statements in our sources. The majority of scholars believe that it happened in 343 or 342 and that Alexander was therefore substantially younger than Olympias, but Errington 1975a and Heskel 1988 have made a strong case for dating Alexander’s accession to much earlier, perhaps to 349 (see discussion and references in Heskel 1988).

  54 Cross 1932: 38.

  Notes 151

  55 Mortensen 1997: 127.

  56 Mortensen 1997: 128 observes that “this situation is so alien to our own culture that it is difficult to imagine the etiquette involved.”

  57 Mortensen 1997: 128 surmises that this was the case. There is a hint of evidence. Plutarch’s narrative ( Pyrrh. 5.3–5) of the early exploits of Pyrrhus (Olympias’ great-nephew) includes an incident in which Pyrrhus’ cupbearer Myrtilus asked Pyrrhus for a gift and was rejected. A certain Gelon, an adherent of Pyrrhus’ rival co-king Neoptolemus, noted his irritation and dined with him, possibly seducing him, and persuaded him to join a conspiracy against Pyrrhus (in fact, Myrtilus was a double-agent and informed Pyrrhus).

  Myrtilus’ expectation of favor, based on Macedonian court intrigues, could imply that Myrtilus was Pyrrhus’ lover (see Carney 1983: 262–3). Xenophon ( Anab. 2.6.28) refers to a Thessalian named Menon who had sexual relationships with several men, including a certain Tharyps, probably an Epirote and possibly an Aeacid, granted his name (so Heckel 1981b: 81, n. 11).

  58 Mortensen 1997: 128 assumes that a sexual relationship between one’s husband and a younger brother was, “perhaps, offensive,” but also notes that it was probably an honor for a brother to have such a relationship with the king. She cites the case of Thebe (Plut. Pelop. 28.4–5), wife of the Pheraean tyrant Alexander, whose younger brother he had made his lover. Plutarch refers to the tyrant’s hubris (outrage, sometimes a euphemism for rape) and clearly indicates that Thebe hates her husband because of his actions, but Plutarch’s diction, particularly his use of hubris (see Carney 1992a: 181, n. 36), could well mean that this was not seduction but rape. See below for possibility that Olympias’ reaction and young Alexander’s honor might be situationally determined, not shaped by a general view of such relationships.

  59 Diodorus states that Arybbas was dead and that Philip backed Alexander against Aeacides, Arybbas’ son.

  60 Heckel 2003: 204, 214 suggests that two men from Acarnania (a region neighboring Epirus and dependent upon it at some periods), Philip the doctor and Lysimachus, Alexander’s tutor (see Chapter 1), had some connection to Olympias and may have been selected by her. So also Fredricksmeyer 2003: 255.

  61 His nurse was Lanice, daughter of Dropidas and sister of the famous Cleitus

  “the Black,” whom Alexander would later kill while in a drunken rage. On Lanice, see Berve 1926: 2.231 and on Cleitus see Heckel 1992: 34–7.

  62 Plutarch terms him a suggenes (of the same kin or descent) of Olympias and stresses his dignity and blood relationship. He was known for his austerity and strictness (Plut. Alex. 25.4). Alexander supposedly (Plut. Alex. 25.4–5) sent him five hundred talents’ worth of frankincense and a hundred of myrrh for having inspired him as a boy with the hope of conquering spice-producing regions. Pl
utarch says that the gift was sent after the successful conclusion of the siege of Gaza, at the same time as he sent rich plunder to Olympias and Cleopatra. Whatever the literal truth of the tale, it associates these three Aeacids. See Berve 1926: 2.235–6; Hamilton 1969: 14, 58, 66.

  63 Berve 1926: 2.85 notes his Epirote name and high status (he was one of the seven royal bodyguards or Somatophulakes: see Heckel 1992: 257–9) and suggests that he was related to the Aeacid house. See further Heckel 2003: 204, n. 29. Arrian (3.5.5) mentions him as a bodyguard of Alexander who died in Egypt in 332/1. Heckel 1992: 261 suggests that he became a bodyguard under Philip and argues (1992: 257) that during the reign of Philip, the Somatophulakes had only one duty, guarding the person of the king. If he was an Aeacid, his rank suggests the importance of the Molossian alliance.

