No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Mother of Philip V of Macedon
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In 1924 W. W. Tarn published an article in which he attempted to prove that the mother of Philip V of Macedon was the Epirot princess Phthia. Previously all historians had accepted the statement of Eusebius that Philip was the son of Demetrius II and Chryseis, whom, after the death of her husband, the Macedonians gave in marriage to Antigonus Doson. Despite the cogency of Tarn's arguments, his theory has been rejected by both Beloch and Dinsmoor, who adhere to the traditional view. This problem of the identity of Philip's mother is one of considerable importance, and consequently in this paper I intend to collect the evidence once again and subject it to a careful analysis. The results will be found strongly to corroborate Tarn's contention.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1934
References
page 99 note 1 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 17–23Google Scholar; cf. C.A.H. VII, p. 744.
page 99 note 2 I, 237, Schoene; cf. Justin, XXVIII, 3,9–10; Plut, . Paul. 8Google Scholar.
page 99 note 3 Griechische Geschichte, IV, 2, pp. 138–139.
page 99 note 4 The Archons of Athens (Cambridge, Mass., 1931.) P. 100Google Scholar. Macurdy, G. H., Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore, 1932), pp. 71–72Google Scholar, follows Tarn, but disregarded Beloch's objections. Jacoby, F.Gr. Hist. II, 862Google Scholar, collects the evidence and says that Tarn's theory is ‘ansprechend,’ but not completely demonstrable.
page 99 note 5 B.C.H. XXXV (1911)Google Scholar, inscription facing p. 260.
page 99 note 6 Köuigin Phthia, B. Ph. W. (1912), 314–315.
page 99 note 7 Beloch, IV, 2, pp. 148–149.
page 99 note 8 For the latest discussion of this partition of Acarnania see Klaffenbach, , Klio, XXIV (1931), 223–234Google Scholar.
page 99 note 9 Justin, XXVIII, 1.
page 99 note 10 Euseb: I, 249, Schoene; Justin, XXVIII, 1, 2; Agatharchides, , F. Gr. Hist. (Jacoby) IIA, p. 220, 20Google Scholar. Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas, p. 348Google Scholar, dates the marriage in 253; Beloch, IV, 2, p. 137, places it c. 255.
page 99 note ll Beloch, IV, 2, p. 137. Apama married Prusias I of Bithynia.
page 99 note 12 Of course, there is the possibility that Demetrius, when he set aside Stratonice, caused his sons by her (if there were any) to become illegitimate. Such an assumption, however, is highly improbable, for if there had been a son (or sons) by Stratonice, undoubtedly he would have contended for the succession, but all our evidence points tothe fact that Philip ascended the throne without any dispute. Cf. Breccia, , Il Diritto Dinastico in Beloch's Studi di Storia Antica, IV (1903), 155–156Google Scholar.
page 100 note 1 Justin, XXVIII, I, 2–4.
page 100 note 2 Plut, . Arat. 17Google Scholar. Dinsmoor, , op cit. p. 102Google Scholar, also has disregarded the Nicaea episode.
page 100 note 3 Beloch, IV, 2, p. 137, and Tarn, , Antig. Gon. p. 370, n. 4Google Scholar, are certainly right in stating that Nicaea was not going to surrender Corinth on any other terms than those of legitimate queenship. It seems clear that by this time there could be only one legitimate queen at one time; cf. Breccia, , op. cit. 155–156Google Scholar.
page 100 note 4 Tarn, , Antig. Gon. p. 370, n. 4Google Scholar: C.Q. XVIII (1924), 18Google Scholar.
page 100 note 5 For a discussion of the problems involved in this controversial passage of Justin see Holleaux, Rome, La Grèce, et les Monarchies Hellénistiques (Paris, 1921), p. 7, n. 3Google Scholar, and the bibliography cited there.
page 100 note 6 Beloch, IV, 2, pp. 137–138, 522, insists that Demetrius did marry Nicaea and dates the marriage in 244. Tarn, , Antig. Gon. p. 370, n. 4Google Scholar, I think, has the better of the argument, at least so far as the wedding not having taken place is concerned, and the exact date is not of importance to us. Beloch's assumption that Demetrius divorced Nicaea also (Stratonice previously) for bearing him no son seems rather improbable.
