by David Grant
How do we read all this babble from antiquity? The answer is with care, for even ‘babble’ is supposedly derived from the same roots as Babylon, but like much else associated with it, this is a false cognate supported only by biblically dated vagaries of linguistic coincidence.289 And yet without Jean-François Champollion at hand, one of the heroes of hieroglyphic deciphering, the Babylonian settlement does appear a ‘Rosetta Stone’ that helps us to compare and decode the source-divergence at the point of Alexander’s death, essential when the Bodyguards departed the city with the cipher keys in their pockets.
Alexander’s final wishes at Babylon were eventually manipulated away from him by his men and by historians in a flanking manoeuvre he had never witnessed on the battlefield. Dried in embalmer’s natron and bound in Ariadne’s linen following the Eastern practice, his body was finally mummified to preserve his corpse from the summer heat.290 But before Alexander’s organs were replaced and protected by Canopic jars, the truth behind his death was being ignominiously buried elsewhere.291 He had no choice in the matter; even the Olympian Gods charged with overseeing his testament could not change the course of what took place next. For despite the giants of the age it empowered, Alexander’s Will was just a frail document after all, and one not destined for the Alexandrian archives. It had no Solon to defend it and no Senate to enact it. His testament was as vulnerable as the material on which it was penned, and as flammable as its own short-lived content. Alexander ‘died untimely’, and like the truth behind events at Babylon, his Will was soon ‘hidden, like a brilliant light beneath a bushel’, to quote from the final line of Greek Alexander Romance.292
Front face of the trilingual Rosetta Stone, the ‘foundation’ of modern Egyptology, erected during the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes and found at Rosetta (modern Raschid) in the Nile Delta in 1799 by the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt. The decree, issued at Memphis, is inscribed on the granodiorite stele in three scripts: Egyptian hieroglyphs, demotic and Greek, assisting translators, most notably Jean-François Champollion in 1824, in their race to decipher hieroglyphs. Nevertheless it took twenty years for any comprehensive understanding of the pictographic symbols to emerge. The inscription mentioned the Macedonian 4th of the month of Xandikos dating it to March 27th 196 BCE. The Rosetta Stone has resided at the British Museum since 1802.293
NOTES
1.Lucian Dialogues of the Dead 13.
2.Justin 13.1, translation by Rev. JS Watson, Henry G Bohn, London, 1853.
3.Gelb (1955) pp 1-4. Babylon is a Greek adaptation of Babili (bāb-ili, gateway of the gods).
4.The Old Testament, Genesis 11.7-9 for the myth of the Confusion of Tongues and Tower of Babel.
5.Oates (1979) p 151. The excavations of the site by Koldewey, which purportedly unearthed a bucket and chain system of irrigation, have now turned up lists of rations for the Jewish exiles suggesting a warehouse instead. Herodotus 1.184-191 for references to Semiramis.
6.Berossus Book 1 detailed the origins of the world and civilisation, book 2 the history of the antediluvian kings, the flood and rulers to 747 BCE (Nabonassar’s accession), book 3 the recent history down to the accession of Antiochus I; Beaulieu (2006) p 117 for detail. Diodorus went on to describe decorations he attributed to Semiramis, his supposed founder of Babylon who was mentioned fifty-eight times in his second book. And yet she was a queen he associated with the mythical King Ninus of Assyria who never appeared in the cuneiform tablet Assyrian King List.
7.Curtius 5.1.25 stated ‘most people have believed it was found by Bel’. Discussion at Pliny 19.19.4, and for his confusion see Reade (2000) p 200. Josephus Against Apion 1.20 for Nabonidus as builder of the walls. Curtius 5.1.16 described the Babylonian walls as bitumen-cemented, using the bitumen stream that poured from a cavern at nearby Mennis.
8.For Polyhistor’s unreliability see Dalley (1994) p 55.
9.Berossus’ Babylonaika is transmitted through the opening chapter of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1.92-95, Against Apion 1.128-13 and by Alexander Polyhistor through his forty-two books on world history and geography. Megasthenes’ references are preserved by Abydenus in his History of the Chaldeans and Assyrians, which in turn is preserved in Eusebius’ Kronographia.
10.Curtius 5.1.35. Diodorus, like Cleitarchus, used ‘Syrian’ for ‘Assyrian’; see Pearson (1960) p 230.
11.Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica book 10 and Kronographia 49, translation from the Internet Sacred Text Archive.
12.There is confusion on the identity of either Antipater of Sidon or Antipater of Thessalonica; his poem appeared in the Greek Anthology 9.58. Curtius 5.1.25 for the width of the walls being wide enough for two chariots to pass. Sprague de Camp (1972) p 137 for detail of the inner wall.
