In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  75.Pearson (1960) p 83 for discussion on the nautical conflict with Onesicritus and p 15 for Nearchus’ observations for crossing the tropics and equator. Other titles for his work are suggested by Pliny and Strabo; full discussion in Badian (1975) pp 157-159. Arrian 6.2.3 suggested Onesicritus lied about his and Nearchus’ relative authority and at 7.20.9 outlined a disagreement. There is evidence Nearchus slandered Onesicritus as evidenced in Arrian’s Indike. See discussion in Heckel (2006) p183. For discussion of epiplous see Berthold (1984) p 44.

  76.Arrian penned his Indike in Ionian dialect, which suggests Nearchus had too. Pearson (1960) pp 112-149 for discussion of Nearchus’ emulation of Herodotus, the Odyssey and even Pseudo-Scylax’s Periplous. Herodotus 4.44 claimed Scylax ventured down the Indus and west to the Persian Gulf.

  77.Arrian 7.19.3-6 for Nearchus’ warning, Plutarch 73, Diodorus 17.112.3; discussed in Pearson (1960) p 116.

  78.Closely following Badian (1975) p 148.

  79.Discussion in Badian (1975) pp 147-148 quoting CF Lehman-Haupt.

  80.Arrian Indike 18.1-11 for the list of trierarchs and Homer Iliad 2.494-759 for the catalogue of ships. Tarn 1 (1948) p 101 for the ethnic breakdown.

  81.Quoting Pearson (1960) p 135 for ‘epic adornment’ and Shipley (2011) for a ‘philosophical geography’, referring to Pseudo-Scylax’ Periplous. The Periplous was attributed to a ‘Pseudo-Scylax’ for it was supposedly compiled by the 6th century BCE Greek navigator mentioned at Herodotus 4.44 and yet its knowledge base appears to be that of a much later age, perhaps the mid 330s BCE and with direct connections to Athenian teaching. It was nevertheless widely known and perhaps inspired Alexander to send a fleet on a voyage of exploration of the southern coasts of ‘his’ new empire. It is likely Alexander still harboured the desire to find a coastal route back to Egypt; see Strabo 15.1.25 and Alexander’s short-lived belief that the source of the Nile was to be found in India. The periplous of Hanno the Carthaginian was likely by now in circulation too; Pearson (1960) p 139.

  82.Strabo 2.1.9. For examples of the mirabilia see Badian (1975) p 148. Deimachus was Megasthenes’ successor at the Mauryan court in India.

  83.Arrian 7.5.6 recorded that all the Bodyguards were crowned with the addition of Onesicritus.

  84.Diodorus 19.85.1 for the death of ‘most of Demetrius’ friends’. Peithon son of Agenor is cited as the most distinguished of them, which may suggest Nearchus may have survived. Heckel (2006) p 171 for discussion of Nearchus’ birth date. Nearchus’ whereabouts from Babylon to his reemergence working under Antigonus some four or five years later are unknown. An episode in Polyaenus 5.35 is undated (possibly 318 BCE) though he was operating under Antigonus by 317/316 BCE, as suggested by Diodorus 19.19.4-5 Plutarch 76.3 portrays Alexander listening to Nearchus’ account of the sea voyage; it hints, but does not necessarily prove, he might have already completed a written account. See Flower (1994) p 34 for a possible reference (in Strabo 1.2.35) to the authors of an Indike by Theopompus who is reckoned to have died ca. 320 BCE.

  85.Quoting Heckel (2006) p 235 for Arsinoe’s possible royal roots. For the rumour of parentage see Curtius 9.8.22 and Pausanias 1.6.2, but it is rendered unlikely by the claim in Pseudo-Lucian Makrobioi 12 that Ptolemy was eighty-four when he died, thus born in 367 BCE when Philip II was only sixteen. Also see discussion in Heckel 1992 p 222. The authorship of the Makrobioi is however disputed and other commentators variously assigned it to a ‘pseudo’ compiler.

