The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda

A. B. Bosworth

doi:10.1017/S0009838800028846

The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

A. B. Bosworth

Show author details

A. B. Bosworth: Affiliation:
University of Western Australia,Nedlands

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Propaganda and history are often inseparable. Most governments are in a position to control the dissemination of evidence, and if an event is embarrassing or damaging, the relevant evidence is certain to be distorted or withheld. Moreover the writers of history, however innocent their motives, cannot disregard the official apologia of their rulers. One notes with interest that the learned authors of the official Soviet history of the world portray the invasion of eastern Poland on 17 September 1939 as a crusade of liberation. Of course it might be true that the people liberated by the Red Army were glad to be rid of ‘the arbitrary despotism of the Polish Pans’ and that in the subsequent elections there was absolute freedom of choice and overwhelming support for union with the Ukraine, but the fact remains that it was impossible for membersof the Moscow Academy to contradict their government's justification of the invasion.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , May 1971 , pp. 112 - 136

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800028846 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 112 note 1} Weltgeschichte x (Berlin, 1968 ═ Moscow, 1965), PP 94–5Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 2} Livy, 4. 20. 5–11. On this intriguing passage see Ogilvie's commentary ad loc, and, most recently, Mensching, E., Museum Hel-veticum xxiv (1967), 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 3} Seneca, Contr. 1 o, praef. 4 ff.; cf. Peter,HRR, ii. c-ci.

^{page 113 note 1} For the date see Sachs, A. J., Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Rhode Island, 1955), nr. 209Google Scholar, cited by Samuel, A.E, Historia xiv(1965),8Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} Droysen, 1³. 465, n. i; Beloch, iv². 1. 62 and Berve, , Alexanderreich ii. 184Google Scholar, also dismissed the rumours very abruptly. Grote at least gave the matter serious thought: ‘It is quite natural that fever and intemperance … should not be regarded as causes sufficiently marked and impressive to explain a decease at once so unexpected and so momentous,’ (xii. 78, n. 2.)

^{page 113 note 3} Diodorus 19. 11. 8; Plut. Al. 77. 1.

^{page 113 note 4} [Plut.] Vit. Or. 849 B. Hermippus alleged that Hypereides' tongue was cut out in Macedonia, others said at Cleonae. The story that he bit off his tongue to avoid divulging secrets of Athens seems romantic embroidery. It is difficult to see what secrets of Athens would have been important to Antipater after the city surrendered. Cf. Plut. Demosth. 28.

^{page 113 note 5} The battle of Crannon is dated by Plutarch to 7 Metageitnion (late July)— Camill. 19. 5.

^{page 114 note 1} Plut. Al. 77, Arr. 7. 27, Curt. 10. io. 9–20, Justin 12. 14.

^{page 114 note 2} Plut. 77. 3, Arr. 7. 27. 1.

^{page 114 note 3} Diod. 20. 45. 3, Dion. Hal. De Dinarch. 3 (═ FGrH 328 F 66), Diog. Laert. 5. 78: cf. Jacoby, , FGrH ii p. 642 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 4} The rift between Aristotle and Alexander is a speculative construction, based primarily on the relationship between the philosopher and Callisthenes (cf. Berve ii. 72ff., Jaeger, Aristotle, pp. 318 f.). It is clear, however, that too much stress has been laid on the family connection, and there is no adequate evidence that Callisthenes' all had repercussions for Aristotle. Cf. my article to be published shortly in Historia.

^{page 114 note 5} Pausanias 6. 4. 8 attests Aristotle's influence with Antipater, which is corroborated by an apothegm of Alexander (Plut. Al. 74. 5). Antipater is further mentioned as executor in Aristotle's will (Diog. Laert. 5 12f.).

^{page 114 note 6} Arr. 7. 27. 3, Plut. Al. 77. 5.

^{page 114 note 7} Athenaeus 10. 434 a-b ═ FGrH 126 F 3.

^{page 114 note 8} FGrH 127 F 1. A general discussion of the fragments of Ephippus and Nicobule is to be found in Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, pp. 61–8.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} plut. Al. 75 ═ FGrH 139 F 59.

^{page 115 note 2} Arr. 7. 29. 4 (F 62); Piut. Al. 23. 1; cf. Schwartz, , RE ii. 917 f. ═ Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig, 1959), p. 129.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 3} Diod. 17. 117. 5 ff. for the poisoning stories, 117. 2 for the shock motif.

^{page 115 note 4} Plut. Al. 75. 5, Justin 12. 13. 8–9, Arr. 7. 27. 2.