13.Diodorus 2.11.5 for the obelisk of Semiramis and 2.10.1 ff for the Hanging Gardens; discussed in Dalley (2013) p 4. Following Dalley (2013) p 30 for references to thaumata by Diodorus and Strabo. ‘Wonders of the world’ did not begin in classical antiquity with Antipater of Sidon; such expressions were used by the Assyrians long before; Sargon used similar terminology for his gigantic copper sculptures, and in fact Sennacherib used the term ‘wonder for all peoples’ to describe his own palace and gardens in Assyria. The terminology became commonplace and identical phraseology attached itself to Nebuchadnezzar’s new Babylonian walls, gates and palaces; discussed in Dalley (1994) p 54.
14.The Indian House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar cuneiform tablet was presented to representatives of the East India Company in 1801 in Baghdad.
15.Full details of Tintir can be found in George (1992). Copies of the Tintir tablets were kept at Nineveh; see discussion in Dalley (1994) p 50.
16.Dalley (2013) p 26 and her observation that the Romance failed to mention the gardens.
17.Dalley (2013) p 43 for the panel sculpture discovered in 1854 showing gardens at Nineveh. Also pp 83-105 for the engineering feats and water management systems. Evidence has now come to light that Nineveh resurged under the Seleucids; see Dalley (2013) pp 179-2002 for Nineveh’s revival.
18.Dalley (2013) p 97 for the observation that Alexander would have come across the Jerwan aqueduct and p 98 for the Assyrian use of concrete. Diodorus 2.10.5 did mention the use of ‘cement’ in the base of the Hanging Gardens.
19.Vitruvius The Ten Books on Architecture book 9, chapter 8, Sundials and Waterclocks. Clayton-Price (1989) p 43 for discussion of Berossus’ other work.
20.For the sculptures of Assurbanipal see Dalley (1994) p 50.
21.Updated translation taken from Dalley (2013) p 212. The alamittu is the male date palm, which has a natural spiral pattern on its trunk. A shaduf is a traditional bucket, pole and cantilever water-raising device. The screw represents an Archimedes Screw comprising a carved palm trunk inside a brass cylinder.
22.Discussion in Saggs (1984) pp 163-164. Koldewey wrote of his machine ‘where buckets attached to a chain work on a wheel’; his full text in Sprague de Camp (1972) p 143. For Sennacherib’s wording see Dalley (1994) p 52.
23.The Old Testament II Kings 19.36-37; the passage cited has him staying at Nineveh before he was killed. The Indian House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar p 127.
24.See Dalley (1994) p 47 for discussion on the confusion between Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib and p 108, for example, in the Book of Judith.
25.Quotes from Dalley (2013) p 147.
26.See chapter titled Classicus Scriptor, Rhetoric and Rome for Nietzsche’s full quote from Nietzsche (1974) pp 137-8.
27.Billows (1990) p 331 for discussion of the name of Hieronymus’ book or books.
28.As detailed at Arrian Events After Alexander 1.2; Eumenes’ role at Plutarch Eumenes 3.1; discussed in more detail below.
29.Anson (1992) pp 39-41 and Blackwell (1999) p 88 for discussion of the various titles afforded to Perdiccas; Diodorus 18.23.2, Appian Syrian Wars 52 for prostates; Diodorus 18.2.4 for epimeletes; Arrian Events After Alexander 1a.3 for epitropos, Plutarch Eumenes 3.6 for strategos. Also Collins (2001) for t
he development of the chiliarch role. Livy 40.6.3 for an example of custodes corporis being employed; Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 459 for discussion. Full discussion of titles and relative authorities in Anson (1992) and Hammond (1985) p 157 for the disappearance of chiliarchos. Cassander was appointed chiliarch by Antipater following Triparadeisus, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.38, though this was arguably just command of the Companion Cavalry previously under Seleucus as suggested by the Heidelberg Epitome; see Collins (2001) p 279. Cassander may have retained the position under Polyperchon implied by his being second-in-command; Diodorus 18.48-4-5, Plutarch Phocion 31.1; Collins (2001) p 279.
30.Hieronymus’ geographical excursions discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 86. Hieronymus may have added further background detail on the history of Macedon and events leading up to Alexander’s campaign; see Hornblower (1981) p 80 and Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 304 for the suggested detail that might have been included. Polybius 12.26.4 for the suggestion of Timaeus’ geographical width.
31.Quoting Bosworth (2002) p 170 on Diodorus’ preservation of Hieronymus’ geographical digression.
32.See Hornblower (1981) pp 90-96 for full discussion on Diodorus’ sources and use of Cleitarchus and Hieronymus.
