Chapitre III
The King’s daughters: Justin’s story1
p. 61-80
Résumé
Cette contribution s’intéresse à l’image littéraire des filles de rois hellénistiques à travers l’œuvre de Justin, Abrégé des histoires philippiques. Les filles de rois hellénistiques y apparaissent comme dépendantes d’initiatives masculines, en particulier dans le cadre de stratégies matrimoniales dirigées par les rois. Dans les rares exemples d’actions qui leur sont attribuées, elles se conforment à l’idéal romain du comportement féminin. Seules les relations entre mères et filles sont montrées comme conflictuelles : dans ces situations de crise, les filles demeurent fidèles aux normes comportementales romaines alors que l’attitude de leur mère est présentée comme transgressive. L’image des filles de rois hellénistiques, telle que transmise par Justin, doit donc être comprise comme le résultat d’une construction littéraire visant à mettre en évidence la conduite transgressive et hors normes des reines (mères) hellénistiques.
Texte intégral
1The women of the Hellenistic royal dynasties have been held in contempt or negligence by modern research for a long time. As megairai molesting their husbands and sons they might give some spice to otherwise rather boring narratives,2 but that was all. Fortunately things have changed, at least as far as the wives of Hellenistic rulers are concerned. Thanks to the seminal work of Grace Macurdy, carried further by Sarah Pomeroy, Elizabeth Carney, Sylvie Le Bohec, Ivana Savalli-Lestrade and Anne Bielman Sánchez, these women returned from the shadowy regions of hate, murder, and intrigue.3 But some were still left behind: their daughters.
2So the aim of my paper is to cast a little more light on these daughters. As it belongs to a larger project, dedicated to the analysis of historiographical constructions of royal women, it aims not at reconstructing what royal daughters did but rather at the way how they are represented in Justin’s so-called “Epitome” of the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus. As the Macedonian and Molossian royal houses to my mind had a strong impact on the later Hellenistic dynasties and their perception,4 I will treat their daughters together with those of Hellenistic kings. Most examples in Justin concern the Argeads in Late Classical times and the Aeacids as well as the Ptolemies in the Hellenistic period, but many other dynasties appear with at least one daughter, too.
3The work–handed down to us under the name of M. Junian(i) us Justinus–is a notoriously difficult text. Justinus fabricated this abbreviated version of Trogus’Historiae Philippicae sometime between the middle of the second and the end of the fourth century A.D.5 But not only the date of the “epitome” is a matter of debate, the date of Trogus’history itself is open to question, too. Although most scholars tend to understand Trogus as an Augustan author, probably a little bit younger than Livy, there has been a prominent champion of a Tiberian date.6
4Apart from the difficulties in dating both authors also their methods were understood in very different ways:7 Otto Seel, brought up with the tenets of 19th century Quellenforschung, imagined Justin as an inferior mind, cutting out and pasting together those passages of Trogus he liked best, which means that Justin transmitted shards of Trogus’original wording but no personal voice of his own.8 And again Trogus in his turn stands accused to have been a mere translator of the work of the Late Hellenistic historian Timagenes.9 More recent studies on both Trogus and Justin show much more appreciation for their respective achievements.10
5The present paper will leave these debates aside and ask instead how these daughters were represented within the extant text. It will do so as follows: after an initial search for the contexts in which female persons are qualified as daughters we will analyse the way how these daughters are constructed within their relations to their parents and prospective husbands or partners. A third step will compare the appearances of Hellenistic royal daughters with Justin’s representation of daughters in general. Taking all this together, I will argue that the representation of Hellenistic royal daughters could be understood as being informed by discourses on gender and generations.
Royal filiæ in Justin
6In Justin the different forms of filia recur 60 times (plus one privigna).11 This is a surprisingly high number in a rather short sample of 61,770 words. Within the 514,371 words of Livy’s fully preserved books there are only 73 hits, while in the 327,805 preserved words of Polybius forms of θυγατήρ are only mentioned 29 times.12
7From these 60 (plus the sole privigna) occurrences 37 (plus the privigna) concern women belonging to Hellenistic dynasties in the widest sense. As stated above, I also include women belonging to the Aeacid and Argead royal houses. A closer look at this group of 37 + 1 instances shows ten hits referring to daughters of Late Classical kings and 20 concerning those of Hellenistic dynasts, while seven refer to daughters of “barbarian” kings somehow in contact with Hellenistic monarchs.13
8Of these 38 instances for filia and privigna, three are the shortest possible mentions of a woman being the daughter of some man.14 23 occur in situations where the wedding of the woman qualified as someone’s filia is promised or planned, is happening or just happened, while further six mention daughters already living in existing marriage. This is a clear hint that the predominant reason (of course not the only one) why this text described a royal woman as someone’s daughter was her existing, planned or promised marriage.
9Moreover the most important aspect concerning these weddings or marriages seems to have been that they established connection between men. That should be the reason why in full 24 of these 29 cases we are told the father’s and the (prospective) husband’s names or can deduce them from earlier references. On the other hand, their mothers’names appear occasionally at most. In fact Justin omits the father’s name only if the father is already dead or otherwise not available. With respect to that, it does not come as a surprise that in most cases when we are told the mother’s name at all, there is no father still alive or father and mother are fighting against each other.15
10While in almost every case the names of the (prospective) husband and the father are given, in 14 of these occurrences the daughter’s own name is omitted: she is simply styled as filia alicuius. Of course, this may have been the result of Justin’s epitomizing of Trogus’more complete narrative. Nevertheless it shows that at least Justin thought of their names as being expendable. A clear hint that the daughters’main worth, from the Epitoma’s point of view, consisted of their familial position as link between the men named.
Royal daughters as objects of action
11So far for the situations in which the term filia (and privigna) occurs in Justin. Another approach to look for the construction of royal daughters in the so-called Epitoma is to analyse the way Hellenistic royal daughters are represented within the fabric of action. Following an idea first developed by Thomas Späth and taken up by others,16 I will try to analyse the construction of royal daughters by analysing the actions that are described as either originating from them or aiming at them. This means to search in the text for the deeds fathers and mothers do with respect of their daughters as well as for narrations of the daughters’behaviour towards their parents. As we will see, we have to look also for actions from persons aiming at other people’s daughters. The idea is that action constitutes and characterises relations and that the analysis of the actions reported will allow us to determine the understanding of these relations as represented within the text.17
12If we record all these actions, we realise at once that royal daughters appear predominantly as objects of action. While there are only nine instances in which daughters (including the stepdaughter) are the origin of actions aiming at their parents, there are full 25 cases for which actions from royal fathers or mothers concerning their daughters are reported.18 In addition to that Justin refers 12 actions of (mostly royal) men explicitly directed at some king’s daughter,19 and finally one woman murdering another woman’s daughter.
