Olympias

by Elizabeth Carney

  Illyrian alliance against Macedonia that would generate a war behind him if he departed on his eastern campaign. While one cannot rule out this possibility

  —or at least the idea that Alexander wanted Philip to worry that it might be true—it seems a comparatively unlikely one. Both Alexander and Philip had Illyrian friends (kin) and enemies and the Molossians had, at best, problematic dealings with them.

  95 Whitehorne 1994: 35.

  96 Justin (9.7.2) is the only source that claims she was, apparently because he did not understand that Philip was polygamous. Scholars other than Fears 1975: 126 do not accept the idea of repudiation; see references in Ogden 1999: 20, n. 114.

  97 Satyrus’ language ( ap. Athen 557e) is less clear since he simply describes where each went into exile, not how they got there. Whitehorne 1994: 37 seems to imagine her making a separate decision, a possibility in Satyrus’ version of events, but more puzzlingly adds that she “felt her own honour to have been as much impugned as Alexander’s.” My view would be that this was not a distinction that she or the rest of the court could make; if Alexander’s legitimacy or ability to inherit was at stake, whether for reasons sexual, ethnic, or political, then so was hers. She seems to have taken a more active role in events after the departure for exile.

  98 Carney 1992a: 178–9; Whitehorne 1994: 37.

  99 On royal lovers, political violence and regicide, see Carney 1983. See recent discussion of royal same-sex relationships at the Macedonian court in

  Notes 155

  Mortensen 1997: 119–26 and forthcoming; Reames-Zimmerman 1998: 160–4

  and 1999: 81–9.

  100 Granted that Justin’s next sentence asserts that Olympias was trying to persuade her brother to go to war with Philip, if Justin’s testimony has any worth, Olympias was unlikely to be one of the relatives urging reconciliation.

  101 Plutarch twice reports that Philip quarreled with both his wife and son ( Mor.

  70b and 179c). (His Alexander, as we have seen, gives Olympias only an indirect role in the quarrel, citing her temperament as the reason why her son was inclined to respond to slights.) Justin’s account of Olympias’ actions after the death of Philip (Just. 9.7.10–14) deserves little credence (see below) but it does indicate that Olympias was in Aegae immediately after Philip’s death, although it is not clear whether she had recently arrived or not. Yardley’s translation (Yardley and Develin 1994: 90–1) seems to assume that she had just come, but the Latin is not so clear. Moreover, she could have been in Macedonia, but not Aegae. Some scholars have doubted the reconciliation, but the majority have accepted it: see references in Carney 1992a: 178, n. 25.

  102 Some scholars (Badian 1960: 246; Fears 1975: 128; Griffith 1979: 682; Whitehorne 1994: 39–40) have suggested that the marriage was meant to cut Olympias out of the picture and substitute her daughter. Heckel 1981a: 53

  makes the most cogent case for understanding the marriage of Cleopatra and Alexander in this way, but see also Macurdy 1932a: 30–1; Ellis 1976: 219, 304, n. 32; Carney 1987a: 44 and 1992a: 178. The interpretation of the marriage as an insult and displacement to Olympias misunderstands what the quarrel had been about, what it took to resolve it, and implicitly imposes assumptions about modern marriages on ancient royal marriages. Diodorus tellingly refers to the bride as Philip’s daughter by Olympias and to the king of Molossia as Olympias’ brother. Mortensen 1997: 205–6 suggests that Olympias may have proposed the marriage alliance herself. Whitehorne 1994: 40 sees the marriage as damaging to both Olympias and Alexander, supposing that she would have opposed the marriage, perhaps because he understands her as the primary actor in the quarrel with Philip.

  103 Ellis 1981: 135–6 and Hatzopoulos 1982a: 59–66 argue that it should be rejected; Fredricksmeyer 1990: 303 doubts it but does not reject it; see contra Develin 1981: 95; Bosworth 1988: 22; Carney 1992a: 179.

  104 On Pixodarus in general, see Ruzicka 1992: 120–34. Whitehorne 1994: 38–9

  makes the interesting suggestion that Pixodarus’ initial offer to Arrhidaeus was made in ignorance of his mental limitations, possibly on the assumption that Arrhidaeus as “first-born” would inherit. While this is possible, the Hecatomnids had played a prominent role in eastern Mediterranean power politics for some time and it is hard to believe that Pixodarus would have been ignorant of the facts. Indeed, he may have assumed that his daughter would

  “co-rule” as his two sisters had and that Arrhidaeus’ mental problems were convenient rather than the reverse. Once offered, however, the chance of a marriage to Philip’s presumptive heir, he could not resist; see further Carney 2005.

