The Family of Philip II of Macedon: the culturological approach of ancient authors

Sivkina Nataliya Yurievna Doctor of History Professor, Department of Ancient and Medieval History, N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603005, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 2 natalia-sivkina@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Borisova Elizaveta Yur'evna Student, Department of Ancient and Medieval History, N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603000, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 2 elizaveta_borisova20@mail.ru

Philip of Macedon, an outstanding king of the middle of the IV century BC, became famous for the rise of Macedonia, which turned from a backward peripheral kingdom into the greatest empire, and the subjugation of Greece. Naturally, such a historical figure was perceived ambiguously by both contemporaries and later authors. Most of the surviving works of ancient historians are filled with hostility towards the Macedonian rulers. Traditionally, this is explained by the defeat of the Greeks in the decisive battle with Philip in 338 BC. On the other hand, it should be remembered that we have the works of later authors who were of Greek origin, moreover, perceived events retrospectively.

Modern researchers still do not have a consensus on the nature of the Macedonian king's marital relations, his matrimonial policy and children, in particular. It is known that by the middle of the reign of Philip II of Macedon (conditionally 346 BC) ^{[1, c. 3]} the Kingdom of Macedonia was a large multiethnic entity, within which numerous tribes and state units were united. But, as you know, such political formations have never been stable and required additional efforts by the ruling tsars to preserve the integrity of the state.

It is believed that one of the means of preserving the foreign policy stability of Macedonia, along with military force, bribery and diplomatic negotiations during the reign of Philip II, was the practice of concluding dynastic alliances ^{[2, p. 240]}. Marriages between the Argeads and representatives of Upper Macedonia, the Greek and Balkan peoples became a characteristic feature of the royal policy during the reign of Philip the Great. By the end of Philip's reign, he had seven wives, which was indeed a precedent in the Hellenistic world (Athen. XIII. 5).

Along with the obvious political goal, the matrimonial policy of the Macedonian kings pursued a dynastic goal – the birth of as many sons and potential heirs as possible ^{[3, p.161]}. The intersection of these two goals, i.e. the conclusion of a dynastic union with a woman of non-Macedonian origin, in order to achieve political stability and the birth of potential heirs, on the one hand, met the requirements of politics. But the works of ancient authors contain a lot of contradictory and often negative information about the family of Philip II. Moreover, their desire to give a rational explanation to historical events often has the opposite effect: the preserved remarks and comments of ancient writers overshadow the facts, which makes it difficult to recreate the true picture of what happened.

Therefore, this topic remains the subject of scientific discussions, which confirms its relevance. The purpose of this article is to clarify the significance of interethnic marriages for the Macedonian royal house in the context of the peculiarities of the Greek perception of the world.

The theoretical basis of the research is narrative sources that provide rather contradictory information about Philip's marital unions and about children born in these marriages, as well as the works of modern authors.

Among the main sources that mention the wives of the king and his children, one should mention a fragment from the biography of Philip, compiled by the peripatetic Satyr in the IV century BC and later included in Athenaeus's work "The Feast of the Wise" (II century AD); fragments from the "Comparative Biographies" of Plutarch (I century AD); the epitome of Pompey Trog's work "The History of Philip" ("Historiae Philippicae"), compiled by Justin (II-III centuries AD), and the work of Diodorus Siculus "Historical Library" (I century BC). As we can see, all the works without exception are not only late, but also non-Macedonian in origin. Given this circumstance, it becomes obvious that Philip's misunderstanding or his own vision of politics, and as a result, the authors' negative attitude towards the Macedonian royal house.

The traditional "Hellenic-barbarian" dichotomy has not lost its relevance even after the conquest of Greece by Macedonia. The relationship between the Hellenic world and the barbarian world has always been one of the cardinal problems in the knowledge of the ancient era ^{[4, p. 5]}. Even centuries later, Greek authors continued to correlate Macedonians with barbarians, turning the figure of Philip into a kind of collective image of a barbarian king. Ancient authors continued to believe that the Hellenes and barbarians were enemies by nature and that slavery was impossible for the Hellenes destined for domination ^{[4, p. 12]}. To this should be added the resentment and sense of injustice of the indigenous Greeks towards the Macedonian kings, which persisted centuries later, when such authors as Athenaeus, Plutarch, Diodorus lived and worked. As for the Roman authors (Pompey Trogus and, accordingly, Justin), the above-mentioned dichotomy was aggravated by the ideological influence characteristic of the literature of the time of Augustus. In his work, Trog draws an obvious parallel between Philip-Alexander and Caesar-Augustus ^{[5, pp. 65-66]}. In addition, the author, being a supporter of the idea put forward by Polybius that history should be pragmatic ^[6], have an instructive purpose for future generations, was inclined to embellish historical realities to achieve the desired effect.

