by David Grant
The result is that the hierarchic historians – the Alexandrian-Cassandreian-linked trio of Ptolemy, Aristobulus and Cleitarchus – were overwhelmingly influential in fixing the chemical formula of Alexander’s compound. Although we may be accusing them of gross historical manipulation, so that ‘the challenge of the historical Alexander was therefore refused’, they themselves would have thought quite differently on the matter, for the known world was itself in flux: geography, astronomy, the calendars, philosophy, scientific classification and even currencies were all being replaced, reorganised and recalibrated.239 The present was finally obscuring the earlier preoccupation with the Homeric past, for Heraclean tasks were being presented to the new generation of kings.
So we doubt Cleitarchus lay awake over passages that captured Alexander’s darker hues, and surely Ptolemy wasted no sleepless nights over his manipulative methodology that may have inserted a self-serving Journal extract into his closing pages. If, as Cicero reminds us, the duty of every historian is to the future, then they simply shifted that obligation to their own paths ahead. Polybius later commented upon the state of the historians writing in the late Argead era: ‘… because there are so many various conditions and circumstances, yielding to which men are prevented from uttering or writing their real opinions.’240 It appears the following years were no less constraining.
Aristotle reasoned that men are by nature political animals, historians the more so it seems.241 The great Peripatetic philosopher was also the originator of the adage: ‘Libya always bears something new.’242 If revenge is best served cold, then free from having to pander to the image of men he despised, Ptolemy served up Alexander from the shores of Libya (which, for the Greeks, broadly meant ‘northeast Africa’) subtly garnished with omission and delicately seasoned with new deceits.
Lucian’s How to Write History stated: ‘My belief is that when actions are finished and done with, not even Clotho [the Spinner] can unspin them, nor Atropus [the Unchanging] change them back.’243 It was perhaps once again laced with sarcasm, for it naively ignores the state of affairs that led Lucian to publish his own True History: the spin and the undetectable ‘change’ from the primary historian himself. But here, at the dawn of the Hellenistic Age, the result was literary alchemy and Alexandria was the historian’s alembic, a recycling factory of rumour, grudges as well as retrospective fraud. And its resident historians appear to have been dealing in both bags of guile.
NOTES
1.Lane Fox (1973) Preface p 11.
2.Pearson (1960) pp 240-241.
3.Macaulay (1828).
4.Lucian How to Write History 51.
5.Lucian A True History 1.12. Quoting Highet (1949) p 304 for Lucian’s unique approach.
6.Lucian A True History 1.4, translation by HW Fowler and FG Fowler, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1905. Lucian referred to himself as ‘Assyrian’ rather than of Greek or Roman descent. He also claimed his native language was a foreign tongue, probably Syriac, a form of Aramaic; see his comment in Lucian The Double Indictment 27. For a summary of Lucian’s career see the introduction by AM Harmon to The Works of Lucian in the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1913. Lucian, from Samosata on the banks of the Euphrates (in modern Turkey), entered imperial service late in life.
7.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 234.
8.Hecataeus Genealogies FGH 1 F 1, cited in Boardman-Griffin-Murray (1986) pp 216-217.
9.Momigliano (1966) p 128. Walbank (1962) p 3 for polemic appearing in prefaces. For Duris’ criticism of Ephorus and Theopompus see Kebric (1977) p 39.
10.Discussion of the steles in Bosworth (2002) pp 20-24 and pp 241-242. For a detailed transcription of the Satrap Stele, see Bevan (1968) pp 28-32; its propaganda discussed in Marasco (2011) pp 70-72.
11.See chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for more on the Satrap Stele.
12.M Wheeler, Archaeology from the Earth, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1956 p 13; its use inspired by Musgrave-Prag-Neave-Lane Fox (2010): People and Archaeology.
13.Strabo 2.1.9, 15.1.28, Arrian 4.14.3, translation by A de Selincourt, Penguin Classics edition, 1958; his jibe was aimed at Ptolemy and Aristobulus, and specifically at their reporting of Callisthenes’ death.
14.Carr (1987) p 24. The original 1961 publication of EH Carr’s What is History?, which challenged the notion of a historian’s objectivity, stirred up a hornets’ nest of criticism following the series of lectures behind it; he sagely added this quote in his 1987 update.
15.Following and quoting Pearson (1960) pp 86-78.
16.Following Pernot (2005) p 7 quoting Victor Hugo.
17.His ‘official’ role confirmed at Arrian 4.10.1, Plutarch Sulla 36. Callisthenes was a relative according to the Suda and a great nephew according to Plutarch 55.8; he was the son of Hero, niece of Aristotle. Callisthenes’ father had married Aristotle’s older sister, Arimneste, mother of Hero. Diogenes Laertius termed him ‘kinsman’. Seneca Suasoria 1.5 called him ‘cousin’. Iliad 18.95 quote from Diogenes Laertius Aristotle 6, translation by CD Yonge.