^{page 115 note 5} The parallel texts of this document are most conveniently given by Merkelbach, R., Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans (Zetemata, ix[Munich, 1954]), pp. 220–1.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 6} Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 15, cf. Metz Epitome, 117.

^{page 115 note 7} Fully argued by Merkelbach, op. cit. pp. 124 fr., building on the conclusions reached by Ausfeld, , Rh. Mus. 1 (1895), 357 ffGoogle Scholar. and lvi (1901), 517 ff.

^{page 115 note 8} Merkelbach, pp. 145 ff. Diod. 20. 81. 3 knows of a testaament of Alexander allegedly deposited in Rhodes.

^{page 116 note 1} In our extant texts Ptolemy has prominence equivalent to that of Perdiccas—cf. Metz Epitome, 111; only the variant that Perdiccas was to hold Egypt, Ptolemy Libya, (Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 15) hints at an earlier version.

^{page 116 note 2} Metz Epitome, 97–8 ═ FGrH 134 F 37.

^{page 116 note 3} Cf. Berve ii, nr. 580. Merkelbach, p. 128 n. 3, may be correct in suggesting that Holcias was the original author of the tract.

^{page 116 note 4} Diod. 18. 36. 5; cf. Merkelbach, p. 129. It is also relevant to the argument that Medius is accused of complicity in the poisoning (Metz Epitome, 97). Now Medius was a lieutenant in Perdiccas' forces, commanding the mercenary troops for the Cyprus expedition in early 321 (Arr. Succ. F 24. 6 ═ FGrH 156 F 10. 6). Again Perdiccas seems to be accusing one of his own adherents. Merkelbach, p. 130, suggests that Medius promptly turned his coat (he reappears in 314 as an admiral of Antigonus— Diod. 19. 69. 3, etc.), but there is a difficulty. Asander, satrap of Caria, is exculpated explicitly from the murder (Metz Epitome, 98, Ps.-Call. 3. 31. 9). Now Asander deserted to Antigonus in the vanguard of the invasion of Asia Minor, again in early 321 (Arr. Succ. F 25. 1–2). If all the list of poisoners is Perdiccan propaganda, it can only have been written if Medius changed his allegiance before the defection of Asander; otherwise Perdiccas would be incriminating an adherent and exculpating a traitor. Unfortunately our only source for these incidents is the Vatican palimpsest, universally assigned to Arrian's history of the Successors, and we have no absolute chronological placings. However Asander must have deserted at the very opening of the campaign in Asia, and Medius was still commanding Perdiccan forces at the beginning of the campaigning season. It seems unlikely that he deserted (if he did desert) before Perdiccas' defeat in Egypt, and almost im-. possible that his desertion came before Asander's.

^{page 116 note 5} FGrH 134 T 5.

^{page 116 note 6} Strab. 15. 1. 28 (698) ═ FGrH 134 T 10

^{page 116 note 7} SoStrasburger, , RE xviii. 465Google Scholar, Brown, T.S., Onesicritus, pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Arr. 7. 25–6, Plut. Al. 76. The extant fragments of the Ephemerides are conveniently printed by Jacoby, FGrH 117.

^{page 117 note 2} Athenaeus 10. 434 b, Aelian VH 3. 23.

^{page 117 note 3} Plut. Eum. 1, Nepos Eum. 1. 4–6.

^{page 117 note 4} The foundation article was produced by Wilcken, , Philologus 53 (1894)CrossRef Google Scholar, 81 His discussion of the technical meaning of Ἐøημείδες has been expanded by Samuel, A. E., Historia xiv (1965), 1–3.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 5} For one of many statements of this view see Berve i. 50 f.

^{page 117 note 6} In his Life of Alexander Plutarch refers to the Ephemerides once more for the trivial detail that Alexander often disported himself hunting foxes and birds (Al. 23. 5).

^{page 117 note 7} Kornemann, E., Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I, p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 8} Arr. 7. 26. 3; cf. Pearson, L., Historia iii (1955); 437 fGoogle Scholar- (now Alexander the Great, the main problems, ed. Griffith, G. T. [Cambridge, 1966], pp. 9–10).Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 9} In the whole corpus of Plutarch's writings there are only two references to Ptolemy, both in lists of authorities (FGrH 138 F 4, 28a). There is no evidence that he was ever used directly.

^{page 117 note 10} Athenaeus 10. 434 B ═ FGrH 117 F 2b.

^{page 118 note 1} Historia xiv (1965), 10–12.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 2} Diod. 19. 23. 3, Polyaen. 4. 8. 3. Arrian (6. 30. 3) implies that Peucestas was the only Macedonian dignitary to learn the Persian language, but this is clearly exaggerated. He himself notes that Laomedon, brother of Erigyius of Mytilene, was bilingual (3. 6. 6 . Members of Alexander's staff at all levels would have been competent to read Aramaic script.