13Roughly half of the parental actions aiming at daughters present the respective fathers as subjects (12 of 25 instances). Nearly all of them (11) show kings marrying their daughters to some other man. Ptolemy Ceraunus, for example, is said to have forged bonds with Pyrrhus by giving his daughter to him:
Interea inter reges bellum finitur; nam Ptolemaeus pulso Antigono cum regnum totius Macedoniae occupasset, pacem cum Antiocho facit adfinitatemque cum Pyrro rege data ei in matrimonium filia sua iungit.20
14The other ten examples range from Philip II marrying his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus in 336 B.C. to Mithridates VI giving his daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes of Armenia in the late 90ies B.C.21
15The only exception is Lysimachus who is presented as arresting his daughter Eurydice after having killed her husband:
Dum haec aguntur Lysimachus generum suum Antipatrum regnum Macedoniae ademptum sibi fraude soceri querentem interficit filiamque suam Eurydicem, querelarum sociam, in custodiam tradit, atque ita universa Cassandri domus Alexandro Magno seu necis ipsius seu stirpis extinctae poenas partim caede, partim supplicio, partim parricidio luit.22
16Royal mothers appear 13 times as subjects of actions directed at their daughters. Here more different actions are reported, but the dominant field, again, is the marrying of their children. In four cases queens wish to or in fact marry their daughters to some men. One case reports how Olympias, widow of king Alexander II, marries her daughter Phthia to Demetrius II of Macedon:
(1) Olympias, Pyrri Epirotae regis filia, amisso marito eodemque germano fratre Alexandro cum tutelam filiorum ex eo susceptorum, Pyrri et Ptolemaei, regnique administrationem in se recepisset, Aetolis partem Acarnaniae, quam in portionem belli pater pupillorum acceperat, eripere volentibus ad regem Macedoniae Demetrium decurrit (2) eique habenti uxorem Antiochi regis Syriae, sororem filiam suam Phthiam in matrimonium tradit, ut auxilium, quod misericordia non poterat, iure cognationis obtineret.23
17In addition to that Apama, widow of King Magas of Cyrene, is said to have arranged for the marriage of her daughter Berenice to the Antigonid Demetrius the Fair, while Cleopatra III is presented as giving her daughter Cleopatra Selene first to her elder son (Ptolemy IX) and then to Antiochus Grypus.24
18From these instances it becomes clear that the mother’s matchmaking for a daughter is imaginable only when the father is already dead: Olympias, as well as Apama and Cleopatra III, takes action in a state of widowhood. Furthermore, all four passages on mothers marrying their daughters show a strong air of transgressive conduct: Apama is stated as acting against the wishes of the late father and Cleopatra III is openly criticised for maltreating her daughters (on both see below). And even Olympias’matchmaking for Phthia, though explained by her need for military aid, appears in a rather negative context as she imposes her daughter on a king already married (see quote above)–a most disgusting thing, according to the marriage customs in the Roman world.25
19Moreover Apama’s and Cleopatra’s dynastic steps are connected to acts explicitly or implicitly characterised as hurting their late husbands’wishes: Apama is said to have broken Berenice’s betrothal to Ptolemy, the son of Ptolemy II, arranged by the child’s father Magas:
(2) Per idem tempus rex Cyrenarum Magas decedit, qui ante infirmitatem Beronicen, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolemeo fratre certamina filio eius desponderat. (3) Sed post mortem regis mater virginis Arsinoë <i.e. Apama, JB>, ut invita se contractum matrimonium solveretur, misit qui ad nuptias virginis regnumque Cyrenarum Demetrium, fratrem regis Antigoni, a Macedonia arcesserent, qui et ipse ex filia Ptolemei procreatus erat.26
20Cleopatra is presented as divorcing her daughter Cleopatra IV from her son Ptolemy IX Soter II after taking over the reign from her late husband:
(1) Inter has regni Syriae parricidales discordias moritur rex Aegypti Ptolomeus, regno Aegypti uxori et alteri ex filiis quem illa legisset relicto; […] (2) Igitur cum pronior in minorem filium esset, a populo conpellitur maiorem eligere. Cui prius quam regnum daret, uxorem ademit conpulsumque repudiare carissimam sibi sororem Cleopatram minorem sororem Selenen ducere iubet, non materno inter filias iudicio, cum alteri maritum eriperet, alteri daret.27
21This implies that already Ptolemy VIII had married the siblings to each other.
22Apart from Cleopatra also divorcing her daughter Cleopatra Selene from Ptolemy IX,28 motherly interference into the daughters’marriage appears two more times, in the overtly scandalous form of poaching the daughter’s mate: Eurydice, the wife of Amyntas III, is said to have plotted with her son-in-law against her husband in order to make him king of Macedon:
Insidiis etiam Eurydices uxoris, quae nuptias generi pacta occidendum virum regnumque adultero tradendum susceperat, occupatus fuisset, ni filia paelicatum matris et sceleris consilia prodidisset.29
23The already familiar Apama is presented as arranging for Demetrius as new husband for her daughter Berenice only to take him to her bed. When she is caught red-handed, Trogus-Justin makes her take advantage of filial piety as Berenice tries to save her parent’s life:
(6) Itaque versis omnium animis in Ptolomei filium insidiae Demetrio conparantur, cui, cum in lectum socrus concessisset, percussores inmittuntur. (7) Sed Arsinoë <i.e. Apama, JB> audita voce filiae ad fores stantis et praecipientis, ut matri parceretur, adulterum paulisper corpore suo protexit.30
24The only instance in which an action of a mother directed at her daughter is not negatively connoted is the flight of Cleopatra II to her daughter married to the Seleucid Demetrius II:
Ptolemaeus quoque, rex Aegypti, bello ab eodem petitus, cum cognovisset Cleopatram, sororem suam, opibus Aegypti navibus inpositis ad filiam et Demetrium generum in Syriam profugisse […].31
25Among the 12 actions of (mostly royal) males to some other royal male’s daughters from Late Classical and Hellenistic times that Justin reports, the majority once again concerns the theme of marriage: five times a king marries another king’s daughter,32 a sixth instance reports the Persian satrap Bubares marrying the daughter of king Amyntas I around 500 B.C.33 The Diadoch Perdiccas is said to have feigned the wish to marry a daughter of Antipater.34 Ptolemy VIII is accused of having married his stepdaughter only after he had raped her.35 Finally, assuming their absent father’s role, Alexander the Great is said to have promised to Darius’daughters that he was to arrange marriages befitting to their rank.36
26Apart from marriages royal daughters appear mainly as victims of foreign envoys eager to enjoy their company, are caught as prisoners of war and have to be consoled.37
27Only one example shows a woman acting towards someone other’s daughter: Olympias, the widow of Philip II, is presented as murdering her rival’s daughter after their husband’s death.38 As we will see later on, it does not happen by chance that men are described as aiming at other male’s daughters, while a widowed woman only acts with respect to some other widow’s daughter.
28Accordingly royal daughters mainly appear as inactive objects, or even victims, of male action. Among this evidence such scenes predominate in which daughters are mentioned as aim of male wishes concerning some kind of union in the widest sense.
