“Let us consider both that it is entirely acceptable, in dealing with adversaries, to claim satisfaction of the anger in one’s heart in vengeance upon the aggressor, and also that retaliation upon enemies, which will be possible for us, is proverbially the greatest of pleasures.”
28 Dover 1974: 180–4, 190–201. He does, however, warn (1974: 191–2) against over-generalization: “Greek frankness in admitting that revenge is enjoyable, the obvious contra st between careful justice and Christian love . . . have all combined to exaggerate the cold or fierce aspects of Greek morality and to play down the credit which the Greeks gave to diffidence, trustfulness, peaceable-ness and magnanimity.”
29 One reason for caution is that modern writers seem inclined to ascribe Olympias’ motivation to vengeance when they do not make similar assumptions about her male contemporaries (see Carney 1993b: 30–1 for discussion and examples).
30 Bosworth 1971b: 104 argues that Alexander’s fear of dividing Macedonia along regional lines deterred him from marrying a Macedonian; Baynham 1998c: 141–52 focuses on the potential problems in choosing a daughter of Antipater or Parmenio (or both); Carney 2000c: 96–100 makes some arguments similar to Baynham’s (neither had the other’s argument available to her), but has a broader focus, putting Alexander’s marriage policy in the context of Philip’s and his treatment of his sisters’ marriage plans, as well as considering the impact of his delayed marriage on Olympias and his sister.
31 Baynham 1998c: 151 points out that had Alexander married at this time and left behind a baby or pregnant wife, the potential for feuding and intrigue
160 Notes
would have been increased. Antipater and Olympias certainly managed a feud anyway, but the existence of children and a wife with a child would only have added to the complexity of her situation and would probably have weakened it. Doubtless Olympias hoped for an heir at some point, but she may not have been in a rush for a grandson.
32 See Lane Fox 1973; Bosworth 1988; Green 1991 for major accounts of the reign of Alexander.
33 See Heckel 2003: 197–225 for a recent discussion of the factions and factionalism at Alexander’s court. While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, Heckel’s overview of the dynamics of the Macedonian court is compelling.
34 Her name is restored to the inscription in line 5: λ[υµπι]δι. See further Chapter 5.
35 For instance, Athenaeus (14.659f) quotes from a letter of Olympias to Alexander in which she urges him to buy a slave cook who knows various rituals from her. See further Chapter 5.
36 On Antipater’s career, see Berve 1926: 2.46–51; Kanatsulis 1958/9, 1968; Adams 1984; Heckel 1992: 38–49; Baynham 1994; Blackwell 1999: 33–80, 102–6, 110–16.
37 See Carney 1995: 367–91 for the view that, in the Argead period, office-holding was not “the way in which power was understood and allotted in Macedonian society,” that kingship was primarily understood not as an office held by an individual but as the possession of the royal clan, that any kind of substitute kingship was not, therefore, seen as a well-defined office, and that Antipater’s position in Macedonia during Alexander’s campaign was not so clearly defined as to justify the assumption that he had sole power.
38 So Macurdy 1932a: 31. Apart from the complete absence of evidence, the idea is implausible for the reasons stated. Olympias may well have hoped or even understood that she and Antipater were to work together and she may not have understood herself as under his control. If we knew more about the nature of their quarrel (see below), we would know more about what each one’s expectations might have been.
39 Blundell 1995: 160–8; Dillon 2002: 1, passim. As Kron 1996: 139 notes, female priesthoods tended to be hereditary in elite families. On Olympias and religion, see Chapter 5.
40 See discussion in Jones 1999: 2–3. Certainly, as Jones 1999: 51 notes, ties between Greek cities and states were defined and reinforced by their common religion and shared worship of the same gods.
41 See Jones 1999: 1–56; Erskine 2002; see also below. Mosley 1973: 78 says that the diplomatic relations of monarchs and tyrants tended to be even more personal and direct than those of cities.
42 Mosley 1973: 1, 78. A passage in Aeschines (3.223) not only exemplifies this situation but demonstrates how easily, even in a minor way, royal women got involved in the process. Aeschines refers to Ctesiphon’s engineering of the arrest of a certain Anaxinus of Oreus, ostensibly on grounds that he was shopping for Olympias. The charge was obviously a cloak for suspicions that Anaxinus was spying for Philip while appearing to honor his obligations to his xenos (guest friend) or philos (friend). What we cannot know is whether his task obliged Olympias as well as her husband; in all probability it did since the proffering of gifts or favors automatically led to the expectation of return.