  105 Badian 1960: 246 speaks of his “isolation” in this period, though noting Antipater’s continuing presence and presumed support. Heckel 1986: 302

  cautions that many of Alexander’s friends (and presumably his mother) remained at court.

  106 Carney 1992a: 180 contends that Alexander, Olympias, and his friends, used as they were to judging their situation by Philip’s actions, may, rightly or wrongly, have seen Philip’s plan for Arrhidaeus as an indication that he was not ruling the latter out of the succession and viewed the omission of Alexander from the list of royal marriages as a kind of reminder that he had not behaved

  156 Notes

  correctly. In turn, Alexander’s reactions may suggest not under-confidence (that he feared his succession was in immediate jeopardy) but over-confidence in his father’s tolerance of continued divergence from his policy.

  107 The chronology of the Pixodarus episode is notoriously difficult so caution must be used in interpreting its significance in relationship to other events.

  Fredricksmeyer (1990: 303), for instance, argues that the exile of Alexander’s friends happened before the incident. See further Carney 1992a: 179–80, n. 30.

  108 Arist. Pol. 1311b; Diod. 16.93–4; Just. 9.6.4–7.14; P.Oxy. 1798. On the murder of Philip, see references in Carney 1992a: 169, n. 1.

  109 Plutarch ( Alex. 10.4) implicates both. See further discussion in Chapter 3.

  110 Carney 1983: 260–3.

  111 We do not know whether Philip even planned to take Alexander with him on the expedition; his death meant that Alexander would not only go but command.

  112 Justin’s narrative (9.7.9–14) makes Olympias publicly embrace Philip’s murder by her treatment of the assassin’s remains and by her erection of a tomb for him. It is therefore particularly implausible; public admission of patricide or complicity in patricide was too great a risk, though unprovable suspicion of it could prove beneficial.

  113 Here I follow Carney 1992a: 183–9.

  114 Griffith 1979: 484.

  115 Bosworth 1971b: 93–105, followed by Heckel 2003: 199, advocated the idea of an Upper Macedonian conspiracy lying behind Pausanias; see contra Ellis 1981: 120–1. As Heckel notes, Amyntas, son of Perdiccas, may not have been involved, at least not willingly. Any Macedonian candidate, however, had some of the same risks that Alexander did in terms of the public image of Macedonia and good reason to think that waiting until Philip departed would be wise.

  3 Olympias, mother of the king, Alexander the Great 1 O’Neil 1999a: 5 implausibly assumes that Olympias voluntarily played a modest role in Philip’s reign. He extends his assumption to the reign of her son, though the stories about her conflicts with Antipater and others, the public role attested by the inscriptions, and the testimony of Athenian orators all demonstrate that she played a considerably greater role in Alexander’s reign.

  2 See discussion, references, but not necessarily conclusions in Worthington 2003. Worthington, while accepting the view that Alexander’s primary motive for the destruction of Thebes was to warn other Greek powers against revolt, adds an additional possible motive, support for a pretender, possibly Alexander’s cousin Amyntas. His hypothesis is interesting, though dependent on an unusual reconstruction of the much debated order of events after Philip’s murder.

  3 See Berve 1926: 2.30–1; Badian 1963: 244; Ellis 1970: 68�
�75, 1971: 15–24; Griffith 1979: 702–4; Bosworth 1971b. Curtius (6.9.17, 10.24) has Alexander claim that Amyntas plotted against Alexander’s life (with the collusion of Philotas), while Justin (12.6.14) and Arrian ( FGrH 156 F 9.22) give no motive for Alexander’s action.

  4 The brothers may have been scions of one of the formerly independent dynasties of Upper Macedonia (see Carney 1980: 23–4, 1992a: 184, n. 44; Heckel 1992: 357). Arrian (1.25.1–2) and Justin (11.1.2–3) say that two of the brothers had a role in the murder of Philip and imply that the third brother (another Alexander) did as well, but escaped blame because of his early support for Alexander. Curtius (7.1.6–7) explicitly blames Alexander, son of Aeropus,

  Notes 157

  for colluding at the death of Philip (he does not mention the other brothers) and adds that Alexander’s marriage to a daughter of Antipater led to his evading punishment. On later charges of conspiracy against Lyncestian Alexander, see below. Thus the king almost certainly executed the two brothers as murderers of Philip. He may have done this simply to create plausible scapegoats and lessen doubts about his own involvement (Badian 1963) and/or because they had their eyes on the throne or separate rule and supported Pausanias. As Plutarch’s observation indicates, their presence was somehow destabilizing and Alexander moved to eliminate the risk.

