In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  185.Diodorus 17.117.5.

  186.Diodorus 32.27.3 for his eulogizing Caesar; discussion in Sacks (1990) p 74 ff.

  187.Discussed in Heckel (1984).

  188.Quoting Hadley (2001) p 3 for the ‘uneasy agreement’. Errington (1970) on the other hand sees the exclusive use of Hieronymus in books 18-20.

  189.Sacks (1990) p 18 for the contradiction between proemia and narratives.

  190.Discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 263. Diodorus 19.29.2 for the unique reference to asthippoi; discussed further in chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft.

  191.Proposed and discussed by Hornblower (1981) p 26.

  192.Tarn (1948) p 92 for his description of Diodorus as an ‘honest plodding Greek’.

  193.Diodorus 1.3.6 for ‘immense labour’.

  194.Discussed in Pitcher (2009) p 72.

  195.Discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 19.

  196.Examples are discussed at length by Simpson (1959) pp 370-379 and Hornblower (1981) pp 62-75. The degree to which Diodorus adhered to a single source and plagiarised its content is still debated, yet it seems clear he followed single authors where he could. Much of his history of Alexander closely correlates with Curtius’ work suggesting Cleitarchus as a common link. For discussions see Anson (2004) pp 1-33, Hornblower (1981) pp 1-75 and also discussion in Baynham (1998) p 85. Following the views of Brown (1947) p 692 for the fortunate lack of creativity. Detailed discussion of Diodorus’ methodology in Sacks (1990) p 21 ff citing Agatharchides.

  197.‘Not entirely mechanical’ following Hornblower (1981) p 63.

  198.Referring to Hegel (1837) and its contention that only a recorder of contemporary events merits the title ‘historian’. Recorders of events of the past are deemed ‘compilers’. His Lectures on The Philosophy of History were originally delivered as lectures at the University of Berlin, 1821,1824,1827,1831. First published by Eduard Gans in 1837 and by Karl Hegel in 1840. ‘Self evident’ taken from the first line of III Lectures on the Philosophic History. They led to the concept of Geistgeschichte that unified the ‘spirit’ of the age.

  199.Quoting Pitcher (2009) p 116.

  200.Justin Preface 1 described Trogus as vir priscae eloquentiae; discussed in Baynham (1998) p 30.

  201.Quoting Alonso-Núñez (1987) p 57.

  202.Quoting PA Brunt (1980) p 494.

  203.Justin 12.13.1 for the embassy from the Gauls; the succession of empires discussed in Alonso-Núñez (1987) pp 62-70.

  204.Heckel-Yardley (1997) introduction p 2 quoting Justin 43.5.11-12.

  205.Justin 11.6.3.

  206.Justin 11.6.3, 12.13.1 and 12.16.9 for Alexander’s quest to become king of the universe or the entire world.

  207.See discussion in Heckel-Yardley (1997) Introduction pp 6-7.

  208.Duris is reckoned to have been anti-Macedonian in his treatment of Alexander and his successors. See Shipley (2000) p 161 for discussion. Also Hornblower (1981) pp 68-70. This is largely disputed by Billows (1990) p 336.

  209.See full discussion on Trogus’ style and content in Alonso-Núñez (1987) pp 56-72.

  210.The study by Yardley (2003) suggests Justin’s creativity.

  211.Discussed in Heckel-Yardley (1997) Introduction p 9. Also Baynham (1995) p 61.

  212.Quoting C Thomas in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 178.

  213.Horace described himself as a hard-working bee gathering sweetness from myriads of flowers, cited in Highet (1949) p 226.

  214.Tarn (1948) p 125. Also see Tarn’s summation of Justin in Watson-Miller (1992) pp 106-110.

  215.Chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus.

  216.For arguments that a reference in Hegesippus’ work (he died ca. 180 CE) might have been drawn from Curtius 9.4.30-31 see Fears (1976) p 217 footnote 18. Again they remain inconclusive and are refuted by Fears. Discussion in Baynham (1998) p 3 and in chapters titled The Precarious Path of Pergamena and Papyrus and Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus.

  217.Discussion in Baynham (1995) p 15.

  218.As an example see Curtius 4.14.9-26 for the speech provided before the battle at Gaugamela. Also Justin 11.9.9-10 for Darius’ pre-battle rhetoric. Quoting Tarn (1948) p 92.

  219.Curtius 9.1.34.

  220.Renault (1972) p 412.

  221.Tarn (1948) pp 91-92.

  222.Curtius’ relative merit discussed by Schachermeyr and Sibert and cited in McKechnie (1999) p 47, as well as in detail in Baynham (1998). For Errington’s comments on Curtius see discussion in McKechnie (1999) p 47 and quoting Errington (1970) pp 49-77.