^{page 118 note 3} Arr. 7. 26. 2, Plut. Al. 76. 9. There is another embarrassment: Aelian mentions entries in the Ephemerides from the Macedonian month of Dios (Oct./Nov.). There is no evidence that Alexander reached Babylon until the Cossaean campaign of winter 324/3 was finished (Arr. 7. 15. 4). In that case either Aelian's text is corrupt (the reference being to some month other than Dios), or the record is of Alexander's earlier stay at Babylon after Gaugamela (Oct./Nov. 331). In the latter case what was the motive in conflating two brief extracts from the Babylonian archives, some 7 1/2 years apart ?

^{page 118 note 4} Historia iii (1955), 439Google Scholar; Lost Histories …, p. 260.

^{page 118 note 5} FGrH 118 T 1. Even if this mysterious Strattis entitled his work Ἐøημερίδες he may not have been unique in this. The Suda has an entry about Aeschrion of Mytilene, an epic poet friendly with Aristotle and in the train of Alexander. Tzetzes and the scholiast to Lycophron cite romantic details from a work by him called the Ἐøημερίδες(Ἐν ζ†ἘøεσίδωνΣ. Lye. Al. 688). Strattis' work may have been more like Aeschrion's fantasy than the dry record of Plutarch and Arrian. Cf.FGrHiii B (Text), p. 742.

^{page 119 note 1} Arr. 7. 26. 2, Plut. Al. 76. 4, Pearson, pp. 438 f.

^{page 119 note 2} Macrob. Sat. 1. 20. 16. Even if the oracle here given is a relatively late fabrication (Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion, ii. 148, n. 6)Google Scholar, there must have been some connection between Nicocreon of Cyprus and the Ptolemaic cult of Sarapis. A bogus oracle could be added to a genuine historical context, whereas it is very unlikely that a forger would have chosen a person as obscure as Nicocreon to receive an invented oracle.

^{page 119 note 3} Kornemann, , Ptolemaios …, p. 37Google Scholar; Wilcken, UPZ i. 82.

^{page 119 note 4} The literary evidence is amassed by C. B. Welles, Historia xi (1962), 272–89, and discounted by P. M. Fraser, Opusculo Atheniensia (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 40) vii (1967), 32–4 (especially n. 49).

^{page 119 note 5} First published by Robert, L., Hellenica xi (1960), 85 fr.Google Scholar (photograph, plate V).

^{page 119 note 6} Welles, op. cit., pp. 290–2, Fraser, op. cit., pp. 30–1.

^{page 119 note 7} Even if the Halicarnassus inscription (OGIS 16) is to be placed after 270 (N. Greipi, Philologus 85 (1930), 159 ff.), the cult of Sarapis must have been widely promulgated in Egypt in the last decade of the fourth century. The fragment, certainly of Menan-der, calling Sarapis a oepvos ocos (F 139, Korte; Fraser, n. 78) implies that the cult was accepted all over the Greek world by the time of Menander's death, around 293/2 (IG xiv. 1184-the chronological data on the stone are inconsistent, but the limits for his death are 293 and 290 b.c. Cf. Korte, Menander, p. 1 = T 3). Demetrius of Phalerum allegedly wrote paeans celebrating the restoration of his sight by Sarapis (Diog. Laert. 5. 76), but this proves nothing. They could have been written at any time between his arrival in Egypt about 307 and his death in disgrace under Philadelphus.

^{page 120 note 1} Historia xiv (1965), 10–12.

^{page 120 note 2} Wilcken, UPZ i 79–82.

^{page 120 note 2} A prayer to Oserapis by the Helleno-memphite woman, Artemisia, dates from the mid fourth century b.c.:Wikken, , UPZ i 97–104.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} Arr. 3. 1.4.

^{page 120 note 4} The Persians are said to have perpetrated every kind of sacrilege in the invasion (Diod. 16. 51. 2), and Ochus is said to have committed the supreme desecration of killing the Apis bull (Ael. VH 4. 8, 6. 8, Plut, de Is. et Serap. 11 (355 c). Cambyses may not have anticipated the atrocity (Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, 89 f.), but Alexander would have read his Herodotus and taken note.

^{page 120 note 5} The equation of Zeus and Amnion had been made by the fifth century. Despite Tarn's indignant disclaimer (ii. 349) Herodotus 2. 55 is conclusive corroboration, if corroboration is needed, of Pindar (Pyth. 4. 16, F 36 (Snell)). An amazing example of syncretism is found in a late inscription from Cius in Bithynia (CIG 3724): ‘I hail Osiris … he is Zeus Cronides, he is the mighty Amnion, the deathless king, and highly honoured as Sarapis.’