18.Plutarch 53.1 for Callisthenes’ motives and Justin 8.3.9-11 for the Olynthian intrigue. Philip had already executed a third half-brother and the other two by Gygaea, his stepmother, and Amyntas, his father, were destined for the same.
19.Diogenes Laertius Aristotle 6 for both his and Callisthenes’ petitions to Philip.
20.Atkinson (1963) pp 125-126 for discussion of Callisthenes’ political role.
21.Pearson (1960) p 25-27 for discussion of the fragments of Callisthenes’ works. The Suda also accredited him with a Persika. Barber (1993) p 133 for the quality of Callisthenes’ work. Robinson (1953) pp 45-77 for other possible publications including a History of Thrace and a Makedonika that may or may not be distinct from the Hellenika. Diodorus 14.117.8, 16.14.4 stated Callisthenes’ ten-book Greek history ended in the fourth year of the 105th Olympiad, the year in which Philomelus the Phocian despoiled the temple at Delphi.
22.Following Flower (1994) p 40 for the multi-genre trend.
23.Gnomologium Vaticanum 367 for Callisthenes’ riposte. The fragments that attest to Callisthenes’ caging collected in Robinson (1953) pp 52-53; citations came from Ovid, Plutarch and Strabo as well as eyewitness historians. Pearson (1960) p 33 for discussion on the title of Callisthenes’ work.
24.Curtius 3.10 and Justin 11.9.3-6 cited Alexander’s multi-national encouragement to his allied force. Plutarch 33.1 mentioned Callisthenes ‘seeking to win the favour of the Hellenes’. The ‘pan-Hellenic set piece’ quotes Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 112.
25.Pearson (1960) p 31 for discussion quoting the Vatican Gnomologos 367. Full citation in Robinson (1953) p 54. Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Thucydides 36. Discussed in Pitcher (2009) p 105. Also in the Art of Rhetoric 11.2.19-21 of Pseudo-Dionysius, referring to Thucydides 1.22.4 and his contention that the reading of history should be profitable.
26.Polybius 12.25b.
27.For the reference to narrative and epic in the Iliad see Pernot (2005) p 1. Grant (1995) p 47 for twenty-four per cent comprising speeches.
28.Thucydides imitation of Herodotus discussed by JL Moles in Gill-Wiseman (1993) p 100. Gray (1987) p 468 for discussion of mimesis, and quoting Dionysius of Halicarnassus ad Pompeium Geminum 18 (776) as it appears in Gray (1987).
29.Cicero De Oratore 2.58; full text in Robinson (1953) p 55. Quoting Pearson (1960) p 250 for the merging of ‘rhetorical history and antiquarian scholarship.’ Polybius 12.12.b and 17-22.
30.For examples of the treatment of Parmenio see Tarn (1921) p 24; this appears to have infiltrated the Vulgate, examples at Curtius 4.9.14-15, 4.13.4 and 4.7-9; also Arrian 3.10.1-2 and Plutarch 31.11-12.
31.The collected fragments can be found in Robinson (1953) pp 45-77.
32.Arrian 4.14 suggested both Aristobulus and Ptolemy deliberately implicated Callisthenes in their texts. Certainly they were not apologetic. Curtius 8.6.22 suggested Ptolemy brought Callisthenes’ involvement to Alexander’s attention.
> 33.Aristotle was reportedly aware of the danger of Callisthenes’ outspokenness in front of Alexander; Diogenes Laertius 5.4-5.
34.Arrian 4.10.1-2.
35.Oscar Wilde The Critic as Artist Part 1, 1891.
36.Robinson (1953) p 46 for the fragment relating to Aristotle’s purported joke on wit and common sense.
37.At Plutarch 33, Callisthenes is mentioned twice; Plutarch Aristeides 27.2 mentioned Callisthenes as a source but this is clearly not from his account of Alexander; Pearson (1960) pp 72-74.
38.Stoneman (1991) p 28 for discussion of the possible more sober archetype of the Romance texts. Also Fraser (1996) pp 210-226 for the earliest form of the Romance.
39.For Callisthenes’ alleged part in the pages’ conspiracy see Plutarch 55.3-5, Arrian 4.12.7, 4.13.3-4, 14.1 and 8.6.24-25, Curtius 8.7.10, 8.6.8, 8.8.21, Justin 12.7.2. There are five conflicting reports of how he died; see chapter titled The Damaging Didactic of the Classical Death for fuller explanation.
40.Plutarch 55 claimed letters were circulating to Craterus, Attalus and Alcetas in which Alexander stated the pages had no accomplices, a contention supported by Arrian 4.14.1.
