Olympias

by Elizabeth Carney

  75 Had Craterus actually arrived and replaced him, then he would have had the role that had been Antipater’s. Thus mother and daughter could hardly have had exclusive control of the two realms, as the passage seems to imply.

  76 See also Mendels 1984: 141. As already noted, Hammond’s view (1980: 473–6) that the situation referred to in this passage was part of some exchange of formal office and related to Alexander’s attempt to replace Antipater with Craterus is implausible. He thought that Olympias needed to be consoled for her supposed loss of the prostasia by offers of divine honors (mentioned only by Curtius 9.6.26, 10.5.30) and that Olympias’ grandson Neoptolemus was, at this point, replaced by her nephew Arybbas (see Chapter 4 for discussion).

  77 Blackwell 1999: 95–6 argues that a more general reading of the passage would allow one to date the situation Plutarch mentions to somewhat earlier, to a period before his return from India.

  78 See Seibert 1972: 4–5 for a summary, as well as discussion in the Introduction and Appendix.

  79 Droysen 1877: 399–405 and Kaerst 1887: 107–17 first articulated this case-by-case principle. On the whole, this principle continues to dominate, but has not necessarily led to general agreement on the authenticity of a given letter.

  See Introduction and Appendix.

  80 Contra Tarn 1949: 2.301 who imagines Olympias and Cassander doctoring original letters of Antipater, Alexander, and Olympias, as they had access to them, in order to serve their political goals in the age of the Successors. Political rewriting may well have occurred, but much of the correspondence seems irrelevant to such concerns.

  Notes 165

  81 Asirvatham 2001: 95, 100 discusses Plutarch’s use of Olympias as a foil to demonstrate Alexander’s good, Hellenic qualities.

  82 On the advice theme in terms of Parmenio, see Carney 2000a.

  83 Arr. 3.6.5; Plut. Alex. 10.3. See above for Harpalus, who was probably from the Upper Macedonian royal house of Elimeia. Ptolemy was somehow related to the royal family (see Heckel 1992: 222–7, especially n. 40). Many years later Olympias’ daughter died trying to reach Ptolemy, in order to marry him (Diod.

  20.37.3–6). Nearchus was the son of a Cretan immigrant to Philip’s court (see Heckel 1992: 228–33). Erigyius and his brother Laomedon (on Arrian’s list of those exiled but not Plutarch’s) were also sons of a Greek immigrant, from Mytilene.

  84 See Chapter 2 for their careers. Arybbas died fairly early in the campaign, but Neoptolemus lived on into the Successor era. Having been allied with Eumenes (certainly a friend of Olympias; see below), he later became his enemy, and Eumenes ultimately killed him in battle (see Heckel 1992: 300–2). Doubtless his change of side meant that he became Olympias’ enemy as well, but he may nonetheless have been a supporter during Alexander’s lifetime.

  85 For Eumenes, a Greek immigrant, see Heckel 1992: 346–7; for Polyperchon, a Tymphaean, who, c. 317, sponsored Olympias’ return to Macedonia, see Heckel 1992: 188–204; for Leonnatus, a relative of Alexander’s grandmother Eurydice and so possibly Lyncestian, and the first member of the elite Olympias’ daughter sought to marry (probably at Olympias’ instigation) after her brother’s death, see Heckel 1992: 91–106; for Aristonous, of Eordaean origin, who fought loyally for Olympias during her war with Cassander, see Heckel 1992: 275–6; for Perdiccas, a member of the Orestian royal house, to whom the dying Alexander gave his ring and whom Olympias wanted her daughter to marry, see Heckel 1992: 134–63.

  86 Heckel 2003: 197–8, 219 stresses the changeable and complex nature of groupings.

  87 Heckel 2002: 85–6.

  88 On the historicity of this incident, see further discussion in the Appendix.

  Blackwell 1999: 103–4 suggests that these young men were part of an overly large bodyguard and that Olympias, in the year of the war with Agis, hoped to use to advantage a small military force. That may be true. However, the Curtius passage focuses on the avoidance of military service (Bosworth 2002: 71 argues that the incident suggests general reluctance for military service in Asia) and does not indicate that these young men were already soldiers. Heckel 1992: 177 thinks that three of the young men named by Curtius were brought to Asia to serve as “Pages” or Royal Youths since Amyntas brought fifty grown sons of elite Macedonians for this purpose (Curt. 5.1.42).