^{page 120 note 6} Cf. Roeder, RE ia. 2418 ff.

^{page 120 note 7} Arr. 7. 25. 2–6.

^{page 121 note 1} Plut. Al. Arr.7.25.4

^{page 121 note 2} Plut. Al. 76. 5.

^{page 121 note 3} Arr. 7. 26. 2, Plut. Al. 76. 9.

^{page 121 note 4} The archipresbyter Leo preserves a unique passage in which Alexander on his death-bed commends his empire and wife to Perdiccas, the unanimous choice of his generals. The Metz Epitome (100) and Ps.-Callisthenes (3. 32. 3) replace the incident with a lame doublet, an obvious piece of surgery to excise a passage embarrassingly favourable to Perdiccas. Cf. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des …Alexanderromans, pp. 131 ff., 230 f.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 5} The donation of Egypt to Perdiccas occurs only in Ps.-Callisthenes (3. 33. 15). Here Ptolemy is confined to Libya, while Perdiccas has Egypt. The Metz Epitome (117) excises the donation to Perdiccas. Ps.-Callisthenes must represent the earliest version; after 321 such propaganda would have been pointless (Merkelbach, pp. 142 ff.)

^{page 121 note 6} Ps.-Call. 3. 31. 8. The parallel list in the Metz Epitome (97) is extremely corrupt, but clearly there are variants. The list of poisoners may have varied with the political climate.

^{page 121 note 7} Ael. VH 3. 23 ═ FGrH117 F 2a.

^{page 121 note 8} Athen.10.434 b, Plut. Q.C.1.6 (623 e) ═ FGrH 117 F 2 b and c.

^{page 122 note 1}

^{page 122 note 2} If we accept Aelian's apparent dating to the month of Dios, the record of drinking went back at least seven months. Gessner's emendation of the MS. reading to seems inescapable.

^{page 122 note 3} Tarn, , Alexander ii. 41Google Scholar; cf. Aristobulus, , FGrH 139 F 62.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 4} Arr. 7. 25. 1.

^{page 122 note 5} For the career of Eumenes cf.Kaerst, , RE vi. 1083 ff.,Google ScholarWestlake, H. D., Bull. John Rylands Library 37 (1954), 309 ff.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 6} Berve ii, p. 184 refers to ‘den ein-wandfreien Krankenbericht der Ephemeri-den, der eine Vergiftung als Todesursache ausschliesst’. That hits the naii squarely on the head!

^{page 123 note 1} Plut. Al. 77 5

^{page 123 note 2} Curtius io. io. 18. Diod. 17. 118. 2 and Justin io. 13. 10 make the same obvious point that Cassander was in a position to stifle broadcasting of the rumours in maccodonia.

^{page 123 note 3} Badian, E., JHS lxxxi (1961), 17 fr.Google Scholar (═ Griffith, pp. 207 ff.), gives full details, but probably exaggerates the extent of the terror. In particular he seems to lay excessive stress on the arrivals of satraps at court, inferring that a summons to court meant danger for the man invited. The details hardly support the hypothesis. Stasanor we know arrived at court in Carmania with the doomed army commanders of Media (Arr. 6. 27. 3). However, Arrian says quite ex-plicitly that Stasanor was sent back to his province before the departure for Pasar-gadae (6. 29. 1); if suspected, he was soon acquitted. According to the Liber de Morte he was one of the guests at Medius' banquet (Ps.-Call. 3. 31. 8, Metz Epitome 97), but this list of poisoners is patent propaganda and is certainly not reliable evidence for the actual composition of the banquet. Even if he was at Babylon in June 323, it might have been for a routine report or even to deliver a batch , as Berve suggests (ii. 362). The arrival of Peucestas, Philoxenus, and Menander was only a month or two before the king's death (Arr. 7. 23. 1). They were bringing a large and important consignment of reinforcements, and there is no evidence that Alexander intended to replace them as satraps. The fact that they were still at Babylon when Alexander died is hardly significant.