  5 Contra Ellis 1982: 70, who believed that Attalus had a chance, primarily because he rejects the stories of Attalus’ insult at Cleopatra’s wedding. See Chapter 2.

  6 On Attalus, see Heckel 1992: 4–5. Diodorus (17.2.3–6, 5.1–2) claims that Attalus was a potential rival for the throne, popular with the troops, and that having initially colluded with the Athenians, he changed his mind and attempted to ingratiate himself with Alexander by sending on to him an incriminating letter of Demosthenes. Obviously, Alexander may simply have used charges of treason to justify his murder of Attalus (so Badian 1963: 249–50), but it is equally possible that Attalus was guilty, very reasonably doubting that he could survive long if Alexander remained in charge (see Baynham 1998c: 147). Diodorus’ account stresses the caution of Alexander’s agent Hecataeus: he brings with him considerable troops, waits for an opportunity, and then kills Attalus by treachery. Curtius claimed (7.1.3) that Parmenio was Alexander’s agent in the death (as Heckel 1992: 5 observes, Attalus’ death could hardly have been brought about without the approval of his co-commander). Minimally, these accounts suggest that Attalus was a serious problem, one all concerned treated with caution.

  7 It is possible that Cleopatra’s bones were among those found in the burials under the Great Tumulus at Vergina, burials widely viewed as royal (see Carney 1991a: 1–26 for an overview, with particular reference to the female burial). Controversy continues to surround the occupants of Tombs I and II at Vergina. A woman, presumably royal, was buried in each tomb. While I am now inclined to believe that Tomb I, where fragments of the bones of an adult male, a woman, and a newborn were found, was the burial of Philip, Cleopatra, and Europa and that Tomb II housed the remains of Philip Arrhidaeus and his wife Adea Eurydice (see Bartsiokas 2000: 511–14; Themelis and Touratsoglou 1997; Palagia 2000; Carney 2004), rejecting this view would not substantially affect my analysis of the death of Cleopatra and its motivation. Granted Alexander’s supposed disapproval of Olympias’ actions, it is not difficult to fit the circumstances of the burial of the woman in the antechamber of Tomb II to the death of Cleopatra (see Borza 1981: 85, n. 24, Carney 1991a: 18, ns. 8 and 9).

  8 Granted the general problems with the chronology of events immediately after the death of Philip, dating the deaths of Cleopatra and her baby either absolutely or relative to other deaths is difficult, but our sources imply that she was killed soon after Philip’s death. I believe that her death preceded that of Attalus, who survived long enough after that to manage some long-distance conspiring against Alexander (see above). Ellis 1982: 70–2; Burstein 1982: 159–61; Baynham 1998c: 147 argue that both events happened somewhat later and that, whether or not Cleopatra’s death preceded or followed that of Attalus, he did not know about it when he corresponded with Alexander.

  9 Satyrus ( ap. Athen. 557d), generally considered an accurate list of Philip’s wives and their children (at least those who survived long enough to be known), gives Cleopatra only one child, a daughter named Europa. Justin

  158 Notes

  (9.7.12) says the murdered baby was female, in contradiction to Pausanias’

  statement. Elsewhere, Justin may refer to a son of Cleopatra’s. He claims (11.2.3) that, in the period after the murder of Philip, Alexander had Caranus, a son by a stepmother (name unspecified), killed, because he was a rival for the throne. Justin, as we have seen, attributes to Alexander the deaths of not only his stepmother but brothers (12.6.14). Though some accept the idea that Cleopatra had a son as well as a daughter (see Green 1991: 103, 112, 115, 141–2; Unz 1985: 171–4), most scholars accept Heckel’s argument (1979: 285–303) that Cleopatra had only one child, a daughter.

  10 See Carney 1993b: 37, n. 21 for references to discussions of Pausanias’

  credibility as a source.

  11 See further Carney 1993b: 38.

  12 If, as I have suggested (Carney 2000c: 73), Cleopatra was an Argead, the threat to Alexander and Olympias would have been even greater.