It is also important that each of these authors relied on certain primary sources, which for the most part have not been preserved. For example, Diodorus made extensive use of the writings of Ephorus, Theopompus and Marcius, contemporaries of Philip II. All of the listed authors were also of Greek origin. As you know, the IV century BC (the reign of Philip the Great) was marked by the crisis of the ancient Greek polis. The Greeks' heightened sense of citizenship and nationhood could not but be reflected in the works of ancient Greek historians, contemporaries of Philip. In this regard, it is no coincidence that the authors refer to the interethnic marriages of the tsar, although for the Macedonians themselves the question of the role of the nation was hardly relevant.

In addition, it should be remembered that the period of Philip's reign as a whole was a turning point for both Macedonia and the entire Greek world. The reign of this extraordinary man coincided with a transitional era, with the subordination of Greece to Macedonia, which could not but contribute to the formation of certain ideas about Philip's marriage unions and about the children born in these marriages. Thus, the totality of these factors had a great influence on the perception by Greek authors of the children and wives of the Macedonian King Philip II. This should also be taken into account when analyzing the perception of the Macedonian elite of children from mixed marriages of the ruler.

Modern researchers traditionally follow the ancient authors. Thus, a number of researchers have addressed the issue of the nature of Philip II's marriages. For example, J. Worthington ^[7], N. Hammond ^[8], A. Tronson ^[9], K.A. Kilyashova, E.D. Kearney. At the same time, most of them adhere to the traditional point of view about the polygamy of the Macedonian king. They also emphasize the importance of marriage for strengthening the foreign policy stability of the state, although there are those who insist on monogamy of the ruler (K.A. Kilyashova, F. Walbank) ^{[2; 10]}. Of particular note is the significant contribution of Elizabeth Kearney, who addresses the problem of the role of women from the Macedonian royal dynasty in the political situation of the late 4th century BC. A deep comparative analysis of the deeds of Macedonian women allowed her to conclude that many assessments of ancient authors were subjective and, in particular, the negative attitude of the entire Greek community towards women who had an influence on political developments ^{[11, 12, 13, 14; 15]}. It is noteworthy that modern researchers pay quite little attention to Philip's children and grandchildren ^{[13; 16]}. The exception is his successor, Alexander the Great. The literature about Alexander is extensive ^{[17; 18; 19; 20]}, but the question of the role of his father's interethnic marriages, as a rule, does not find deep consideration in it.

The novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made to consider the family history of Philip the Great, systematizing all available references in the sources, in the context of the Greek perception of the world. This approach makes it possible to understand why the preserved information about the wives and children of the king is so contradictory.

This research is based on the principle of historicism, which is characterized by the fact that the consideration of historical events and processes takes place in a logical relationship and without separation from their historical context. Due to the peculiarities of the subject of research, the work uses methods typical of various fields of humanitarian knowledge: history and cultural studies. The research methods are the traditional general philosophical methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as the method of systematization of materials. Since the authors used data from different sources, the comparative historical method and the method of studying cultural memory were used.

During the first half of his reign alone (conditionally up to 346 BC) ^{[1, c. 3]} Philip II concluded five marriages, and later two more. Among his wives were the Illyrian Princess Audata, the elimeika Phila, the Thessalians Filinna and Nikesipolida, Olympias of Epirus, the Thracian Meda and the Macedonian Cleopatra ^[7]. It is reliably known that Philip had seven children – four daughters (Kinanna from Audata, Thessalonica from Nicesipolis, Cleopatra from Olympias and Europa from Cleopatra) and three sons (Arrideus from Philinna, Alexander from Olympiada and Karan from Cleopatra).