  89 Plutarch’s account of the Pixodarus affair gives Philotas a role which implies that he might have been the one who informed Philip about the marriage negotiations that Olympias and Alexander’s friends had encouraged (Badian 1960: 327 thinks he tried to reconcile father and son and Heckel 1992: 25 thinks it more likely that Philip simply wanted him there as a model of good behavior); certainly he was present for Alexander’s humiliation (Plut.

  Alex. 10.3) and the failure of a policy Olympias had championed. Late in Philip’s reign, Parmenio, Philotas’ father, had apparently supported the faction of Attalus against that of Alexander—one of his daughters married Attalus (Curt. 6.9.18) and he and Attalus commanded the preliminary Asian expedition together. In order to survive, Parmenio collaborated in the elimination of Attalus (see Heckel 1992: 14–15 for references). So, though there is no direct evidence, Olympias could certainly have disliked Philotas and his family.

  166 Notes

  90 Heckel 1992: 178, while noting their subsequent obscurity, argues that Amyntas remained popular enough so that a conviction would have been difficult. Alexander also managed to look moderate while actually indicating what would happen to those who continued to support the views of Philotas.

  91 On the life of Lyncestian Alexander and his probable connection to the royal house, see Berve 1926: 2.17–19; Carney 1980: 23–33; Heckel 1992: 357–8.

  The guilt of any of the sons of Aeropus is uncertain.

  92 He was first governor of Thrace and later commander of the important Thessalian cavalry (Arr. 1.25.2).

  93 So Badian 1963: 248.

  94 Carney 1980: 28. In-laws generally proved a disposable commodity among the Macedonian elite. It was the Lyncestian’s importance that had led to his marriage to a daughter of Antipater and his own importance that saved him, not his father-in-law’s influence. Heckel 1992: 357 seems to consider both factors equally causative. Badian 1963: 248 suggests that Lyncestian Alexander’s prompt action at the time of Philip’s assassination was the result of Antipater’s forewarning but Green 1991: 112 attributes it to his shrewdness and Fears 1975: 130, n. 62 thinks mere friendship inspired him. Carney 1980: 29, n. 21 suggests that Alexander’s treatment of the Lyncestian parallels his subsequent sparing of the sons of Andromenes (see above).

  95 Bosworth 2000: 59, n. 18 argues that this interpretation is based on a misreading of Diodorus and that, in fact, one cannot determine from his narrative when the letter was received.

  96 See Heckel 1992: 358, n. 29 and 2003: 210–13 for further variations in what remains of Curtius’ account and on the many problems in the sources’

  treatment of the incident and the difficulties of resolving chronological issues.

  97 Diodorus does not refer to Olympias by name in this passage, though nearly all scholars have assumed that she is the one referenced. Tarn 1949: 2.68

  irrationally assumed that the reference was to Darius’ mother Sisygambis, whom Alexander treated like a mother, and uses this assumption to criticize Diodorus’ accuracy, since Alexander had not yet met Sisygambis. Welles 1963: 207, n. 1 rejected Tarn’s view and judged that a warning by Olympias was “very credible.” More recently, Abramenko 1992: 1–8 has argued that Diodorus’ phrase alluded to Ada of Caria. While Alexander did function as a kind of adoptive son to Ada (see Carney 2003: 248–9 for references), this would hardly lead Diodorus to refer to Ada in this manner. Like Heckel 2003: 211, n. 59, I find the argument implausible.

  98 Alexander of Lyncestis was not, however, executed until 330 (see references in Carney 1980: 32).

  99 Arrian’s account is often preferred over that of Diodorus, but Bosworth 1980: 164 and 2000: 59–60 connects it to Olympias’ ho
stility to Antipater and argues that Olympias’ letter, a general warning against the Lyncestian rather than charges about a specific conspiracy, was written earlier and simply used by Alexander at this point.

  100 My translation puts more weight on the loss of friends than the loss of wealth but I believe that the entire passage is about both. See Hamilton 1969: 104 and see further Plut. Alex. 41.1–2, where wealth and arrogance are associated with an unwillingness to perform tasks for the king.

  101 See Hamilton 1969: 104 for references.

  102 Two other Plutarch passages relate to gifts to the elite. Plut. Alex. 15.2–3, referring to the period just before Alexander’s Asian campaign, has Alexander impoverishing himself by gifts of property and wealth to companions, though Perdiccas declines any gift. Plut. Mor. 342D–E tells much the same story.

  In both passages, Plutarch claims that Alexander gave away most of his

  Notes 167

  possessions. Hamilton 1969: 37 rightly judges that this is a “romantic exaggeration,” but the idea that the king had to reward his companions with considerable wealth is real enough; Philip had done the same.