  64 We know he was active during Alexander’s reign and a companion of the king.

  152 Notes

  The possibilities that he was connected to Alexander of Molossia and that he was a Royal Youth are my own ideas. On Neoptolemus’ career during Alexander’s reign and in the Successor era, see Berve 1926: 2.273 and Heckel 1992: 300–2. Heckel suggests that he may have been related to Arybbas the Somatophulax and raises the possibility that Perdiccas, with whom he was associated after the death of Alexander, was also related. Perdiccas came from the Upper Macedonian royal dynasty of Orestis (Curt. 10.7.8) and Heckel points out that Aeacids intermarried with some of the Upper Macedonian dynasties and that Perdiccas’ brother’s name, Alcetas, was also common in the Aeacid house. Bosworth 1988: 104, noting the surprising fact that Neoptolemus was given command of the whole Hypaspist group when Alexander was moving to divide larger commands, suggests that his relationship to Alexander was a factor. Of course, Aeacid (as opposed to Argead) kin were no threat to Alexander.

  65 Heckel 1992: 300, n. 2.

  66 O’Neil 1999a: 5 assumes that this was Olympias’ choice, but the greater likelihood is that it was Philip’s.

  67 The Vergina palace used to be dated to the era of Cassander, but recently the reign of Philip II has been suggested. See discussion and reference in Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2001: 210, n. 33.

  68 Carney 2000c: 27–9, especially n. 107; Ogden 1999: 273–7; Mortensen 1999: 799–802. Here I differ markedly from Mortensen, who imagines royal women to be much removed from the rest of the court. She cites a conversation with Akamatis (1999: 800, n. 20) for the idea that the distribution of loom weights in private houses at Pella indicates that women were housed in the upper stories. Apart from recent research that suggests a more complex picture (see below), this would only demonstrate that private apartments were upstairs.

  Virtually the entire ground floor of the Vergina palace was devoted to public rooms, so private apartments, male and female, would necessarily have been upstairs.

  69 Jameson 1990; Nevett 1995; Goldberg 1999.

  70 Mortensen 1999: 201–2. She points out that the differing educations of the children of Philip by different wives suggest some degree of separation, though she prefers to picture them in separate quarters within the same structure.

  Ogden 1999: 273–7 seems to imply a similar view.

  71 Carney 2000c: 27–9 contra Mortensen 1999: 799–801. On their possible presence at drinking parties, see Chapter 1, n. 23.

  72 On the occupations and activities of royal women, see Carney 2000c: 29–31.

  Despite Curtius (5.2.18–20), one should not believe that Olympias and Alexander’s sisters did basic weaving for the household; see discussions in Briant 1994: 286, n. 9; Carney 2000c: 29, n. 117; Mirón-Pérez 1999; contra Lilibaki-Akamati 2004: 91, who seems unfamiliar with relevant recent scholarship.

  73 Heckel 1979: 389–92; 1981a: 54.

  74 On Cleopatra, see Carney 2000c: 72–5. Although all other sources name her Cleopatra, Arrian 3.6.5 once refers to her as “Eurydice.” There are two known cases in which sources report that a royal woman’s name was changed, at some significant point in her life (Olympias is one; see Chapter 1) and two other cases (including this one) where this may have happened, but it is not certain because, as in the case of Cleopatra, a person who seems to be the same individual has different names in different texts. The name she is given in Arrian could be a mistake or it could be an example of a significant name-change. “Eurydice,” if that was her name at some point, was not a “throne”

  name ( contra Heckel 1978: 155–8; see instead Badian 1982b; Carney 1991a:

  Notes 153

  159–60, especially n. 30) but it could be allusive of Philip’s mother, Eurydice (Carney 2000c: 33). In any event, as Ogden 1999: 24 concludes, the name-change, if it happened, tells us nothing about her relative status.

  75 On Attalus, see Berve 1926: 2.94; Heckel 1992: 4–5.

  76 Carney 1992a: 174. In the case of Olympias and Alexander, however, the uncertainty should, by this point, have been low, whereas earlier, when the potential for more sons of an age close to Alexander’s was a real one, there would have been greater cause for anxiety.

  77 Borza 1983.

  78 Most scholars conclude that Philip had no intention of removing his son from his position as presumed heir at the time of his departure for Asia, whatever his long-term intent might have been. See Borza 1990: 208; Ellis 1981: 118 for references.

