Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:06:23.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The speeches in Arrian's Indica and Anabasis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2012

N. G. L. Hammond
N. G. L. Hammond
Affiliation:
Clare College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The evaluation of speeches in ancient histories by modern scholars is very varied. Tarn (p. 286) opened his discussion of ‘The speeches in Arrian’ with the following words:

Speaking generally, one expects a speech in any ancient historian to be a fabrication, either composed by the historian himself or by a predecessor, or else some exercise from one of the schools or rhetoric which he had adopted.

On the other hand, according to Fornara (p. 143), ‘the fact does not seem to have been sufficiently appreciated that the ancients unfailingly endorsed the convention that speeches must be reported accurately’. When Fornara made a generalization, he wrote as follows:

The ancients had unanimously adopted the Thucydidean principle of honest reporting of the things that were said as well as the things that were done.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 238 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

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.)

Footnotes

*

The following abbreviations are used:

References

1 Bosworth From A to A, p. 99. For example, views on the speech of Alexander at Opis in Arr. 7.9–10 varied accordingly. For Bosworth ‘Arrian's main source appears to be himself … Arrian had a vestigial report of the Opis speech … the whole speech is a display piece … neither in its shape nor in its detailed content can it bear any relation to what was actually said’ (pp. 105, 112–13). Similarly Brunt (2, pp. 532–3) and Wüst (p. 187) found it ‘nicht echt’ and proposed as author ‘wohl nur Kleitarch’. Tarn (p. 290) reckoned it to be ‘certainly Alexander's’ and said that ‘it came through Ptolemy’ (pp. 290–1). Kornemann, E., Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I von Aegypten (Leipzig, 1934), pp. 158 ffGoogle Scholar. concluded ‘vielleicht im Anschluss an wirklich gesprochene Worte Alexanders’.

2 In Anabasis 6.28.6 Arrian said that he would write an account of the voyage ‘in Greek … following Nearchus himself’. See also Anabasis 5.5.1.

3 Thus Arrian tended to follow one authority at a time. So too Brunt (2, p. 447) ‘Arrian preferred to follow first one of his authorities and the another’.

4 For instance, Herodotus, whom Arrian took as a literary model. So too Stadter (p. 116) ‘Most evident is the influence of Herodotus etc.’

5 Brunt, 2, p. 529.

6 This is apparent when we compare the two accounts in Anabasis 7.20.9f. and in Indica 32.10–13 of Nearchus' reply to Onesicritus. See Stadter (p. 129f.) ‘the words, and the choice of emphasis, are in both cases Arrian's’.

7 These passages are well discussed by Brunt (2, p. 540).

8 So too Stadter (p. 125) and Brunt (2, p. 541).

9 See Stadter (p. 125) ‘it is evident as well that Arrian severely edited Nearchus' narrative’; and (p. 132) ‘Arrian would claim for himself, justly, a different kind of originality, one lying in the charm of his presentation and the effectiveness of his selection’.

10 See Sources, pp. 217f., 232f., and 239ff.

11 For Alexander's dispositions, see my article in JHS 100 (1980), 81ff. = Collected Studies 3.101 ff. The imperfect tense συνέταττεν shows that the deployment was in operation when Parmenio came forward.

12 Brunt (1, p. 452).

13 Tarn (pp. 287, n. 1 and 290, n. 1) seemed to regard these words as indicative of authenticity. These speeches are discussed well by Brunt (2, p. 528).

14 This is true of their accounts generally; see Sources (pp. 34f.) for the similarities and the differences.

15 What Alexander foresaw is clarified at 1.20.1, namely that no place ‘in Asia’ would be available to the enemy; for we must remember that his ‘Asia’ included Egypt east of the Nile, where the Egyptian squadron in the Persian fleet had its bases. Tarn (p. 286) realized that Alexander's foresight ‘is not beyond the powers of calculation of a competent commander’; so too Schachermeyr (p. 182). Bosworth (1, p. 143) ‘it is difficult to suppose that Alexander saw so far ahead’ expressed his own concept of Alexander's ability.

16 This is accepted as historical by Brunt (1, p. 531). On the other hand, Lane Fox (p. 145) found it ‘all most implausible, and it deserves to be suspected’, and he felt free to propose his own scenario (pp. 146–8).

17 Diodorus was alone in placing the arrest in August 333 in view of a letter from Olympias. Alexander Lyncestes was executed in October 330. Both Diodorus 17.80.2 and Curtius 7.1.6 reported that he had been under arrest for three years. That would be approximately correct if the arrest was indeed in August 333. Thus Diodorus was consistent. It is probable that Curtius used the same source as Diodorus when he wrote 7.1.6. On the other hand, in his lost book he will have used a different source, namely that followed by Justin and Arrian. In THA (pp. 41, 138) I argued that these sources were respectively Cleitarchus and Diyllus.

