In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  26.As examples, Heckel (1988) pp 1-5, Bosworth-Baynham (2000) pp 207-241, Atkinson (2009) pp 229-230. Ausfeld (1901) proposed a dating of 319 BCE. He and later Merkelbach (1954) concluded Holcias might have been the self-promoting author. These first conclusions were clouded by the views of Wagner (1900), Reitzenstein (1904) and Nietzold (1904).

  27.Quoting Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 241.

  28.Metz Epitome 97-98 for the full list given in Heckel-Yardley (2004) p 283.

  29.Pausanias 1.6.3. Ptolemy murdered Cleomenes, whom Perdiccas had reappointed in Egypt and Ptolemy’s speech at Babylon in Curtius 10.6.13-16 clearly undermined Perdiccas’ position; see chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone. The date of Perdiccas’ death, May/June 320 BCE, is backed up by the Babylonian Chronicle extract BM 34, 660 Vs 4, also known as The Diadokhoi Chronicle or Chronicle of the Successors.

  30.Citing Bosworth in Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 209.

  31.Others, notably Siebert and Samuel dismiss the idea of the Pamphlet altogether as a propaganda piece emanating from the Successor Wars; see Heckel (1988) pp 4-5 and footnotes for full citations. For explanation of the so-called ‘high’ and ‘low’ chronologies see chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  32.Bosworth (1971) noted this ‘anomaly’ and salvaged Ptolemaic authorship by suggesting the Will be unyoked from the conspiracy detail in the Pamphlet (thus inconsistencies stemming from those named guilty and innocent in the plot disappear); he was alternatively proposing that there might be substance to the spurious story which appears to be a later Romance 3.32.9-10 addition. Here Perdiccas initially tried to share power with Ptolemy; a plan that backfired when he himself was unexpectedly passed the ring by the dying king. Yet this episode has been ‘long recognised’ as Ptolemy’s own propaganda, and one that in fact reconfirmed Perdiccas’ inheritance of power. Would it not have been far simpler for Ptolemy to simply claim Perdiccas was guilty?

  33.Arrian’s statement that ‘neither Aristobulus nor Ptolemy had anything to add’ is much debated and does not necessarily mean the book was ended here, only the account of Alexander’s death did. There is equally no evidence that either extended their books past this point.

  34.Quoting Carney (2006) p 110 for ‘scrap of partisan literature’.

  35.The alliance of Olympias and Eumenes and the circumstances behind the Pamphlet discussed in chapters titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths and The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  36.Heckel (1988) with a good summary of previous work on pp 1-5.

  37.Following the reasoning in Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 212. If Polyperchon wished to damn Cassander, his new opponent, he could have achieved this without implicating Antipater.

  38.Diodorus 20.20 for Polyperchon’s return to affairs; 20.28.1-3 for his alliance with Cassander and troops and grants.

  39.Hammond (1993) pp 145-146. He suggested Antigonus shifted blame to Aristotle (implicated in the Vulgate tradition) to counter Olympias’ accusations against Antipater and his sons, before providing Hagnothemis with the story. Quoting Heckel (1988) p 5 on Antigonus’ insignificance.

  40.See chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers for Antigonus’ possible influence.

  41.Quoting Bosworth in Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 210.

  42.Diodorus 19.57.1-3 for the demands of Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Cassander for their role in Eumenes’ defeat. Lysimachus’ men had captured and executed White Cleitus on behalf of Antigonus; Justin 13.6.16 for Cleitus’ operation under Perdiccan forces. For his operations under Polyperchon, see Plutarch Phocion 34.2-4 and 35.2.

  43.Arrian Events After Alexander 25.1 and Bosworth-Baynham (2000) pp 210-211 for Asander’s relationship with Antigonus. Contra Heckel (2006) p 57 there is actually little evidence Asander supported Perdiccas and then defected to Antigonus. His grant of Caria is as we pose, an original Will appointment and not a result of his pro-Perdiccan politics.

  44.Heckel (1988) pp 64-65 suggests Asander was opposed to Antigonus, yet Heckel (2006) p 57 clarifies he was aligned with Antigonus at least until 315 BCE, after Eumenes’ death. Thus he opposed Eumenes before. For his defection to Antigonus see Arrian Events After Alexander 25.1 and Diodorus 19.62.2 for his later defection to Ptolemy. Detailed discussion of the alliance between Polyperchon, Eumenes and Olympias in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  45.Eumenes and 50 Perdiccans were first outlawed and sentenced to death in Egypt by the troops upon hearing of the death of Craterus: Diodorus 18.37.1-3, Plutarch Eumenes 8.2, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.39, Justin 13.8.10-13.8.14.1.1, Appian Syrian Wars 53. For the dating of Triparadeisus and the ‘high’ and ‘low’ chronologies of the years 323/319 BCE see Wheatley (1995) and chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  46.The alliances and political intrigues of the two factions led by Eumenes and Antigonus covered in detail in chapters titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths and The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  47.Tarn (1948) pp 378-388. Metz Epitome 123 for the gods and 97 for the reference to the ‘senate’ at Rhodes.

  48.Following and quoting de Polignac (1999) p 8; the emergence of Serapis discussed in detail below.

  49.For the penning and private reading of the Will by Holcias to Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Perdiccas and Roxane see Metz Epitome 106, Romance 3.33.1.

  50.Plutarch Eumenes 1.2 for Neoptolemus deriding Eumenes’ position as secretary. See below for Aelian linking the Ephemerides to Eumenes.

  51.Holcias’ full significance to the Pamphlet discussed in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  52.Polyaenus 4.6.6 for Holcias’ defection, capture, and repatriation to Macedonia. Holcias’ activity discussed in further detail in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  53.Quoting Tarn (1948) p 317.

  54.Taking the observation from Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 240.

  55.For Hagnothemis see Plutarch 77.3 and for Hagnon of Teos see Plutarch 40.1.

  56.Discussion of sources for Hagnon in Heckel (2006) p 128 and also Billows (1990) pp 386-388. For Hagnon’s hostility to Callisthenes see Plutarch 55.2.

  57.Plutarch Moralia 65d or How One May Discern A Flatterer from A Friend 442.

  58.Arrian Indika 18.8 for Hagnon’s trierarchos role. Trierarchies were expensive and often didn’t return capital to those obliged under the Athenian system of ‘liturgy’. It came with the obligation to fit out and provision a naval ship.

  59.Athenaeus 12.539c, Plutarch 40.1, Aelian 9.3 for his extravagance. Arrian Indike 18.8 for example called the Tean ‘Andron’ suggesting how easily names can be eroded in transmission. Nepos additionally erroneously named Hagnonides as Hagnon; Heckel (2006) pp 128-129 for references.

  60.Heckel (2006) p 310 footnote 300 for discussion of Hagnon’s whereabouts in 315/314 BCE. Plutarch 77.2-3 for Hagnothemis hearing of the plot from Antigonus who here is called a ‘king’ but this does not suggest he had been formally crowned yet. It is more likely the title represented Antigonus’ supremacy in Asia.

  61.Plutarch 76-77; Arrian 7.25-26. The Greek translation of Arrian’s claims that Aristobulus and Ptolemy had nothing more to say is much debated; see Arrian 7.26.3 Alexander the Great, The Anabasis and the Indica, Oxford World Classics 2013 edition, footnote to 7.26.3 on page 324 for discussion.

  62.Lucian Encomium of Demosthenes 26 for reference to the Macedonian royal archives. Polyaenus 4.6.2 for the Antigonid hypomnemata. Discussed in Marasco (2011) p 57.

  63.Discussed in Marasco (2011) pp 57-65; see chapter titled Babylon: Cipher and Rosetta Stone for further discussion of hypomnemata.

  64.Persian archive tradition suggested at Hellanicus fr. 178, Herodotus 1.99, 3.128, 8.85.4, 8.90.4, Old Testament, Ezra 4, Old Testament, Esther 6.1, 10.2; Anson (2013) p 57 and Momigliano (1977) p 31 for discussion. Hammond (1988) pp 129-150 is the most vocal on the existence of a complete campaign journal. Also see Anson (1996) pp 5
01-504 for discussion. Robinson (1953), Preface, believed the journals entered the ‘general stream’ of histories early on.

  65.Nepos Eumenes 1.4-6 and 13.1 (aged twenty), also Plutarch Eumenes 1.1-3 for his background; more in chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths.

  66.Lucian A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting 8.

  67.The Journal format in cuneiform tablets was proposed by Cartledge (2005) p 278.

  68.Citing Van der Spek (2003) pp 289-346.

  69.As pointed out by Casson (2001) p 1.

  70.An attested greater antiquity of the astronomical observations came from Porphyry through Simplicius, so may be an exaggeration; discussion in Neugebauer (1957) p151 and Robinson (1953) p 45 for citation. Polcaro-Valsecchi-Verderame (2008) p 5 for the oldest extant diary. For Berossus’ claim of antiquity see Drews (1975) p 54.

  71.Quoting Dalley (2013) p 1 for the extent of Babylonian and Assyrian writings.

  72.‘Nerve centre’ following the comment by Anson (2004) p 233.

  73.Curtius 8.11.5 for Mullinas, but possibly identifiable with Myllenas son of Asander; see Bosworth A in the East (1996) p 51 for discussion on identity and Heckel (2006) p 120. He was placed in command of lightly armed troops.

  74.See discussion in Robinson (1953) The Ephemerides p 69 in agreement with ‘metaphrasing’. Not all historians agree with the similarity; see discussion in Bosworth A to A (1988) chapter 7 and Anson (1996) p 503 footnote 6. Nevertheless Bosworth p 506 did concede that a single source was being followed.

  75.See the version from Aelian below, which reported the binges leading up to Alexander’s illness.

  76.Baynham (1998) p 96 for a list of tragic episodes linked to komoi. Borza (1995) pp 159-169 for discussion on the Macedonian banquets and drinking parties. The most famous was given by Medius heralding in Alexander’s death, and a nine-day festival was given on the eve of Alexander’s departure for Asia; see p 160.

  77.Plutarch Alexander 75.6.

  78.Following the definition of Briant (1974) p 138 for the king mediating between the gods and men.

  79.Arrian 7.25.6.

  80.The presence of these commanders discussed by B Bosworth in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 92.

  81.Arrian 7.26.1; this is also related at Plutarch 76.8 and Justin 12.15. There is a lacuna in Curtius where we expect this to feature. Diodorus’ brevity appears to have passed over this detail.

  82.Plutarch 75.6 stated 30th and at 76.9 the 28th.

  83.See Atkinson (2009) p148 for discussion of the hollow month of Daisios and possible confusion that it caused.

  84.Curtius 10.10.9-14 stated seven days and Aelian 12.64 referred to a thirty-day period; it is highly unlikely that a body could remain unattended that long in the climate of Babylon in June. Plutarch 77.5 follows the ‘fresh corpse’ tradition without being specific on duration apart from ‘many days’. Hammond and Engels argued that malaria brought on a deep coma that fooled the audience; see discussion in Atkinson (2009) p 232. More detailed discussion on the cause of death in chapter titled The Damaging Didactic of the Classical Death.

  85.Arthur-Montagne (2014) p 3 for the explanation and origins of pseudo-documentarism. Discussion of the Macedonian symposia and its rhetorical treatment in Greece by F Pownall in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 55-65.

  86.Serapis dealt with in more detail below.

  87.See fragment in Robinson (1953) pp 31-32 from Plutarch’s Moralia 623e or Quaestiones Conviviales 1.6.1.

  88.Plutarch 23-24 and Athenaeus 434b. Whilst Plutarch’s earlier Journal reference does not mention Babylon, the grandeur of the dinner arrangements and the king’s sleeping habits hardly suggest an ‘on campaign’ occasion. Athenaeus may have followed Plutarch’s detail; we cannot in fact be sure where Plutarch’s Journal detail begins and ends in this passage.

  89.Aelian 3.23.

  90.Bosworth A to A (1988) pp 158-167 for these proposals and Hammond (1988) pp 170-171. Also Anson (1996) pp 501-504 Robinson (1953) Preface p x suggested the Journal extract dealing with Alexander’s death could be a surviving extract from Strattis’ On the Deaths of Alexander. Discussion summarised well in Atkinson (2009) pp 142-143.

  91.Athenaeus 120c-d, 146c-d, 434a-b, each extracting from Ephippus’ On the Funerals of Alexander and Hephaestion and each is suggestive that drinking bouts took place before Hephaestion’s death.

  92.Hammond (1988) pp 177-180 for the identification with Hephaestion. Athenaeus 120c-d for the fragment of Ephippus; full text in Robinson (1953) p 86. That Eumenes reported Hephaestion’s slip of the tongue, an embarrassment, suggests he might have been subtly undermining him; Lucian A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting 8, and see above.

  93.Hammond (1988) pp 129-150 is the most vocal on the existence of a complete campaign journal. Also see Anson (1996) pp 501-504 for discussion. Robinson (1953), Preface, believed the journals entered the ‘general stream’ of histories early on.

  94.Aelian 3.23. It is quite clear that Alexander is being referred to, as the drinking bouts formed a part of Aelian’s overall treatment of him.

  95.The paralleled and columned comparisons of the Journal entries from Plutarch, Arrian and Aelian are provided in Robinson (1953) The Ephemerides pp 64-68. Some confusion still exists as to the modern month equivalent to the Macedonian calendar. Josephus’ commentary in which he juxtaposed the Macedonian calendar against the Hebrew, Athenian and Roman months is useful though. Also details in Hannah (2005) p 95 for reference to 29th Daisios.

  96.Plutarch 75.3, Diodorus 17.115.6, Arrian 7.23.8 for Hephaestion’s elevation. Diodorus claimed this was to a ‘god’ whilst Arrian claimed the oracle permitted ‘hero’ only.

  97.Diodorus 17.116.1.

  98.At Aelian 3.23 Alexander is cited as drinking with Eumaios (or Eumaeus) on the 5th and with Perdiccas on the 7th. See Heckel-Yardley (2004) p 43 footnote 14 for detail of the possible mistransmission of the name.

  99.Arrian 7.25.2.

  100.Arrian 7.23-24. Tarn (1948) p 395 questioned whether it was a military campaign, likening it to the crossing of the Gedrosian Desert.

  101.Plutarch 76.1.

  102.Aelian 3.23.

  103.See chapters titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths and The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers for Eumenes’ subterfuges.

  104.Quoting Bosworth (1971) p 467 on the drinking marathon.

  105.Athenaeus 10.434b.

  106.Appian Proem 10 and Diodorus 3.38.1 for the royal archives in Alexandria; discussed in Murray (2012) p 189 and Marasco (2011) pp 54-55 and quoting C Bearzot from Marasco (2011) for ‘propagandistic’ and pp 67-68 for Euergetes’ collection of hypomnemata.

  107.Arrian 7.25-26.

  108.Plutarch 77.1.

  109.Arrian Preface 1.1-4.

  110.Well covered by Bosworth A to A (1988) chapter 7 and Pearson (196) pp 260-261.

  111.Pearson (1960) p 261.

  112.Strabo 2.1.6, discussed in Pearson (1955) pp 440-443.

  113.Diodorus 18.3.5, Justin 13.4.6 for Arrhidaeus’ instructions to build and deliver the funeral bier. No author linked its final destination to Alexander’s own wishes, but rather to the opposing wishes of Perdiccas and Ptolemy. Also Stewart (1993) p 221 for discussion of Alexander’s intent. See chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius for alternative theory on its destination: Perdiccan-held Syria. The suggestion that Ptolemy ‘hijacked’ the funeral bier is found in Arrian Events After Alexander 1.25 Pausanias 1.6.3 (stated Perdiccas planned to take the body to Aegae), Strabo 17.8, Aelian 12.64. We propose this is Hieronymus-derived propaganda against Ptolemy. Diodorus 18.28.2 suggested its intended destination was the sanctuary of Ammon at Siwa whilst Ptolemy decided to entomb it in the city Alexander had founded himself.

  114.Aelian 12.64 for the alternative version of the hijacking of Alexander’s body. Diodorus 26.2-28.2 for a description of the funeral bier.

  115.Aelian 12.64 for Aristanders’ prediction. Romance 3.32, Metz Epitome 119 for Alexander’s wish to be entombed in Egypt. For Alexande
r’s previous journey to Siwa see Diodorus 17.49.252.7, Arrian 3.4-5, Curtius 4.7.8-4.89, Plutarch 26.3-27.11, Justin 11.11.1-13, Strabo 17.1.43, Itinerarium Alexandri 48-50.

  116.Justin 7.1.7-10 for the etymology of Aegae and Justin 7.2.4-6 for King Perdiccas I’s prophecy. Hammond (1991) p 12 for the Phrygian cities of Edessa. Herodotus 5.22 for the line of Perdiccas I.

  117.Diodorus 18.25.2-3.

  118.Syria discussed further in chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius.

  119.Arrian Events After Alexander 24.1-8 for the statement that part of the motivation for Perdiccas’ invasion of Egypt was to gain control of Alexander’s body. Discussed in Erskine (2002) p 171. For Typhon’s Breathing Hole see Plutarch Antony 3. The Egyptians referred to the region inland of Pelusium at the Acregma and Serbonian marshes as Typhon’s Breathing Hole. Perdiccas was in fact murdered further up the Nile near Heliopolis.

  120.Diodorus 18.48.1-4, Plutarch Phocion 30.5-6, Plutarch Demosthenes 31.34-6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.13-15 for the tradition of letters between Perdiccas and Demades undermining Antipater.

  121.See chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius for arguments for Seleucus’ satrapal appointment of Babylonia. Ptolemy’s men used their pikes to blind Perdiccas’ elephants in the battle on the Nile; Diodorus 18.34.2. Chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers for Seleucus’ possible participation in Perdiccas’ murder.

  122.Arrian 7.26.2-3.

  123.Following the identifications of Heckel (2006) pp 109 and 89; for Demophon in Mallia see Diodorus 17.98.3-4, Curtius 9.4.27-29.

  124.Seleucus may have been mentioned as a guest: the corrupted ‘Europios’ was possibly a reference to Seleucus’ ethne. Menidas had a history of serving alongside Ptolemy and Attalus; detail in Heckel (2006) p 165. For his service with Ptolemy see Arrian 4.7.2, Curtius 7.10.11. The identification of Attalus cannot be confirmed; the most prominent individual would have been the commander who became Perdiccas’ brother-in-law; Heckel (2006) pp 62-63 for his career. For Peithon’s prominence and standing at Perdiccas’ death, Nepos 5.1 Diodorus 18.39.6, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35, Heidelberg Epitome 1.3. For discussion of Seleucus’ presence in Egypt at Perdiccas’ death; discussed further in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.