  103 Bosworth 1996a: 130–1 connects Alexander’s gifts to his claims of divinity rather than Macedonian monarchy. See contra Roisman 2003a: 307. Like Roisman 2003a: 308, I find Mitchell’s argument (1997: 171–2) that Alexander’s extravagant giving imitated Persian royal gift-giving implausible.

  Not only did Alexander, as noted, give gifts before the departure for Asia, but Philip did so as well ( FGrH 156 F 224, 225b). On the importance of wealth and gift-giving for kings, see Austin 1986: 459–60, though Bosworth 2002: 268 cautions against making royal wealth too significant. As already noted (see above), gift-giving often established and then confirmed philia.

  104 See Roisman 2003a: 306–9 for discussion and references on gift-giving in general and Alexander’s in particular. He does not, however, discuss Olympias’

  cautions and tends to focus on the limitations gifts imposed on the king’s Companions, rather than the limitations they imposed on the king.

  105 On Hephaestion, see Berve 1926: 2.169–75; Heckel 1992: 65–90; Reames-Zimmerman 1998, 1999.

  106 Welles 1963: 456, n. 1 observes that his usage can “hardly mean anyone but himself.” Since Hephaestion supposedly tells Olympias to stop being difficult and threatening “us,” he cannot be speaking of himself and the king together.

  107 In Alex. 39.5, Plutarch says that Olympias often warned Alexander against the ambitions of members of his court and that Alexander kept this correspondence secret with the exception of one occasion when Hephaestion read a letter of hers along with the king (supposedly this was his custom, but not, presumably, for letters from Olympias). Alexander did not keep him from reading the letter but put his seal ring to Hephaestion’s lips. Mor. 180D tells much the same story except that Plutarch specifies that the letter contained secret accusations against Antipater (in this version it is less clear that this incident was an exception). Mor. 333A simply calls the letter secret and comments that Alexander acted with a friend’s faith. Mor. 340A has Alexander reading his mother’s secret letter silently to himself, when Hephaestion joins him and Alexander cannot force himself to restrain his friend.

  108 One wonders why Olympias would have written to Hephaestion rather than to her son if she were dissatisfied with his friend. It was certainly not her procedure when dissatisfied with Antipater. The “quotation”, with its odd use of the first-person plural, seems especially spurious. Plutarch’s frequently repeated story, even with all its variations, presents a contradictory picture.

  109 Carney 2003: 239–42.

  110 See Heckel 2002: 81–95, especially 82–4.

  111 It is difficult to say whether this comment is Arrian’s own or that of Antipater.

  112 According to the story (as Arrian terms it), Alexander quipped that Olympias was charging him high rent for his nine-month lodging.

  113 A lacuna follows.

  114 As do modern writers: see Badian 1961: 36–40; Bosworth 1988: 161–2; Heckel 1992: 42; Baynham 1994: 337–46.

  115 The cause of his death has been the source of endless speculation. While the long history of Macedonian regicide and the conspiracies of Alexander’s reign make it impossible to rule out assassination, in recent scholarship, only Bosworth 1971a has taken the possibility very seriously. Moreover, the nature of evidence in the ancient sources makes diagnosis of any sort difficult. See Borza and Reames-Zimmerman 2000, and Reames-Zimmerman 2001 for discussion and references.

  168 Notes

  4 Olympias on her own, 323–316

  1 For general narratives of this period see: Préaux 1978; Will 1979–82; Green 1990; Shipley 2000; Erskine 2003: 17–89.

  2 Austin 1986: 455–7 warns against understanding the Hellenistic world as balance-of-power politics based on a false analogy to nineteenth-century Europe and stresses the continuing importance of conquest.

  3 See discussions in Shipley 2000: 1–32; Bosworth 2002: 19–28 (for the period of the Successors); Erskine 2003: 1–15. The scarcity of narrative sources is critical. For this last period of Olympias’ life, Diodorus, preserved fragments of now lost works by Arrian and others, and several of Plutarch’s lives are major sources. No inscriptional evidence relevant to Olympias’ career in this period has as yet been found, other than that associated with her tomb (see Chapter 6).

  4 See brief discussion and references in Bosworth 2002: 279. My preference is for the “high” chronology he champions. In some cases, the chronological dispute makes comparatively little difference in one’s understanding of events and motivation but in others the difference is meaningful. Readers should refer to this volume’s “Significant events” but understand that another historian might offer a different chronology.