33.Diodorus 18.2.1, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947.
34.Barsine’s identity discussed further in the final chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius. Diodorus 20.20.1, 20.28.1 for Heracles; 20.81.3 for the Will; discussed in chapters titled Guardians and Ghosts of the Ephemerides and The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.
35.See chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus for discussion of Curtius’ identity and career.
36.An epipolesis was a troop review, typically pre-battle in which a rousing speech was given to boost morale. For full discussion of the themes in Alexander’s speeches to his troops see Inglesias-Zoido (2010).
37.Thorough treatment has been given to Roman themes in Curtius’ final chapter in Atkinson (2009). Also a discussion of Curtius’ independence of thought in Errington (1970) pp 72-75. Curtius’ approach discussed in chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus.
38.Digory Whear On the Plan and Method of Reading Histories, 1623, chapter 3.3 quoting Seneca. Quoting Macaulay (1828) for the dramatist and historian comparison. Quoting McKechnie (1999) p 52 on ‘pure theatre’.
39.Curtius 10.8.16 and 10.7.8 for Arrhidaeus’ speech. Perdiccas and Leonnatus were appointed as joint guardians at the Assembly and the compromise included Antipater and Craterus; see Justin 13.2. Also Ptolemy supposedly proposed group rule; Curtius 10.6.15. Justin 13.2 captured the same undertones, suggesting the framework was indeed from Cleitarchus, unless we are prepared to accept Curtius was following Trogus’ lead.
40.Badian (1968) p 189.
41.Lock (1977) p 96 for discussion of the reconstructed constitutional procedures. And for Curtius’ embellishment p 104 referring to a law that demanded all relatives of those condemned to death were destined to die also. Baynham (1998) pp 171-180 for Roman themes in Curtius’ account of the Philotas affair.
42.Justin 13.1, translation by Rev. JS Watson, Henry G Bohn, London, 1853. Quoting Bevan (1902) p 28 on ambition at Babylon.
43.Plutarch Galba 1, translation by J Dryden, 1683; repeated at Plutarch Moralia 336e-f.
44.Romance 3.32, Metz Epitome 103.
45.Arrian 7.25.6 for the officer waiting outside the door. Arrian 7.26.1, Justin 12.15.2-4, Plutarch 76-77 for the forced entry.
46.Curtius 10.5.9-10.6. For the mutiny at Opis and alleged rejection at (or derision of) his attachment to Zeus-Ammon; Plutarch 71.1, Diodorus 17.109.2. More in chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son.
47.Justin 13.1, translation based on Rev. JS Watson, published by Henry G Bohn, London, 1853.
48.Quoting Bosworth (2002) p 32, by permission of Oxford University Press, www.uop.com.
49.Quoting Mitchell (2007) and discussed in Atkinson (2009) p 181.
50.Following the discussion in Anson (1991) pp 230-247 and quoting WS Greenwalt in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 152.
51.A good summary of arguments in Lock (1977); Hammond (1991) for Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ confirmations.
52.Following the argument in Thomas (2007) p 59. Amyntou, the son of Amyntas.
53.See chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for more on the people and state assets.
54.This explanation of the origins of the Assembly is supported by Lock (1977) and Anson (1991) and reproduces the earlier study of Granier (1931). See further discussions in Lock (1977) pp 91-107. Also see Thomas (2007) p 59 and citing Herodotus 9.44 who outlined the dual role of king and commander. Anson (2013) pp 26-42 sees a less formal structure, suggesting there were no fixed rules for bringing the Assembly together. Quoting Hatzopoulos (1996) p 267 for hardly one hundred aristocratic families.
55.Anson pp 24-42 for discussion of the Assembly role.
56.Hammond (1994) pp 38-39 for the naming convention. Flower (1994) pp 110-111 for Theopompus’ stating 800 Companions. For the theatre location see discussion in E Carney in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 45.
57.Plutarch Pyrrhus 5.2 for the Epirote tradition.
58.The twice per year formal meetings as proposed by Hatzopoulos (1996) p 270; Hammond (1989) p 218 for the Xandika.
59.Wilkins-Hill (2006) for the pastoral industry in classical Greece and Euripides Elektra for the epithet ‘milk drinker’.
60.Billows (1990) p 246 for discussion of the synedrion and its function. Anson (2013) p 41 for doubts about a ‘people’s assembly’. Hatzopoulos (1996) p 264 ff for the contention that it was not always represented by the army but by a broader ‘commonwealth, especially in the Hellenistic era’ and p 286 for the observation of the ease of assembling the army at war rather than a population in peace. Diodorus 19.46.4; Polyaenus 4.6.14 saw it as a synedrion. Hammond (1991) p 42 believed only serving men could attend the Assembly.
