Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:28:20.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Satyrus the Peripatetic and the marriages of Philip II*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Adrian Tronson
Adrian Tronson
Affiliation:
University of South Africa, Pretoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A fragment, cited by Athenaeus (Deipn. xiii 557b–e =fr. 21) from the life of Philip II of Macedon by the Peripatetic biographer Satyrus, has been regarded by modern scholarship as a fundamental source for Philip's early campaigns and ‘matrimonial politics’. Here Satyrus lists Philip's wives, apparently in chronological sequence. The fragment, as it is usually printed, also states that during his reign Philip αἰεὶ κατὰ πόλεμον ἐγάμει. This has led scholars to infer a reasonably accurate account of Philip's method of conducting foreign policy through contracting political marriages.

Beloch was among the first of modern scholars to link Philip's marriages (as listed in the fragment) with specific wars and even to alter their chronological order so that most of them can be pegged to the few known campaigns of Philip's early career. He tacitly repudiated Satyrus' order by placing the marriage of Phila of Elimeia before that of Audata of Illyria and relegating Audata to the position of Nebenfrau, raising her status to that of Gemahlin only after the (hypothetical) death of Phila. He gave no specific reason for doing this, but it would appear that he regarded the marriage between Philip and a woman of the politically unstable region of Elimeia as being more appropriate to the time of his accession and therefore more likely to have taken place before his marriage to the Illyrian.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 104 , November 1984 , pp. 116 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The fragments of Satyrus are collected in Kumaniecki, C. F., De Satyro Peripatetico (Krakow 1929)Google Scholar; commentary on fr. 21 at 73 f. Cf. Müller, , FHG iii 161fr. 5Google Scholar.

2 Satyrus is given the epithet Περιπατητικός three times in Athenaeus: vi 248d; xii 541c; xii 556a. S. West, in an important article (see n. 11), has argued convincingly that there are no grounds for disputing the authenticity of this epithet.

3 This is explicitly stated by A. M. Prestianni Giallombardo in a recent and exhaustive analysis of this fragment, RSA vi–vii (1976–1977) 81–110Google Scholar. The frequent discussions of this fragment (e.g. in the works cited in n. 5, and elsewhere) support this statement.

4 The order of Philip's wives, according to Satyrus, is as follows: Audata of Illyria (359); Phila of Elimeia (359/358); Nikesipolis of Pherae and Philinna of Larisa (358/357); Olympias of Epirus (357: Alexander born in 356); Meda of Thrace (?340/339); Cleopatra of Macedon (337). The dates, except for that of Olympias, which can be calculated from the known date of Alexander's birth, are conjectural and approximate.

5 Important interpretations have been based on this premiss, e.g. K. J. Beloch, GG 2 iii. 268–70; C. Ehrhardt, CQ xvii (1967) 296–301; G. T. Griffith, CQ xx (1970) 66–80; Errington, R. M., GRBS xvi (1975) 41Google Scholar n. 1; Ellis, J., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London 1976) 212–14Google Scholar; and more recently in Dell, H. J., Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki 1981) 100–37Google Scholar; Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T., History of Macedonia (Oxford 1978) ii 214 f. and 220–30Google Scholar (hereafter HMac ii); Martin, T. R., HSCP lxxxvi (1982) 55–78Google Scholar; Prestianni Giallombardo (n. 3).

6 Op. cit. (n. 5) 68–70.

7 G. T. Griffith (HMac ii 215) accepts Beloch's alteration without question and refers to a renewal of an old marriage alliance between Macedon and Elimeia. Cf. Ellis 1976 (n. 5) 38, who also accepts Beloch's interpretation.

8 D.S. xvi 14.

9 Ibid. 35.

10 Cf. Sordi, M., La Lega Tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno (Rome 1958) 351–2Google Scholar; Ehrhardt (n. 5) 297: ‘the list is not in chronological order’; Ellis 1976 (n. 5) 212:‘this account is clearly unsatisfactory in some ways, in that its relative chronology is suspect and often wrong’. Also Griffith 1970 (n. 5) 70 and n. 1.

