¿yyóvæv avτŵv. A grant, in Greece as in England, could be and regularly was made to a man and his issue when as yet he had none, but you did not offer sacrifice for non-existent persons; consequently at the date of this sacrifice Phthia was queen with at least two children. But the decree itself, 1. 36, praises Aristophanes for his goodwill toward king Demetrius (the name being here preserved) and his children—τὸν βασιλέα Δημήτριον καὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους auroù; at the date of the decree, therefore, Phthia was dead,' and had died, at earliest, sometime between January 235 and July 234. Her death precludes us from adopting the otherwise simple hypothesis that Phthia and Chryseis were two names of the same woman. Now it is quite certain that Philip was born in 238.2 It is equally certain, and no one doubts, that he was legitimate. Beloch's argument, that otherwise Doson would have had the better claim, and his actions would not be comprehensible, suffices; but I may add that, had Philip been illegitimate, Polybius' Aetolians, in their indictments of him, must have made capital of the fact. It is also certain that a Macedonian king in 239 could not have had two legitimate queens at once;3 the time for that was long past. And there is no real difficulty about the marriages of Demetrius II. It is pretty certain now that his marriage to Stratonice was in some way connected with the Stratoniceia at Delos, founded in 253; that he was unmarried at the time of the Nicaea episode, 247, and that Stratonice therefore was no longer his wife; and that he did not marry Nicaea. He could therefore have married Phthia any time after circa 246. When he succeeded in 239 he was about thirty-six ; if not already married he must, of course, have married immediately on his accession, which would agree with Philip's age. But for Eusebius and the other late evidence which will be noticed there could be no possible doubt, on the above, that Philip was the eldest son of Demetrius and Phthia, and one of the children mentioned in I.G. 112, 1299; and that, consequently, his boasted relationship to Alexander (Polyb. 5, 10, 10) was, on the mother's side, perfectly true. We must now look at the Athenian decrees of about this period which show erasures of Antigonid names, and see how they bear on the above conclusion; they are I.G. 112, 775, 776, 780, and 790.5 No. 775 (archon Lysiades) need not detain us, as every one places it late in Gonatas' reign: 1 Dead, not divorced, otherwise the decree could not have praised Aristophanes for his sacrifice for her. 2 Polyb. 4, 5, 3; 24, I. Corradi's attempt (Sulla data della nascita di Philippo V., Riv. di filol. 37, 1909, 373) to place Philip's birth later by using Porphyry and Justin against Polybius was quite misconceived. 3 I note that Corradi, Gli ultimi Aeacidi, Atti Acc. Torino, 1912, 192, is of a contrary opinion. 4 See my Antigonos Gonatas, 370, n. 4. Kolbe would put the Nicaea episode somewhat later, G.G.A., 1916, 471 sqq. ; but this, even if correct, would not affect the argument. Ferrabino's recent scheme (Il problema dell' unità nazionale nella Grecia Antica, Vol. I.: Arato di Sicione, 1921, p. 290) takes little account of the evidence. 5 These erasures have been specifically studied by Johnson, op. cit. (see also Class. Phil. 9, 1914, 435, and A.J. Phil. 39, 1918, 168). He thought he could distinguish the formulae for Gonatas and Demetrius II. by their length; this is impossible, for in the five inscriptions which I have cited there are five different lengths of formulae, inclusive of the two in No. 1299. 247/6, Ferguson, Kirchner, Johnson; 242-240, Kolbe. There are two proposed ways of filling the gap for Gonatas' reign: Wilamowitz', adopted in I.G. 112, [καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ̓Αντιγόνου καὶ τῆς βασιλίσσης Φίλας], and Johnson's, [καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ̓Αντιγόνου καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων αὐτοῦ]. Wilamowitzl uses the very outside possible number of letters, but if Lysiades belongs to Gonatas' reign it is undoubtedly correct; for as Gonatas in 247/6 had only one son living, the formula in his case (as it deals with existing persons) cannot refer to children,1 while no. 780 shows, as we shall see, that in his case the formula at this time ended with the queen's name. I.G. 112, 780 (archon Callimedes). The gap is longer than that in no. 775, and requires sixty to sixty-two letters, with an absolute minimum, if we take the