  5 On his functionality, see Carney 2001: 63–89.

  6 On Barsine, see Carney 2000c: 101–5, 149–50.

  7 See Carney 2000c: 118–19, ns. 12, 13, and 14. Soon after Alexander’s death, his generals began to perform acts previously limited to kings. Diodorus frequently describes generals as aiming at basileia (rule), indicating that the Successors began to think and act like kings well before their delayed assumption of a royal title. This in turn implies that none of them realistically expected the Argead dynasty to survive, at least through the male line.

  8 Carney 2000c: 115–17.

  9 See Bosworth 2002: 29–63 for a discussion and references, not necessarily conclusions.

  10 Bosworth 1993: 420–7 contends, contrary to the general view, that the infant Alexander IV was not proclaimed king until about a year after his birth.

  11 On the role of lament and women in perpetuating vendettas, see Alexiou 1974: 21–2; Holst-Warhaft 1992: 118, 144.

  12 Alexiou 1974: 17–22; Holst-Warhaft 1992: 115–19.

  13 Carney 2000c: 14.

  14 Holst-Warhaft 1992: 103.

  15 See Wolohojian 1969: 268 for this variant of 3.33 and its translation.

  16 See references in Carney 2000c: 34.

  17 Austin 1986. Bosworth 2002: 247, however, rightly warns against too narrow a reading of the importance of wealth and plunder.

  18 Carney 2000c: 131–2.

  19 Despite Errington 1975a: 148, the fact that Cleopatra rather than Leonnatus took the initiative indicates her importance, not the lack of it. See further Carney 2000c: 124.

  20 See Heckel 1992: 91–106; Carney 2000c: 124.

  21 Macurdy 1932a: 36; Errington 1970: 60; Heckel 1992: 104.

  22 Diodorus (18.12.1) mentions that Antipater, hoping for military assistance, offered a daughter to the satrap of Phrygia. He calls this satrap Philotas. Since Leonnatus was, in fact, the satrap of Phrygia (so even Diod. 18.3.1), this is presumably an error (Errington 1970: 60). Moreover, Olympias and Cleopatra later attempted to counter another marriage alliance involving another daughter of Antipater, lending credence to the idea that they had done it before.

  Notes 169

  23 Diod. 18.33�
�36.5; Plut. Eum. 5–7; Arr. FGrH 156 F 26. Diodorus and Justin, based on Antigonus’ claims, report these secret negotiations, but not all historians believe that Antigonus was telling the truth. Some even believe that Cleopatra did actually marry Perdiccas, though there is no proof; see Carney 2000c: 292, n. 31.

  24 See Carney 2000c: 126–7.

  25 Plutarch ( Pyrrh. 2.1), narrating later Molossian events, refers to the “the children of Neoptolemus” and later mentions ( Pyrrh. 4.1) the rule of a Neoptolemus with whom Pyrrhus once shared power and whom he later murdered (5.1, 7). Granted that the father of Alexander of Molossia was Neoptolemus, that eldest sons were typically named after their paternal grandfather, that this Neoptolemus’ sister’s name was Cadmeia (5.5), a name associated with victory against Thebes—the victory of her uncle the Macedonian Alexander—the “children of Neoptolemus” were probably the descendants of Neoptolemus, father of Olympias and Alexander, and the Neoptolemus who shared rule with Pyrrhus was Cleopatra’s son (so Berve 1926: 2.186, 273; Hammond 1967: 558; Garoufalias 1979: 188–90 contra Reuss 1881: 168–71; Cross 1932: 42; Lévêque 1957: 99–100). Reuss 1881: 169 doubts that Cleopatra would have left Molossia if she had such a son since he supposes that her departure somehow signified his renunciation of the throne. This is not convincing. Cleopatra could leave her mother in charge of her son and pursue marriage, something she and Olympias needed, as we have noted.

  26 A similar circumstance in the next century, with another Olympias (II) as regent, contributed to the end of Aeacid monarchy: see Hammond 1967: 591–3 and Chapter 6. Olympias II also sought outside military aid when her sons were too young to rule.

  27 Whether or not Aeacides shared rule with Neoptolemus at this stage, Olympias’ favoring of Aeacides hardly required abandoning her grandson (so Reuss 1881: 169–70) since he was so young that he would not be able to rule for many years.

  28 Diodorus’ diction in this passage suggests that this was a faction only, not all the Molossians. This certainly is the implication of the rest of the list of allies opposing Antipater. For instance, Diodorus also refers to “the Thessalians except for the Pelinnians.”