Royal daughters as subjects of action
29While there are several instances in which Hellenistic royal daughters appear as objects of actions originating from their parents or from other men, they are represented as subjects of any actions only rarely indeed. Among these few cases such actions dominate that aim at the daughters’mothers. Only twice daughters are certainly represented as doing something that aims at their fathers: Euryone, the daughter of Amyntas III, saved her father’s life.39 The already mentioned Berenice of Cyrene is said to have eventually married Ptolemy III, according to her late father’s wish.40 Less explicit is a third instance: Darius III’daughters probably were among those women (i. e. his mother, his wife and others) who begged Alexander for their lives until they had buried Darius (falsely presumed to be dead at that time).41 In all those cases daughters appear as dutiful and obedient against their respective fathers.
30With regard to daughters and mothers the picture is more diverse. In Justin there are five instances in which daughters are acting in respect of their mothers. The situation is nearly always one of conflict.42 Although in one case the daughter is the villain, in all other instances these actions are rather reactions to motherly maltreatment. When the death of Cleopatra III by the hands of her son is reported, the narrative accuses her, inter alia, of having expelled her mother from the marital bed.43 The remaining three instances are reported for Euryone, daughter of Eurydice and Amyntas III, as well as for Berenice, daughter of Apama (Arsinoë in Justin) and Magas of Cyrene. For a better understanding of these two important scenes I will give Justin’s text in full:
(5) qui <i. e. Amyntas III, JB> ex Eurydice tres filios sustulit, Alexandrum, Perdiccam et Philippum, Alexandri Magni Macedonis patrem, et filiam Euryonen, ex Gygaea autem Archelaum, Arridaeum, Menelaum. […] (7) Insidiis etiam Eurydices uxoris, quae nuptias generi pacta occidendum virum regnumque adultero tradendum susceperat, occupatus fuisset, ni filia paelicatum matris et sceleris consilia prodidisset.44
31Although this passage provides one of the rare instances of a daughter being the subject of action, Euryone is only a secondary character of this chapter. The chapter’s narrative (7.4.3-7.4.8) continues through Amyntas’III life from his accession to his death. We are told that he was a committed and virtuous king, which children he had from Eurydice and Gygaea, that he fought arduous wars with the Illyrians and the Olynthians, and that he nearly fell victim to a coup d’état devised by his wife had not his daughter saved him so that he finally died as an old man. The second leading character is Amyntas’wife, the protagonist’s enemy and his children’s bane. She is introduced as mother of four of Amyntas’children, only to reappear as adulteress and his would-be assassin. Later on, in chapter five, she is presented as murderess of her sons Alexander and Perdiccas.45 While the narrative focuses on Amyntas and Eurydice, their daughter only enjoys a short appearance as her father’s aide. She uncovers his wife’s unfaithfulness and her attempt on his life–faithful child caring for her father. The relationship with the mother is another matter: the daughter opposes her mother and denounces her before her father. But what kind of mother: if we take chapters four and five together, Eurydice is presented as the reversal of virtually all proper female behaviour as constructed by ancient gender discourse:46 she wants to kill her husband and commits adultery instead of being a faithful and deferent wife, she cradle-snatches her daughter’s husband and murders two of her sons instead of acting as a supportive, caring mother to her children.47 As Justin does not fail to stress, she kills the very children to whom she owes her life:
(7) Indignum prorsus libidinis causa liberos a matre vita privatos, quam scelerum suorum suppliciis liberorum contemplatio vindicaverat. (8) Perdiccae hoc indignior caedes videbatur, quod ei apud matrem misericordiam ne parvulus quidem filius conciliaverat.48
32Given all this, her daughter’s actions are in fact re-actions: first of all after she herself is a much-provoked victim of her monstrous mother who not only betrayed her husband (and did her best to kill him) but also poached her daughter’s husband.
33A close parallel to this scenery Justin presents in his summary of Trogus’26th book:
(2) Per idem tempus rex Cyrenarum Magas decedit, qui ante infirmitatem Beronicen, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolomeo fratre certamina filio eius desponderat. (3) Sed post mortem regis mater virginis Arsinoë <i. e. Apama, JB>, ut invita se contractum matrimonium solveretur, misit qui ad nuptias virginis regnumque Cyrenarum Demetrium, fratrem regis Antigoni, a Macedonia arcesserent, qui et ipse ex filia Ptolomei procreatus erat. (4) Sed nec Demetrius moram fecit. Itaque cum secundante vento celeriter Cyrenas advolasset, fiducia pulchritudinis, qua animis placere socrus coeperat, statim a principio superbus regiae familiae militibusque inpotens erat studiumque placendi a virgine in matrem contulerat. (5) Quae res suspecta primo virgini, dein popularibus militibusque invisa fuit. (6) Itaque versis omnium animis in Ptolomei filium insidiae Demetrio conparantur, cui, cum in lectum socrus concessisset, percussores inmittuntur. (7) Sed Arsinoë <i. e. Apama, JB> audita voce filiae ad fores stantis et praecipientis, ut matri parceretur, adulterum paulisper corpore suo protexit. (8) Quo interfecto Beronice et stupra matris salva pietate ulta est et in matrimonio sortiendo iudicium patris secuta.49
34Again the mother dominates the scene (§ 3-4 and 6-7). This time the father dies already in § 2 while the daughter’s bridegroom plays a major role (passive in § 3 and 5-7, active in § 4). Again the daughter is only reacting to deeds originating from others. And again she has good reasons for this as there is a bundle of transgressions on the mother’s side: the widow acts against her late husband’s will instead of obeying him. The mother poaches her daughter’s husband instead of taking care for her marriage, and finally the mother tries to take advantage of her daughter’s piety.
35Demetrius, the bridegroom selected by the mother, is another villain: he shows himself as adventurer, haughty and unfaithful against his bride.50
36And again all this transgressive action is contrasted by the daughter’s behaviour: she detects her mother’s adultery, she saves her mother’s life, and as a true daughter she obeys her father’s will.
37The contrast between transgressive mother and dutiful daughter is even more explicit in this case: the daughter uncovers the illegitimate relationship between her mother and her bridegroom but strictly remains within the limits of proper behaviour. Even the highly transgressive action of her mother does not prompt her to any transgressive answer. Apart from uncovering the affair she remains passive, finally saves her mother’s life and yet obeys her father’s will.
38As a third party, performing the necessary dirty deeds to punish the transgressive mother, army and people are introduced.51 As mother and bridegroom-to-be are caught in bed, even this killing is presented as legitimate action. The killing of the adulterer caught red-handed was accepted in many ancient legal orders.52
39Just to make sure that we do not miss the point we finally are told that the mother’s behaviour was stuprum and that her daughter punished it without violating her filial piety.53
40So royal daughters are represented as a rather passive sort. If they take action they only do it according to their fathers’wishes and welfare. In contrast to that the daughters’relations to their mothers appear as rather difficult and conflict-laden.