Representatives of the Macedonian royal family, as a rule, did not play a significant role in political matters, as long as there were male relatives and heirs. The female factor increased only during the death of all men from the ruling dynasty, as happened after the death of Alexander the Great ^{[15, p. 306; 21, p. 58]}. Of the daughters of Philip the Great, we know the fate of Kinanna, who received an excellent Illyrian upbringing and education. Polyane reports that "Kinna, the daughter of Philip, practiced in military affairs, led troops and fought with enemies. And fighting against the Illyrians, she struck their queen a fatal blow in the neck, threw her off her horse and killed many of the Illyrians who fled" (Polyaen. VIII. 60). Most likely, Audata, as a result of her divorce from Philip, could have been sent to her homeland, where she took their daughter together. Already in Illyria, Kinanna was brought up according to Illyrian customs, mastered the art of riding, hunting and martial arts. Subsequently, the father remembered his daughter when he needed another dynastic union – Philip married Kinanna to his nephew Aminta, the son of his deceased brother, King Perdiccas III (Polyaen. VIII. 60). At the same time, Aminta was not confused by the Illyrian origin of his wife's mother, just as Cassander, who became the husband of Thessalonica, the daughter of Philip II by the Thessalian Nicesipolis, was not confused either. The question of whether Thessalonica was actually the daughter of Nicesipolis is debatable. Thessalonica grew up at her father's court, and was not sent, like Kinana, presumably to her mother's homeland in Thessaly. In addition, sources report that the girl was brought up in the house of the Olympics and even lived with her for some time in Epirus. In this regard, a number of historians tend to consider Thessalonica as the daughter of Olympias, and not at all as her stepdaughter. Cleopatra (Philip's daughter by Olympias of Epirus) is known to have subsequently married her uncle Alexander of Epirus. But being widowed, in fact, provoked the outbreak of the wars of the diadochi by offering the regent Perdiccas to marry her. Although we do not know his decision, it is more important that Perdiccas was not confused by the fact that Cleopatra's mother was Olympias of Epirus. No author tells us about the fate of Europa, Philip's daughter by the Macedonian Cleopatra. But the fact that Europe is not mentioned in the wars of the Diadochi may indicate its early death. Thus, the ancient authors have not preserved a single mention that the Macedonian aristocrats who married Philip's daughters, born of women of non-Macedonian origin, worried about the purity of the blood of their chosen ones. On the contrary, they were all seen as a tool for achieving political advantages.

The situation is different with the sons of the king. Philip had three sons: Arrideus, Alexander and Karan. As potential contenders for the Macedonian throne, they were in a highly competitive environment. It is curious that ancient authors repeatedly focus on the origin of their mothers. This is especially true of Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias of Epirus, who appears in the image of a cruel, vindictive and domineering foreigner. Alexander himself was repeatedly subjected to harsh attacks from representatives of the Macedonian elite. The incident at the banquet in honor of the wedding of Philip and his last wife Cleopatra is indicative in this regard. "So, scoundrel, do you think I'm illegitimate, or what?" - Plutarch transmits to us the words of Alexander the Great in response to the calls of one of Philip II's military commanders, Attalus, to pray to the gods that Philip and his seventh wife, Cleopatra, would have a "legitimate heir to the throne" (Plut. Alex. 9. 4). It is interesting that in this conflict Philip took the side of his new relative Attalus, and not his own son. As you know, the relationship between Philip and Alexander was not the warmest. In this regard, numerous passages by ancient authors about Alexander's involvement in the murder of his father are also interesting. Plutarch (Alex. X) and Justin (IX.6.7) name Philip's wife Olympias and son Alexander as accomplices in the murder: shortly before his death, the tsar divorced Olympias, estranged his son from himself. Alexander practically lost the status of heir, since in the eyes of the Macedonian elite, Olympias, a native of Epirus, and her son became outsiders, and the legitimate heirs were now the descendants of Philip from his marriage to Cleopatra ^{[22, p. 141]}. This is how the current situation is presented through the eyes of almost all ancient historians.

Not only Attalus, but also other military leaders did not support Alexander as a half-Epirus by blood, under the influence of a foreign mother. However, it is worth noting that before this last marriage of Philip in the story of Alexander's childhood and adolescence, we do not see such statements. It was only after his wedding to Cleopatra, a pure-blooded Macedonian aristocrat, that Alexander was openly hinted at his inferiority. A hypothetical son born in the marriage of Philip and Cleopatra could be a true Macedonian king, an ideal heir to his father. Although by origin, Olympias, who belonged to the royal family of Molossia, was higher than the aristocrat Cleopatra.