  86.Pausanias 1.6.2.

  87.See below and chapter titled Sarissa diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for Theopompus’ treatment of the Pellan court; Photius reported that Ptolemy wished Theopompus dead; discussion in Flower (1994) p 12.

  88.Arrian 3.27.5. Heckel (2006) p 351 pointed out that the term Somatophylakes is occasionally used in the general sense and hypaspists were at times being referred to, i.e. the king’s personal infantry corps. Diodorus 17.61.3, Curtius 4.16.32, Arrian 3.15.2 for references to Hephaestion commanding the undefined bodyguard corps. We restrict its usage to the Bodyguards alone. Also discussion in Chugg (2009) pp 14-18 citing specific examples where the term was more broadly used and also Tarn (1948) p 138. Heckel Somatophylakes (1978) p 224 for the Latin derivatives.

  89.Curtius 9.5.21. Bosworth (1983) p 157 noted the similarity with Livy 34.159 and Tacitus 11.11.3; see chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus for more on Tacitus’ emulation of Curtius – it is a contentious point and some scholars argue the opposite.

  90.Heckel (1992) p 222 and Marasco (2011) p 59 for the thirty-five fragments. Quoting G Shipley’s review of Heckel (1992) in The Classical Review, New Series 49, no. 2, 1999, pp 480-482, on his prosopography.

  91.Quoting G Cawkwell in Warner (1966) p 43.

  92.Quoting Heckel (1987) p 114.

  93.Discussion of the military slant in Ptolemy’s account in Pearson (1960) p 196. Pearson (1955) p 436 for lack of interest in Ptolemy’s book in Rome.

  94.The quotation is attributed to Voltaire without reference to a specific work. It appears to be an aggregation of two or more quotes: ‘All styles are good except the boring kind’ from L’Enfant prodigue: comédie en vers dissillabes (1736), Preface, and ‘We should be considerate to the living; to the dead we owe only the truth’ from his Letter to M. de Grenonville (1719).

  95.Citing Roisman (1994) pp 373-374; bias in Ptolemy’s history is well covered by Errington (1969) and also by Pearson (1960) pp 188-211. For the reference to Badian, see Roisman (1994) p 374 who sees less propaganda than some others in Ptolemy’s history.

  96.Citation from J March, D F Kennedy, J Salmon, T Wiedemann, BA Sparkes, P Walcot, Greece and Rome, 2nd Series, Vol. 41, No. 2, 1994 pp 220-255 and also Ellis (1994) p 60: private letters of Professor Peter Green to WM Ellis.

  97.Flower (1994) p 62 for discussion of Isocrates’ late output.

  98.Pearson (1960) p 154.

  99.Pearson (1960) p 151 for his technical roles and examples on p 161; his account of the siege of Tyre was praised by Menander Oration 27.6 ff; Brunt (1974) p 66 for discussion.

  100.Pearson (1960) p 186 for divine intervention, including the Siwa episode. For the journey to Siwa see Diodorus 17.49.2-52.7, 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.

  101.Lucian How to Write History 12. See Pearson (1960) p 150 who rejects the veracity of Lucian’s reference.

  102.Lucian How to Write History 40-41.

  103.See discussion in Pearson (1960) pp 150-151 for discussion on Aristobulus’ flattery and pp 156-157 for discussion of his possibly sanitised reporting of the Gordian Knot episode. Following Pearson (1960) p 263 for the conclusion that Aristobulus fell into no obvious category.

  104.The various accounts of the siege of Tyre are a good example where engineers were mentioned, and Hephaestion’s death for architects, for example.