41Are these observations on the portrayal of royal daughters in Justin a royal peculiarity? In order to test this, we have to analyse his reports on other daughters.
Hellenistic and other daughters in Justin
42A comparison of the situation concerning Late Classical and Hellenistic royal daughters with actions aiming at or originating from other daughters in Justin provides, among many analogies, one important difference.
43From the 23 instances in which the word filia recurs, again a mere two serve as means of identification for the daughter or the father (as his daughter was aetiologically more prominent).54 Again a good deal of the passages naming filiae concerns the field of marriage or sexual intercourse.55
44Whenever actions are reported, daughters again appear overwhelmingly as objects of action: from the total of 23 actions aiming at non-Hellenistic daughters reported in Justin 12 originate from the daughters’ fathers.56 Six of these 12 concern the daughter’ marriages planned, denied or realised by their fathers.57
45In another 11 instances some men’s actions are aiming at other men’s daughters.58 Eight of these present men longing for the daughters of other men. In mythical contexts this means mainly abducting the maiden with primarily sexual motives, in rather historical contexts someone is asked for his daughter–with varying grades of success–in order to form alliances or claim a share of the father’s status.59
46Finally there are three further instances where men’s actions aim at other men’s daughters. In all three cases the daughters appear as victims of tyrannical villains maltreating other men’s daughters in order to hurt, humiliate or destroy other men and their families.60
47All these 23 actions originate from men. Conspicuously absent, as subjects of actions aiming at daughters, are women. Beyond the Late Classical and Hellenistic royal houses there seems to have been no need to relate stories of mothers managing their daughters’ affairs.
48Concerning daughters as subjects of actions, the situation is again like the one for Hellenistic royal daughters: only three cases occur; in two of them the daughters’ actions aim at their–false or prospective–husbands while the third is directed at the daughter’s father.61 More important, in all these situations the daughters do not take action of their own accord but follow their fathers’ instructions. In fact, in two instances Justin uses forms of iubere in order to describe the prime cause for the daughter’s action.62 Non-royal daughters are obviously acting according to the standards of ancient gender and generation norms, which thought passivity or, at most, re-active actions as properly female behaviour and expected from daughters deference versus their fathers.63
From narrative pattern to discourse: conclusions
49Taking all things together, two important observations may be noted: firstly, comparison shows that the actions reported by Justin for Hellenistic royal daughters and for various others correspond each other in many respects. In both cases daughters appear overwhelmingly as objects of–mainly male–actions. The vast majority of these actions happens in contexts regarding the daughter’s union with a man. In a few cases daughters do appear as subjects of actions–but then they are displayed as responding to other people’s actions. Especially while interacting with their fathers they appear as victims or pious, obedient children. This self-effacement goes to such lengths that these daughters not even are mentioned by their name but only as “daughter of”.
50As the representations of both Hellenistic and non-Hellenistic daughters match, we have to conclude that Hellenistic royal daughters in this text are constructed as “typical” daughters. In other words, ancient gender discourse is inscribed into these representations of Hellenistic royal daughters.
51Moreover the behaviour Justin ascribes to nearly all daughters accords with ancient norms of female conduct. As Thomas Späth and others have shown, the ideal behaviour of women was constructed as rather submissive and only responding to male impulse,64 while “typical” female conduct, i. e. a behaviour originating from the tendencies of female “nature” when unsupervised, was considered dissolute and a threat to social order.65
52Consequently the actions of both non-Hellenistic and Hellenistic royal daughters (the latter with one exception) do not mirror expectations of “typical” behaviour shown by women; instead they show the norms of female conduct according to moral standards. This means the daughters are constructed as ideal, properly behaving women.66 So far our first observation.
53Secondly there is one striking difference that sets apart the narratives about Hellenistic daughters in Justin: the relation between royal daughters and mothers is shaped by conflict. This is conspicuous, as it is not only in contrast to the non-Hellenistic daughters in the same text but also to general Roman assumptions on the relations between daughters and mothers in their own society.67 All the reported conflicts are somehow related to a field Romans cast as “typically”, annoyingly female: in all of them occur infringements against a woman’s marriage. Only in such situations daughters are represented as acting against their mothers. In fact, the two most elaborate passages on daughters in Justin display precisely such a situation. As argued above, both Euryone and Berenice are reported to have defied their mothers, violating thereby Roman expectations that daughters should show deference.68 Nevertheless, they clash with their mothers, yet they do this because they are dutiful and obedient daughters–of their fathers. So in both cases the daughters face situations which force them to choose between their parents. Besides the general expectation that the father and husband should prevail over the mother and wife,69 the text makes it even more explicit that the daughters chose the “right” part: in both cases their mothers do not only act against their husbands known intentions but also disrupt their daughters’ marriages. While these daughters do act against their mothers, on closer inspection they are only re-acting to ill-treatment, to a moral dilemma forced upon them, and are still (nay, more than ever) caring for and obeying their fathers. In the case of Berenice, the text even states that while adhering to her father’s wishes and punishing her mother’s adultery Berenice did not violate her filial piety against her mother.
54The third case is more complicated, but ultimately fits the pattern after all: Cleopatra III is said to have expelled her mother from the marital bed.70 Here the daughter is presented as transgressive against her mother and no father is mentioned. The same event, the (temporary71) replacement of Cleopatra II as wife of Ptolemy VIII by Cleopatra III, has already been told in book 38. Here the situation looks rather different and Cleopatra II’s daughter is represented as Ptolemy’s victim and not as subject of action: “Ipsam quoque sororem filia eius virgine per vim stuprata et in matrimonium adscita repudiat.”72
55The change in undertone becomes more understandable if we look closer at the context. In book 38 the rape and marriage of his stepdaughter and niece is told as one of the many vices of Ptolemy VIII.73 In book 39 the situation has changed: Ptolemy has died and leftthe reign to his widow and one of his sons. The widow and mother has–according to the text–dissolved the marriages between their children arranged by her late husband and played offher sons against each other till one of them finally prepares her deserved end.74 So here the situation is different. Cleopatra is represented both as a bad mother and a bad widow, counteracting her late husband’s wishes and maltreating her children.75 Proceeding from a situation that reveals her as a reversal of the Roman notion how an ideal mother should be, the description of her transgressive behaviour is augmented by a “flashback” into her youth, now interpreted in a new light, i.e. according to the negative picture drawn of her maternal conduct. In other words, she becomes an evil daughter only because she is an evil mother.
56In fact, the mothers seem to be the problem in these conflicts, not the daughters. Although the aforementioned scenes impressively describe the relations between daughters and mothers as conflict-laden, daughters in general are described as passive, meek, and obedient children (or ideal women). Moreover only mothers of Hellenistic dynasties appear as subjects or objects of actions aiming at or originating from their daughters. As mother-daughter conflicts in general are few and far between in Roman literature, this leads to the conclusion that it is explicitly in the context of Hellenistic dynasties that our source understands the familial role of mothers as problematic.