61.For discussion on the religious position of the Macedonian king see Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 10.
62.First described in Herodotus 1.134.
63.Arrian 4.13.1 for Philip’s formation of the corps of the royal pages.
64.Quoting Borza (1990) pp 245-246. Hammond (1978) pp 340-342 for Macedonian trial procedure. For the Assembly’s role in treason, see the coverage of the Philotas affair, especially Curtius 6.7-11, which gave additional detail that all Macedonians present were invited to the trial. Also covered in Diodorus 17.79, Plutarch 49.3-12, Arrian 3.26.1, Justin 12.5.1-3 and the text that follows in each for this subsequent execution. Also Diodorus 19.12.2 made it clear that it was an Assembly decision that levied a death sentence on Eumenes; presumably his action against Craterus was deemed treasonous. For Olympias’ death after an Assembly gathering, Diodorus 19.51.1-4 and Justin 14.6.6; both recorded a judicial proceeding in the form of an Assembly gathering. Arrian 7.8.3 provided the most negative coverage of the hasty execution of ringleaders at Opis.
65.Anson (1991) as an example of the interpretation of absolute power. Curtius 6.8.25 suggested in peacetime royal power was not effective in Assembly trials, ‘except in as far as a king’s personal prestige had been of influence before the verdict’; translation from Hammond (1978) p 341.
66.As observed by Hatzopoulos (1994) pp 265-266; Diodorus 16.3.3 and Justin 7.5.10 for Philip’s early use of the Assembly and Curtius 8.2.12. Anson (1991) p 231 ff for list of Assembly gatherings. Hammond (1978) pp 340-343 for the Assembly and trials following Philip’s death. Curtius 9.4.15 for the Assembly in Mallia.
67.Curtius 6.8.25. For Demetrius’ speech see Plutarch Demetrius 37.2-4, Justin 16.1.10-18; Cassander had addressed the Assembly at (or most likely after) Olympias’ death: Diodorus 19.51.1-2, Justin 14.6.6-13. Discussed in detail in Hatzopoulos (1996) pp 274-275.
68.The text of Arrian Events After Alexander 1.28 which suggested Perdiccas publicly brought charges against Ptolemy, is unclear; Ptolemy allegedly cleared his name such that the royal army was agai
nst the attack.
69.See chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son for more on Amyntas’ execution.
70.Livy 40.9.8 for Perseus’ claims to the right of primogeniture; though this is a later event, it is unlikely the rules of succession had changed.
71.Hammond (1991) pp 35-38 for the grandsons of Alexander I, polygamy and succession traditions.
72.Hammond (1991) p 34-35 for the equal rights of Macedonian princes. Justin 8.4.4-6 for the offspring of Amyntas III. ‘Oversupply’ quoting Bosworth (1992) p 29.
73.See discussion in Lock (1977) p 92 for the dominance of primogeniture. Hammond (1994) p 18 for the joint rule discussion; this occurred after the death of Alexander I of Macedonia.
74.Following and quoting Bosworth (1971) p 128.
75.Schachermeyr (1970) pp 81-84 cited in McKechnie (1999) p 47; Justin 13.2 mentioned the meeting took place in the palace.
76.Curtius 10.6.2.
77.Curtius 10.6.1.
78.Diodorus 18.4.1-4, based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947.
79.Arrian 7.1.1-3 and Curtius 10.1.17 for the proposed voyages around Arabia, Africa and the conquest of Carthage and the Scythians via the Black Sea; Arrian 7.19.3-5 for the Babylonian projects.
80.Quoting Bosworth A to A (1988) p 186. A good summary of the views up to his time can be found in Badian (1968) rejecting Tarn’s cynicism and supporting Wilken and Schachermeyr in their belief in the detail.
81.Full discussion of views and Hellenistic and Roman contamination in Tarn (1948) pp 378-399. Also Tarn (1939) pp 124-135. ‘Embroidery’ quotes Badian (1968). See Tarn (1948) pp 374-378 for discussion of the invented embassies and chapter titled Hierarchic Historians and Alexandrian Alchemy.
82.Diodorus 18.4.4-6 based on the translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1947. The footnote reads ‘Cyrnus in Macedon is otherwise unknown, but the name is found elsewhere in Greece (Herodotus 9.105, Pliny 4.53)…’
83.Alexander had already constructed a large tumulus some 125 feet high and ‘great in circumference’ for Demaratus of Corinth; Plutarch 56.2; a tumulus for Hephaestion; Plutarch 72.5; and a first modest tumulus for Philip upon his death; Justin 11.2.1.