two shortest lines of the decree, of fifty-eight; and the last word was a female name in the genitive, as the letter Σ remains. Johnson, who put Callimedes in 235/4, restored the formula of no. 1299, l. 10; but he overlooked the Σ, which makes his restoration impossible; and as we know from no. 1299 that the formula in the reign of Demetrius II., both before and after Phthia's death, ended with a reference to 'children,' no. 780 cannot belong to Demetrius' reign at all; the date 246/5, where Ferguson, Kirchner, and Kolbe place Callimedes, must be correct. I have tried many ways of filling the gap, which in I.G. 112 is left blank, and am satisfied that the restoration I gave in Antigonos Gonatas, p. 389, is correct: [xaì Toû Baoiλéws ̓Αντιγόνου βασιλέως Δημητρίου καὶ τῆς βασιλίσσης Φίλα]ς, sixty letters. I felt some doubt as to the use of Antigonus' patronymic so long after his accession, even though it was part of his official style; but I need not have, for the patronymic actually occurs in I.G. 112, 777, a broken fragment of the same (Callimedes') year, which gives Baoiλéws Anμ. . . ., and there seems no rule as to its use. We get, then, the rule at Athens that, while the sacrificial formula for Demetrius II. ended with a reference to children, that for Gonatas, circa 247-245, ended with the queen's name; incidentally, this guarantees Wilamowitz' restoration of no. 775, unless some reason can ever be found for placing Lysiades in Demetrius' reign after Phthia's death, when the formula would be that of no. 1299, 1. 36. I.G. 112, 776. The archon is unknown, but part of the formula remains, and the reference to children is certain. This shows that the restoration given by Kirchner in I.G. 112, [καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ̓Αντιγόνου κ]αὶ τῆς βασιλίσ(σ)ης [Φίλας καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων αὐτῶν], and his attribution of this decree to Gonatas reign, circa 246, are alike wrong; it certainly belongs to that of Demetrius II., and Johnson was certainly correct in restoring the formula of no. 1299, l. 10, 1 If Anunтplov in I.G. XI. 4, 1215— [Vπèρ βασιλέως ̓Αν[τιγόν]ου καὶ βασιλίσσης [Φίλας κ]αὶ Anunt plov-be the crown prince, it becomes additionally certain that the formula for Gonatas cannot contain a reference to children.' But whether Demetrius here, in this strange form, does mean the crown prince is doubtful (see Roussel's note). 2 I.G. XI. 4, 1095, 1096; XI. 3, 298 A, l. 85 sqq. (unpublished; see my Antigonos Gonatas 381, n. 33). 3 Demetrius II. is given his patronymic in treaties (A.J. Arch., 1897, 188, no. 17), while Doson is not (A.J. Arch., 1896, 583; G.D.I. 5043), though it was part of his official style (I.G. XI. 4, xo97). [καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως Δημητρίου κ]αὶ τῆς βασιλίσ(σ)ης [Φθίας καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων AUTO]. What year it belongs to cannot be said, except that it must be earlier than the year of no. 1299-i.e. than Phthia's death. I.G. 112, 790 (a. Lysanias). We are now in a position to learn something from this difficult decree, the erasure in which has never been restored.1 It demands fifty-five letters, but the lines, though written stoichedon, are not all of equal length, and fifty-six is possible. Lysanias is dated 235/4 by Ferguson, Kirchner, and Johnson, 247/6 by Kolbe. One might restore the gap either as [καὶ βασιλέως ̓Αντιγόνου βασιλέως Δημητρίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Φίλας] (fifty-fve letters) if it belongs to Gonatas' reign, or as [xai Baoiλéws Anμntpíov kai βασιλίσ(σ)ης Φθίας καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων αὐτῶν] (ffty-five letters) if to Demetrius, the omission of the σ in βασιλίσ(σ)ης being guaranteed by the almost contemporary case in no. 776. But I feel certain that neither is correct, as I do not see how, in an Athenian decree, one can omit the definite articles before the titles of the king and queen, as though it were in a dedication. Certainly other cities often omitted the definite article in decrees, as a glance through O.G.I.S. will show; but though Athens could omit both article and title in the case of kings who were enemies or barbarians, I have not found any case of Athens giving the title and omitting the article, and as the two Athenian decrees of this period where part of the formula usually erased has been preserved, I.G. 112, 776 and 1299, both have the definite article, and as I.G. 112, 780, cannot be restored without including it, and as Athenian