TRANSMITTERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF POWER: ROYAL WOMEN IN ANCIENT MACEDONIA* Two sentences pronounced by two of the most important figures in the history of Alexander the Great and his successors illustrate the opinion concerning women’s intervention in politics that was held in Macedonia towards the end of the fourth century BC. Significantly, both sentences referred to the same main figures, namely the regent Antipater and Alexander’s mother Olympias, whose mutual animosity filled some of the most dramatic pages in ancient history. We owe the first sentence to Alexander the Great, from the time he learned that Olympias and his sister Cleopatra had raised a faction against Antipater and divided his realm between them, the former taking Epirus, and the latter Macedonia. When Alexander heard this, he declared that his mother had made the better choice, for «the Macedo- nians would not submit to being ruled by a woman»1. The second sen- tence was pronounced by the regent of Macedonia, Antipater, on his deathbed, when he advised the Macedonians «to never permit a woman to rule the kingdom»2. Surely he had in mind his struggle with Olympias. The authenticity of both sentences — especially the latter — has been questioned3. However, if we take into account the actual ‘success’ achieved by women in Macedonian politics, as will be shown further on, it seems very plausible that these words were actually pronounced. They * Special abbreviations (journal sigla are those of L’Année Philologique): HM: N.G.L. HAMMOND et al., A History of Macedonia, Oxford, II (550-336 B.C.) 1979; III (336-167 B.C.) 1988. HQ: G.H. MACURDY, Hellenistic Queens. A Study of Women-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt, Baltimore 1932. 1 Plut., Alex. 68.3: kaì toÕto âkoúsav ˆAlézandrov béltion ∂fj bebouleÕsqai t®n mjtéra· Makédonav gàr oûk ån üpome⁄nai basileuoménouv üpò gunaikóv. 2 Diod. XIX 11.9: Ωv kaqáper xrjsmwçd¬n êpì t±v teleut±v parekeleúsato mjdépote sugxwr±sai gunaikì t±v basileíav prostat±sai. 3 Carney relates them more to Greek ideology than to the Macedonians themselves. Alexander’s statement, if true, should «be viewed in the context of his desire to be seen as Greek» (E. CARNEY, Olympias and the Image of the Virago, Phoenix 47, 1993, p. 29- 55, at p. 34). The second, placed after the account of the murder of Adea Eurydice by Olympias, would be an invention of Diodorus himself and a fable about what could hap- pen if women had power «and perhaps primarily reflects more general Greek views about women and political activity» (ibid., p. 44). 36 D. MIRON reflect widespread feeling in many Macedonian circles and agree with the belief held throughout the classical world. The ‘threat’ of a direct intervention of women in politics came true. Not only did Olympias become a major figure in Macedonian politics even before Alexander’s death, but after Antipater’s death she also suc- ceeded in seizing leadership or prostasía, thus fulfilling the fears of her enemy, though only for a short time. This word, prostasía, can indicate more a de facto than a de jure position4. However, she did so in representation of the true king, her grandson Alexander IV. Officially, the regency continued in a man’s hands. Diodorus of Sicily said of Olympias that she «had attained the high- est dignity among the women of her day»5. Certainly, she is one of the most controversial and outstanding feminine figures in ancient history, and one with the worst press from Antiquity until the present day. On the other hand, this was the usual attitude towards women who took part in politics6. Much has been written about Olympias, mostly against her (it is no coincidence that the final victory was for her enemies7) and her 4 As it was offered to her by the regent, Polyperchon (Diod. XVIII 48.4). For the term prostasía, see N.G.L. HAMMOND, Some Passages in Arrian concerning Alexan- der, CQ N.S. 30 (1980), p. 455-476, esp. 474-475, who argues that the prostasía was held, already in the reign of Alexander, by Cleopatra in Macedonia and Olympias in Epirus. Prostasía designates the quality of guardian or of who holds the first place. Of a different opinion are R.M. ERRINGTON, From Babylon to Tripiadersos: 323-320 B.C., JHS 89 (1970), p. 55-56, who considers it more a position of honour than of power, and E. CARNEY, Women and Basileia: Legitimacy and Female Political Action in Macedonia, CJ 90 (1994-95), p. 367-391, who has rightly stated that it was not a defined office. 5 Diod. XIX 51.6: ˆOlumpíav mèn oŒn, mégiston t¬n kaq’ aût®n êsxjkuía âzíwma [kaì gegenjménj qugátjr]. 