^{page 124 note 1} Plut. Al. 68. 7, Arr. 7. 4. 2. Despite Badian's arguments (CQ n.s. viii [1958], 147 f.) I do not think Apollophanes was in this category. In a list of appointments at the Gedrosian capital of Pura Arrian says (6. 27. 1) that Apollophanes was deposed for neglect. However, Apollophanes was killed in a battle against the Oreitae and his death unimpeachably attested by Nearchus (Arr. Ind. 23. 5). Badian believes that he was to have been the first scapegoat for the Gedrosian disaster, and that he was deposed before news of his death reached Pura (cf. Curt. 9. 10. 19). Then Alexander turned against other satraps of the area. However, Apollophanes can never have made a satisfactory scapegoat. Arrian (6. 22. 2) says that he was left midway on the desert journey and told to work in conjunction with Leonnatus. If there were recriminations to be made in that sector, one would expect Leonnatus to have been implicated too. However, the high honours accorded him prove that he was not (Arr. Ind. 42. 9). On the other hand the obvious scapegoat for the disaster was Astaspes, satrap of Carmania, who certainly was deposed and executed at this point (Curt. 9.10. 21–9). Now Arrian is completely unaware of Astaspes' fate, and it seems highly probable that Ptolemy made a slip and conflated Apollophanes and Astaspes (so Berve ii. 57, nr. 105), misled by the close proximity of the death of the one and the deposition of the other.

^{page 124 note 2} Arr. 7. 4. 2, Plut. Al. 68. 3.

^{page 124 note 3} Cf. Berve ii. 215, Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961), 22.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 4} Curt. 10. i. 1–8, Arr. 6. 27. 4.

^{page 124 note 5} The use of as a title for the phalanx (Anaximenes, FGrH 72 F 4) implies that at some point the Macedonian foot was built up as a counterweight to the noble ταροι, a central core of the army loyal to the royal house. Similarly Philip's institution of a corps of royal pages bears far more resemblance to a permanent pool of hostages than to an officer training school (Arr. 4. 13. 1). The institution was developed by Alexander, who instituted a permanent corps of Asians. These 30,000 Epigonoi are succinctly described by Curtius as ‘obsides simul … et milites’ (8. 5. i).

^{page 124 note 6} Plut. Al. 9, Justin g. 7. 3 ff., Satyrus ap. Athen. 13. 557.

^{page 124 note 7} Athen. 13. 586 c, 595 a–e ═ FGrH 115 F 253–4.

^{page 125 note 1} Berve (ii, nr. 365) and Jacoby (FGrH ii p. 390Google Scholar) go too far in representing Theo-pompus as an official agent of Alexander in Chios, who sent regular reports to Asia. These letters are surely modelled on the sundry exhortations of Isocrates, interspersed with the vindictiveness to individuals so typical of Theopompus' writing. There is no reason to think that the denunciations of Harpalus were written before his flight.

^{page 125 note 2} Curt. 10. 10. 14, saepe certe audita est vox Alexandri, Antipatrum regium affectare fasti-gium maioremque esse praefecti opibus ac titulo Spartanae victoriae inflatum, omnia a se data asserentem sibi. cf. Justin 12. 14. 3.

^{page 125 note 3} Arr. 7. 12. 4.

^{page 125 note 4} Berve ii. 50–1, Griffith, G. T., PACA viii (1965), 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 5} Diod. 18. 4. 1, Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961), 35–6Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 6} Diod. 18. 14. 4–5, cf. Plut. Eum. 3.

^{page 125 note 7} Diod. 18. 12. i.

^{page 125 note 8} He did not move until mid 322 after the death of Leonnatus, and when Antipater's fortunes were at their nadir (Diod. 18. 16. 4).

^{page 125 note 9} Arr. 7. 8. 3; 9. 1, Curt. 10. 2. 12–19. Interestingly Craterus' troops were whittled down to 6,000 by the time he left for Europe (Diod. 18. 16. 4); it can only have been through desertions.

^{page 125 note 10} See above, n. 4.

^{page 125 note 11} Arr. 7. 12. 5.

^{page 126 note 1} Arr. 7. 12. 6, cf. Plut. Al. 39. 11.

^{page 126 note 2} According to Livy 8. 24. 17 Olympias and her daughter Cleopatra received the bones of Alexander the Molossian, which had been sent to Epirus via Metapontum. The date of his death is roughly fixed by Aeschines (Ctes. 242), who mentions (in mid 330) a recent embassy to Cleopatra, consoling her on the death of her husband.

^{page 126 note 3} Ps.-Call. 3. 31. 1, Metz Epitome, 87. cf. Diod. 17. 118. 1, Justin 12. 14. 1–3.

^{page 126 note 4} Plut. Al. 74, Berve ii, nr. 414.

^{page 126 note 5} Phrataphernes, satrap of Hyrcania, sent a son to Carmania (Arr. 6. 27. 3), presum-ably to give a detailed report. Both his sons were selected for the elite mixed hipparchy (Arr. 7. 6. 5), maybe as hostages for their father's good behaviour.