practice was likely to be punctilious, I do not see how to restore the erasure in no. 790 from the practice of other cities. If this be correct, then there is no way of filling up no. 790 for Gonatas' reign; but there is an alternative for that of Demetrius, which I therefore propose to read: [καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως Δημητρίου καὶ τῆς βασιλίσ(σ)ης Φθίας καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων, fifty-six letters. There is no need to suppose that the omission of aurŵv is an accident (though it may be), for in Athenian grants of proxeny or citizenship to a man and his children we do find at least one case of a similar omission. If this restoration be correct and there really seems no alternative-Phthia was still alive in the year of no. 790, 235/4, and this decree therefore comes before the year of no. 1299, the year of her death. Consequently no. 1299 cannot date as early as 235/4, which we saw from the evidence supplied by no. 1299 alone to be the earliest possible year; the earliest date for no. 1299-i.e. for Phthia's death is therefore 234/3, and it may, of course, be a year or two later. Now it is not possible in any of these four inscriptions to work in the words καὶ τῆς βασιλίσσης Χρυσηΐδος; the reader is invited to try. Indeed, the only inscription of the four into which the name Chryseis can be worked at all is no. 780, and then only in the form [xaì Baoiλéws Anμntpíov kaì tŵv ẻyyóvwv 1 My restoration in Antigonos Gonatas, p. 417, was merely a product of inadequate knowledge of the formulae. Johnson fills in the formula of no. 776, which is far too long. 2 The usual phrase is αὐτὸν καὶ ἐγγόνους; but we meet also τοὺς ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ (I.G. 112, 654, 667, 786); ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ, ib. 496; and τοῖς Exybvos without avтoû, ib. 844-Syll.3 537, 1. 68, ὑπάρχειν δ' αὐτῶι καὶ τὴν πατρικὴν [π]ροξενίαν καὶ TOIS ÉKYÓVOLS (Soon after 200). avтoû xaì Baoiλioons Xpvonído]s, fifty-nine letters. This simply bristles with difficulties, and is condemned alike by the omission of the two definite articles and by the extraordinary order of the words. It would also necessitate accepting Johnson's chronological scheme. I cannot go into this complicated question here;1 but suppose we accept his dating of Callimedes, i.e. no. 780, in 235/4 (I cannot myself), then, after all, the only result we reach from this restoration is that Demetrius married Chryseis in 235/4 after Phthia's death, which must be placed the same year; earlier it cannot be, even on Johnson's scheme. That is, this restoration cannot affect the conclusion that Phthia was queen, with children, during part of Demetrius' reign. But to me the difficulties of this restoration are insuperable, and I see nothing to be said for it. We may, I think, say with confidence that the contemporary inscriptions know nothing of Chryseis, but that they do show that Phthia was queen, with children, till 234/3 anyhow, which is the earliest date for her death, while her death may be a year or two later. How, then, did the blunder preserved by Eusebius, that Philip was Chryseis' son, arise? The answer is given by Polybius, who used the contemporary Aratus. Chryseis he knows only as Doson's wife (5, 89, 7); but he makes the extraordinary statement that Philip was Demetrius' son xaτà þúσw (4, 2, 5), which is equivalent to saying that he was the son κaτà béσw of somebody else, who can only be Doson. That is to say, Doson's method of securing Philip's succession was to adopt him as his son; indeed Polybius in a speech makes Philip call Doson his father (4, 24, 7).2 To explain Eusebius, then, we need only suppose that Chryseis also adopted Philip. Whether in any Greek law a woman could adopt is immaterial; Hellenistic queens were not subject to Greek law, and there were precedents, like Ada's adoption of Alexander; the most famous was the adoption of the man who was afterwards Ptolemy III. by his father's second wife, Arsinoe II., which may have taken place in her lifetime.3 Philip then had two complete sets of parents: Demetrius and Phthia by nature, Doson and Chryseis by adoption. And just as in Egypt Ptolemy III. became for ever the son of Arsinoe II., while his real mother dropped out and never appears in the worship of the royal house, so for some reason unknown Phthia's name dropped out of our hopelessly mutilated tradition, and Philip went down to posterity as the son of his mother by adoption; indeed, until Phthia's name turned up in a Delian inventory' it was known only from Justin's solitary reference (28, 1, 1). 