Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Descendants of Antonia, Daughter of Mark Antony--Fact or Fiction?
115 views
Skip to first unread message
Ronny Bodine
Oct 1, 2011, 2:33:55 PM10/1/11
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Dear all--
It has been many years since I participated in this news group and had some difficulty in determining how to communicate once again and thank Stewart Baldwin for his suggestion of using this approach.
The possibility of descendantsof Mark Antony extending to centuries after his death continues to intrigue meand I try to remain current with the latest developments in Roman history. But I am plagued with uncertainty about theone line from Mark Antony through his daughter Antonia which extended to theBosphoran kings. There appears to be noconsensus as to the accuracy of this claim, stretching from yes to maybe to noway.
>From what I can determine, thecritical piece of information is an inscription that was discovered in the 19thcentury and given the reference OGIS 377 (for Orientis Graeci InscriptionesSelectae), the translation of which reads:
TheDemos honored Zeno, son of Queen Pythodoris Philometor and of King Polemo,maternal grandson of Antonia, the benefactress.
This inscription wasinterpreted by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903) in 1876to imply that Antonia was the daughter of the Triumvir Mark Antony. His explanation behind this was published inLatin and so the details of his reasoning have eluded me.
>From the time Mommsenpublished his interpretation there has been a divided camp of those who foundfault in his reasoning and those who did not. One of the earliest critics was Edith Simcox (1844-1901) in her 1894 PrimitiveCivilizations writing “Mommsen is at some pains to find a daughter ofAntonius the triumvir who might have married Pythodorus, and so caused hisdynasty to be accepted by the Romans.” In 1913, the German ancient historian and epigrapher, Hermann Dessau(1856-1931) in MiscellaneaEpigrahica also questioned Mommsen’s belief, David Braund, Ph.D. (Prof. ofHistory, Univ. of Exeter) in his 1984 Romeand the Friendly Kings writes “…nothing is known of this Antonia and herconnection with Antony, if any, is quite uncertain.”
Peter J. Thonemann, Ph.D. (Lecturer inAncient History, Wadham College, Oxford) in his 2004 article, Polemo, son of Polemo, writes “ The romanticMommsen wished to see in Antonia euergetis, mother of Pythodoris and wife of Pythodorus ofTralles, a daughter of the triumuir. No evidence ever supported thishypothesis, and powerful arguments to the contrary were adduced by Dessau. Itmay now be firmly rejected, since the marriage of Pythodorus and Antonia canhardly be dated much later than (say) 55 B.C., and may well be somewhatearlier. That is as we would expect: Pythodorus was already a man of matureyears by the 50s, having had a price put on his head by Mithradates in 88 B.C.” AndJonathan Edmondson, Ph.D. (Prof. of History, York University) in his 2009biography Augustus, writes “The viewof Mommsen that OGIS 377 revealedAntony’s own daughter as the bride of the younger Pythodorus must berejected.” But Edmondson bases hisopposition upon the arguments of Dessau.
Accepting the relationship IsSir Ellis Hovell Minns (1874-1953, Prof. of Archaeology, Univ. of Cambridge) inhis 1913 Scythians and Greeks, as well as eminent British historian SirRonald Syme (1903-1989) in his 1939 The Roman Revolution, writing of Mark Antony “…he gave his owndaughter Antonia in marriage to Pythodorus of Tralles…” And, Richard Sullivan(1921-2005, Chairman, Dept. of History, Michigan State University), takingthese early arguments into account in his Dynasts in Pontus, Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt,vol. 7, 1980, p. 920-921., writes “For a number of reasons, this Antonia,mother of Pythodoris, appears to have been a daughter of Marcus Antonius, whoseconnection with Polemo I had been of some importance.” And, “If the mother of Antonia was a Romandaughter of Antony’s, then Pythodoris could bring descent from theJulio-Claudians by her marriage and consequently to the royal family ofPontus. Pythodoris doubtless wished tocall attention to this descent by adopting her title, Philometor..”
In a posting of 16 July 2000,Subject: Possible DFA from the EmperorClaudius, Christian Settapani noted “The descendants of M. Antonius’s daughterwere not limited to the Bosphorean kings.” This implies he believes in this relationship. With eminent scholars divided on the subjectis there anything that can be added to sway the debate more towards certaintythan not?
Has this line ever been seriously studied with all of the pros and cons? It appears to me if the only evidence is the one inscription cited above, that evidence is pretty weak. I look forward to any input from anyone.
Many thanks,
Ronny Bodine
It has been many years since I participated in this news group and had some difficulty in determining how to communicate once again and thank Stewart Baldwin for his suggestion of using this approach.