^{page 126 note 6} Cassander's arrival at court cannot be dated precisely. Shortly before Alexander's death Plutarch speaks of him as newly arrived ; this is consistent with departure from Macedonia before Crateras' mission was published.

^{page 126 note 7} Curt. 10. 10. 15.

^{page 126 note 8} Cf. Hamilton, J. R., CQ N.s. iii (1953), 156–7Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 9} Cf. Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961), 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 1} Note the apophthegm in Plutarch (Al. 49. 15):

^{page 127 note 2} Justin 13. 5. 1–8; cf. Curt. 10. 2. 2.

^{page 127 note 3} Athen. 12. 538 B — FGrH 126 F 5. Whatever the value of the rest of the information, the proposal by Gorgus is eminently reasonable. He was a friend of the Samians and honoured by them in a decree passed after the restoration, a decree which incidentally confirms his crowning of Alexander at Ecbatana (SIG3 312).

^{page 127 note 4} Arr. 7. 19. 6 to S' Arlues, Despite Arrian's qualification the verdict was Aristobulus'. Strabo repeats the judgement in a passage explicitly taken from Aristobulus 16. 1. 11 (741), to 8' cf.Jacoby, , FGrH 139 F 56.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 5} Diod. 18. 4. 4. The authenticity of these has often been impugned, the most recent doubter being Fontana, M. J.,Le Lotte per la Successione di Alessandro Magno dal 323 al 315 (Palermo, 1960), p. 280.Google Scholar However, it seems certain that the relevant passage of Diodorus is from the same source as the rest of the opening chapters of book 18—Hieronymus of Cardia (cf.Schacher-meyr, , JöAI lxi (1954), 120–4Google Scholar (═ Griffith, pp. 324 ff.), Badian, , Harvard Studies lxxii (1967), 184–9)Google Scholar, and there is no valid reason to rule out as late fabrication any of the provisions quoted by Diodorus. Certainly Alexander's schemes of western conquest are credible enough. Justin 12. 1. 5 claims that he was jealous of his uncle, Alexander of Epirus, and if the latter's remark is historical that his nephew in Asia had merely raided a harem (Gell. NA 17. 21. 33, Curt. 8. 1. 37), it is quite possible that Alexander intended to overshadow his uncle's successes.

^{page 127 note 6} Cf.Badian, , Harvard Studies lxxii (1967), 200 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 7} So Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse, n. 290.

^{page 128 note 1} Satyrus, ap. Athen. 13. 557 d, Plut. Al. 77. 7, Diod. 18. 2. 2.

^{page 128 note 2} Cf.Sumner, G. V., AUMLA xv (1961), 30 f.Google Scholar, endorsed by Badian, , Studies in Greek and Roman History, p. 263.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 3} Curtius io. 6. 13 makes Ptolemy indignantly inveigh against an Asian king: ‘Roxanes vel Barsinae filius, cuius nomen quoque Europam dicere pigebit’.

^{page 128 note 4} Cf.Momigliano, ,Filippo il Macedone, p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 5} Diod. 17. 16. 2 (advice before the crossing into Asia), Plut. Al. ai. 7 ═ FGrH 139 F 11 (advice to marry Barsine).

^{page 128 note 6} Curt. 10. 6. 18 haerebat inter cupiditatem pudoremque et, quo modestius, quod expectabat, appeteret, pervicacius oblaturos esse credebat.

^{page 128 note 7} Diod. 17. 117. 4; 18. 2. 4, Curt. 10. 5. 4, Justin 12. 15. 2, also the Liber de Morte (Metz Epitome, 112). The omission in Arrian 's Anabasis is not significant; Ptolemy would not have wished to broadcast the fact that his rival had virtually been designated Alexander's successor.

^{page 128 note 8} Curt. 10. 6. 24–7. 1. 10. 6. 2 is clear evidence that originally the debate was private; the disagreement before the army is superimposed (10. 6. 4ff.). Compare Meleager–s dramatic appeal to the infantry in Curtius (10. 7. 1 ff.) with the more sober account of Diodorus 18. 2. 3 and Justin 13. 3. 2, who make Meleager join a delegation to confront the troops and then side with the men he was intended to placate.

^{page 128 note 9} This was Perdiccas' proposal (Curt. 10, 6. 9), reinforced by Aristonous (10. 6. 16–18) and contested by Meleager (6. 21 ff.). Peithon drafted the final compromise that Perdiccas and Leonnatus should be tutors of the future king, Craterus and Antipater jointly administer Europe. There may be some Perdiccan propaganda here, but one can hardly doubt that the initial proposal was for the succession of Alexander's unborn child. Justin gives a different account of the debate but the same conclusion (13. 2. 14). For discussion see Fontana, Le Lotte…, pp. 112 f.