  13 Modern scholarship often assumes that these murders were personal and unnecessary in a way that dynastic murders by males were not and that this presumed (rarely argued) lack of pragmatic policy motivation made Olympias’

  actions worse. As noted, the crime had practical advantages and does not justify a more negative treatment of Olympias than that of various male Macedonians who committed similarly brutal acts (see Carney 1993b: 38–41

  for discussion and references).

  14 Whitehorne 1994: 44.

  15 Ogden 1999: x, 20–9.

  16 Whitehorne 1994: 44 calls Plutarch’s inclusion of Cleopatra in the plot

  “ridiculous,” because he thinks that her pregnancy (tricky to date in itself, let alone relative to Pausanias’ rape) meant that she “would have been out of circulation.”

  17 Olympias herself killed Adea Eurydice, Cassander murdered Olympias, and all three of Alexander’s sisters were murdered.

  18 Views about the moral capacities of women and how they differed from those of men varied with time, place, and the individual in the Greek world, but generalizations are certainly possible. See Dover 1974: 98–102; Harris 2003: 130–43 comments on the generality of the view that women, like children and barbarians, were particularly susceptible to anger, yet were excluded from the legitimate anger of men. Justin (14.6.1), referring to Olympias’ slaughter of pro-Cassander members of the Macedonian elite, terms her actions more like those of a woman than a monarch; see Chapter 4.

  19 See Carney 1993b: 38 for a list of some dynastic murders in the period immediately after the death of Alexander. See Carney 1983: 260–72 for a discussion of Macedonian regicides, successful and attempted. Justin (8.3.10–11) reports that Philip II killed at least one of his half-brothers and probably all three. Plato ( Gorg. 471a–b) claims that Archelaus murdered his uncle and cousin and his very young half-brother.

  20 See Mortensen 1992: 156–71, followed by Carney 2000c: 40–6, on Eurydice’s career and the probable falsity of charges against her.

  21 Justin (11.5.1) asserts that Alexander killed all of his stepmother’s kin to whom Philip had given high military and civilian office, but Heckel 1992: 5–12 argues convincingly that Alexander spared a nephew of Cleopatra and that Justin exaggerated. More generally, Heckel observes that, at the time of Philip’s assassination, Alexander did not immediately eliminate all possible enemies, but merely the most obvious.

  22 See Carney 1993b: 50–4 for lengthier discussion and references on this point.

  Plutarch’s story ( Mor. 253C–D) about the deaths of the wife and daughters of the tyrant Aristodemus is illustrative. When the tyrant was killed, his wife

  Notes 159

  hanged her
self in her own chamber rather than face the crowd attacking the house, and the virtuous Megisto (who had helped to bring down the tyrant) did not save the girls but persuaded the crowd to allow them to hang themselves, sparing them rape and slaughter at the hands of the mob.

  23 Carney 1993b: 53, n. 63. Such a death obviated the fear of rape in association with female death and maintained the expectation that women remained primarily private. The murders of Stateira (Plut. Alex. 77.6) and Alexander’s sister Cleopatra (Diod. 20.37.3) were the work of women, though men were also indirectly involved.

  24 See Carney 1993b: 40–1 for references. Golden 2003: 24: “Generalizations are of limited use: parents probably did not care for their daughters just as they did for sons, fathers’ and mothers’ feelings probably differed, children of different ages were not treated the same, one’s own children counted for more than others (as is true even in supposedly child-centered societies today).

  Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that parents loved the children they decided to raise.” Oakley 2003: 178 argues that the practice of exposure indicates that parents did not generally have the level of attachment to newborns that they did to those who had spent more time with the family.

  25 See Pomeroy 1997: 84, ns. 61 and 62 for a typical example of this mentality: an Attic curse that condemned to destruction and bad reputes not only Diocles’

  enemies, but their wives or husbands and children.

  26 Diodorus (14.37.6) reports that Orestes, a boy, succeeded Archelaus but was killed by his guardian Aeropus, doubtless an Argead and possibly his uncle (see Hammond 1979: 134–6, 170; Mattingly 1968: 474; Borza 1990: 178).

  Cassander arranged the deaths of both of Alexander’s sons (Just. 15.2.5; Paus.

  9.7.2; Diod. 20.28.2–4). The half-brother Archelaus murdered (see above) was supposedly a small child.

  27 Dover 1974: 180–1 lists some of the many passages in Greek literature where this sentiment is voiced. See also Blundell 1989: 26–31; Mitchell 1997: 14.

  Thucydides (7.68.1 is a good example of the acceptability of the revenge ethic: