Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

NOTES TO PAGES 9–11 235
2006: 155 n. 104 observes, assuming Pixodarus was aware of A rrhidaeus’
limitations (evidently responsible for his characteristic passivity), he
may have looked favorably at this situation since it meant that
Pixodarus’ daughter would assume the dominant position in governing
Caria, thus perpetuating the practice of rule by Hecatomnid
females.
21. Heckel 1981b: 54.
22. Whitehorne 1994: 37.
23. Adapted from translation by Perrin 1928.
24. Demosthenes (18. 294–96) rails against Demaratus (among others)
for his early, traitorous support of Philip—his philippismos, to use Demosthenes’
word. Certainly collapse of Philip’s power would have entailed
great danger for Demaratus and his haste to admonish Philip and facilitate
termination of potentially debilitating strife in the Argead house is
understandable.
25. Thus Carney 2003a: 235.
26. Philip was certainly reminded of the dissension within the Argead
house following the death of his father Amyntas III and would want at all
costs to avoid actual hostilities which might fragment Macedon as internecine
confl ict had in the 360s. Mortensen 1992: 56–71 provides a good
description of the situation at that time.
27. All Plutarch probably really knew was that Philip and Alexander
were reconciled. Since the rift had originated with Attalus’ implied disparagement
of Alexander’s lineage and Philip’s failure to protest, Plutarch
imagines that the evident healing had to involve Philip’s validation of
Alexander’s lineage, which Plutarch presents in Greek terms by contrasting
Alexander with a “barbarian”—worse, actually, the “slave of a barbarian
king.”
28. Contra Hatzopoulos 1982b: 61; Arrian’s attribution ( Anab. 3.6.5) of
Philip’s exile of Alexander’s “friends” to the estrangement between P hilip
and Alexander because of Philip’s marriage with Cleopatra does not necessarily
contradict Plutarch’s report that Philip exiled Alexander’ friends
at the end of the Pixodarus affair ( Alex. 10.3). The fracas at the wedding
celebration was after all the beginning of the estrangement out of which
the Pixodarus affair and ultimately the banishment of Alexander’s friends
proceeded (Hamilton 1969: 27). We may imagine that in Pella prior to his
fl ight to Illyria, Alexander as crown prince had his own cadre of hetairoi
paralleling that of the king and representing his own special subordinates.
On hetairoi, see Heckel 2003: 205.
29. On Alexander’s (possible) complicity, see Badian 1963: 244–50
and Badian 2000: 54. Carney 1992a: 169–89 provides a good discussion
of ancient and modern views about Alexander’s and Olympias’
roles in P hilip’s assassination. Fredericksmeyer 1990: 300–15, follows