In a chapter illustrating outrageous words and criminal deeds (dicta improba aut facta scelerata), Valerius Maximus, the Tiberian editor of exempla, includes in his list of foreign (externa) examples reference to an impious son, Mithridates, who fought with his father over who should rule (9.11.ext.2):
Mitridates autem multo sceleratius, qui non cum fratre de paterno regno, sed cum ipso patre bellum de dominatione gessit. in quo qui aut homines ullos adiutores inuenerit aut deos inuocare ausus sit, † pare admiratione habet †.Footnote 1
Mithridates, however, was much more wicked, he who did not wage war with his brother concerning his father's kingdom, but with his father himself for dominion. It is equally astonishing in this, that either he found any men to help him or that he dared to invoke the gods.
Confusion abounds over the identity of this Mithridates. In his Teubner edition of the Facta et dicta memorabilia, John Briscoe lists as parallel passages to this exemplum Livy (Per. 102), Velleius Paterculus (2.40.1), Josephus (AJ 14.53), Plutarch (Pomp. 41), Florus (1.40.26), Appian (Mith. 110–11), Dio Cassius (37.12), Eutropius (6.12.3) and Orosius (6.5.4–5). These passages all point to Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates of Pontus VI. Briscoe follows Kempf's 1888 edition, where he prints the suggestion (per litteras) of the Danish philologist Martin Clarentius Gertz that this Mithridates is to be identified as the father of Pharnaces.Footnote 2
Shackleton Bailey in his Loeb edition comments as follows: ‘There may be a textual error here. The person meant is Pharnaces, who in 63 rebelled against his father, the great Mithridates of Pontus (Livy Per. 102, Vell. 2.40.1 etc.).’Footnote 3 Henry Walker in his translation of Valerius, in a note on Mithridates, states: ‘Mithridates VI was king of Pontus from 120 to 63 b.c. He was only eleven years old when his father was murdered.’Footnote 4 In the next note, Walker claims: ‘Mithridates murdered his mother and brother in the struggle for his father's throne, but never fought against his father. Valerius may be thinking of his son Pharnaces II who rebelled against Mithridates VI and drove him to suicide in 63 b.c.’Footnote 5
On the basis of the same identification, Faranda, who edited the text of Valerius, claims that ‘here Val. Maximus made a serious mistake, it being known from various sources that Mithridates ascended the throne at age 11, after his father had been murdered. It is true, however, that he fought with his mother and his brother, eliminating them’ (‘Qui Val. Massimo ha commesso un grave errore, essendo notorio da varie fonti che Mitridate sali al trono in età 11 anni, dopo che il padre gli era stato assassinato. Vero è, invece, che egli combatté con la madre e col fratello, eliminandoli’).Footnote 6
Clearly the translators and editors of Valerius’ text think that he is confused and that he refers instead to the ‘murder’ of Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus in 63 by his son Pharnaces.Footnote 7 Valerius, however, preserves correctly both the name of Mithridates and the role of the son. The exemplum refers, as historians have generally known (despite being vulnerable to misprints in some cases in relation to the reference to Valerius’ text), to the Mithridates who betrayed his father, Ariobarzanes, the Satrap of Dascylium in the fourth century b.c.Footnote 8
Aristotle (Pol. 5.1312a) mentions the attack of this Mithridates on Ariobarzanes in a moralizing section, which discusses the motivation behind attacking monarchs out of contempt and for gain. Similarly, in a passage on the decline of morality in Asia, Xenophon (Cyr. 8.8.4) refers to Mithridates whose betrayal of his own father brought him advantage with the king. Harpocration (s.v. ‘Ariobarzanes’), writing probably in the second century a.d., mentions Ariobarzanes’ death in the lexical entry under his name, as well as his subsequent crucifixion by Artaxerxes.Footnote 9 Harpocration is the only source to mention crucifixion. The remaining ancient sources which refer to Ariobarzanes are collected by Walther Judeich (RE 2.1.832–3), from whom part of the confusion probably must arise. For Judeich incorrectly prints ‘Val. Max. IV 11 ext. 2’.
Typical of Valerius’ exemplary style more generally, the narrative of events is drastically compressed, highlighting only the most basic of facts necessary in order to illustrate the chapter theme.Footnote 10 His immediate source for this exemplum is unrecoverable, and the remaining parallel passages are jejune, as we have seen above, in their descriptions of Mithridates’ betrayal of his father; little, therefore, can be said on the details. Given Valerius’ general reading patterns, however, Pompeius Trogus is a likely candidate as source—he appears to have dealt with this narrative in the tenth book of his Philippic Histories, as is clear from the prologi (Paphlagonon origo repetita: deinde praefectum Hellesponti Ariobarzanen). The son is also likely to be the Mithridates mentioned at Just. Epit. 16.4.7.Footnote 11
The moral interpretation of Mithridates’ murder of his father clearly predates Valerius. Within his own chapter, Valerius escalates the severity of the vice from the preceding example, in which two brothers fight over their father's throne after his death. Mithridates was ‘much more wicked’ (Mithridates autem multo sceleratius), because patricide trumps fraternal discord in Valerius’ moral hierarchy: qui non cum fratre de paterno regno, sed cum ipso patre bellum de dominatione gessit. Valerius then concludes the exemplum with details difficult to corroborate, as they are not found elsewhere in the historical record. It appears that Mithridates did not act alone in the murder of his father and also that he acted, or at least thought he did, by the will of the gods—this irreligious behaviour clearly further damns him in Valerius’ mind (in quo qui aut homines ullos adiutores inuenerit aut deos inuocare ausus sit, parem admirationem habet). The details may remain obscure, but his closing remarks provide a neat conclusion to the exemplum, showcasing his moral condemnation of the deed. Correct identification of this exemplar has the added benefit of saving Valerius from contradiction elsewhere on how Mithridates VI of Pontus died.Footnote 12