57As argued above, the way in which the conflicts with their daughters are constructed shows the mothers as transgressors while their daughters appear as defenders or personifications of proper female conduct. Interestingly, the dominant theme of transgression is the arrangement of, or interference into, their daughters’marriages. The poaching of their daughters’husbands probably should be understood as hyperbolic formulation of the same topic. In taking care of their daughters’marriages, these women are represented as aggressively usurping decisions considered as male prerogatives. According to normative Roman notions of how to arrange marriages this was the father’s decision, though, of course, various sources also refer the consultation of mothers.76 In short, these narratives show active women in a field where they are not supposed to interfere.
58The conflict between Hellenistic royal daughters and mothers as represented by Justin therefore encapsulates the problems that monarchy posed to Roman notions of gender roles: women were supposed to show a rather passive or reactive conduct. Within a family, nevertheless, children were expected to behave deferentially against their mother. While there was a husband whom she should obey, she was perceived as being under male control. In Roman society a widow, too, could be understood as being somehow “safely” under the surveillance of her male relatives. In Hellenistic monarchies the situations was different: if the king died and his wife remained alive, she could be conceived as demanding deference from her children. And there was no male relative within the kingdom who could be understood as monitoring her or exercising something analogous to male manus. With daughters the situation was different. As children they had to obey their parents. As female children they were considered as objects of male action, especially when relationships with other men were involved. As they were supposed to obey, they were beyond any suspicion
59Summing up, the daughters of Hellenistic dynasties (in the widest sense) are represented in Justin as rather passive and obedient children of their fathers. The relations to their mothers are regularly conflict-laden, but from these conflicts those women emerge as the king’s true daughters, while their mothers are unmasked as transgressors violating the norms of proper female conduct. In these contexts Hellenistic royal daughters are constructed as a backdrop, a means of contrast in order to highlight the improper behavior—an evil structurally inherent to Hellenistic monarchy as such—of mothers, or rather, of queen-widows
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Alonso-Núñez José M., 1987, « An Augustan world history: The Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus », Greece & Rome, no 34, p. 56-72.
10.1017/S0017383500027704 :Bellinger Alfred R., 1949, « The end of the Seleucids », Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, no 38, p. 55-102.
Bengtson Hermann, 1975, Herrschergestalten des Hellenismus, Munich, C. H. Beck.
Bickel Ernst, 1937, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der römischen Literatur, Heidelberg, C. Winter.
Bielman Sánchez Anne, 2003, « Régner au féminin. Réflexions sur les reines attalides et séleucides », Pallas, no 62, p. 41-61.
Bielman Sánchez Anne & Lenzo Giuseppina, 2015, L’invention du pouvoir féminin : Cléopâtre Ire et Cléopâtre II, reines d’Égypte au iie siècle av. J.-C., Berne, P. Lang.
Borgna Alice, 2014, « Uno sguardo originale intorno a Roma: Pompeo Trogo e Giustino » dans CUSL. (Consulta universitaria di Studi latini. Atti del II Seminario nazionale per dottorandi e dottori di ricerca in studi latini, Roma, 22 novembre 2013), Palerme, G. B. Palumbo Editore, p. 52-77.
Bradley Keith R., 1985, « Review of Judith P. Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family, Princeton, 1984 », Phoenix, no 39, p. 404-408.
Carney Elizabeth, 2000, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
—, 2013, Arsinoë of Egypt and Macedon. A Royal Life, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Clayman Dee L., 2014, Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Comploi Sabine, 2002, « Frauendarstellungen bei Fremdvölkern in denHistoriae Philippicaedes Pompeius Trogus/Justin », dans C. Ulf & R. Rollinger (dir.), Geschlechter–Frauen–Fremde Ethnien in antiker Ethnographie, Theorie und Realität, Innsbruck, Studien-Verlag, p. 331-359.
Dixon Suzanne, 1988, The Roman Mother, Londres/Sydney, Croom Helm.
—, 1992, The Roman Family, Baltimore/Londres, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Forni Giovanni & Angelli Bertinelli Maria Gabriella, 1982, «Pompeo Trogo come fonte di storia », ANRW, vol. 2, no 30.2, p. 1298-1362.
10.1515/9783110839685 :Fündling Jörg, 2014, Philipp II. von Makedonien, Darmstadt, Philipp von Zabern.
Hallett Judith, 1984, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society. Women and the Elite Family, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400855322 :Hammond Nicholas G. L., 1991, « The sources of Justin on Macedonia to the death of Philip », Classical Quarterly, no 41, p. 496-508.
10.1017/S0009838800004638 :Jördens Andrea & Quack Joachim Friedrich (dir.), 2011, Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äußerem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’VI. bis VIII., Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
Le Bohec Sylvie, 1993, « Les reines de Macédoine de la mort d’Alexandre à celle de Persée », Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz, no 4, p. 229-245.
10.3406/ccgg.1993.1380 :Macurdy Grace, 1932, Hellenistic Queens. A Study in Women-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press.
Mahaffy John P., 1895, Empire of the Ptolemies, Londres, Macmillan.
10.1017/CBO9781139940801 :Müller Christian, 2001, « Pompeius [III 3] Trogus », DNP, no 10, p. 115-117.
Nadig Peter, 2007, Zwischen König und Karikatur. Das Bild Ptolemaios’VIII. im Spannungsfeld der Überlieferung, Munich, C. H. Beck.
Pomeroy Sarah B. 1990 [1984], Women in Hellenistic Egypt, Détroit, Wayne State University Press.
Richter Heinz-Dietmar, 1987, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie. Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogus für die Darstellung der nachalexandrinischen hellenistischen Geschichte (Just. 13-40), Francfort-sur-le-Main et al., P. Lang.
Salomone Eleonora, 1973, Fonti e valore storico di Pompeo Trogo (Justin., XXXVIII. 8.2-XL), Gênes, Istituto di Storia Antica e Scienze Ausiliarie dell’Università di Genova.
Savalli-Lestrade Ivana, 1994, « Il ruolo pubblico delle regine ellenistiche », dans S. Alessandri (dir.), Studi offerti dagli allievi à Giuseppe Nenci in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno, Galatina, Congedo Editore, p. 415-432.
—, 2003, « La place des reines à la cour et dans le royaume à l’époque hellénistique », dans R. Frei-Stolba, A. Bielman Sánchez & O. Bianchi (dir.), Les Femmes antiques entre sphère privée et sphère publique, Berne, P. Lang, p. 59-76.
Schmidt Peter L., 1999, « Justinus [5]: M. Junian(i) us Justinus », DNP, no 6, p. 106.
Seel Otto, 1955, Die Praefatio des Pompeius Trogus, Erlangen, Universitätsbund Erlangen.
—, 1972a, « Einleitung », dans Pompeius Trogus: Weltgeschichte von den Anfängen bis Augustus im Auszug des Justin, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Otto Seel, Zurich/Munich 1972, p. 5-79.