  223.Summarising Baynham (1998) p 14. Romane (1987) observed Curtius’ technical account of the siege of Tyre was superior to Arrian’s. Heinsius’ praise from WH Crosby’s preface to the Cellarius edition published in 1854.

  224.Quoting Olbrycht (2008) p 233.

  225.For Cleitarchus’ popularity see Pearson (1960) p 213; he was cited by Diodorus, Plutarch, Strabo, Cicero, Athenaeus, Pliny, Quintilian and Diogenes Laertius, to name a few, alongside references from many rhetoricians. The extant fragments can be read in Robinson (1953) pp 171-183.

  226.Quoting Atkinson (2009) p 19. In the chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus we argue that Curtius most likely published in the term of Nero; this preceded, or marked the very beginnings of the Second Sophistic when Greek writing and culture once again became popular.

  227.Quoting Longinus On Sublimity 22.1 (full extract in Gray (1987) pp 470-471) and Diodorus 1.2.

  228.In an analogy of his method Plutarch 1.3 explained he relied mostly on the face, the expression and the eyes and paid less attention to the other parts of the body. Quoting Tarn (1948) p 296 for ‘best to worst’. Plutarch Demetrius 1.1 for the quote on senses.

  229.The various themes of letters to and from Alexander discussed in Pearson (1955) p 449.

  230.Discussed in Ehrman (2014) p 43.

  231.In Plutarch Alexander he referred to personal letters of Alexander at 7.6, 8.1, 17.8, 19.5-8, 20.9, 22.2, 22.5, 27.8, 39.4, 39.7, 39.13, 42.1, 46.3, 47.3, 55.6, 55.7, 60.1, 60.11. No other historian seems to have had access to them and how genuine they were remains open to speculation. Plutarch Demosthenes 2.1.1-4 for his limited library.

  232.See discussion on the unraveling of Plutarch sources in Hammond (1993) pp 1-2 citing Powell (1939) pp 229-240 and Tarn (1948) p 296.

  233.Following Whitmarsh (2002) for ‘virtual history’ and noting the diptych comparisons.

  234.Plutarch Moralia 404d or De Pythiae Oraculis 21, translated by Sir Thomas Browne, and Plutarch Coriolanus 75, cited in Clement The Stomata (Miscellanies) 5.88.4.

  235.Plutarch 73-76. On reincarnation see Moralia, Consolation to his wife (Consolatio ad Uxorem), Loeb Classical Library edition, vol. VII, 1959, pp 575-605 and J Rualdus Life of Plutarch 1624. In a letter to his wife concering the death of their daughter, Plutarch firmly suggested his belief in reincarnation or at least the survival of the soul.

  236.Arrian 7.18 and 7.23. Aristobulus is cited several times as author of the mysterious portents.

  237.Plutarch 1.2.

  238.Compare his treatment of the meeting with the Amazon Queen and his account of Alexander’s pre-death portents.

  239.Polybius books 10 and 11 for the detail on Hannibal and Scipio. ‘Cradle-to-grave’ quoting SR Asirvatham in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 201.

  240.Quoting Tarn (1948) p 297.

  241.Quoting Mossman (1988) p 85.

  242.Macaulay (1928).

  243.‘Parental’ as Herodotus has been termed the ‘father of history’.

  244.Arrian 4.11.9 and 5.4.5 for Cyrus’ death at the hands of the Scythians and Herodotus 1.204-216.

  245.Lucian True History 2.20.

  246.Aristotle was demonstrably bigoted. Thus a social code written when Hellenes were learning to smelt iron would have undermined his own sense of superiority. Aristotle’s proposal that Hellenes were born to rule over all other nations gave a moral underpinning to Alexander’s invasion of the Persian Empire.

  247.Ham
mond (1993) p 3 quoting JE Powell (1939) p 229.

  248.Arrian 1.12.2-3 for a digression on the relative fame of Alexander and (in his opinion) lesser men that Rome favoured.

  249.Discussion of Plutarch’s relegation of Philip by SR Asirvatham in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 202-204.

  250.Quoting Atkinson from Hammond-Atkinson (2013) Introduction p xxxvi for ‘public intellectual’. See Hamilton (1971) Introduction: Plutarch had been granted Roman citizenship with possibly an honorary Roman consulship and was also a Greek magistrate and archon in his municipality; also AH Clough Plutarch’s Lives, Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics, 1864, Introduction. For Polybius see the Introduction to The Rise of the Roman Empire, Penguin Classics edition, 1979, pp 13-15 for his career in Achaean federal office and in Rome.

