We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Contemporary inscriptions prove practically beyond doubt that Philip V. was the son of Demetrius II. and of the Epeirot princess Phthia. But historians have always started from Eusebius' statement (1,237 Schoene) that he was the son of Chryseis, a Thessalian captive whom Demetrius married and who afterwards married Doson, and have tried to fit other things in with Eusebius. Now it does not much matter to us which of two unknown women was Philip's mother; but it does matter how we approach our evidence, and we must start from the contemporary evidence and work downward, not vice versa. I need not here go through all the different theories based on the late evidence; what I am going to do is first to examine the inscriptions, which has not yet been done in this connexion, and then explain how Eusebius' blunder arose; for even if a definite statement be certainly wrong, we want to know how it got there.
page 17 note 1 Strictly speaking, of a queen of Demetrius' whose name has five letters in the genitive. But the name is not in doubt.
page 17 note 2 Droysen alone, III. (1)2, p. 400, n. I, does say that Philip was son of Demetrius and an Epeirot princess. But his later definite statement that Chryseis was his mother [III. (2)2, p. 52] shows that this may only be a slip. The modern evidence was, of course, not available to Droysen.
page 17 note 3 It would be worth compiling a complete list of the confusions in late writers as to names and relationships. It would show once for all how unscientific it is to use them as evidence for details.
page 17 note 4 Beloch alone stood out for Demetrius I. He has been followed by Costanzi, Δηµηρ⍳ακος πƛεµος , in Beloch's, Festschrift, Saggi di storia antica, 1910Google Scholar; but Costanzi has no new arguments, and does not even consider the war. I know of no other dissentient; it remains to be seen what view Beloch's forthcoming second edition will take.
page 17 note 5 The Creation of the Tribe Ptolemais, A.J. Phil., 34, 1913, 381 sqq., to which I refer throughout.
page 18 note 1 Dead, not divorced, otherwise the decree could not have praised Aristophanes for his sacrifice for her.
page 18 note 2 Polyb. 4, 5, 3; 24, 1. 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.
page 18 note 3 I note that Corradi, , Gli ultimi Aeacidi, Atti Acc. Tcrino, 1912, 192Google Scholar, is of a contrary opinion.
page 18 note 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' unitcà nazionale nella Grecia Antica, Vol. I.: Arato di Sicione, 1921, p. 290)Google Scholar takes little account of the evidence.
page 18 note 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.
page 19 note 1 If Δηµητρίου in I.G. XI. 4, 1215—[ὑπβα ]σιλέως ’Aν[τιγόν]ον καἰ βασιλίσσης [ϕίλας κ]αἰ Δηµητρίον—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).
page 19 note 2 I.G. XI. 4, 1095, 1096; XI. 3, 298 A, 1. 85 sqq. (unpublished; see my Antigonos Gonatas 381, n. 33).
page 19 note 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, 1097).
page 20 note 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.
page 20 note 2 The usual phrase is αὐτν καἰ γγόνους; but we meet also τοὐς γγόνους αὐτο (I.G. II2, 654, 667, 786); έγγόνους αὐτο, ib. 496; and τοϊς κγόνοις without αὐτο, ib. 496; and τοῖς δ' αὐτι καἰ τν πατρικν [π]ροζενίαν καἰ τοῖς κγόνοις (soon after 200).
page 21 note 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.
page 21 note 2 There is no ground for supposing that Doson and Philip were joint kings, as suggested by Swoboda, , Hermes 57, 1922, 529Google Scholar, and Kougeas, , ’Eφ. ’Apχ., 1921, 16Google Scholar, in the belief that the Epidaurus inscription ’Eφ. ’Δρχ., 1918, 115, no. 3, belongs to this period (it really belongs to 303; see Wilcken, , Berlin Sitzb., 1922, 122Google Scholar; Tarn, , J.H.S., 1922, 198)Google Scholar. 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!
page 21 note 3 See on this Prott, H. von, Rh. Mus. 53, 1898, 472–4Google Scholar.
page 21 note 4 B.C.H., 1911, 259, no. 51, l. 10; see Wilhelm, , Königin Phthia, B.Ph.W., 1912, 314Google Scholar.
page 22 note 1 Michel, 1342, πατρς οὖ ἂν χρηματίσζη; see I.J.G. 2, p. 376 sqq.
page 22 note 2 Th. Wiegand, Siebenter Bericht über die von d. k. Mus. in Milet und Didyma unternommenen Ausgrabungen, 1911, 67, no. 2: ’Aρτέµιδος πυθείης ύδροΦόρος Mιννι[ὼ ’Aντέ]νορος, ϕύσι δ ‘Hρακλίτου το Eὐανδρίδου κα π ρς µητρς /// E ///…] το π ’Aντνορος, µοίως δ κα πρς µητρς κ.τ.λ.
page 22 note 3 I, 239, πιτροπεύσας ἒτη ιβ′. The figure is quite wrong also.
page 22 note 4 I.G. XI. 4, 1097, V. 2, 299, 300; B.S.A., 1904/5, p. III, no. II; G.D.I. 5043; B.C.H., 1889, 47. no. I = A.J. Arch., 1896, 583.
page 22 note 5 Because of the change in the royal style from Mακεδώѵ to καἰ Mακεδόνες; J.H.S., 1909, 269 sqq.