11 GRBS xv (1974) 279–87Google Scholar. This image was established by Wilamowitz, U. v. in Hermes xxxiv (1899) 633 ffGoogle Scholar. = Kl. Schr. iv (1962) 103 ff.Google Scholar, and maintained by Leo, F., Die gr.-röm. Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig 1901) 118 ff.Google Scholar; Gudeman, RE, zweite Reihe, iii (1921) Satyrus 16; Dihle, A., Stud. zur gr. Biographie (Göttingen 1956) 104 f.Google Scholar; and Momigliano, A., The Development of Greek Biography (Harvard 1971) 79 ff.Google Scholar

12 Cf. Kumaniecki (n. 1) 2; Momigliano (n. 11) 79.

13 ad Autolycum ii 94 ( = fr. 227 (K)umaniecki; 217 (M)üller).

14 Suda H 462.

15 See RE viii (1913) Herakleides 51, 489 and 491. Cf. Crönert's suggestion (ibid. 491) that some of Herakleides' works were themselves epitomized by his grammateus, Agatharchides of Cnidus: cf. RE i (1894) 739.

16 See RE x (1919) 1675, iv (1901) 2818, ii (1896) 1058 respectively.

17 The work on the Alexandrian demes was, as set out above, probably written by another Satyrus. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. i 68.2 refers to a Σάτυρος ὁ τοὺς ἀρχαίους μύθους συναγαγών, cf. Schol. ad Il. xiv 216 and Od. viii 288 and Kumaniecki (n. 1) 4 for other references. Kumaniecki, following Gudeman in RE, does not identify the biographer with the mythographer, basing his argument largely on stylistic grounds.

18 Bias (D.L. i 82); Chilon (D.L. i 68); Pythagoras (D.L. viii 40); Empedocles (D.L. viii 53, 58); Zeno (D.L. ix 5); Anaxagoras (D.L. ii 3); Socrates (Ath. xiii 556a); Diogenes the Cynic (D.L. vi 80, cf. Jerome ad Iov. ii 14: ‘refert Satyrus qui illustrium virorum scribit historias …’); Anaxarchus (Ath. vi 260 f); Stilpo (Ath. xiii 584a); Sophocles, (Vita 8Google Scholar); Euripides, (POxy ix [1912] 1176 p. 124 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Arrighetti, G., Satiro: vita di Euripide, Stud. Class. e Or. xiii [1964])Google Scholar; Alcibiades (Ath. xii 534b); Dionysius II (Ath. xii 541c); Philip II (Ath. vi 248d, xiii 557b); Demosthenes (Plut., Mor. 847aGoogle Scholar); a life of Aeschylus is also mentioned on the title page of the papyrus Life of Euripides, fr. 39 col. 23 K.

19 Ath. vi 248a, xii 534b, 541a.

20 Cf. Giallombardo (n. 3) 82: ‘il testo fondamentale … sulla politica matrimoniale di Filippo II …’.

21 περὶ γυναικῶν: cf. C. B. Gulick, Athenaeus (Loeb 1927) vol. vi 3, note a.

22 Καὶ γὰρ τὰς γαμετὰς ὁ καλὸς ἡμῶν ἑστιάτωρ ἐπαινῶν.

23 A brief anecdote about the alleged ‘philogyny’ of Euripides forms a link between the two main themes of Larensis' discourse (the second main theme: 557f–558e).

24 Kaibel, G., Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistae (Leipzig 1887) iii (557b–e)Google Scholar 228–9.

25 The phrase κατὰ πόλεμον cannot mean anything else in this context, associated as it is so closely with αἰεί: certainly it does not mean ‘in wartime’ (Errington) or ‘in guerra’ (Giallombardo). Ellis' translation, ‘for military purposes’ (Ellis 1981 [n. 5] 111) is also not accurate in this context.