10.1007/978-3-658-05279-9 :—, 1972b, Eine römische Weltgeschichte. Studien zum Text der Epitome des Justinus und zur Historik des Pompejus Trogus, Nuremberg, Verlag Hans Carl.
Späth Thomas, 1994, Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit bei Tacitus. Zur Konstruktion der Geschlechter in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Francfort-sur-le-Main, Campus Verlag.
Syme Ronald, 1988, « The date of Justin and the discovery of Trogus », Historia, no 37, 1988, p. 358-371.
Thompson Dorothy J., 1989, « Pausanias and protocol: The succession to Euergetes II », dans L. Criscuolo & G. Geraci (dir.), Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba, Bologna, Editrice CLUEB, p. 693-701.
Treggiari Susan, 1986, « The influence of Roman women », Classical Review, no 36, p. 102-105.
Truschnegg Brigitte, 2006, « Genderaspekte in den Viten des Cornelius Nepos », dans C. Ulf & R. Rollinger (dir.), Frauen und Geschlechter. Bilder–Rollen–Realitäten in den Texten antiker Autoren der römischen Kaiserzeit, Vienne/Cologne/Weimar, Böhlau Verlag, p. 187-207.
van Wickevoort Crommelin Bernard R., 1993, Die Universalgeschichte des Pompeius Trogus, Hagen, Verlags-und BuchhandelsgesellschaftMargit Rottmann.
von Albrecht Michael, 1994, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, München, DTV.
10.1515/9783110266740 :Von Gutschmid Alfred, 1882, « Trogus und Timagenes », RhM, no 37, p. 548-555.
Yardley John, 2003, Justin and Pompeius Trogus: A Study of the Language of Justin’s “Epitome” of Trogus, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
10.3138/9781442676473 :Yardley John, 2010, « What is Justin doing with Trogus? », dans M. Horster & C. Reitz (dir.), Condensing Texts-Condensed Texts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, p. 469-490.
Yardley John & Heckel Waldemar, 1997, « Introduction », dans Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Books 11-12: Alexander the Great, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 1-41.
10.1533/9781845694302.1 :Notes de bas de page
1 Many thanks to the organisers of the two tables rondes for their invitation and their kind hospitality at Grenoble and Lausanne. Further thanks go to the participants of the Lausanne conference for their questions and suggestions. Finally I have to thank Jörg Fündling and Anne Kolb yet again for improving this paper. Of course, all remaining faults are my own.
2 Cf. e.g. Mahaffy, 1895, p. 445-446, and still Bengtson, 1975, p. 114, 116-117 and 127 indulging in female scandal.
3 Just to name some of the most important studies: Pomeroy, 1984; Le Bohec, 1993; Savalli-Lestrade, 1994; Carney, 2000; Bielman Sánchez, 2003; Savalli-Lestrade, 2003; Bielman Sánchez & Lenzo, 2015.
4 Cf. e. g. Carney, 2013, p. 3-6.
5 For an early dating cf., among the more recent students of Justin, Seel, 1972a, p. 15 and 19-21 (200-250 A.D.); von Albrecht, 1994, p. 1089 (perhaps under Severus Alexander); and now Yardley & Heckel, 1997, p. 8-13; and Yardley, 2010, p. 470-473 (second half second century or early third century). For the later date: Syme, 1988; Schmidt, 1999.
6 For the Tiberian date cf. Seel, 1972a, p. 5-18, and 1972b, p. 172-180. Adherents of an Augustan date are (again among more recent researchers): Alonso-Núñez, 1987; Müller, 2001, p. 115; van Wickevoort Crommelin, 1993, p. 3; Yardley & Heckel, 1997, p. 4-6.
7 Cf. the surveys on these debates in Yardley & Heckel, 1997, p. 15-34, Comploi, 2002, p. 331, Yardley, 2010; and Borgna, 2014.
8 Seel, 1955, p. 14-18, 22-23, 34-41 and 84-85; 1972a, p. 22-23, 26 and 49; 1972b, p. 2-3, 9; similarly Forni & Angelli Bertinelli, 1982, p. 1301-1307; van Wickevoort Crommelin, 1993, p. 18-19; Schmidt, 1999, p. 106.
9 To my knowledge first advocated by Alfred von Gutschmid (von Gutschmid, 1882) and still held by Ernst Bickel (Bickel, 1937, p. 168 and 390).
10 Opposing the Timagenes-Thesis inter alia Bellinger, 1949, p. 99; Seel, 1955, p. 18-21; Seel, 1972a, p. 26-27 and 49; Richter, 1987, p. 28; van Wickevoort Crommelin, 1993, p. 23, 29 and 212; von Albrecht, 1994, p. 687; Yardley & Heckel, 1997, p. 30-34; Borgna, 2014, p. 53-60. Bernard van Wickevoort Crommelin is probably right in stating that the search for the sources of an author who happens to be preserved only in abridged form seems rather futile: van Wickevoort Crommelin, 1993, p. 21-27. Richter, 1987, does not disprove such doubts. Recent defenders of Justin are Yardley & Heckel, 1997; Yardley, 2003 and 2010; Borgna, 2014, p. 61-70.
11 Search results for the respective forms in the Library of Latin Texts (latest search Jan. 29, 2015): Just., 1.4.2-5, 1.4.7, 1.9.15 and 18, 1.10.14, 2.4.17, 2.5.9, 2.6.8, 2.15.14, 7.3.3, 7.3.9, 7.4.5 and 7, 7.6.10, 9.6.1-2, 9.7.7, 9.7.12, 11.1.4, 11.9.12 and 16, 11.12.3, 11.12.7 and 10, 12.10.9, 13.6.6, 14.6.3, 14.6.13, 16.2.4, 16.5.2, 17.2.15, 18.4.3, 21.3.3, 21.4.2, 23.3.3, 24.1.8, 26.3.2-3, 26.3.7, 28.1.1-2, 32.3.13, 36.4.6, 38.3.2, 38.8.5, 38.9.3, 38.10.10, 39.1.4, 39.2.3, 39.3.2, 39.4.6, 42.3.1, 43.1.9, 43.2.2 and 10, 43.3.9 and 44.4.2. The privigna appears in Just., 14.6.3.
12 According to a search for the respective forms and the overall word count of Livy and Polybius in the Library of Latin Texts and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (latest search Jan. 29, 2015).
13 The one remaining hit outside these categories mentions a paelex of Eumenes II of Pergamon, mother of Aristonikos and daughter of some cithara player: Just., 36.4.6.
14 Two serve as identification of the women (Just., 14.6.3 and 28.1.1). In the third case Euryone is mentioned among the children of Amyntas III and Eurydice: Just., 7.4.5. Cf. Späth, 1994, p. 223, on similar cases in Tacitus.
15 E. g. Just., 26.3.3, 38.8.5 and 39.1.4.
16 Cf. Späth, 1994, p. 29-32 for a more detailed explanation; his ideas were applied, inter alios, by Comploi, 2002, and Truschnegg, 2006.