43 Jones 1999: 14. Herman 1987: 29 comments that, in various ways, xenia (ritualized guest friendship) “mimicked” aspects of blood kinship and, in effect, created supplemental kin. Xenia was an important aspect of international dealings. Mitchell 1997: 122 observes that there was comparatively
Notes 161
little development of diplomatic terminology other than that associated with personal relationships.
44 As Mitchell 1997: 4 observes, Greeks were “not coy about the emphasis placed on reciprocity” even in philia relationships involving kin, generally considered one’s closed philoi. See Blundell 1989: 31–42; Mitchell 1997: 1–26 on the nature of philia and the importance of reciprocity.
45 Even Aristotle ( Nic. Eth. 1157b–1158a) includes women (specifically husbands and wives) in some such relationships. Despite the understanding of blood relationships as solely the creation of males as made famous in the Oresteia, much evidence, particularly that relating to royal dynasties, assumes that both mothers and fathers were kin of their children; consider, for instance, Alexander’s pride in his descent from Achilles, the supposed ancestor of his mother Olympias’ family. Similarly, Alexander’s interest in marrying Darius’
daughter and the hostility of the Macedonian elite after his death to his sons by Asian women both indicate that they understood children as the kin of both parents. Herman 1987: 34–5 argues that xenia relationships involving women are rare, but his discussion deals largely with mythic figures, not Macedonian royal women. In any event, xenia and philia, though part of a collection of overlapping terms expressing friendship and kinship (Herman 1987: 19), are not identical. As discussed below, philia (and its cognates) is used repeatedly in terms of various royal Macedonian women.
46 So Blackwell 1999: 91.
47 Herman 1987: 47, 69 observes that special gestures of euergesia (benefaction) could initiate the end of hostility between parties and the first step toward philia or xenia relationships, relationships that could endure for generations.
Erskine 2002: 105 observes that individual acts of benefaction can always be understood as part of a continuing relationship rather than as isolated instances.
48 The inscription does not specify for what group either one acted, but Blackwell (1999: 89–91) plausibly suggests that Olympias was acting for Macedonia and Cleopatra for Molossia. He argues that the size of the shipments sent to Olympias (second only to Athens on the list) suggests that she received grain for Macedonia and that the difference in the quantity each one received suggests that they did not receive the shipments for the same country.
49 Blackwell 1999: 89.
50 See discussion and references in Kron 1996: 141, 166–7 and Dillon 2002: 10–11, 25, who suggest a mix.
51 Mendels 1984: 139; Blackwell 1999: 89 believes the shipments were
“Alexander’s doing” and argues that they date between 334/3 and 331, probably earlier rather than later. Kingsley 1986: 169–71 and Blackwell 1999: 97 connect the shipments to the Persian counter-offensive against Alexander of 334/3. Garnsey 1988: 159–62 wants to tie the inscription to known grain crises and prefers 328/7.
52 Mendels 1984: 138–9 points to the absence from the
Cyrene edict of some of Antipater’s newer friends and suggests that the shipments indicated Alexander’s support for his mother against Antipater. Garnsey 1988: 161
rejects political consideration as the primary explanation for the presence or absence of names from the list, preferring to emphasize climate. On Olympias and Antipater, see further below.
53 Blackwell 1999: 101. Mendels 1984: 138–9 suggests that the Cyrene edict indicates the emergence of two power blocs or “zones of influence,” one the Antipatrian, the other Alexandrian.
54 Worthington 1984: 48 rejects the idea that either Antipater or Olympias demanded Harpalus, though he terms Olympias’ participation “more
162 Notes
questionable,” and concludes that only Philoxenus, Alexander’s governor of Cilicia, demanded Harpalus (Hyp. 5.8). See contra Blackwell 1999: 18–27, 88.
Worthington, perhaps influenced by the values of the polis world, seems simply to assume that Olympias’ actions could not possibly have legitimacy.