^{page 129 note 1} Curt. io. 7. 2 ff., Arr. Suce. i. 1, Diod. 18. 2. 2, Justin 13. 3.

^{page 129 note 2} Cf. Berve ii, nr. 494. He had been a taxis leader throughout Alexander's reign (‘niemals mit einem grösseren Kommando betraut’). Justin 13. 3. 2 makes his fellow officer Attalus an accomplice in the agitation; his importance, however, is much less.

^{page 129 note 3} Arr. Succ. F 1. 2.

^{page 129 note 4} Curt. 10. 8. 8–23, Diod. 18. 2. 3–4, Arr. Succ. 1. 3.

^{page 129 note 5} Curt. 10. 9. 10–21, Arr. Succ. 1. 4, Diod. 18. 4. 7, Justin 13. 4. 8–9.

^{page 129 note 6} Curt. 10. 10. 9.

^{page 129 note 7} Cogently argued by Badian, , Studies …, pp. 263 f.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 8} SIG ³ 311, p. 530, OGIS 8; cf.Schwann, ,Klio xxiv (1931), 312 f.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 9} Diod. 18. 23. 2; 29. 1; 55. 1.

^{page 129 note 10} Hesperia xxxvii (1968), 222Google Scholar(cf. plate 66) Another Samothracian inscription from the reign of Lysimachus mentions a dedication of sacred land by (Hesperia vol. cit. 220 f.). This is unlikely to indicate a dedication by Philip II confirmed by Alexander.

^{page 129 note 11} A summing-up of earlier literature in Bengtson, , Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, 1. 64 f.Google Scholar; cf.Fontana, , Le Lotte …, p. 145,Google ScholarBadian, , Studies …, pp. 264 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 12} Schubert, , Quellen zur Geschichte der Diadochenzeit, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} FGrH 76 T 8; cf. Schwartz, , RE v.Google Scholar 1853 ff. (═ GG, pp. 27 fr.).

^{page 130 note 2} FGrH 73.

^{page 130 note 3} CG iv². 2. 308.

^{page 130 note 4} The discovery of the Vatican palimpsest (Arr. Succ. f 24–5 ═ FGrH 156 F 10) proved that Photius totally omitted large portions of the original.

^{page 130 note 5} Jacoby, , RE viii. 1548Google Scholar; Fontana, , Le Lotte …, pp. 273 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 6} The counter-arguments are basically those of Tarn, , JHS xli (1921)Google Scholar, 1 ff., I find far from cogent. The basic props are the omission of Perdiccas' chiliarchy and the alleged Craterus doublet.

^{page 130 note 7} (Diod. 18. 2. 4). This is a pretty certain reference to Eumenes (cf. Plut. Eum. 3), so the favourable bias in Diodorus is a fair indication of Hieronyman authorship.

^{page 130 note 8} Diod. 18. 3. 2.

^{page 130 note 9} Diod. 18. 12. 1.

^{page 130 note 10} Diod. 18. 4. 1 ff.; cf.Badian, , Harvard Studies lxxii (1967), 202–3.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 1} FGrH 155 F i, 1–2; cf.Jacoby, , FGrH ii p.548 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 2} Arr. Succ, f i. 3.

^{page 131 note 3} FGrH 100 F 8. 8

^{page 131 note 4} FGrH 100 F 8. 4.

^{page 131 note 5} Arr. Succ.

^{page 131 note 6} FGrH 100 F 8.

^{page 131 note 7} Fontana, pp. 144 f., even supposes two distinct regentships; Perdiccas had ‘la tutela del nascituro’, while Arrhidaeus with surprising far-sightedness demanded a guardian antagonistic to Perdiccas, so that Craterus was appointed; ‘scelto a rep-presentare e proteggere la parte più tradizionalista e conservatrice del suo popolo e, in questo senso, il regno di Arrideo’.

^{page 131 note 8} Jacoby, , FGrH ii p. 558Google Scholar, explains away Kρατρω as a marginal note absorbed into the text by scribal error.

^{page 131 note 9} Curt. 10. 7. 9—the abortive proposal of Peithon; the fictitious will of Alexander (Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 13) also appointed Craterus directly to Macedonia.

^{page 131 note 10} Photius' summary of the first five books ends with the defeat of Ariathes in late 322 (Arr. Succ. f 1. 12).

^{page 132 note 1} Artabanus, murderer of Xerxes, is called both chiliarch (Plut. Them. 27. 2) and (Diod. 1I. 69. 1).

