Arsinoe: Dynastic Origins

Arsinoe1, daughter of Meleager, and descended from the kings of

Macedon2, of unknown maternity and chronology, said to have been a
concubine of Philip II king of Macedon3, married to Lagus4, mother of
Ptolemy I5 and probably of Menelaus6.

[1] Not in PP. Gr: Α ρ σ ι ν ο η .⇑

[2] The ancestry shown is based on that given in an

extract from Satyrus (FGrH 631 fr 2), preserved in
Theophilus 2.7. This gives a complete patrilineal descent
for Arsinoe from Heracles and then onwards to Ptolemy
IV. A copy of a portion of this, covering the generations
down to Aeropus, and also giving some female ancestry,
was found in pOxy 25.2465. The generations from
Perdiccas I to Amyntas I are also supplied in Herodotus
8.139, where they are represented as the genealogy of
the Macedonian kings; the number of kings preceding
Archelaus, grandson of Alexander I, is stated to be 8 in
Thucydides 2.100, and their claim to descent from the
Argive Temenos in Thucydides 2.99. The list is also
given in Justin 7.2 (omitting Alcetas) and Eusebius,
Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 229, who also presents
reign-lengths, though the basis for these is uncertain.

Evidently Satyrus was a contemporary of Ptolemy IV.

However, the claim of royal Macedonian descent through
Arsinoe appears to be older. Ptolemy III, in the Adulis
inscription (OGIS 54, trans. E. R. Bevan, The House of
Ptolemy 192f., M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from
Alexander to the Roman Conquest 365 (221)), which is
believed to date from early in his reign, states that
Ptolemy I was descended on his mother's side from
Dionysos. Theocritus Idyll 17, written under Ptolemy II,
says that that king was descended from Heracles, who
was also an ancestor of Alexander, though Theocritus
gives no indication as to how this came about.

In later times, Arsinoe was said to have been a

concubine or a prostitute at the royal Macedonian court
(Curtius 9.8.22). W. W. Tarn, JHS 53 (1933) 57, in
discussing the story that Ptolemy I was a son of Philip
II, dismisses the possibility that Arsinoe was of royal
ancestry for this reason. His argument was that if the
story was true her status would have been such that
Philip II would simply have married her. But this
assumes that Philip II really was the father of Ptolemy I,
which is almost certainly false. Yet, whatever her
morals, she was evidently connected well enough that
Ptolemy I could be launched on his career as a
companion of Alexander. There is no suggestion that
Lagos had any such connections -- instead, he is in
some sources made to carry the burden of giving
respectability to Arsinoe's bastard son by marrying her
when she was pregnant with him (see the discussion of
Ptolemy I's paternity). In fact this is exactly what one
might expect to happen if a girl of good family became
pregnant while unmarried. So the picture presented in
the genealogy of Satyrus, that she was the daughter of
a minor branch of the royal family, is eminently
plausible, if not directly verifiable.

The generations from Heracles to Perdiccas I are omitted

from the chart as being universally agreed to be
legendary. For completeness they are: Heracles the son
of Zeus had by Deianira daughter of Dionysos and
Althea, the daughter of Thestius Hyllus; who had by
[name lost] Cleodaios (or Cleodemos); who had by
[name lost] Aristomachos; who had by [name lost]
Temenus; who had by Dor[...] Ceisus; who had Maron;
who had Thestrus; who had Acous; who had
Aristodamidas; who had Caranus; who had by Lan[ike]
Coenus; who had by Kleonike Tyrimmas the father of
Perdiccas. Heracles has his own complex genealogy
connecting him to the legendary dynasties of the
Mycenean age, which is discussed here, but is far
beyond the scope of this webpage.