1 Johnson discovered a real difficulty in the Ferguson-Kirchner dating, viz. I.G. 112, 704; but the question is whether there are not simpler solutions than his alteration of Ferguson's whole list from 262/1 onwards. ? There is no ground for supposing that Doson and Philip were joint kings, as suggested by Swoboda, Hermes 57, 1922, 529, and Kougeas, 'Ep. 'Apx., 1921, 16, in the belief that the Epidaurus inscription 'Ep. 'Apx., 1918, 115, no. 3, belongs to this period (it really belongs to 303; see Wilcken, Berlin Sitzb., 1922, 122; Tarn, J.H.S., 1922, 198). Both writers cite Paus. 6, 16, 3, which has no bearing on the question; if it shows that Doson and Philip were joint kings, then it shows that Demetrius I. and Ptolemy I. were joint kings also! 3 See on this H. von Prott, Rh. Mus. 53, 1898, 472-4. B.C.H., 1911, 259, no. 51, 1. 10; see Wilhelm, Königin Phthia, B.Ph.W., 1912, 314. Parallels to this substitution of the adopted for the real parent occur even in private life. An adopted son usually described himself as viòs Toû deivos Kal' υἱοθεσίαν δὲ τοῦ δεῖνος, though sometimes other people did not name either of his fathers, and merely said 'whoever his father may be.' But there is a case of a priestess at Miletus who describes herself as daughter of her father by adoption, putting him first and her real father second, and then proceeds to trace her descent through her adopted and not through her real father; apparently on adoption she even changed her name.2 The only point now open is whether Chryseis was ever Demetrius' wife, as Plutarch, Justin, and Eusebius assert. Eusebius says she was a Thessalian captive. There is no difficulty, as Beloch suggested, about a Macedonian king marrying a captive; Alexander married two. But there is great difficulty about Demetrius II. marrying a Thessalian captive, for so far as we know he was never at war with Thessaly, which first revolted after his death and was in large part recovered by Doson. Eusebius blunders again in making Doson rule as guardian, éπirpoπos,3 for the contemporary inscriptions show that he was king. Eusebius' narrative, which is further vitiated by its persistent confusion between Demetrius II. and Demetrius king of Cyrene, is therefore wrong on every point except the bare statement that Doson married Chryseis. Plutarch is in no better case. His story (Aem. Paul. 8) is that the Macedonian nobles (οἱ πρῶτοι Μακεδονίας), the throne being vacant (ἀναρχία), married Doson to Philip's mother, and made him guardian of Philip and general, and subsequently king; he was called Doson, he who is about to give, because he promised and did not perform. This story is very late and quite impossible. The nobles had nothing to do with the matter; the throne being vacant, all lawful authority was in the hands of the army; they alone could make a guardian, a regent, or a king. The events of the period after Alexander's death show that they were not likely to forego their constitutional power, and the formal crystallization of the constitutional position of the Macedonian people under arms into the κowòv тŵv Makedóvwv (Syll.3 575), which must have occurred at this time,5 shows that in fact they did not forego it; the kovov must have been their price for electing Doson. And it is unnecessary to remark that the name Doson (which may not be Greek at all) can have had no connexion with the future participle of dídwu. Plutarch's authority, whoever he was, put this story together at a time when the facts relating to the constitution of Macedonia, and the very meaning of the kings' names, had been forgotten. The stories in Plutarch and Eusebius are, then, not of a 1 Michel, 1342, πατρὸς οὗ ἂν χρηματίσζῃ; see 1.J.G. 2, p. 376 sqq. 2 Th. Wiegand, Siebenter Bericht über die von d. k. Mus. in Milet und Didyma unternommenen Ausgrabungen, 1911, 67, no. 2 : 'Αρτέμιδος Πυθείης υδροφόρος Μιννι[ὼ ̓Αντή]νορος, φύσι δὲ Ηρακλίτου τοῦ Εὐανδρίδου καλουμένη Βερενίκη . . . 1. 19 ὑπάρ χουσα δὲ καὶ πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ πρὸς μητρὸς /// Ε /// . . .] τοῦ ἀπὸ ̓Αντήνορος, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρὸς μητρὸς κ.τ.λ. ... 3 1, 239, ἐπιτροπεύσας ἔτη ιβ ́. The fgure is quite wrong also. 4 I.G. XI. 4, 1097, V. 2, 299, 300; B.S.A., 1904/5, P. III, no. 11; G.D.I. 5043; B.C.H., 1889, 47, no. 1=A.J. Arch., 1896, 583. 5 Because of the change in the royal style from Μακεδών τo καὶ Μακεδόνες ; J.H.S., 1909, 269 sqq. |