^{page 132 note 2} Nepos, Conon 3, Diod. 11. 69. 1.

^{page 132 note 3} Diod. 16. 47. 3, Hesych. s.v. . Cf. Marquardt, , Philologus lv (1896), 227 f.Google Scholar, Junge, P. J., Klio xxxiii (1940)Google Scholar, 12 ff., esp. 32 ff. Junge's hypothesis (pp. 24–8) that the chiliarch (hazarapatiš) was head of the treasury and therefore of the royal chancellery is pure speculation and totally unconvincing.

^{page 132 note 4} Hdt. 3. 34. 30.

^{page 132 note 5} The only evidence that Tithraustes was chiliarch is given by Nepos (Con. 3. 2), who erroneously attributes the fall of Tissaphernes to Conon's initiative (Barbieri, Conone [Rome, 1955], pp. 128 f.), but there is no reason to doubt that Tithraustes was Artaxerxes' chiliarch: the office can hardly be an invention.

^{page 132 note 6} Hell. Ox. 19. 3 (Bartoletti)

^{page 132 note 7} Diod. 18.48.5.

^{page 132 note 8} Plut. Al. 54 ═FGrH 125 F 14a.

^{page 132 note 9} Plut. Eum. I, cf. Appian, Syr. syr 57.292

^{page 132 note 10} Strasburger, , Ptolemaios und Alexander, p. 47Google Scholar, Kornemann, , Ptolemaios, p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 11} Diod. 18. 3. 4; App. Syr. 57. 292.

^{page 133 note 1} In the Mithridates (8. 25) there is one of the very few citations of Hieronymus by name (FGrH 154 F 3), and elsewhere there is a close correlation between his narrative and that of Diodorus.

^{page 133 note 1} Bengtson, , Strategie, i. 66. 94 f.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} Justin 13. 4. 5, castrorum et rerum (regum?) cura Meleagaro et Perdiccae ad-signatur.

^{page 133 note 1} Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931), 324 f.Google Scholar, endorsed by Badian, , Studies, p. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} Diod. 18. 18. 7,

^{page 133 note 1} Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 12–15, Metz Epitome, 117, cf. Merkelbach, p. 141.

^{page 133 note 1} The succession debate in Curtius may be tinged with Perdiccan propaganda. Peithon's motion proposes that Craterus and Antipater together administer Europe (10. 7. 9); Ptolemy is given a speech favouring satrapal independence and government by common consent (10. 6. 13–15).

^{page 134 note 1} Diod. 18. 25. 3, cf. Arr. Succ. F 1. 26.

^{page 134 note 2} Arr. Succ, f 1. 21 dated after the subjugation of Cappadocia by Diodorus 18. 23. 1: cf. Seibert, J., Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen, Historia Einzelschriften x (1967), 13 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Diod. 18. 23. 3, Arr. Succ. f 1. 21 and 26, Justin 13. 6. 4–6. A dialogue on papyrus (P. Berl. 13045) contains a purported speech by Deinarchus claiming that Nicaea was betrothed by Alexander. This may be Anti-pater's reply to claims in hostile propaganda that Rhoxane was bequeathed to Perdiccas (Ps.-Call. 3. 33. 15, Metz Epitome, 118).

^{page 135 note 1} Diod. 18. 23. 2,

^{page 135 note 2} Schwahn, , Kilo xxiv (1931), 329Google Scholar: ‘Der Satz steht in einem längeren Abschnitt aus Diyllos über den Lamischen Krieg und die daran anschliessenden Ereignisse.’ In fact the passage comes directly after the subjugation of Cappadocia in a self-contained excursus on the rival machinations of Perdiccas and Antigonus.

^{page 135 note 3} So Bengtson, , Strategie, i. 73Google Scholar: ‘Dieses Verhältnis zwischen den beiden Macht-habern musste sich natürlich nach der Usurpation der durch Perdiccas verschieben’;Fontana, P.153.

^{page 135 note 4} Badian, , Studies, p. 265Google Scholar, argues that his control over the royal forces was not secure until Crateras' attitude was assured. The point of security is allegedly given in Diod. 18. 4, but on this interpretation there is an amazingly short interval between the wooing of Antipater and the volte face. It may also be observed that Diodorus says nothing of firm control of the royal forces. For him Perdiccas' position is secure when he becomes guardian of the kings.

^{page 135 note 5} Diod. 19. 55.

^{page 135 note 6} Note Berve's summary (ii, nr. 700); ‘unter Al. durch nichts hervorragend’.

Article contents

The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests