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

NOTES TO PAGES 31–33 247
64. Cf. Hamilton 1966: 235–41; Hampl 1965: 32; Fredricksmeyer
1991: 201; 1990: 311–12. The propaganda of Alexander’s special relationship
with Zeus-Ammon played an important role. The story about
the paternity of Zeus-Ammon being confi rmed at Siwah, however, is to
be seen in the context of the offi cial reception of the new pharaoh by
the Egyptian priests and should not be over-interpreted as implying
that it was Alexander’s purpose to disown Philip. Cf. Engels 2006:
53–54; Heckel 2008: 72. Callisthenes endorsed Alexander’s divine
descent in his offi cial report and gives the impression that the oracles
from Branchidae and Erythrae confi rmed his divine origins. Even
though Callisthenes’ propaganda was not successful, it was clear to him
that the special bond between Zeus-Ammon and Alexander was not
meant to replace Philip as a divine physical father or to render Alexander
divine in his own right. Cf. Bosworth 1980–95: ii, 75–76. On the
legend cf. Stoneman 2008: 6–21.
65. Cf. Wirth 1985a: 163–66. Alexander probably did not understand
why Philip gave in to the hostile court faction. But Philip made him
return from his voluntary exile in Illyria in 337 and signaled that he was
willing to be reconciled with him and his Molossian supporters by celebrating
the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra with her uncle Alexander
of Molossia. This was also a sign of reconciliation with Olympias who
was probably present at the wedding. Cf. Carney 2006: 37; 2000a: 66.
66. Plut. Alex. 9.3–5; 10.4; Just. 9.7. Cf. Carney 2006: 2–4.
67. Cf. Fredricksmeyer 1990: 313–14. See also Hamilton 1966:
156–67.
68. Cf. Carney 2006: 6–7.
69. Cf. Wirth 1985c: 104–05; Engels 2006: 52.
70. Cf. Arr. Anab. 7.9.1–6.
71. Curt. 6.11.23–24; 8.1.43; 8.7.13–14; Arr. Anab. 7.8.2–3; Diod.
17.108.2–3; Just. 12.11.5–6; Plut. Alex. 50.6.
72. Arr. Anab. 1.11.8; 3.3.1–2; 4.11.6; Plut. Alex. 2.1; Pyrrh. 1; Paus.
1.11.1. Cf. Ameling 1988: 657–92; Carney 2003b: 47–48. See also Zahrnt
1996: 129–47.
Chapter 4
1. Ellis 1976: 203–09; Heckel 1979: 390–91.
2. Hammond (and Griffi th) 1979: 664–65. Coinage: Le Rider 1977:
365, 413, pls. 6–22, 30–35 and 53–82.
3. The Philippeum was published in detail by Schleif et al. 1944.
4. Cf. (Hammond and) Griffi th 1979: 691–95; Borza 1990: 250; Lapatin
2001: 115–19; Carney 2007a: 37–39; Worthington 2008: 164–66, 231.