18 He addressed them as ‘friends and allies’ because the commanders of Greek units were present. For a meeting of commanders and friends in Macedonia, see Diod. 17.16.1.

19 The suggestion of Tarn (pp. 286–7), that what Arrian gave as a speech was ‘more probably’ a manifesto issued by Alexander, rests on no evidence. Brunt (1, pp. 185–6) held that ‘the speech is apparently based on Arrian's main sources’, and Bosworth C (1, p. 238) expressed some doubts, e.g. ‘the speech has little relevance to the context’.

20 See THA (pp. 45, and 121–2) for Cleitarchus being the source of Diodorus and Curtius in these passages.

21 Justin 11.12.9–13.1 did not mention the anecdote but dated the offer by Darius to just before the Battle of Gaugamela, his source being Cleitarchus (THA p. 100).

22 I argued in THA (pp. 45,122) and in Sources (p. 225) that one of the sources from which the legomenon was derived was Cleitarchus, an unreliable author. It is doubtful too whether Alexander would have ridiculed Parmenio, his second-in-command, in the presence of the other commanders. The passage is discussed by Atkinson (p. 429).

23 See Sources (p. 38).

24 One has to remember that communication was by runner, and that changes of disposition by units in the dark could hardly be made without confusion.

25 The Macedonians were familiar with Scythians on both sides of the lower Danube, and with the Bactrians who had fought at the Granicus River according to Diodorus 17.19.4.

26 Thereafter Arrian did not report any meetings of Friends or Companions, no doubt because he had to abbreviate his account drastically.

27 See Brunt (1, pp. 450–1) for criticism of such an interpretation. As he remarked, ‘the truth Arrian's account of the Battle of the Granicus is crucial for the whole value of his history of Alexander’.

28 Bosworth C(1, pp. 142–3).

29 Bosworth C (1, p. 257) failed to recognize the significance of λέγουσιν in Arr. 2.25.2, which indicated in accordance with Arrian's Preface that he was now reporting something not from Ptolemy and/or Aristobulus. The legomenon ended just before the narrative tense ἅπερ δὴ καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο.

30 The actions of Parmenio which Arrian reported from Ptolemy and/or Aristobulus were entirely praiseworthy. In the Battle of Gaugamela he and his Thessalians fought brilliantly (3.11.10 and 15.3 λαμπρῶς, joined Alexander in the pursuit, and captured the Persian camp (3.15.3–4). At Persepolis Parmenio argued against the burning of the Palace and his arguments convinced Arrian (3.18.12), as well as some modern scholars (but see my views in CQ 42 [1992], 362 and Sources, pp. 73–4). The defamation of Parmenio began after his death and was conducted by Callisthenes (Plut. Alex. 33.10 with Hamilton C, p. 89). Arrian was of course familiar with it through his reading of Callisthenes and of Plutarch and no doubt others, and he had the good sense not to accept Callisthenes's account here or elsewhere (pace Devine, A. M. in Ventures into Greek History [Oxford, 1994], pp. 89–90Google Scholar; see my article in Class. Bull. 68 [1992], 89–90Google Scholar). The same contrast is seen in Plutarch's account of the Persians reaching Alexander's camp (Alex. 32.6) and in Arrian's account (3.14.5).

31 During a campaign it was probably a matter of routine that the officers came to Alexander at dawn (Curt. 4.13.17 ‘luce orta’ Plut. Alex. 32.1 ὄρθρου and Arr. 7.25.3 ἕωθεν for instance).

32 For the differences between Plutarch and Arrian see my analysis in Historia 37 (1988), 145–6Google Scholar = Collected Studies 3.167–8.

33 The immense amount of detailed information in Arrian's Anabasis must have come ultimately from a record written at the time of the expedition. See Sources (p. 321), mentioning the names of 250 officers in Books 1.11.1–4.30.9 and 147 orders in Books 1–6.

34 Bosworth C (1, p. 204) gives a summary of views ‘about the authenticity of the speech’. These varied widely. Tarn (p. 286) dismissed it as ‘part of a school exercise’, and Brunt (2, p. 531) wrote that ‘in substance Alexander's speech seems as likely to come from Pt./Ar.’ apart possibly from the passage about Xenophon's Ten Thousand ‘as that before Gaugamela’.

35 Brunt (2, pp. 531–2) held that Arrian derived the speeches and their setting from the history of Aristobulus. Bosworth From A to A discussed the speeches at length (pp. 123–34) and summarized his conclusion on p. 133: ‘the debate at the Hyphasis, then, is the clearest example we have of a purely fictitious composition, independent of any report in Arrian's sources’. So also in C (2, pp. 344–4). Herein he resembles Tarn (2, pp. 287ff.) ‘Some have accepted Alexander's speech as genuine; that is impossible. It is obviously a late patchwork.’ He thought much the same of the reply by Coenus (p. 290).

