No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Alexander Helios and Caesarion1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
Dr. W. W. Tarn in his article in JRS xxii, 135 ff., has convincingly argued that in 37 B.C. Antony re-named his two children by Cleopatra, with the intention of using the name Alexander Helios in particular to attract the sentiment and religious enthusiasm of the East. His article is not concerned with the result of this propaganda, and the present note is an attempt to consider the literary evidence for its success or failure.
In the first place we should expect that, if Antony wished to give prominence to Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene, he would be forced to minimise to some extent the claims of other children of himself or of Cleopatra. Of these children Caesarion is by far the most important. As early as 42 Cleopatra had been given permission by the Triumvirs to proclaim him King of Egypt, in return for the help she had sent to Dolabella (Dio xlvii, 31, 5). He continued to retain the title until his death, and there seems to have been no attempt to subordinate him to the other children : if anything, his position becomes more important as he grows older.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Name of Author 1934
References
2 See below, p. 194.
3 This paper attempts to show that the account, given by Dio and Plutarch, of two donations is not inaccurate. J. Dobiáš (Mélanges Bidez (1934, p. 287) prefers the account of Josephus. He has not, I think, dealt adequately with Kromayer's fifth objection to Josephus' narrative (op. cit., p. 306), because χρόνον μέν τινα κ.τ.λ. (Ant. xv, 107) implies that Malchos had made at least two full payments and had then become increasingly refractory. The period from the late spring of 34 to the early summer of 32 is too short, while the period 36–32 would be adequate. This upsets the account of Josephus, who probably either did not know of the first donation or attached far more importance to its formal ratification in 34. It is to be noted that he fails to give any details about the actual beneficiaries, but attributes all the territory to Cleopatra, the modern Rahab and enemy of his hero, Herod.
4 Tarn, , JRS xxii, 145Google Scholar.
5 παρὰ πάντα ὲπέφερεν αὐτῷ τήν τε Κλεοπάτραν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας οὓς ὲξ αὐτῆς ἀνήρητο, τἄ τε ὀωρηθέντα σφισί, καὶ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ὅτι τὸν Καισαρίωνα ἐπωνόμαζεν οὕτω καὶ ἐς τὸ τοῦ Καίσαρος γένος ἦγε. Dio l, i. 5.