The possibility of descendantsof Mark Antony extending to centuries after his death continues to intrigue meand I try to remain current with the latest developments in Roman history. But I am plagued with uncertainty about theone line from Mark Antony through his daughter Antonia which extended to theBosphoran kings. There appears to be noconsensus as to the accuracy of this claim, stretching from yes to maybe to noway.
>From what I can determine, thecritical piece of information is an inscription that was discovered in the 19thcentury and given the reference OGIS 377 (for Orientis Graeci InscriptionesSelectae), the translation of which reads:
TheDemos honored Zeno, son of Queen Pythodoris Philometor and of King Polemo,maternal grandson of Antonia, the benefactress.
This inscription wasinterpreted by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903) in 1876to imply that Antonia was the daughter of the Triumvir Mark Antony. His explanation behind this was published inLatin and so the details of his reasoning have eluded me.
>From the time Mommsenpublished his interpretation there has been a divided camp of those who foundfault in his reasoning and those who did not. One of the earliest critics was Edith Simcox (1844-1901) in her 1894 PrimitiveCivilizations writing “Mommsen is at some pains to find a daughter ofAntonius the triumvir who might have married Pythodorus, and so caused hisdynasty to be accepted by the Romans.” In 1913, the German ancient historian and epigrapher, Hermann Dessau(1856-1931) in MiscellaneaEpigrahica also questioned Mommsen’s belief, David Braund, Ph.D. (Prof. ofHistory, Univ. of Exeter) in his 1984 Romeand the Friendly Kings writes “…nothing is known of this Antonia and herconnection with Antony, if any, is quite uncertain.”
Peter J. Thonemann, Ph.D. (Lecturer inAncient History, Wadham College, Oxford) in his 2004 article, Polemo, son of Polemo, writes “ The romanticMommsen wished to see in Antonia euergetis, mother of Pythodoris and wife of Pythodorus ofTralles, a daughter of the triumuir. No evidence ever supported thishypothesis, and powerful arguments to the contrary were adduced by Dessau. Itmay now be firmly rejected, since the marriage of Pythodorus and Antonia canhardly be dated much later than (say) 55 B.C., and may well be somewhatearlier. That is as we would expect: Pythodorus was already a man of matureyears by the 50s, having had a price put on his head by Mithradates in 88 B.C.” AndJonathan Edmondson, Ph.D. (Prof. of History, York University) in his 2009biography Augustus, writes “The viewof Mommsen that OGIS 377 revealedAntony’s own daughter as the bride of the younger Pythodorus must berejected.” But Edmondson bases hisopposition upon the arguments of Dessau.
Accepting the relationship IsSir Ellis Hovell Minns (1874-1953, Prof. of Archaeology, Univ. of Cambridge) inhis 1913 Scythians and Greeks, as well as eminent British historian SirRonald Syme (1903-1989) in his 1939 The Roman Revolution, writing of Mark Antony “…he gave his owndaughter Antonia in marriage to Pythodorus of Tralles…” And, Richard Sullivan(1921-2005, Chairman, Dept. of History, Michigan State University), takingthese early arguments into account in his Dynasts in Pontus, Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt,vol. 7, 1980, p. 920-921., writes “For a number of reasons, this Antonia,mother of Pythodoris, appears to have been a daughter of Marcus Antonius, whoseconnection with Polemo I had been of some importance.” And, “If the mother of Antonia was a Romandaughter of Antony’s, then Pythodoris could bring descent from theJulio-Claudians by her marriage and consequently to the royal family ofPontus. Pythodoris doubtless wished tocall attention to this descent by adopting her title, Philometor..”
In a posting of 16 July 2000,Subject: Possible DFA from the EmperorClaudius, Christian Settapani noted “The descendants of M. Antonius’s daughterwere not limited to the Bosphorean kings.” This implies he believes in this relationship. With eminent scholars divided on the subjectis there anything that can be added to sway the debate more towards certaintythan not?
Has this line ever been seriously studied with all of the pros and cons? It appears to me if the only evidence is the one inscription cited above, that evidence is pretty weak. I look forward to any input from anyone.
Many thanks,
Ronny Bodine
Wjhonson
Oct 2, 2011, 12:03:48 PM10/2/11
to rbodi...@aol.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=nRKDGwn_CRkC&lpg=PA920&ots=L8lm9luR0a&dq=%22honored%20Zeno%2C%20son%20of%20Queen%20Pythodoris%20Philometor%20and%20of%20King%20%20Polemo%2Cmaternal%20grandson%20of%20Antonia%2C%20the%20benefactress.%22&pg=PA921#v=onepage&q&f=true
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
0 new messages