In fact, the reader here is faced with an attempt to rationalize the situation on the basis of the dichotomy "Hellenic-barbarian", "friend-stranger", traditional for ancient authors. Such a model, of course, could not correspond to reality. Although the potential "ideal" heir was born shortly before Philip's assassination, he could not rule without a regent. The figure of his closest relative Attalus probably would not suit all noble Macedonians. And the Macedonian army preferred to follow a leader who had proven his military commanding qualities, like Alexander. In other words, the passages about the legitimate heir and Alexander's involvement in the murder of his father, apparently, should be interpreted solely as the personal hostility of the new royal relative to a potential rival and another attempt by ancient authors to rationalize history and desecrate the image of Alexander the Great's mother, allegedly involved in the death of her ex-husband.

Another possible heir to the Macedonian throne was Alexander the Great's half-brother, Arrideus, Philip's son from his marriage to Filina. The sources repeatedly emphasize that Arriday was "illegitimate and also feeble-minded" (Plut. Alex. 10. 2). The low position of his mother (Plutarch calls her a "dissolute" woman (Plut. Alex. 77.5), and Justin – "the harlot of Larissa" and a dancer (Just. IX. 8. 2; XIII. 2.1), the lack of official status of his wife (Filinna could have been the mistress of Philip of Macedon) explain the fact that Arrideus was not considered a real contender for the throne in the eyes of the Macedonian elite. Philip's own attitude towards his son is interesting. Most likely, the Macedonian king himself did not see him as a possible heir to the Macedonian throne either. Despite the fact that Arrideus and Alexander the Great were about the same age, sources do not tell us about Arrideus' upbringing or training, he is not mentioned in any military campaign during the lifetime of Philip II. As is known, around 342 BC Philip sent Alexander along with other noble youths to Mieza for training. Among the noble youths, both Hephaestion and Ptolemy I Soter are mentioned, but there is no mention of Philip's eldest son, Arrideus. All the accusations against Arrideus' mother were probably also the result of a later rationalization: Greek and Roman authors tried to explain such an indifferent attitude of the king towards his eldest son and attributed to him an illegitimate origin. Philip did not recognize Arrideus as the heir to the Macedonian throne, and this was most likely due not to the origin of his mother, but to the boy's dementia.

In this regard, it is important to recall another episode from sources known to us. It was in Arridea that Olympiada, Alexander's mother, could see a threat to her son's future. A version appears in the sources that it was she who tried to poison Arridei with some kind of poison or drug, which affected his mental abilities ^{[23, p. 52]}. However, this episode can only be considered a consequence of the later rationalization of this story. Ancient authors knew about the weak mental abilities of Philip's eldest son and tried to explain this by the machinations of the villainous Olympias ^{[23, p. 52]}.

Alexander was trained for power from childhood, bringing up a future commander and a wise politician from him. Even when he rebuked Philip for having side children from different women, he replied like this: "This is so that, seeing so many applicants for the kingdom, you would be good and kind and owe power not to me, but to yourself." Alexander commanded the army from the age of 16, from the same age he began to replace Philip II on the throne when he went on campaigns. Two years later, the young Alexander participated in the decisive battle of the Greeks and Macedonians at Chaeroneia, where, although he acted under the command of his father, he made a decisive contribution to the victory of the Macedonians. And two years later, after the death of his father, he acted decisively, restoring order in Macedonia, and then in Greece.

It should also be recalled the situation after the death of Alexander himself, when disputes broke out among the tsar's inner circle about the heir. The majority stood for the proclamation of Roxana's unborn son as king. The aristocrats were not bothered by the mixed parentage of the child. However, the Macedonian army put forward another contender – Alexander's older brother, Arrideus. In this episode, the authors again focused not on the applicant's dementia, but on his descent from Philip. It is noteworthy that we do not hear any statements about his mother or about his illegitimate birth.

Thus, the rationalistic reasoning of ancient authors makes it difficult to recreate the true picture of the events that took place. We are faced with the image of the influential foreigner Olympias, illegitimate and having no rights to the Macedonian throne Alexander the Great, the feeble-minded Arrideus and other children and wives of Philip the Great only because that is how their sources present them to us. Ancient authors, due to various factors (the influence of Greek mores and customs, the traditional dichotomy of "Hellenes-barbarians", "friend-foe", the later origin of the source, the political situation, etc.), tried to rationalize history and explain the events that took place retrospectively, focusing only on events and facts that are important from their point of view, which are not they always corresponded to reality.