  79 Whitehorne 1994: 35–6 rightly points out that sons born to Cleopatra might have been able to reach adulthood before Philip died. He argues that their more purely Macedonian bloodlines (a problematic issue, as I have suggested) would then have given them/him the advantage, that “Alexander might hardly be in the race.” Had Philip lived another twenty years, such might have been the case, but it does not in any way explain his actions in 337. He had no other viable heir then and would not for years yet. While Satyrus’ list of Philip’s wives and children gives Cleopatra only a daughter, Europa, Pausanias (8.7.7) says that Cleopatra was murdered with a male infant and Justin (9.7.12), though referring to the murdered infant as female, also mentions a son of Philip, Caranus (11.2.3). Heckel’s argument (1979: 285–303) that Satyrus should be prized over Justin and Pausanias for a variety of reasons has won general acceptance, but see contra Green 1991: 103, 112, 115, 141–2. In any event, even if Cleopatra did bear a male child, it could only have been an infant at the time of Philip’s murder and thus not yet a meaningful replacement for Alexander.

  80 See Berve 1926: 2.30–1.

  81 Carney 2000c: 68–71 contra Heckel 2003: 199, n. 9, who argues that “there was no pressure on Philip to take another bride at this time.” Since Attalus’

  identity remains obscure, it is difficult to assess what kind of pressure Philip might have been under from him, but Philip’s need for more sons is self-evident. I have suggested (Carney 2000c: 70–1) that Philip may have chosen Olympias to avoid choosing a bride from the families of Antipater and Parmenio and thus inevitably offending one or the other. Heckel 2003: 199, n.

  9 points out that Philip could have arranged for Alexander to marry Cleopatra, but, granted his failure to arrange any marriage for Alexander (see below), this probably speaks to his general reluctance to find his son a bride rather than any particular preference for Cleopatra.

  82 Carney 1992a: 176, 180.

  83 Contra Heckel 2003: 199, n. 9, who believes that his importance derived from Cleopatra’s marriage, not the reverse.

  84 Carney 2000c: 73, n. 105.

  85 See discussions and references in Ogden 1999: 21–4. Hatzopoulos 1986

  suggested, as part of his theory about ordered Macedonian succession, that the term referred to the idea that Alexander had not been born “in the purple.”

  This theory has not gained support: see a convincing refutation in Greenwalt 1989. Similarly, Prestianni-Giallombardo 1976–7: 102–4 has not gained support for her suggestion that Attalus’ language referred not to Alexander’s personal legitimacy or lack of same, but to his legitimacy as a successor; see Ogden 1999: 21 for refutation.

  86 Milns 1968: 28; Hamilton 1969: 24; Lane Fox 1
973: 503; Bosworth 1988: 21

  154 Notes

  all suggest that Attalus may have referred to adultery (some mention ethnicity too and express no preference), but the context seems always to be the snake story, thus implying that none think that Olympias was literally guilty. Since the story of his divine fatherhood almost certainly post-dates the reign of Philip, it is unlikely that Attalus referred to that.

  87 Plutarch’s tale of the snake sleeping by Olympias’ side, which raises the possibility that Philip thought the snake was a god in disguise ( Alex. 2.4), does not offer support for its truth but rather implies the opposite. Neither do other references to Alexander’s divine fatherhood (see Chapters 5 and 6 for further discussion).

  88 Ogden 1999: 21.

  89 Carney 1992a: 175.

  90 On the lives and treatment of Roxane and Stateira, see Carney 2000c: 106–7, 108–9, 146–8.

  91 Eurydice’s ethnicity is controversial (see discussion and references in Carney 2000c: 41), but much of the controversy has centered on the ethnicity of her father, who may have been Lyncestian or Illyrian. Since at least two sources ( Suda s.v. “Karanos”; Lib. Vit. Dem. 9) refer to her as Illyrian and a passage in Plutarch’s corpus ( Mor. 14c) seems to as well, it is difficult to doubt that some of her ancestry was Illyrian.

  92 Ogden 1999: 21 argues that this must have been the case. Macedonians, as we have seen, were not at this period much inclined to written law and systematic behavior, least of all Philip and Alexander themselves.

  93 Whether or not Alexander believed that Philip really contemplated some change in the succession, toleration of the insult threatened his timé; see Carney 1992a: 176–7 for the Homeric context and values involved in the quarrel.

  94 Badian 1963: 244, n. 8 suggests that he may have gone to Langarus of the Agrianes, a good friend to Alexander during Philip’s reign and in the troubles other Illyrians caused immediately after Philip’s death (Arr. 1.5.2). Whitehorne 1994: 37 sees his Illyrian exile as far more sinister, suggesting a Molossian–