17 Cf. Späth, 1994, p. 30.
18 Including some actions narrated more than once.
19 Just., 7.3.3, 7.3.9, 7.6.10, 11.9.12, 11.9.16, 11.12.7, 12.10.9, 13.6.6, 14.6.13, 17.2.15, 38.8.5 and 38.10.10.
20 Just., 24.1.8: “Meanwhile the war between the kings came to an end, with Ptolemy putting Antigonus to flight and seizing control of all Macedonia. Ptolemy then made peace with Antiochus and entered into a family alliance with Pyrrhus by giving him his daughter in marriage.” All English translations of Justin are from Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, translated by J. C. Yardley, 1994, Atlanta, Scholars Press.
21 Just., 9.6.1-2, 9.7.7, 11.1.3, 11.12.3 and 10, 24.1.8, 26.3.2, 38.3.2, 38.9.3 and 39.2.3.
22 Just., 16.2.4-5: “While this was going on, Lysimachus murdered his son-in-law, Antipater, who was protesting that the throne of Macedon had been taken from him by the treachery of his father-in-law, and imprisoned his own daughter, Eurydice, for joining Antipater in his complaints. Thus it was that the entire house of Cassander paid the penalty to Alexander the Great by their murder, torture or parricide, whether for his assassination or for the extinction of his line.”
23 Just., 28.1.1-2: “After losing her husband Alexander, who was also her full brother, Olympias, daughter of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, assumed the guardianship of Pyrrhus and Ptolemy, the sons whom she had by him, as well as the management of the kingdom. The Aetolians wanted to wrest from her a part of Acarnania, which the father of her boys had been given for his contribution to the war, so she appealed for help to King Demetrius of Macedonia. Although Demetrius already had a wife–the sister of Antiochus, king of Syria–Olympias gave him the hand of her daughter, Phthia, in marriage, in order to secure by family ties the assistance she could not gain from his compassion.”
24 Just., 26.3.3, 39.3,2 and 39.4.4.
25 Cf. Comploi, 2002, p. 338.
26 Just., 26.3.2-3: “During the same period King Magas of Cyrene died. Before his illness Magas had betrothed his only daughter Berenice to his brother Ptolemy’s son in order to end his quarrel with Ptolemy. After the king’s death, however, the girl’s mother, Arsinoë, wished to annul the marriage, which had been arranged against her wishes. She sent a deputation to summon from Macedonia Demetrius, brother of King Antigonus, to marry the young woman and assume the throne of Cyrene, Demetrius being himself the son of a daughter of Ptolemy.”
27 Just., 39.3.1-2: “While the kingdom of Syria was being convulsed by these murderous rivalries, King Ptolemy of Egypt died, leaving the throne to his wife and whichever of their two sons she should choose. […] The mother leaned towards the younger son, but she was forced by the people to select the elder. Before giving him the throne, however, she deprived him of his wife, forcing him to divorce his sister Cleopatra, whom he loved dearly, and ordering him to marry his younger sister Selene–an unmotherly decision to make with respect to her daughters, in that she was taking a husband from one and giving him to the other.” The same events again are reported as maltreatment of both her daughters in 39.4.6. Cf. Salomone, 1973, p. 94-98 and 101-106 on both passages.
28 Reported in Just., 39.4.1 and 39.4.4.
29 Just., 7.4.7: “Moreover, Amyntas would have fallen victim to the treachery of his wife Eurydice (she had made a pact to marry her son-in-law, undertaking to kill her husband and hand the crown to her lover) had their daughter not divulged her mother’s liaison and criminal intentions.”
30 Just., 26.3.6-7: “Consequently, the support of the entire population veered towards the son of Ptolemy, and a plot was hatched against Demetrius. Assassins were dispatched to deal with him when he had come to the bed of his mother-in-law. Arsinoë, however, heard her daughter’s voice as the latter stood at the door giving orders for her mother to be spared, and for a little while she protected her lover by shielding him with her body.” The passage is completely misunderstood by Clayman, 2014, p. 38: not Berenice protected her mother’s lover with her body but Apama herself.
31 Just., 39.1.4: “Moreover, Ptolemy, king of Egypt, who was also under attack from Demetrius, now learned that his sister Cleopatra had set the treasures of Egypt on board ship and sought refuge in Syria with her daughter and her son-in-law Demetrius.”
32 Just., 7.6.10 (Philip II marries the daughter of king Neoptolemus II), 12.10.9 (Alexander marries a daughter of Darius), 14.6.13 (Cassander marries Philip’s daughter Thessalonice), 17.2.15 (Pyrrhus marries a daughter of Ptolemy Ceraunus) and 38.10.10 (Phraates of Parthia marries the daughter of the Seleucid Demetrius II).
33 Just., 7.3.9.
34 Just., 13.6.6.
35 Just., 38.8.5.
36 Just., 11.9.16.
37 Just., 7.3.3 (the Persian legates in Macedonia), 11.9.12 and 11.12.7 (Darius’daughters captured and consoled by Alexander).
38 Just., 9.7.12.
39 Just., 7.4.7.
40 Just., 26.3.8. Cf. below for the full citation of the passage.
41 Just., 11.9.14: That this probably should include the daughters can only be deduced from the list of female captives in 11.9.12. Cf. Yardley & Heckel, 1997, ad locum.
42 Nevertheless Berenice is presented as saving her mother’s live: Just., 26.3.7. In addition to these five actions of daughters there is also Thessalonice shown rather deferentially accompanying her stepmother Olympias to Pydna: Just., 14.6.3.
43 Just., 39.4.6: “digna prorsus hac mortis infamia, quae et matrem toro expulit”.
44 Just., 7.4.5-7: “He had three sons by Eurydice: Alexander, Perdiccas, and Philip, the father of Alexander the Great of Macedon, as well as a daughter, Euryone. By Gygaea he had Archelaus, Arridaeus and Menelaus. […] Moreover, Amyntas would have fallen victim to the treachery of his wife Eurydice (she had made a pact to marry her son-in-law, undertaking to kill her husband and hand the crown to her lover) had their daughter not divulged her mother’s liaison and criminal intentions.” For the historical background see Carney, 2000, p. 38-50; Fündling, 2014, p. 28-41.
45 Just., 7.5.4-8.
46 Cf. already Hammond, 1991, p. 497 noting that Justin presents her as “a monster of villainy, infidelity, lust and ruthlessness”. On Roman ideals concerning women cf. Späth, 1994, p. 56-58, 92-93, 115 and 315-317.
47 On Roman ideals concerning female marital behaviour cf. Dixon, 1992, p. 58-59, Späth, 1994, p. 58 and 315. On Roman ideals concerning maternal conduct see Hallett, 1984, p. 256-261; Dixon, 1988, p. 170, 177, 188-189 and 215-220; Späth, 1994, p. 56 and 315-316.
48 Just., 7.5.7-8: “It was indeed a cruel blow that these children should have been murdered by their mother and sacrificed to her lust when it was consideration of these same children which had once rescued her from punishment for her crimes. The murder of Perdiccas seemed all the more scandalous in that the mother’s pity was not stirred even by the fact that he had an infant son.”