55 Mendels 1984: 144.
56 While nothing directly associates either individual with Harpalus’ career, suggestive circumstances exist for both, particularly for Olympias. Harpalus’
family (his aunt was one of Philip’s wives), formerly the royal house of the Upper Macedonian area of Elimeia, was prominent in Philip’s and Alexander’s courts (see Heckel 1992: 213–21) and Harpalus was one of the friends of Alexander Philip sent into exile after the Pixodarus affair (Plut. Alex. 10.3; Arr.
3.5). Since Plutarch tells us that Olympias and friends of Alexander had helped to precipitate the attempted marriage with Pixodarus’ daughter (Plut. Alex.
10.1) and Philip sent them into exile apparently in response to their “bad”
advice, it seems likely that Olympias and Harpalus had worked together. When Harpalus fled from his responsibilities the first time (see discussion and references in Heckel 1992: 215–17), he did so in association with a certain Tauriscus, who then went on to Olympias’ brother, campaigning in Italy (Arr. 3.6.7). As we have noted, the Aeacids probably had ties to several of the Upper Macedonian royal houses. The Tauriscus association might suggest a connection to that of Olympias (Jaschinski 1981: 12–18 goes too far in thinking this somehow connects to Alexander of Molossia becoming king of Macedonia). Antipater had worked closely with Alexander before his father’s death and gave him critical support at the time of Philip’s murder, so he too may have been part of the group that included Harpalus, supporting Alexander.
57 Diodorus says that the Athenians “πεπλυωρηκ τες” her. Geer 1962: 191
translates this as “had great respect for Olympias,” but LSJ translates it as “having observed her carefully.” While the verb can signify either “care” or
“respect,” Geer’s translation makes more sense in the context of a passage about her previous honors and Athenian hopes for her help.
58 This phenomenon is more obvious after the death of Alexander, when Hellenistic dynasties began to develop, but observable in the continuing relations of his mother and sister with the dynasties of their births. Indeed, before that, Macedonian wives born to foreign dynasties could have been active in dealings between two states, though no evidence currently supports such a possibility.
59 Livy (8.24.17) said that Olympias was present when her brother’s ashes were returned for burial and Pausanias (1.11.3) seems to imply that her arrival in Molossia was associated with her brother’s death, as might Hyperides ( Eux.
25). As Blackwell 1999: 98 notes, if his dating and attribution of the grain shipments (see above) are correct, Olympias cannot have left Macedonia before 333. The combined testimony of Curtius (4.6.20, 7.1.38) and Diodorus (17.49.1) would appear to demonstrate that Olympias was still in Macedonia in late 332 or early 331. Curtius (7.1.38) has Amyntas, son of Andromenes, squabble with Olympias at that time over his seizure as recruits of a group of young men of military age whom Olympias had been sheltering. (On the historicity of this incident, see below and the Appendix.) Hammond 1980: 474
tried to discredit the Livy passage, but his contentions (part of his general argument (473–6) that Olympias held an office, the prostasia, and then exchanged it with her daughter) are not persuasive: see Carney 1987a: 50–3, 1995: 367–76.
60 Pausanias (1.1.3) surely overstates when he claims that Olympias returned to Epirus out of “fear” of Antipater. So long as Alexander lived, Olympias cannot
Notes 163
have had cause to fear for her life at Antipater’s hands. It is possible that Antipater had reason to fear Olympias. Plutarch ( Alex. 39.6) has Alexander warning Antipater to watch out for plots against him, but he makes no connection to Olympias, even though his next section deals with her. Many people, of course, had reason to plot against Antipater.
61 Macurdy 1932a: 33 imagines an incident in which Alexander tells her to stop
“meddling,” but no such incident is attested in our sources. (See Carney 1987a: 53, n. 52 for references to those who have accepted this myth.) Macurdy’s fiction seems to be based on Plutarch ( Alex. 39.7), but, quite apart from the dubious truth of the passage itself (see above), it simply says that Alexander did not allow Olympias to meddle in his affairs or military matters, that he bore her complaints, and that Antipater failed to realize that he was more affected by his mother’s upsets than by Antipater’s letters.
62 Macurdy 1932a: 33 considers the acquittal of Amyntas, son of Andromenes, despite Olympias’ attempts to blacken his name with her son (Curt. 7.2.36–
40), a humiliation that would have forced her departure. Assuming Curtius’
testimony is accurate (see Appendix), his acquittal would have been embarrassing to Olympias but hardly a major issue, particularly since it happened in Asia. Green 1991: 458 suggests that she left because she was losing her struggle with Antipater whereas Cross 1932: 48 (followed by Blackwell 1999: 101) argues that she hoped to escape Antipater’s control and influence. Both could easily be true.
