[Long]: Settipani on Baldwin on the Commagenian DFA link Part 1 of 3
Chris Bennett
parts for the email gateway. -- Chris
Background –
Anyone on this group who has looked at all seriously at the possibility of
there being traceable descents from antiquity (DFA) is aware of Christian
Settipani's book "Nos ancetres de l'antiquite" [abbreviated by him as
LGA.]. A couple of years ago, as part of a discussion on another proposed
DFA, Stewart Baldwin published a critique of some aspects of this work
(available in the archives on DejaNews or RootWeb under the title:
"Comments on 'Iberian route' DFA line" dated 8 June 1996). In particular,
Stewart attacked his proposals to find an Arsacid descent from the
Seleucids via the Commagenian kings. As I was in contact with M Settipani
at the time about other matters, I forwarded this to him for his interest.
He has recently sent me a copy of the most recent addenda and corrigenda to
his works, which includes an extensive discussion of the points raised by
Stewart on the Commagenian link. With M Settipani's permission I am
posting a translation of this discussion. I should note that this
response was written two years ago. He tells me that he regards it as
perhaps a little heated, and that if he wrote it today it would be a little
less personal. Also, while my translation has been approved by him, my
French is certainly imperfect, and I apologise in advance both to him and
to the group for any errors that exist.
Chris Bennett
***************
It is appropriate to comment here at greater length on the very interesting
criticisms recently raised by Baldwin (1996) on genealogical ascendancies
to antiquity in general, more particularly that proposed by Regula (1995)
but also to our own work. As far as the "Iberian" route is concerned, we
can only agree with the reservations he expresses. We have already written
[LGA I, p73 n1] that the genealogy of the Iberian kings according to the
Georgian chronicles [now readily accessible in the translation of R W
Thomson, 1996] is unacceptable. Toumanoff, the champion of their
historicity, has of course explained each of the discrepancies between
their data and the data provided by other sources, the greater part of
which are contemporary, but it seems to us that the only reasonable
attitude to take consists of removing the Georgian data before the end of
the 8th century. We should return rather to the study of Marquart (1903,
pp391-465, summary pp 431-3) augmented by new epigraphic data such as that
made most recently Braund (1994) – see also Martin-Hisard, 1996 (a). A DFA
route through the Iberian kings thus seems quite hazardous, the filiation
of the dynasty being ultimately incomplete and their links with the
Arsacids or the Artaxiads, while probable, obscure
As to ourselves, M Baldwin essentially focusses on our generations 35 to
38. We argue there that Vonones II, king of Media Atropatene, then of
Parthia was linked through his anonymous father, possibly a "Darius", to a
marriage between the Median king Artavasdes and the daughter of Antiochus
I, king of Commagene. Our basis for this is essentially the evidence of
Strabo, who wrote, c18-19AD, that the kings of Media Atropatene,
descendants of Atropates, reigned again after being successively linked in
marriage to the Armenians, the Syrians, and more recently to the Parthians.
M Baldwin admits that Vonones II and Artabanus II must have been brothers,
although this is, as we noted, unproven. He also admits that of the three
Atropatenian marriages cited by Strabo, the first concerns the union of
Mithridates with the daughter of Tigranes II of Armenia, and the third that
of the (unknown) father of Artabanos II and Vonones II with a Parthiam
princess. On the other hand, he underscores that the whole filiation would
break down if any of the following were true:
a) That the second marriage concerns an Atropatenian princess and not a
prince
b) That the "Syria" of which Strabo speaks is not Commagene
c) That, even if we were correct on the above points, Antiochos was not the
father of the princess
d) Or if the prince were the son of a king other than Artavasdes
e) Or if the father of Vonones II, be he prince or Median king, was not an
issue of this union.
In truth, we will not seek here to deny the validity of the objections he
has raised. Rather to the contrary, we willingly recognise that they are
well-founded. None of these points are proven, and it suffices for any one
of them to be in error for the whole linkage to break down. Yet this does
not mean that we were wrong to pursue this path, nor is this absence of
proof necessarily synonymous with a manifest error.
First, it is appropriate to review the evidence of Strabo, which is at the
heart of the problem. If he had simply recounted that in the course of
their history the dynasty of Media had concluded marital alliances with the
dynasties of Armenia, Syria and Parthia, we could legitimately doubt the
exactitude which we have allowed ourselves to draw from him. But this is
not exactly so. Here is what this author wrote in 18/9 AD:
"Having been proclaimed king, Atropates organised Media as an independent
state, and the dynasty descended from him maintains itself there in our own
times, his successors having contracted marriages with the royal families
of Armenia, Syria and, more recently, Parthia."
We must press further the exegesis of the Strabonian text. Strabo does not
content himself to say that there had been marriages between the Median
kings and their neighbours. He states this to explain the survival and
longevity of the Median dynasty. If the Greek text does not explicitly
note the point (the passage on the marriages is introduced by "further"
[pros te]), the sequence of the two facts (survival of the dynasty and the
glorious alliances that it has concluded) has certainly been understood by
the majority of translators as indicating a cause-and-effect relationship.
As a matter of fact:
He gives the marriages in chronological order, as is proved by the phrase
"and more recently" for the last.
He means, and the context of the phrase shows it, since the marriages are
precisely cited only to this sole end, that they played a role in the
maintenance of the dynasty. From this one can legitimately suspect that
these alliances concern the unions of Median kings with foreign princesses
and not the reverse. Clearly, only in this sense could the Median dynasty
have found a motive to pride itself on the marriages, and not in the fact
of having furnished a Median princess to the harem of the Armenian, Syrian
or Parthian kings. Further, one can suspect that the unions were fertile,
since otherwise their political importance would be singularly reduced, and
their mention would have much less justification.
[Footnote: On this obvious point, we may note that A Tardieu has
translated (interpreted in fact) the passage in question thusly (vol II
Paris 1894, 449): "His dynasty has perpetuated itself to our times THANKS
to a succession of FORTUNATE unions contracted by his descendants with
PRINCESSES of Armenia and Syria, and more recently of Parthia." The words
emphasised do not explicitly figure in the Greek text but have been
logically inferred by the translator in his interpretation of the passage.]