  251.Quoting Arrian 7.30.3. As an example Arrian 4.28.2-3 and 5.1 and 5.3 for his doubt surrounding the legends of Heracles and Dionysus and India, and his doubt on the claimed geography of the Caucasus. Following SR Asirvatham in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 203 for the comparison of Arrian to Homer; Arrian 1.12.2 for his understanding of Alexander’s self-comparison.

  252.Arrian opened with a polemic against previous works, asking the reader to compare them against his own. See the introduction by Hamilton to the Penguin Books edition, 1971, p 9 for references to the style used in the Indike and Pearson (1960) p 112.

  253.Photius’ epitome 93 was a summary of Arrian Bithynika.

  254.See Bosworth (1976) p 118 for discussion of Dio Chrysostom’s earlier book.

  255.Following Hammond-Atkinson (2013) Introduction p xv. For the Hyphasis River episode see chapter titled The Rebirth of the Wrath of Peleus’ Son.

  256.The Athenian general, Iphicrates, son of a shoemaker, is said to have started a trend in military leather sandals known as iphikratids; he and Xenophon were contemporaries; Diodorus 15.44.4. Photius epitome 58.4 for the ‘young Xenophon’.

  257.Quoting Bosworth (1976) p 137 on Arrian’s errors.

  258.Arrian Preface 2 for his accepting that ‘as a king he would have been honour-bound to avoid untruth’.

  259.Arrian 3.8.6 stated the total Persian numbers at Gaugamela as 40,000 cavalry with one million infantry whilst Curtius stated 200,000 infantry. Also Arrian 3.15.6 for Persian troop losses of 300,000, again far higher than Curtius at 40,000 and Diodorus at 90,000. For the one hundred men lost on the Macedonian side, Arrian 3.15.6.

  260.Curtius 3.11.16-17.

  261.Bosworth-Baynham (2000) Introduction p 4 for the quote. Tacitus had worked his way through to military tribute, questor, praetor and proconsul of Asia, serving with legions under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan; Pernot (2000) pp 128-129 for Tacitus’ oratorical career.

  262.Arrian 1.12.5.

  263.Pliny’s Preface to his Natural History included a Livian quote nowhere found in Livy’s extant texts and must have come from a later work which read ‘I have now obtained a sufficient reputation, so that I might put an end to my work, did not my restless mind require to be supported by employment.’

  264.Ovid Metamorphoses Epilogue 875 ff. Polybius 31.22-25 is essentially an encomium to the Scipios in which Polybius stressed his own importance in his friendship and advice.

  265.Thucydides 1.22.4.

  266.For Arrian’s deliberate omissions of the darker episodes see Baynham (1995) p 70. Quoting McInerney (2007) p 429.

  267.Arrian 3.27.4-5 referring to the Ariaspians.

  268.See discussion of Arrian’s politics in the introduction by Hamilton (1971) Introduction.

  269.Arrian 7.14.5-6.

  270.Arrian 3.18.11-12. Arrian 7.29.4 for his acceptance of the reason, following Aristobulus, of Alexander’s drinking.

  271.Tarn (1948) p 286.

  272.Arrian 1.12.1-3 for references to Homer and Xenophon. Arrian’s use of the title Xenophon in his own name discussed in the 1958 Penguin edition of The Campaigns of Alexander, introduction p 1; refuted by Stadter (1967) p 155 ff who argued it was a genuine part of Arrian’s name.

  273.Quoting Pearson (1960) p 123 for the form and content of the Indike.

  274.Quoting Porter (2006) p 4.

  275.As proposed by Highet (1949) p 105.

  276.Preface to the Discourses of Epictetus by Arrian headed Arrian to Lucius Gellius, with wishes for his happiness, translation by George Long from the 1890 edition published by George Bell and Sons. Arrian expressed (somewhat confusingly) his efforts with: ‘I neither wrote these Discourses of Epictetus in the way in which a man might write such things; nor did I make them public myself, inasmuch as I declare that I did not even write them. But whatever I heard him say, the same I attempted to write down in his own words as nearly as possible, for the purpose of preserving them as memorials to myself afterwards of the thoughts and the freedom of speech of Epictetus.’ Only four of the eight books are extant.

  277.Arrian’s stoic interpretations of kinship following Pearson (1960) Introduction p 7. The original title of the Discourses is unknown; it has been variously named the Diatribai and Dialexis amongst others.

  278.Quoting Shipley (2000) p 236.

  279.Polybius 1.4.

  280.Quoting Grant (1995) p 53.

  281.Discussion of the papyri in Bevan (1913) pp 22-25.

  282.Pitcher (2009) p 171 for a discussion of Athenaeus’ diversity.