From Perdiccas I onwards the traditon is today regarded

as "proto-historical". The following remarks give brief
commentary on the ancestry as presented here.
Additional remarks may be found online by E. Badian,
Studies in the History of Art 10 (1967), and W. S.
Greenwalt, AHB 10.2 (1996) 47. See also N. G. L.
Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia II
13.

i) Perdiccas I: He is presented as founder

of the kingdom of Macedon in Herodotus
8.137. This evidently represents
Macedonian tradition of the time of
Perdiccas II of the mid 5th century BC,
and probably at least a generation earlier.
While Perdiccas I may have been named
for Perdiccas II, it is more likely to be the
other way round, since the latter's father,
Alexander I, had had to produce an Argive
ancestry that was sufficiently convincing
to have allowed him to compete in the
Olympic games (Herodotus 5.22),
probably before his accession. Eusebius,
Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 229 gives
Perdiccas I 48 years.

In later times, the origins of the kingdom

were pushed back to his supposed great-
grandfather Caranus, then said to be the
16th generation from Heracles and
brother of Pheidon king of Argos. This
story is recorded by Theopompus of Chios
and by Justin 7.1. Caranus is said to have
driven Midas of Phrygia out of those parts
of Macedon which he occupied. Eusebius,
Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 229, gives
Caranus, Coenus and Tyrimmas 30, 28
and 43 years respectively. At root, the
name "Caranus" means "lord" or "chief".
However, A. Daskelakis, The Hellenism of
the Ancient Macedonians, points out that
it is also attested as the name of a 6th
century Spartan general. He suggests that
"Caranus" was orginally a title used by the
founder of the Macedonian royal house,
but that in later times its original meaning
was lost, and that, since the term had by
then become a proper name, it was
supposed that Caranus was a separate
person from Perdiccas. Daskelakis
therefore proposes that Caranus and
Perdiccas I are the same man. Where this
theory leaves Coenus, Lan[ike], Tyrimmas
and Kleonike is unclear. However, it does
seem to square reasonably well with the
traditional chronology of Pheidon, who
reigned in the early part of the 7th
century, and who may well have been a
contemporary of Perdiccas, whether or not
they were in fact related.

ii) Cleopatra: N. G. L. Hammond and G. T.

Griffith, A History of Macedonia II 13,
regard the name as an anachronism,
noting that Perdiccas II also had a wife
called Cleopatra. J. E. G. Whitehorne,
Cleopatras 9ff., argues that the name is
historical, noting that Satyrus had clearly
not provided maternal names in every
generation (though all this really proves is
that Satyrus was careful in respecting the
limitations of his sources). Whitehorne
identifies this Cleopatra with the Cleopatra
named by Tzetzes, Scol. Lycophron
Alexandra 1397, as the sister of king
Midas of Phrygia. He links this to the
"Garden of Midas" mentioned in Herodotus
8.138, and with the story of Justin 7.1
that Caranus, founder of Macedon, drive
Midas out of Macedonia. He conjectures
that in fact Perdiccas dispossessed a local
chieftain called Midas, whose sister
(Cleopatra) he had previously married.

iii) Argaeus: Omitted by Theophilus,

presumably in error. He is named in
Herodotus 8.139, pOxy 25.2465, Eusebius
Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene) 229, and
presumed in Thucydides 2.100.
iv) Argaeus to Alcetas: These generations
are names only. Eusebius Chronicorum I
(ed. Schoene) 229 gives them reign-
lengths as follows: Argaeus: 38 years;
Philip I: 33; Aeropus: 20; Alcetas: 18. As
noted by W. S. Greenwalt, AHB 10.2
(1996) 47, later Macedonian history
suggests that it is highly unlikely that the
succession was anything like as smooth as
this list implies. However, that does not
mean the ancestry is substantially wrong.
While the Macedonian succession was
chaotic in the fourth century, in the fifth
the kings were quite long-reigned, even
though they often had to struggle to
maintain their position. This may well
represent the reality of earlier times. So,
the ancestry may well be substantially
correct, even if the actual succession of
kings has been sanitised -- that is, each
king was the dominant king of his
generation, and gave rise to the next.
Alternatively, since we cannot prove that
any of these individuals actually acted as
king, we may have here the ancestry of
the cadet branch that finally resulted in
Amyntas, which was later promoted as a
succession of kings. A more serious
complaint against this portion of the
genealogy is the fact that the number of
generations given here has the effect of
making the Macedonian house as old as
the Achaemenids of Persia, so it is quite
possible that this section of the list was
doctored, probably by Amyntas I, in order
to produce this effect. If we are correct
that the list was first publicised by
Alexander I before his accession, or early
in his reign, then Alcetas at least will have
been in living memory, so Aeropus and
Philip are likely to have been correctly
remembered.