36 Tarn (p. 290 ) ‘the speech is certainly Alexander's … written dow n from memory or from his notes by Ptolemy’ (pp. 290–1), even if ‘it contained some insertions made later’ (p. 290). Brunt (2, p. 532) ‘lack of authenticity is much more evident in the speech at Opis … an epideictic display by Arrian’ (p. 533). Bosworth From A to A (p. 133) ‘in the Opis speech there are traces of an original digest of contents, but the great bulk of it is Arrian's own composition, a re-embroidery of themes previously expounded but now given a different emphasis’. At 7.10.7 Brunt thought that Arrian was contradicting his own narrative (in which Alexander was at Opis) in telling the Macedonians on returning home to say they had deserted him when they came back to Susa; but that was appropriate, because Susa, not Opis, was well known to Macedonians at home. Bosworth From A to A (p. 130) derived the concept of ‘the encircling Ocean with its subsidiary gulfs’ from Eratothenes (floruit c. 235 B.C.), apparently unaware that it was the concept of Theopompus and Aristotle, contemporaries of Alexander (see AG, pp. 174–5 and fig. 17).

37 See Bosworth From A to A (pp. 101–13) and Brunt (2, p. 533).

38 Brunt (2, p. 229, n. 3). See Demosthenes 3.24 and 11.16 Ἀθηναίοις ϕόρους ἤνεγκαν as well as Ps.-D. 7.12 (which Brunt cites alone) and my A History of Macedonia 2 (Oxford, 1979 and Amsterdam, 1997), pp. 116–17 and 124–5Google Scholar.

39 Brunt (2, pp. 232, n. 3 and 234, n.1) ‘absurd’, ‘an invention’. For Alexander's emphasis on courage and for the rewards given for acts of outstanding courage see Arr. 1.16.4, 1.19.6, 2.7.7 and 9, 2.10.2, 2.12.1, 2.18.4, 2.23.4, 2.27.6, 3.9.5, 4.18.7 (huge rewards), 4.27.3, and 7.5.4 (gold crowns).

40 Hansen, M. H., ‘The battle exhortation in ancient historiography’, Historia 42 (1993), 161–80, esp. 172Google Scholar.

41 Arr. 3.9.5–8 and for the emphasis on courage see n. 39 above.

42 Arr. 3.13.1–2 and for the tactics AG (p. 145 with fig. 14).

43 Curtius 3.10.3–4 reported the slow march and Alexander riding along the line ‘cumque agmini obequitaret’. Curtius then added a speech of his own invention.

44 Tarn (p. 289, n. 1) for Wesley. The theatre at Dodona has held an audience of 20,000 in recent times.

45 The Greek words for his speeches will be found respectively at 2.16.8, 5.25.2 and 7.9.1; at 1.14.1, 2.7.6, 2.18.1, 3.10.1, and 7.11.1; and at 2.7.9 and 3.10.1.

46 I have argued this in Historia 37 (1988), 144–6 = Coll. Stud. 3.166–8Google Scholar.

47 We have an example in Tod GHI 77 = M-L. 78, which records decrees concerning the Athenian expedition to Sicily in 415. The speeches on that occasion in Thucydides 6.9–23 were based on hearsay.

48 Eumenes as ‘the King's Secretary’ ranked as one of the highest Companions and married a daughter of the Persian noble Artabazus (Arr. 7.4.6).

49 In their summaries of the account of Alexander's illness in the Journal, Plutarch and Arrian mentioned the issuing of instructions and orders seven times and also a discussion with officers about promotions. The details of the orders and of the discussion will have been stated in the Journal; those details were not reported by Plutarch and Arrian because they had no bearing on Alexander's illness. For the contents of a Journal kept by Antipater and of later Journals, see Historia 37 (1988)Google Scholar = Coll. Stud. 3.154. Ptolemy II, for instance, checked each day ‘all that was said and done’ by himself (πάντα … τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ πρασσόμενα).

50 Diodorus consulted the King's Journal at Alexandria (3.38.1); so probably did Appian (Proem 10). A commentary in five books On the Ephemerides of Alexander was written by Strattis, probably in the latter half of the third century B.C.

51 When he was at the Hyphasis, he spoke of exploration by sea and of conquest as far as the Pillars of Heracles (5.26.1–2). Shortly before his death at Babylon he was planning to circum-navigate Arabia and then to conduct a campaign in the Western Mediterranean with a view to winning thalassocracy there. For this campaign he intended to increase his fleet in the Mediterranean by building ‘a thousand warships larger than triremes’ (Diod. 18.4.4.). See AG (pp. 281ff.) arguing that these last plans were genuine. So now Bosworth, From A to A (p. 211), ‘Diodorus’ report of the Last Plans is a unitary extract from his main source (which I am sure was Hieronymus).’