26 The particle γοῦν here has inferential force: cf. LSJ s.v. ‘freq. in adducing an instance …’ —as Denniston calls it (GP 449) ‘part proof’, supported by a statement. Here Athenaeus is supporting his statement by citing Satyrus.

27 The word οἰκειοῦσθαι has the basic connotation of ‘making something one's own’, or, ‘claiming on grounds of ties of kinship’, (it certainly does not mean ‘taming’ as Errington translates, or ‘commandeering’ (Ellis 1981 [n. 5] 111, 1976 [n. 5] 41 n. 1). For the meaning ‘make one's own’, cf. Hdt. i 4, i 94. For the meaning ‘claim on grounds of kinship’, cf. Thuc. iii 65. In the present instance οἰκειοῦσθαι has both meanings. Philip claims the Thessalian people as kin, on grounds of his offspring from Thessalian wives. Thus in the present context, Cawkwell's interpretation, (n. 31) 61, ‘make friends with’ is not strictly accurate.

28 For this technical sense of ἐπεισάγειν, ‘bring in a second wife’, see LSJ quoting Comment, in Aristot. Gr. and a fourth century Pap. Eleph. 1, 8.

29 Op. cit. (n. 3) 82: ‘… ma ad ogni modo doveva riassumere l'impressione emergente dalla lettura del Bios di Satyros …’. The possibility that Athenaeus reworked the original passage has also been suggested by Martin (n. 5) 69 and Ellis 1981 (n. 5) 113.

30 On the accuracy of quotations in ancient authors, see P. A. Brunt, CQ xxx (1980) 447–94; on Athenaeus' method of quotation see below, nn. 54 and 57.

31 Cf. Ellis 1976 (n. 5) 250 n. 10; JHS xci (1971) 15Google Scholar; Cawkwell, G., Philip of Macedon (London 1978) 36Google Scholar; HMac ii 208Google Scholar. Older historians, e.g. Grote xi 297 and Beloch GG 2 iii. 1 225, accept the existence of the regency without question.

32 Diodorus repeats this figure in xvi 1.3 and in xvi 95.1. The other relevant passages are cited by Ellis 1971 (n. 31) 15, who also adduces the silence of Demosthenes on the regency as concrete evidence that it did not exist. On the reckoning of regnal dates, see Bickermann, E.J., Chronology of the Ancient World2 (Ithaca, New York 1980) 67, 90Google Scholar. On Diodorus' chronology, see N. G. L. Hammond, CQ xxxi (1937) 79–91, CQ xxxii (1938) 136–51.

33 ‘itaque Philippus diu non regem, sed tutorem pupilli egit. at ubi graviora bella inminebant serumque auxilium in expectatione infantis erat, conpulsus a populo regnum suscepit’.

34 This discrepancy does not make a significant difference. Philip, by any account, was de facto king after 359. The fact that Satyrus and Justin (? = Theopompus, cf. A. Klotz, RE xlii [1952] 2303, 2307) agree as regards the period of regency, as well as in the sensationalistic account of court life (cf. Polyb. viii 9, quoting Theopompus), suggests that Satyrus' source was Theopompus, assuming, of course, that Satyrus was not in a position to interview eyewitnesses. On Diodorus' source see Hammond 1937 (n. 32) 91.

35 For Philip's Illyrian campaign early in this reign, see D.S. xvi 14; for the political advantages inherent in an alliance with Elimeia, see Beloch (n. 5) 72 f., also Giallombardo (n. 3) 86, esp. n. 13. Ellis 1981 (n. 5) 111 regards the primacy of this marriage as ‘paradigmatic’.

36 Beloch (n. 5) 68–9; F. Geyer, RE xix. 2 (1938) Philippos 2303; Macurdy, H. G., Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore 1932) 53Google Scholar n. 132; HMac ii 230Google Scholar, ‘Philinna did not become queen’, cf. ibid. 278 on Nikesipolis. Other literature is cited by Giallombardo (n. 3) 85 n. 8.

37 Giallombardo (n. 3) 84–8, and literature cited there. Ellis 1981 (n. 5) 114 also supports this view.

38 Cf. Demos, lix 122: a significant, though perhaps exaggerated, statement on what must have been the prevailing Athenian view of marriage and the role of women in society.

39 Cf. n. 27 above. He could have used this term simply for variety.

40 Cf. Ellis 1981 (n. 5) 112, Ehrhardt (n. 5) 297; Martin (n. 5) 68 f. argues that there are valid grounds for accepting Satyrus' chronology as far as Philinna is concerned, but has reservations about the date of Nikesipolis' marriage. As he points out, however, the circumstances do not exclude an early date; cf. n. 41.

41 Suggested by Martin (n. 5) 68. The text does not exclude the possibility that Nikesipolis bore Philip other, less illustrious children: Thessalonike's significant role in subsequent history secured her position in the list.

42 D.S. xvi 14.1–2; Justin vii 6.7–9; Theopompus, FGrH 115Google Scholar F 35 (= Harpocration s.v. Κινέας); id. F 34 and 48 ( = Steph. Byz. s.v. Χάλκη). Cf. Orosius, adv. pag. iii 12.5–8. Cf. Martin (n. 5) 56.

43 Ellis 1976 (n. 5) 61; Cawkwell (n. 31) 32 ff., also Martin (n. 5) 59 f. It has been suggested that the order of the marriages on the list was deliberately altered by Satyrus in order, first, to place Thessalonike nearer the beginning of the list to emphasize the κατὰ πόλεμον thesis (Griffith 1970 [n. 5] 70 n. 1; Ellis 1976 [n. 5] 85; Giallombardo [n. 3] 108) and secondly, for stylistic reasons, to link the Thessalians on a geographic basis (Errington [n. 5] 41 n. 1). A view to which I previously subscribed, cf. Martin (n. 5) 69, also suggested that the transposition of the names could have been due to Athenaeus' editing: this is possible, since Athenaeus occasionally transposes the order of items on lists (e.g. vii 329f, quoting Arist. HA 342b35). If, however, Satyrus or Athenaeus wanted to emphasize the κατὰ πόλεμον thesis, why place Nikesipolis only third on the list and not first? The limited emphasis which the transposition achieves does not make it worth the effort.

44 In the case of the Thessalians, his motive was οἰκειώσασθαι . . . τὸ Θετταλῶν ἔθνος; in the case of Olympias and Meda, the result of the marriage (προσεκτήσατο . . .τὴν Μολοττῶν βασιλείαν . . . δῶρα πολλά), as it is stated in the context, implies Philip's motive on each occasion.

45 The marriages of Nikesipolis and Philinna apparently preceded the Sacred War (see above, p. 122) and should be seen as part of Philip's diplomatic, rather than military, strategy. There is no evidence that Macedon was at war with Epirus at the time of Philip's marriage to Olympias, although the alliance between Philip and the Molossians might have been prompted by the Illyrian danger: cf. Giallombardo (n. 3) 95.

46 See n. 52.

47 Cf. Brunt (n. 30) 494: ‘Fragments and even epitomes reflect the interests of the authors who cite or summarize lost works as much as or more than the characteristics of the works concerned.’ Cf. n. 54 below.

48 See n. 28 for the technical meaning of this term.

49 Cf. Hdt. i 61: the story of Peisistratus and the daughter of Megacles.

50 Justin ix 11.2 uses the Roman technical term repudium to denote Olympias' status after Philip's marriage to Cleopatra. This term, however, may not be appropriate in the context of fourth-century Macedonia, in which the notion of divorce, in the formal (Roman or modern) sense—so far as can be ascertained by analogy with Athens—did not exist. Cf. MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (London 1978) 87–9Google Scholar; Beauchet, L., Droit Privé Athénienne (Paris 1897) i 381Google Scholar; Giallombardo (n. 3) 104 ff. Apparently Philip's wives suffered a loss of τίμη every time a new wife produced (or was expected to produce) an heir apparent (this may be inferred from Arrian's reference to Olympias in Anab. iii 6.5) and consequently became ‘queen’. The other wives possibly continued to live at court (virtually as hostages, perhaps), while their children were married off, either to form alliances or to strengthen family ties, e.g. Arrhidacus to the daughter of Pixodarus, Cynna to Amyntas and Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus. Cf. Ellis 1981 (n. 5) 117.

51 Cf. Plut., Alex. 9Google Scholar; Ps.-Callisthenes i 20; Justin ix 7.

52 Alex. 9. Plutarch's direct (though unacknowledged) use of Satyrus is indicated in his works by a number of striking verbal reflections from fragments of Satyrus, quoted by other authors, or from the Life of Euripides. For example both Plutarch and Athenaeus say that Philip married Cleopatra because he fell in love with her, using the participal form ἐρασθείς. A passage in Plut. Nicias 9, which relates how the Athenian prisoners in Sicily were spared by the Syracusans on account of their knowledge of the works of Euripides, parallels the papyrus Life of Euripides (POxy ix p. 124Google Scholar) fr. 39 col. 19: here Plutarch uses the word-forms ἐσώθησαν, συχνούς, ἐκδιδάξαντες, where Satyrus uses the forms ἀνασωθῆναι, συχνούς, συχνούς, διδάξειαν, in exactly the same context. Plut., Alcibiades 16 and 23Google Scholar and a quotation from Satyrus' Life of Alcibiades in Ath. xii 534b abound in parallels in both word and content. The unusual word καινοτομία appears in an anecdote in Mor. 795d (how Euripides prevented Timotheus from committing suicide).

53 See also n. 51. Philip's attack on his son is mentioned in both Justin and Ps.-Callisthenes. His tumble and Alexander's sarcastic remark appear only in the latter source; nevertheless the anecdote must have appeared in full in Trogus' Historia Philippica.

54 A. Tronson, ‘The Prose Quotations of Athenaeus’, now in preparation. Out of 162 quotations of extant prose authors by Athenaeus, 90 are found to have been drastically shortened, adapted or deliberately misquoted in accordance with the requirements of Athenaeus' contexts, despite the relatively ‘high marks’ given for accuracy by Zepernick, K., Philol. lxxvii (1921) 356, 361Google Scholar and Brunt (n. 30) 480–1.

55 E.g. vii 312e–f (Arist. HA 543a24); xii 517a (Hdt. i 17) and about twelve other instances.

56 Plut., Demetr. 53.4Google Scholar; Ant. 87; Them. 32; Suet., Nero 35Google Scholar. Ath. xiii 557a cites Ister as having included a list of Theseus' women, conveniently categorized into those with whom he had fallen in love, those he had taken by force and those whom he married legally, in the fourteenth book of his History of Attica.

57 E.g. Ath. vii 317d combines a passage from Arist. HA 544a6 and 549b31 in the same ‘quotation’. Further examples occur at vii 323e (Arist. HA 541b12 and 544a) and ii 63b (Arist. HA 544323 and GA 762332). He also interpolates his own words and phrases at ix 396c (Hdt. i 183), xv 680e (Thphr. HP vi 6.11) and elsewhere.

58 Cf. Ath. xiii 556e quoted above and Polyb. viii 9.1–4, who cites Theopompus on Philip's ‘philogyny’.

59 Thus assuring for himself, like Agamemnon, a tragic destiny.

60 It seems more than mere coincidence that Cleopatra is tacitly presented as Philip's seventh wife. The supernatural associations of the number 7 in antiquity are too numerous to mention here. For detailed treatment of the subject of mystical numbers, see Hopfner, RE xiv. 1 (1928) Mageia 301–93; and Dreizehnter, A., Die rhetorische Zahl (München 1978) 13Google Scholar and n. 49 for basic literature on this subject.

61 E.g. D.S. xvi 3, Dem. vi 17–25.