49 Just., 26.3.2-8: “During the same period King Magas of Cyrene died. Before his illness Magas had betrothed his only daughter Berenice to his brother Ptolemy’s son in order to end his quarrel with Ptolemy. After the king’s death, however, the girl’s mother, Arsinoë, wished to annul the marriage, which had been arranged against her wishes. She sent a deputation to summon from Macedonia Demetrius, brother of King Antigonus, to marry the young woman and assume the throne of Cyrene, Demetrius being himself the son of a daughter of Ptolemy. Demetrius wasted no time. The winds in his favour, he came swiftly to Cyrene; but from the start he behaved arrogantly through confidence in his good looks, with which his mother-in-law had already started to become infatuated. He was overbearing in his dealings with the royal family and the military; and he had also turned his attempts to ingratiate himself from the girl to her mother. This first made the girl suspicious, then it provoked the animosity of the people and the soldiers. Consequently, the support of the entire population veered towards the son of Ptolemy, and a plot was hatched against Demetrius. Assassins were dispatched to deal with him, when he had come to the bed of his mother-in-law. Arsinoë, however, heard her daughter’s voice as the latter stood at the door giving orders for her mother to be spared, and for a little while she protected her lover by shielding him with her body. But killed he was, and Berenice, while satisfying her filial duty, at one stroke punished her mother’s scandalous conduct and also complied with her father’s judgement in her choice of a husband.”
50 On Demetrius’s characterisation by Justin cf. already Clayton, 2014, p. 36-38, doubting that Demetrius was the adventurer he appears to be in Justin.
51 Overlooked by Clayton, 2014, p. 38, who seems to believe that Justin presents her as leader of the assassins.
52 Cf. X., Hier., 3.3; Plin., nat., 14.89-91; Gell., 10.23.3-5. Cf. also Clayton, 2014, p. 38, commenting that, in spite of presenting Berenice as leader of the ambush on Demetrius, she benefits from a favourable undertone in Justin. Of course, Justin does not present Berenice as leader of the ambush.
53 Just., 26.3.8. See above for the citation.
54 Just., 2.6.8 and 18.4.3.
55 Just., 1.4.4, 1.10.14, 2.5.9, 2.15.14, 16.5.2, 21.4.2, 32.3.13, 42.3.1, 43.1.9, 43.3.9 and 44.4.2.
56 Just., 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.9.15, 1.9.17, 2.5.9, 13.7.8, 18.4.3-4, 21.4.2, 43.3.9 and 43.3.11. Whether the Cyprii in Just., 18.5.4, who sent their daughters to the coast in order to earn their dowry by prostitution should be imagined as the maidens’ fathers is better left open.
57 Just., 1.4.4, 2.5.9, 13.7.8, 21.4.2, 43.3.9 and 43.3.11.
58 Just., 1.10.14, 2.5.9, 2.15.14, 3.4.1, 13.7.7, 16.5.2, 21.3.2-8, 32.3.1, 43.2.2 and 43.3.1-2.
59 Just., 1.10.14, 2.5.9, 2.15.14, 3.4.1, 13.7.7, 32.3.13 and 42.3.1-2.
60 Just., 16.5.2, 21.3.3 and 43.2.2.
61 Just., 1.9.16 and 18, 43.3.11.
62 Just., 1.9.17-18: “Tum pertractare caput dormienti iubet, nam mago Cambyses aures utrasque praeciderat. Factus dein per filiam certior sine auribus regem esse […].” Just., 43.3.11: “Introducta deinde virgo cum iuberetur a patre aquam porrigere ei, quem virum eligeret, tunc omissis omnibus ad Graecos conversa aquam Proti porrigit […].”
63 Reactive female action as gender norm: Späth, 1994, p. 115 and 317; deference expected from daughters versus their fathers: Hallet, 1984, p. 136-147; Dixon, 1992, p. 131; Späth, 1994, p. 80.
64 Späth, 1994, p. 115 and 317. On expectations concerning submissive behaviour of daughters cf. also Hallett, 1984, p. 107, 243 and 246; Dixon, 1988, p. 221-222.
65 On this important difference see Späth, 1994, p. 57; cf. also p. 313-315.
66 Though the book is affected by serious problems of methodology (cf. e. g. Bradley, 1985 and Treggiari, 1986) an idealisation of the daughter’s familial position in Rome can also be deduced from Hallet, 1984.
67 On ideals of the daughter-mother relation in Roman society cf. Hallet, 1984, p. 259-262; Dixon, 1988, p. 210-228.
68 Cf. Dixon, 1988, p. 221-222; Späth, 1994, p. 56.
69 Cf. Dixon, 1992, p. 71-73; Späth, 1994, p. 115 and 315.
70 Just., 39.4.6: “quae et matrem toro expulit”.
71 In Justin the complicated history of the royal trio consisting of Ptolemy VIII, Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III in different compositions is simplified into a linear chronology. Cf. now the contributions in Jördens & Quack, 2011, and chapter IX in Bielman Sánchez & Lenzo, 2015, for an analysis of the situation. I owe many thanks to Anne Bielman Sánchez for sending me the manuscript of this chapter.
72 Just., 38.8.5: “Ptolemy also divorced his sister, raping her virgin daughter and then marrying her.”
73 On the rather hostile tradition on Ptolemy VIII, cf. Nadig, 2007, esp. p. 138-199, on Justin in particular, p. 173-179.
74 Cf. Salomone, 1973, p. 106: “un giudizio conclusivo e moraleggiante su Cleopatra III”. Cf. also Seel, 1972b, p. 197-198.
75 Cf. already Thompson, 1989, p. 696, stating that “Kleopatra III is the villainess of the piece”.
76 Cf. Dixon, 1992, p. 63-64.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
La collection Ad usum Delphini. Volume I
L'Antiquité au miroir du Grand Siècle
Catherine Volpilhac-Auger (dir.)
2000
Devenir roi
Essais sur la littérature adressée au Prince
Isabelle Cogitore et Francis Goyet (dir.)
2001
L’Éloge du Prince
De l’Antiquité au temps des Lumières
Isabelle Cogitore et Francis Goyet (dir.)
2003
La collection Ad usum Delphini. Volume II
L’Antiquité au miroir du Grand Siècle
Martine Furno (dir.)
2005
Des rois au Prince
Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l'Orient hellénistique et romain (IVe siècle avant J.-C. - IIe siècle après J.-C.)
Ivana Savalli-Lestrade et Isabelle Cogitore (dir.)
2010
Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome
IIIe siècle avant J.-C. - Ier après J.-C.
Anne Bielman Sánchez, Isabelle Cogitore et Anne Kolb (dir.)
2016
Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome
iiie siècle av. J.-C.-ier siècle apr. J.-C.
Isabelle Cogitore, Anne Bielman Sánchez et Anne Kolb (dir.)
2021