  105.See Robinson (1953) pp 205-243 for fragments citing Cassandreia. Tarn argues Kos; discussion in Pearson (1960) p 106 and Pearson (1960) p 151. Plutarch Demosthenes 23.6 cited him as a Cassandreian. See full career discussion in Pearson (1960) pp 150-187. Arrian 6.29.4-6.30 for his engineering role suggested by the task of restoring Cyrus’ tomb. Heckel (2006) p 46 assumes Aristobulus returned to Europe, but there is little evidence.

  106.Cassander’s brother Alexarchus founded the city of Uranopolis at the same time; Athenaeus 3.98d-e.

  107.Theocritus The Festival of Adonis 15.6 cited in Erskine (2002) p 165.

  108.The letter from Antigonus to Scepsis for the reference to an Aristobulus who appears to have been a representative of Ptolemy in the so-called ‘Peace of the Dynasts’. See citations by Bosworth-Baynham (2000) pp 231-232 and Heckel (2006) p 46. A late publication date for Aristobulus’ work is supported by Arrian’s detailing of the divination of Pythagoras the seer in which Aristobulus is mentioned as the source, and it suggests the engineer-historian published after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE, for Arrian also recounted the fate of Anti
gonus Monophthalmos who perished at the battle; it is inconclusive as Arrian used Hieronymus for this period.

  109.Diodorus 19.52.1-3 for the founding of Cassandreia.

  110.See chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for detail on Keraunos’ career.

  111.Arrian 7.26.3. The interpretation of the Greek has been debated, but it seems clear the Journal had nothing more to say about events after Alexander’s death.

  112.Ptolemy’s link to the Journal discussed in chapter titled Guardians and Ghosts of the Ephemerides.

  113.Quoting Cicero Paulus L17.

  114.Heckel (2006) p 46.

  115.See Robinson (1953) pp 77-86 for translations of the assembled fragments.

  116.Until the battle at Ipsus in 301 BCE Lesbos was most prominently under the control of Antigonus or his supporters. Thereafter the Ptolemies assumed control.

  117.Robinson (1960) p 86 for Ephippus’ accounts of the symposia that led to the downfall of Hephaestion and Alexander.

  118.Billows (1990) p 400 for Medius’ possible Aleuadae roots at Larissa.

  119.Pearson (1960) p 244 for discussion of Anaximenes’ background and pp 68-70 for Medius; p 243-245 for Anaximenes’ work, citing Pausanias 6.1.8 and Diodorus 15.89.3 for Anaximenes’ Hellenika and Philippika.

  120.Pearson (1960) pp 70-78 for Polycleitus. Polybius 8.9.1-4 claimed Theopompus denigrated Philip II’s behaviour at court; see Pearson (1960) p 18 for discussion.

  121.Suda M 227 and Plutarch Moralia 182c for Marsyas’ relations to Antigonus, and Diodorus 20.50.4 for his command at Salamis; Robinson (1953) p 166 for the fragments. Pearson (1960) pp 253-254 and Kebric (1997) pp 43-44 for discussion of Marsyas’ career and work. Plutarch 4.4 for Aristoxenus’ description.

  122.The reference to thirteen possible historians that wrote histories of Macedonia is taken from Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 7.

  123.Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 24 for full citation from Borza’s Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia, 1999, Claremont, p 5. Quoting Carol Thomas’ introduction to Eugene Borza’s Makedonika for ‘Macedonian specialist’. The title of Antipater’s book in FGrH 114 T1 from the Suda, Marsyas and Philip of Pella in FGrH 135-6; see Marasco (2011) p 45 for discussion of Antipater’s identity and the opinion of C Bearzot on misidentification. Roisman-Worthington (2010) pp 85-86 for Theagenes.

  124.Kebric (1997) p 42 for discussion of Idiomenias’ work. Pearson (1960) pp 250-251 for discussion of Menaechmus’ work. Brown (1949) p 106 for the account of Androsthenes mentioned in Strabo 16.32 (citing Athenaeus 3.93b). His role in the Hydaspes-Indus fleet mentioned at Arrian Indike 18.4.6. Billows (1991) pp 334-337 for Duris’ fragments and style.

  125.Athenaeus 4.146c for the title of Ephippus’ book. Pearson (1960) is rightly dubious about the corruption of the title and suggested it could equally have been titled Five Books of Diaries on the exploits of Alexander. Bosworth A to A (1988) p 181 discussed the issue and reminds us many attributions made in the Suda are questionable. Strattis of Olynthus was cited in the Suda as the author of Five Books of Commentary on the Diary (Ephemerides). The title is probably corrupt. Pearson (1960) p 260 suggested the dating but Hornblower p 252 rejected it noting many people called themselves Olynthians much later. Nevertheless we may assume Strattis was born before Olynthus’ destruction by Philip II in 348 BCE, making him a possible contemporary and eyewitness to campaign events, whilst the destruction of his city would have explained any hostile reporting. Pearson (1995) p 437 suggests the attachment to Olynthus was to reinforce the authenticity of forged diaries.

  126.See Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 287 for discussion; as examples Arrian 7.15.4-6 mentioned two further little known Alexander historians, Aristus and Asclepiades, and Plutarch 46.1-3 mentioned six otherwise unknown historians, including Ister, Antigenes, Anticleides, Philo the Theban and Philip of Theangela. Pearson (1960) p 255 for the Oxyrynchus Papyri XV 1798.

  127.Discussion in Pearson (1960) pp 255-257.

  128.Tarn (1948) proposed the source was a Greek working for Darius, see discussion in Atkinson (1963) p 133.

  129.Hornblower (1981) pp 5-7 and Heckel (200) p 139 for the dating of Hieronymus.

  130.Anson (2004) pp 3-4 for the lost title. Discussion of Dionysius’ opinion in Hornblower (1981) pp 246-248. Detail discussed of Hieronymus’ account in chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths.

  131.For Hieronymus’ approach see chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths and in particular Roisman (2012) p 18 and pp 9-30 for a discussion of the bias in Hieronymus.

  132.Bosworth (1990) p 330 for discussion of the period covered by Hieronymus and see chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths.

  133.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 16. None of the eighteen or nineteen fragments are direct quotations of Hieronymus.

  134.Brown (1947) p 691 for discussion and referring to Jacoby’s Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker which collected the fragments. See chapter titled Classicus Scriptor Rhetoric and Rome for more on Diodorus’ method and use of sources. Diodorus’ books eighteen and twenty-two survive in fragments and yet the era they covered suggest they too would have used detail from Hieronymus who detailed events down at least to the death of Pyrrhus in 272 BCE.

  135.Hieronymus’ history provided material for Pausanias, Polyaenus (2nd century) and Appian (ca. 95-165 CE), as well as for the biographies of Eumenes and the Athenian statesman Phocion (ca. 402-318 BCE) written by Nepos and Plutarch. His narrative was the foundation of Plutarch’s Lives of Demetrius Poliorketes and Pyrrhus of Epirus (ca. 319-272 BCE), and Hieronymus was the template for several books of Trogus’ Philippic History, though Duris’ overlapping account is surely woven into these biographical portraits too, sourced directly or indirectly. Hieronymus’ was substantially the material behind Arrian’s Events after Alexander, parts of which exist as an epitome in the encyclopaedic Myriobiblion (also named Bibliotheke) of Photius who précised a parallel work by Dexippus (ca. 210-273 CE), the Athenian historian and hero of the Gothic invasion of 262 CE. The Vatican Palimpsest (or Codex) contains two extracts from Arrian’s seventh follow-on book and the Gothenburg Palimpsest houses a fragment from the tenth, all ultimately stemming from Hieronymus’ account, as does the Heidelberg Epitome. For Pausanias, Polyaenus, Appian (Syrian Wars) and Dionysius using Hieronymus, see discussion in Hornblower (1981) pp 71-74 and Rozen (1967) p 41. Nepos used Hieronymus for his part of his biography of Eumenes and Phocion. Determining how much of the detail Trogus drew directly from Hieronymus, or through Diyllus, is confused by Justin’s compression of detail; see discussion in Heckel-Yardley (1997) pp 3-5. For the length of Hieronymus’ work see Hornblower (1981) pp 97-102. Further fragments of Dexippus’ book can be found in the Excerpta de Sententiis, a work commissioned by Constantine VII of Byzantium around 900 CE and transmitted in palimpsest Vaticanus graecus 73 in the Vatican Library. Anson (2014) p 10 for a useful summary of Photius’ work and the two palimpsests. Gothenburg Palimpsest discussion in Roisman (2012) p 147.

  136.See discussion in Green (2007) p xxvii and Billows (1990) p 333-337 and quoting Kebric (1977) p 9.

  137.Kebric (1977) p 46 for the proposition that Hieronymus published in response to Duris’ account. For his career and dating see Kebric (1977) pp 1-5. The conclusions are refuted by Billows (1990) pp 333-336 who sees no evidence of the use of Duris. Diodorus is reckoned to have drawn from Duris rather than Hieronymus for detail that appears in book 19 concerning Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse; the logic being that Duris had published a so-named book and had possibly been born in Sicily-Kebric (1977) p 4. Whilst Timaeus, who harboured a special grudge against the tyrant, is a strong contender as a source, as are the pro-Tyrant Callias and Antander (brother to Agathocles) – all mentioned by Diodorus himself (21.16-18) – several episodes found in Plutarch are specific to Eumenes’ career, and Duris must be a prime candidate for each. The absence of these episodes from Diodorus suggests the possible strategic omiss
ion by Hieronymus, who may well have been involved in their provenance; a point of some significance to our investigation. Hieronymus’ method and bias discussed in chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths. Perdiccas’ enforcement of Alexander’s Exiles Decree allowed Samians to return to Athens-dominated Samos but Polyperchon overturned this in 319 BCE and returned the island to Athens after which they turned to Antigonus for support: Kebric (1977) pp 4-5.

  138.Chapter titled The Tragic Triumvirate of Treachery and Oaths for detailed discussion of Hieronymus’ role in the Successor Wars.

  139.Kebric (1977) pp 7-9 for discussion of Samian plutocracy.

  140.See Kebric (1977) p 37 for discussion of Duris’ style and emulation and pp 10-11 for the fragments; p 19 ff for his political stance. He is thought to have taken much material on Egypt and Africa from Herodotus. Billows (1990) p 333-335 for the length and dating of Duris’ work. Some sixteen of the thirty-six fragments appear in Athenaeus Deipnosophistae. Diodorus 15.60.6 confirmed where Duris’ history commenced. Duris was personally familiar with Antigonus, Demetrius and Lysimachus; Kebric (1977) p 81.

  141.Plutarch Demosthenes 23.4, Pericles 28 and Alcibiades 32 for Duris’ unreliability; also Photius Myriobiblion 176. Plutarch Eumenes 1.1 for his confirmation that he was drawing from Duris for Eumenes’ background.

  142.Plutarch Moralia 1043d. Hammond (1994) p 189 for discussion of Ephorus’ treatment of Philip and his excellence appearing in the early chapters of Diodorus’ book 15. Flower (1994) Introduction p 1 for discussion of the scope of Ephorus’ history; 1069 represented the return of the Heracleidae.

  143.Strabo 9.3.11. Strabo suggested Polybius was in agreement.

  144.FGrH 76 F1 for the fragment of Duris; cited in full in Gill-Wiseman (1993) p 184. Mimesis and its use discussed in Gray (1987) and following Gray for history as an ‘imitative art’, Aristotle’s Poetics saw a separation of the disciplines. Grafton (1990) p 78 for Ephorus stealing 3,000 of Duris’ lines, see FGrH 70 Ephorus T 17.