63 No ancient source directly names this royal brother and sister as the children of Alexander and Cleopatra. Some accept this identification, but others do not.
See further discussion in Chapters 4 and 6.
64 See Cabanes 1980: 324–51 for a discussion of the role of Epirote women in terms of property ownership. Cabanes notes that they could function as heads of family, if widowed, or at least as deputies until their sons were of age.
65 In the later third century, Olympias II (widow and half-sister of Alexander II) acted as regent for her two young sons (Justin 28.1.1). It may be significant that both Olympias II and Cleopatra were members of the Aeacid dynasty by blood as well as marriage.
66 SEG IX 2. Cleopatra also sold grain to Leocrates, which ultimately went to Corinth (Lycurg. Leoc. 26). The grain, probably surplus from that shipped to her from Cyrene, was likely sold in 333/2 or a little earlier: see Kingsley 1986: 169–70 contra Oliverio 1933: 34–5. See also Blackwell 1999: 96–8.
67 Aeschines (3.242) mentions an embassy sent to Cleopatra to bring condolences c. 331/30 and around 330 she appeared ( SEG XXIII 189) as thearodoch (an official who receives envoys sent to consult oracles or present offerings), perhaps for the new Epirote Alliance. See below for the possible date and circumstance of the initiation of the alliance.
68 The date of this development is unknown and discussion about it tends to connect to a scholar’s view about whether the alliance was a sign of Aeacid weakness or strength; see below. Those who think it a sign of Aeacid strength (Cabanes 1976: 177–81) tend to date it to the reign of Alexander of Molossia while those who see it as weakness (Hammond 1967: 537, 1980: 472) date it after his death, so to 331–325. Franke 1954: 42 thought that Olympias may have been behind the alliance. Cross 1932: 42–3 connects its formation to Olympias’ move to Molossia while Blackwell 1999: 101, though not embracing that idea, comments that, once the alliance existed, Olympias probably could enjoy a “greater degree of autonomy from Pella and Antipater.”
69 Hammond 1967: 562; Errington 1975b: 41.
70 See Blackwell 1999: 101, n. 73, for a discussion of the evidence. Hammond 1967: 559, 1980: 472, who ties the date of the formation of the alliance to SEG
164 Notes
XXIII 189 and so dates it after 331, argues that the formation of the alliance was a sign of Molossian weakness, probably a plan of Antipater, approved by Alexander the Great in order to enfeeble the Molossians and Chaonians.
Cabanes 1976: 177–81 views the alliance as an indication of Molossian strength and so believes that it may have formed while Alexander of Epirus was still alive.
71 Hammond’s idea (1980: 472) that Alexander of Macedonia would have been involved as well is believable only if the alliance was created during Alexander of Molossia’s lifetime; everything indicates considerable cooperation between the Macedonian Alexander and his mother and sister.
72 The reign of Pyrrhus was something of a temporary reversal of this trend, primarily because his military success, greater than that of any other Aeacid, attracted support. Even in Pyrrhus’ reign, however (see Chapter 4), signs of weakening allegiance to the monarchy were visible.
73 Despite this passage and cooperative actions after the death of Alexander (see Chapter 4) and the absence of a single example of conflict between mother and daughter, a scholarly myth arose that mother and daughter had quarreled and the quarrel occasioned Cleopatra’s departure (see Carney 1987a: 53, n. 53 for references). Macurdy 1932a: 34, while accepting the possibility of friction between the two, considers it possible that Cleopatra may have been sent by Olympias to watch and/or trouble Antipater. This suggestion certainly better suits available evidence and the known behavior of the pair.
74 Alexander’s apparent acceptance of or at least indifference to his mother’s actions appears to contradict Plutarch’s earlier ( Alex. 39.7) assertion that he did not allow his mother to interfere. Hammond 1967: 559 implausibly suggests that the dispute was about Molossia, though the passage certainly does not support that view. Whether Alexander ever said anything like this is uncertain since the situation it describes is at odds with the literal truth, as evidenced by other sources.
Olympias Page 28