41.The underlying themes and speeches surrounding the Hermolaus affair discussed by S Müller in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 26-27.
42.Arrian 4.141-4 for the reporting disunity of the eyewitness sources. Lane Fox (1980) p 307.
43.Diogenes Laertius Theophrastus 1.5.44. Atkinson (1996) p 135 for citation on fortune. However the treatise may not have been about Callisthenes, just dedicated to him. Curtius 4.4.19 for Darius’ long speech prior to the battle at Gaugamela when fortune’s changing blessings are pondered.
44.Pearson (1960) p 25 for discussion of his being referenced as a ‘sophist’. Plutarch 53.2 for the quote and Callisthenes’ superior sophistry that earned him the hatred of the Macedonians.
45.Heckel (2006) p 183 assumes he was with the campaign earlier, citing Diogenes Laertius Onesicritus. However this remains uncertain as this text simply suggested ‘he accompanied Alexander’ with no dating reference. It does not confirm Onesicritus ‘set out’ with Alexander. Onesicritus’ family may have been from Aegina, according to Diogenes Laertius 6.84. For discussion see Heckel (2006) p 183 and Pearson (1960) p 85 and in depth in Brown (1949) p 1 ff, 4, 24. He was a student of Diogenes the Cynic; see Plutarch 65.2, Strabo 15.1.65, Metz Epitome 331e.
46.Diogenes Laertius Onesicritus 6.75-76, Plutarch 65.2, Plutarch Moralia 331e, Strabo 15.1.65 for Onesicritus’ association with Diogenes the Cynic.
47.Tarn 1 (1948) p 82 and Tarn (1948) p 97 for discussion of the Peripatetic treatment of Alexander. The hostile tradition to Alexander from the Peripatetics is challenged by Badian (see Borza (1995) pp 179-182 and Milns (1966) p 499 as there is little evidence to prove this. Aristotle founded the Lyceum in Athens in 335/334 BCE. It took its name from Apollo-Lyceus, the god incarnated as a wolf, and was initially a gymnasium and meeting place. The building had colonnades, peripatoi, though which Aristotle would walk whilst teaching, earning him the title peripatetikos, hence peripatetic. Whilst the link is attractive, the term peripatetikos, of walking, was likely already in use; Diogenes Laertius Aristotle 4 for the origins of the name.
48.Diogenes Laertius Zeno 4-5 related a different version of a story that Zeno was shipwrecked at Athens and thus began his own philosophical movement thereafter. Tarn (1949) pp 93-98 for discussion of the peripatetic portrait of Alexander.
49.Robinson The Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition (1953). The missing year discussed in full in Bosworth (1981) relating to the lack of synchronicity through 329/328 and 328/327 BCE.
50.Conflicts best summarised in Heckel (2006) p 187 for Oxyartes and p 250 for Sisimithres, where the possible meeting with Roxane took place after the capture of the Rock of Chorienes, or after the siege of the Rock of Sogdia. The sons that Curtius attributed to Oxyartes, Roxane’s father, appear in fact to belong to Chorienes. Even Oxyartes’ governorship and territorial claims are uncertain. Also Bosworth (1981) pp 29-32 for discussion of conflicting reports from this period. Metz Epitome 70 recorded that Roxane bore a child that died in its infancy; its narrative runs, broadly, from July 330 to July 325 BCE.
51.Heckel (2006) pp 76-77 for a summary of the conflicting deaths recorded by Curtius, Arrian, Chares, Aristobulus and Ptolemy and references to either Bactria or Bactra (the regional capital, modern Balkh) in Zariaspa.
52.For the dating of Callisthenes’ death and the termination of his writing, see Robinson (1953) Preface pp viii-xi.
53.Robinson The Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition (1953) Introduction p 11 and pp 70-71. Fragments of Onesicritus’ work do relate the curiosities of Sogdia and Bactria, though this could be hearsay and does not prove he was there. For the relevant fragments see Robinson (1953) pp 152-153. Likewise the Amazon affair was probably considered ‘essential’ reporting though Onesicritus might have arrived after the event; Plutarch 46 for Onesicritus’ version.
54.Plutarch Eumenes 2.3.
55.For Onesicritus’ reputation as a purveyor of marvels, see discussion in Pearson (1960) p 86, citing Aulus Gellius 9.4.1-3.
56.Brown (1949) p 7 for the fragments relating to India. Brown (1949) p 89 for the reporting on cotton; Herodotus had more vaguely referred to the plant’s ‘wool’ as a fruit and p 7 for the surviving fragments of Onesicritus in Strabo 15.1.63-65.