page 100 note 7 Polyb. IV, 5, 3; 24, I.
page 100 note 8 Justin, XXVIII, 4, 16; XXIX, 1, 2.
page 100 note 9 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 17–21Google Scholar.
page 100 note 10 It is generally agreed that this inscription refers to Demetrius II. Hence the restoration of Phthia is certain, for the gap is not long enough to allow the name Chryseis. Tarn shows that this holds true for all the inscriptions under consideration; C.Q. XVIII (1924), 20–21Google Scholar.
page 100 note ll In this case the king's name was not excised the treatment which the Athenians in 201/0 accorded to practically all inscriptions honouring Macedonian rulers; see Livy, XXXI, 44, 4–9.
page 101 note 1 See Syll3. 485, n. 3.
page 101 note 2 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 19Google Scholar.
page 101 note 3 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 20Google Scholar.
page 101 note 4 Beloch, IV, 2, pp. 138–139.
page 101 note 5 Op. cit. p. 100.
page 101 note 6 Op. cit. pp. 54–55; 99–111.
page 101 note 7 Op. cit. pp. 100–105.
page 101 note 8 Op. cit. p. 171.
page 101 note 9 Op. cit. p. 104.
page 102 note 1 See Tarn, , C.Q. XVIII (1924), 20Google Scholar, where he shows that there is at least one case of a similar omission.
page 102 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 99–100.
page 102 note 3 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 19Google Scholar.
page 102 note 4 Cf. Breccia, , op. cit. 155–156Google Scholar.
page 102 note 5 Beloch, IV, 2, pp. 138–139.
page 102 note 6 It need not concern us that the inscriptions mention children when so far as we know Phthia had only one child, namely, Philip. Possibly she had otherswho did not survive, or possibly i n the word children we are to understand Apama also, Demetrius’ legitimate daughter by Stratonice.
page 102 note 7 Seep. 100, n. 10.
page 102 note 8 I, 237, Schoene.
page 102 note 9 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 21–23Google Scholar.
page 102 note 10 Polyb. V, 89, 7.
page 102 note 11 Polyb. IV, 2, 5.
page 102 note 12 I am not sure that it is safe to say that κατάφύσιν is always in contrast with κατά θέσιν. In Polyb. XVIII, 35, 9 we find both expressions used in contrast, and in XVIII, 35, 6 the καΤάφύσιν probably has the idea of contrast with καΤά φήσιν. But in III, 9, 6; 12, 3; XI, 2, 2, the καΤά φύσιν seems to be emphasizing that the relationships are direct—i.e. own father, own son, own brother, rather than father, son, or brother-in-law. In these instances there is no trace of a contrast with καΤά θήσιν.
page 103 note 1 Polyb. IV. 24, 7.
page 103 note 2 Polyb. IV. 87, 6.
page 103 note 3 Whether this adoption was a formal ceremony need not concern us. Tarn, , C.Q. XVIII (1924), 21–22Google Scholar, gives instances of adoption by women in Hellenistic times. It seems certain in our case that Chryseis came to consider Philip as her son.
page 103 note 4 Euseb. I, 237, Schoene; Justin, XXVIII, 3, 10; Plut, . Paul. 8Google Scholar. Justin, XXIX, I, 2, speaks of Doson as the ‘tutor’ and ‘Vitricus’ of Philip. In other words he has failed to realize that Chryseis was the adoptive rather than thereal mother of Philip.
page 103 note 5 Polyb. V, 10, 10.
page 104 note 6 Cf. Tarn's, remark, C.Q. XVIII (1924), 18Google Scholar. See the genealogical tree at the end of this paper.
page 103 note 7 C.Q. XVIII (1924), 23Google Scholar.
page 104 note 1 Except for a brief interval, 231–230, after the overthrow of the Epirot monarchy; see Beloch, IV, i, pp. 635–637.
page 104 note 2 Cf. Paus. I, 11; Plut, . Pyrrh. 1Google Scholar; Justin, XXVIII, 1. For a complete family tree of the Aeacids see Corradi, , Atti R. Ace. Set. di Torino, XLVII (1912), 193, 202, 204, and 206Google Scholar. Corradi believes that Chryseis was the mother of Philip.