  283.Flower (1994) p 48 quoting Photius’ Life of Theopompus F25 and p 157.

  284.Billows (1990) p 333. Following Flower (1994) Introduction p 2 for Athenaeus’ preservation of Theopompus; we have eighty-three verbatim quotations (598 lines of text) with 412 lines in Athenaeus. Flower (1994) p 156 for Photius paraphrasing Theopompus who claimed the ‘first place in rhetorical education.’

  285.Nietzsche, from an unpublished manuscript on Diogenes Laertius and his sources, a contribution of the history of ancient literary studies; quoted by Glenn W Most, Speech at the Israel Society for the Promotion of Classical Studies 42nd Annual Conference.

  286.Quoting the comment of JR Lowell, 1867, see Loeb Classical Library edition, 1937, Prefatory Note p vii.

  287.Momigliano (1966) pp 3-4 for the reference to antiquarians.

  6

  THE GUARDIANS AND THE GHOSTS OF THE CAMPAIGN EPHEMERIDES

  Concerning events at Babylon, were the Journal, the Pamphlet, and the Vulgate accounts related in some way?

  Alexander’s last days in Babylon resulted in three differently reported outcomes stemming from at least three early influential sources. Two of them are potentially linked to the Ephemerides, official court diaries, or to their supposed author, with the third inspired by them both.

  How genuine do they look, and can their claims be reconciled or linked in some way?

  We take a closer look at the messages that underline each and at the possible identities of the authors, to reveal the architects of an early literary war that took place in the aftermath of Alexander’s death.

  ‘He [Alexander] recognised his officers when they entered his room but could no longer speak to them. From that moment until the end he uttered no word. That night and the following day, and for the next twenty-four hours, he remained in a high fever. These details are all to be found in the Diaries.’1 (T3)

  Arrian Anabasis, extract from the Journal

  ‘When they asked to him to whom he left his kingdom, he [Alexander] replied, “to him who was the best man”, but that he already foresaw that because of that contest great funeral games were in preparation for him. Again when Perdiccas asked when he wished divine honours to be paid to him, he said he wished it at the time when they themselves were happy. These were the king’s last words, and shortly afterwards he died.’2 (T7)

  Curtius The History of Alexander

  ‘When the Macedones had filed past, he called back those who were with Perdiccas. He took Holcias by the hand and ordered him to read out the Will. What follows is a copy of the Will dispositions, as taken down from Alexander by Holcias.’3 (T2)

  Greek Alexander Romance

  There is a dictum t
hat proposes ‘many books are wrongly forgotten, but no book is wrongly remembered’. Yet one of the few absolutes we are presented with is that our central witnesses, who may be better termed our ‘prime suspects’, incriminate one another in their recounting of Alexander’s death. Simply put, the Journal and the Pamphlet cannot exist together in history as factually based: if a Will was read as the Pamphlet claimed, the Journal hid the detail, and if the Journal is genuine, the Pamphlet’s fulsome testament, absorbed later by the Romance, was complete fabrication. And if either contained the truth, then Alexander’s last words as portrayed in the Vulgate texts, cannot have been said in the context attached to them. So the dictum is surely flawed from the perspective of all their competing authors.

  Having reviewed the primary historians who accompanied Alexander and those writing in the generation that followed, as well as the Roman-era authors who built their own interpretations from these earlier accounts, it becomes clear that each did adopt one, or elements of more than one, of these epitaphs. However, we also know that all of the mainstream accounts rejected, and so excluded, the reading of Alexander’s Last Will and Testament in the unanimous belief that he failed to organise his estate and declined to nominate a successor (or successors) to govern the greatest empire the Graeco-Persian world had ever seen.

  The archetypal documents behind these opposing endings have been reviewed only in isolation, when each is as undecipherable as the Phaistos Disk.4 Their full potential becomes apparent when they are considered together, for the Journal and the Pamphlet bear witness to an ancient literary war. They were not the products of hair-splitting wordsmiths ridiculed for their sophistry in Aristophanes’ Clouds,5 nor were they ineffectual sponge-wielding fighters like those appearing in Commodus’ gladiatorial games.6 The Journal – despite its benign exterior – and the Pamphlet, were literary hoplites launched into the histories armed to the teeth with accusation, insinuation, strategic omission, and more dangerous still, a convincing reinsertion of detail. What becomes clear, when they are reviewed side by side, is that the one was born to end the allegations of the other. Their historic relationship was misunderstood and awkwardly dealt with by the classical historians who may have suspected, yet could not pinpoint, a subterfuge somewhere between Babylon and Alexandria some decades on when the first influential accounts appeared.