57.The ‘philosopher in arms’ is distilled from Onesicritus’ own narrative preserved by Strabo 15.1.58-66. Various other texts including, most notably, Plutarch 64-65, described dialogues between Alexander and the sages. Onesicritus referred to India as ‘a third part of the world’, suggesting his view that it was a distinct continent, possibly as a PR move to help explain Alexander’s decision to turn back west at this point. Discussion in Pearson (1960) p 95.
58.Strabo 15.1.28 discussed by Pearson (1960) pp 83-111 and p 98 for Onesicritus’ place in the Romance, referring to Strabo 15.1.58-66 and the description of the Indian wise men or gymnosophists and the philosophical dialogues.
59.Sphines became known as ‘Calanus’ after ‘kale’ the word he addressed the Macedonians with; Plutarch 65.5; Heckel (2006) p 74 suggests Kalyana as its possible origin. The Indian campaign discussed further in chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son.
60.Brown (1949) p 108 for discussion of Pliny preserving Onesicritus’ account of the coastal voyage.
61.Pearson (1960) pp 87-89 for discussion on the title of Onesicritus’ work.
62.Xenophon’s legacy discussed in Flower (1994) p 42.
63.Discussion on the reference to Xenophon’s lack of introduction in McGing (201) p 61. Xenophon Hellenika 4.8.1. Compare with Arrian Preface 1.1-2, discussed further in chapter titled Classicus Scriptor, Rhetoric and Rome.
64.There are four references to Onesicritus, two that indicate he was the original source of detail; see Robinson (1953) pp 149-166.
65.Arrian 6.2.3. In contrast the Suda N117 claimed it was Nearchus who lied about his role of admiral of the fleet.
66.Plutarch 46.4-5 for the episode involving Onesicritus and Lysimachus.
67.Pearson (1960) pp 84-87 for discussion; other third-party references can be found in Diogenes Laertius Onesicritus 6.84-85; Aulus Gellius 9.4; Strabo 2.1.9; Arrian 6.2.3-4, 7.5.6, 7.20.9; these are pro-Nearchus suggesting they came from Nearchus’ own account. Quoting Diogenes Laertius Onesicritus 6.84.
68.Plutarch Moralia 345c or de Gloria Atheniensium. Eunapius Lives of the Sophists VS 1.453. A katabasis more ominously denotes a trip down to the underworld.
69.Anson (2004) p 42 also Borza (1995) pp 166-167 for the use of hetairoi and philos for the inner circles of the Macedonian court.
70.Arrian 3.6.5 for confirmation of his exile and Plutarch 10.1-4 and Arrian 3.6.5-6 for the alleged Pixodarus affair that led to Philip banishing them. Hammond Philip (1994) pp 173-4 suggests the whole affair was the ‘malicious fiction’ of Satyrus’ Life of Philip. However for a different interpretation see Carney-Ogd
en (2010) pp 4-11. Chapter titled The Reborn Wrath of Peleus’ Son for more on the Pixodarus affair.
71.Ormerod (1997) p 14 and p 108 for Cilician piracy. Ormerod (1997) p 119 for Isocrates Panegyricus 115.
72.Following the arguments cited in Pearson (1960) pp 114-115 surrounding Nearchus’ naval expertise. Piracy was still rife and Alexander had tasked his admiral Amphoterus with clearing the seas of them; Curtius 4.8.15. The Hymn to Apollo 452-5 from the anonymous Homeric Hymns mentioned the hazards of pirates. Thucydides 1.5 also described their plundering. Demosthenes 17 explained how the Athenian fleet needed a further one hundred ships to escort Athens’ grain fleet; Blackwell (1999) pp 95-96 for discussion.
73.For Nearchus’ role commanding mercenaries and light-armed troops see Arrian 4.7.1 and 4.30.5-6. For his role at the Hydaspes-Indus see Arrian Indike 18.1-11 the fleet. Trierarchies were expensive and often didn’t return capital to those obligated under the Athenian system of ‘liturgy’. It came with the obligation to fit out and provision a naval ship. Bottomage or bottomry was a form of hypothecation using as security the ‘bottom’ or keel of a ship, and thus its cargo, to guarantee a loan. As an example Diogenes Zeno of Citium 13 is said to have arrived in Athens with 1,000 talents and lent it on bottomry; also Demosthenes Against Phormio 7-8 for examples.
74.1,700 miles according to Pliny 6.96-100. Apparently Nearchus and Onesicritus concurred on the distance. Arrian Indike 18.10 and 18.14 for Nearchus role on the Indus. The Erythrean Sea is literally the ‘Red Sea’ though the Greeks loosely extended its use for the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Curtius 8.9.14 and 10.1.13-14 claimed the name ‘Red’ came from King Erythrus who also featured in Strabo 16.3.5, Pliny 6.13.28, 19.1.2, Arrian Indike 37.3. Engels (1978) p 13 for the calculation of the length of Nearchus’ voyage.