6 See E. CARNEY, The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the Murder of Philip, Historia 41 (1992), p. 169-189, esp. 186-189, and in particular Olympias (n. 3), p. 29-55. We must remark that the sources for this period come mainly from the Roman Empire, where political intervention by the ladies of the imperial family was frequent and often considered the cause of the evils that afflicted the Empire. Cf. M.D. MIRON PÉREZ, Mujeres, religión y poder: el culto imperial en el Occidente Mediterráneo, Granada 1996, p. 21-22. On the treatment ancient literary sources give to women in gen- eral, see C. MARTINEZ LOPEZ, Reflexiones sobre la historia de las mujeres en el mundo antiguo, in Actas del 1er Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua, Santiago de Com- postela 1988, p. 205-217. On consideration by political theories, see A.W. SAXONHOUSE, Women in the History of Political Thought. Ancient Greece to Machiavelli, New York 1985. 7 Cf. W.W. TARN, Alexander the Great, Oxford 1948, II, p. 261; J.R. ELLIS, The Assassination of Philip II, in Ancient Macedonian Studies in honor of Ch.F. Edson, Thes- saloniki 1981, p. 99-137; E. CARNEY, Politics (n. 6), p. 186. ROYAL WOMAN IN ANCIENT MACEDONIA 37 activities had considerable echo in ancient literary sources8. Her figure clashed with prevailing attitudes, not only in Macedonia, but also throughout the ancient world. Although the figure of Eurydice, Philip II’s mother9, preceded her, we can affirm that Olympias was the very forerunner for Hellenistic women involved in politics. If we confine our- selves to Macedonia, mention must be made of Cynnane, Adea Eury- dice, Cleopatra, Roxane and Thessalonice, among others, in the context of the struggles for the succession of Alexander10. This direct intervention in politics did not come about by chance, but was stimulated to a large extent by several factors. First, the absence of suitable men in the Macedonian royal family after Alexander’s death (a threat to the continuity of the Argead dynasty) and its coincidence with the presence of highly capable and ambitious women. The long absence of Alexander from Macedonia had already encouraged Olympias and Cleopatra to establish their positions and broaden their spheres of influ- ence11. Once Alexander had died (323 BC), both his incapable brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, and his posthumous son, Alexander IV, were appointed as legitimate heirs and kings. In this situation, and within the ensuing power struggle in which the conqueror’s generals were involved, the women were the only members of the Macedonian royal house capable of action. Nevertheless, ultimately these women failed; they were eliminated by the Successors. First, because it was considered undesirable for women 8 On Olympias, see basically G.H. MACURDY, HQ, p. 22-45; E. CARNEY, Olympias, AncSoc 18 (1987), p. 35-60. 9 She has been quite forgotten by contemporary scholarship. See G.H. MACURDY, Queen Eurydice and the Evidence for Women Power in Early Macedonia, AJPh 48 (1927), p. 201-214; K. MORTENSEN, Eurydice: Demonic or Devoted Mother?, AHB 6 (1992), p. 156-171. Earlier female interventions in Macedonian politics are almost unknown, and we should take into account that we lack a great deal of information on this period. Cf. G.H. MACURDY, HQ, p. 13-17. 10 E. CARNEY’S monograph Women and Monarchy in Ancient Macedonia, Oklahoma 2000, only appeared while the present article was in the press and therefore could not be taken into account here. The only other general study on Macedonian ‘queens’ is that by G.H. MACURDY, HQ, p. 13-76. Particularly on women of Alexander’s family, E. CARNEY, The Career of Adea-Eurydike, Historia 36 (1987), p. 496-502; The Sisters of Alexander the Great. Royal Relicts, Historia 37 (1988), p. 385-404; Olympias, Adea Eurydice, and the End of the Argead Dynasty, in I. WORTHINGTON (ed.), Ventures into Greek History, Oxford 1994, p. 357-380; W. HECKEL, Adea-Eurydike, Glotta 61 (1983), p. 40-42, and Kynnane the Illyrian, RSA 13-14 (1983-84), p. 193-200; G.H. MACURDY, Roxane and Alexander IV in Epirus, JHS 52 (1932), p. 256-261. On Antigonid queens, S. LE BOHEC, Les reines de Macédoine à l’époque hellénistique, CCG 4 (1993), p. 229-245. 11 Cf. E. CARNEY, Olympias (n. 8), p. 48-56. 38 D. MIRON to hold power. For that reason, successful women are scarce in the polit- ical field throughout Antiquity. Second, because the struggle was basi- cally decided in a military fashion, and women were banned from mili- tary power in both Macedonia and Greece. It can be said that in the hardness of the struggles the success rate was equally low for men, but, aside from the common obstacles, women also encountered the limita- tions of their gender12. Once the critical situation was over, with the Argead dynasty extin- guished and the Antigonids settled on the throne of Macedonia, these ‘strong women’ disappeared as well.