v) Amyntas I: The first apparently

historical king of Macedon. He is
mentioned in Herodotus 5.17 as having
received the envoys of Darius I on the
occasion of Darius' invasion of Greece. His
daughter Gygea married the Persian
Bubares (Herodotus 5.21, 8.136, Justin
7.4), son of Megabazus who had
commanded that invasion of Greece, and
had a son Amyntas who was an adult at
the time of the invasion of Xerxes.
Eusebius Chronicorum I (ed. Schoene)
229 gives him 42 years.

The genealogy as preserved by Theophilus

jumps straight from Amyntas to Balacrus,
but this cannot be right. Amyntas I was a
contemporary of Darius I, i.e. in the late
6th century, but Balacrus apparently lived
only three generations before Ptolemy I,
i.e. in the mid-late 5th century. There
appear to be two missing generations. K.
J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte IV.2
177, noted that the youngest son of
Alexander I was another Amyntas
(Syncellus 500), father of Arrhidaeus
father of Amyntas III, the father of Philip
II (Diodorus 14.92, 15.60). According to
Syncellus, Amyntas was the youngest son
of Alexander I and lived a private life, not
taking part in the dynastic feuds that took
place at Alexander's death. Beloch
suggested that Theophilus had elided
Alexander I and this Amyntas, and that
Satyrus' original genealogy showed
Amyntas father of [Alexander father of
Amyntas father of] Balacrus. We know
from the case of Argaeus that Theophilus
is capable of such omissions.
Unfortunately, pOxy 2465 breaks off
before reaching this portion of the
genealogy, so the conjecture cannot as
yet be verified. However, it is plausible
and widely accepted.

vi) Balacrus: The name as given by

Theophilus is "Bokros", which is otherwise
unknown in the Greek onomasticon.
However, the name "Balakros" is quite
well known, including Balacrus son of
Amyntas, a commander of Alexander's.
The existence of this Ba[la]crus is not
independently attested.

vii) Meleager: The existence of this

Meleager is not independently attested,
however a younger, probably second, son
of Ptolemy I by Eurydice, briefly king of
Macedon in 279, bore the name, which he
may well have taken from his father's
maternal grandfather. ⇑
 [3] Curtius 9.8.22. ⇑

[4] Aelian fr 285.17 in Suda, Λ α γ ο ς .⇑

[5] Satyrus FGrH 631 F 2; Aelian fr 285.17 in Suda,

Λ α γ ο ς . It is doubtful that Lagus was the father of
Ptolemy I. ⇑

[6] See discussion under Menelaus. ⇑

Update Notes:

12 Feb 2002: Add individual charts

18 Feb 2002: Split out into separate entry
18 May 2003: Kill dead links to AHB
23 Aug 2003: Add links to online editon of Justin
24 Feb 2004: Added Xref to texts of Curtius and Theocritus
6 April 2004: Added discussion of Tarn's argument against Arsinoe's connection to the Macedonian royal family
6 April 2004: Restored AHB link via Internet Wayback Machine (thanks David Meadows). THIS IS SLOW.
19 May 2004: Back out AHB links again, since the thought police have got to the IWM. Found a new site for
Theophilus Xref
16 Sept 2004: Added Xrefs to Suda
11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription, link to Bevan
12 Sep 2006: Link to Packhard Humanities epigraphical database