In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  145.Tarn (1948) p 43.

  146.Quoting Badian (1975) p 164.

  147.Cleitarchus was ‘Alexandrine’ according to Philodemus De Sublimate 3.2 (FGrH 137 T 9). Bosworth (1992) p 2 however considered the evidence tenuous.

  148.‘State within a state’ quoting Bagnall (1976) p 4.

  149.The comparative lack of information in Arrian’s account, for example, compared to the Vulgate for the period after 328 BCE, discussed in Bosworth (1981).

  150.Cicero Brutus 43. Cleitarchus was popular in Rome and he was cited as a source by Diodorus, Plutarch, Strabo, Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius, to name a few. Quintilian 10.1.74-5. Cicero Brutus 11.42. Cicero had proposed that orators alone should be entrusted with the care of the past. For other criticisms see Pearson (1960) p 153 footnote 21.

  151.Deinon’s account was rich in Persian court customs, as inferred by a fragment in Athenaeus 2.67a. Plutarch Artaxerxes mentioned Deinon nine times as an information source; we assume Deinon’s Persika was being referenced. Nepos Conon 5 for his praise of Deinon.

  152.Quoting Plutarch Artaxerxes 1.2 and 6.6, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1926; Ctesias had in fact called both Hellanicus and Herodotus liars.

  153.Quoting Pearson (1960) p 213. Ctesias appears a preferred source as he was resident at the Persian court; Diodorus 2.125, 2.129-137 for Ctesias’ capture and service under Artaxerxes II.

  154.Diogenes Laertius Stilpo suggested Stilpo ‘won over’ Cleitarchus, detaching him from his previous teacher of Aristotle of Cyrene. See discussion in Bosworth (1996) p 2. As Bosworth (1996) points out, the meeting would have taken place in Greece not Egypt. For more on the philosophy and influences of Stilpo see Brown (1950) pp 136-137.

  155.Ptolemy’s manipulative or even ruthless character is well demonstrated. As examples: his murder of Cleomenes, a local governor or treasurer, see Pausanias 1.6.3; for the forced suicide of Polemaeus, a defecting nephew of Antigonus’ and who had become ‘presumptuous’ see Diodorus 20.27; and his annexation of Coele-Syria after a failed bribe, Appian Syrian Wars 52 and Diodorus 18.43.2.

  156.For the flattery still visible in Curtius’ account of the Babylonian settlement onwards see chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone.

  157.For Cleitarchus’ use of Theopompus see Pearson (1960) Introduction p 19. Following Tarn (1948) p 127 for the proposal of Peripatetic polemic and p 297 for ‘under Cassander’s shield’. Athenaeus 10.435b-c for an example of Theopompus’ treatment of the Macedonian court under Philip II. Brown (1950) for discussion of Diogenes’ influence over Stilpo, and thus Cleitarchus. Brown (1950) p 153 disputes there is any proof of Cleitarchean hostility towards Alexander. Flower (1994) pp 98-116 for Theopompus’ treatment of Philip and pp 166-167 and pp 169-183 for his moralising. Quoting Plutarch Demetrius 10.2 of the Athenian regime. Pausanias 1.25.6 termed Demetrius a ‘tyrant’.

  158.See Kebric (1977) p 36 ff for Duris’ influence on other historians and p 79 for the early publication of the Samian Chronicle; Theopompus is not proposed but if the Samian Chronicle was published before Samos was occupied by Ptolemaic forces in 281 BCE, then it is possible Samos’ struggle under Alexander’s Diadokhoi influenced Cleitarchus, assuming he published late.

  159.Quoting Bosworth (1971) p 112.

  160.Quoting Spengler on ‘organ of history’ and cited in Brown (1962) p 257.

  161.Lucian Pro lapsu inter salutandum 10; discussed by C Bearzot in Marasco (2011) p 46.

  162.In Arrian’s account he cited, or implied, there had been discrepancies between Aristobulus and Ptolemy at 2.3.7 (implied), 2.4.7 (implied), 3.3.6, 3.4.5, 3.30.5, 4.3.5, 4.5.6 (implied), 4.13.5 (implied), 4.14.3-5, 5.14.3 (implied), 5.20.2.

  163.E Schwartz Arrian no 9 in Pauly-Wissowa Real Encyclopedia I, 1894. See discussion in Brunt (1975) p 23.

  164.Polybius 12.3.4c 4-5.

  165.Pearson (1960) p 194.

  166.Arrian Indike 18.9 for Evagoras’ role.

  167.Polybius 6.19-28 and 6.40 gave a fulsome description of their uses and arms.

  168.Quoting Hornblower (1980) p 153.

  169.Noted by Hornblower (1981) p 234. Polybius and Hieronymus could have returned to their native lands but had by then become influential to regimes elsewhere.

  170.A view supported by Momigliano and quoted in full in Grant (1995) p 70. Plutarch Themistocles 22.3.

  171.Thucydides 5.26.5-6, translation from Strassler (1996).

  172.Grant (1995) p 19.

  173.The nom de plume discussed in Pitcher (2009) p 4. See Xenophon Hellenika 3.1.2 for his attribution to Themistogenes and Plutarch Moralia 345c, de Gloria Atheniensium for the revealed identity. The Suda compiler(s) assumed Themistogenes of Syracuse was a separate author.

  174.Von Clausewitz On War, published posthumously. Originally Vom Kriege, 3 volumes, Berlin, 1832-34.

  175.Robinson (1953) believed Callisthenes himself drew from the diaries as did later historians, yet paradoxically he believed the ‘thin sources’ in 327-326 BCE were due to Eumenes’ loss of the documents in a tent fire rather than Callisthenes’ death. This is paradoxical for while Callisthenes is mentioned as a source in later works, the Journal is never mentioned aside from the fragment dealing with Alexander’s death.

  176.Quoting Robinson (1953) Itinerary, pp 70-71.

  177.Quoting Pearson (1960) p 261.

  178.A summary of the earlier chronology debate is given in Pearson (1960) pp 152-154, pp 172-173 and pp 226-233; also Brown (1950).

  179.Droysen Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen 1833. Fused with later 1836-42 work on Alexander’s successors as Geschichte des Hellenismus, Gotha, Perthes, 1877-87.

  180.Bosworth more recently proposed that Cleitarchean publication was as early as 310 BCE, citing the research of Badian, Prandi and Schachermeyr who believed it was published within twenty years of Alexander’s death (thus before 303 BCE). Bosworth (2002) p 43 citing G Droysen (1877) Geschichte des Hellenismus, Gotha; E Schwartz, Aristobulus, Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. II, 911 ff, 1957, H Berve (1926), Hamilton (1961), Prandi (1996) p 28. Jacoby Pauly-Wissowa R. E. XI, 622 ff, 1921. Heckel (1988) p 2 for Schachermeyr’s view.

  181.Tarn (1948) p 101 described the relationship between Curtius and Cleitarchus’ underlying source as obscurum per obscurius, though on pp 124-125 he did concede Trogus’ use of Diodorus and a common source.

  182.Hammond (1993) p 195 citing the earlier research by Goukowsky. Pearson (1960) pp 212-242 for the profile and dating of Cleitarchus and in particular his use of Aristobulus. Arrian Preface 1.2 for his claim that he wrote when a king. As with the claim that Lysimachus was a king when Onesicritus read aloud to him, we do not need to take this too literally; both became kings. See chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for the dating of regal proclamations by the Diadokhoi.

  183.The geographical argument is based on Cleitarchus’ comment on the relative sizes of the Black and Caspian Seas; see Tarn (1948) pp 16-29 and his use of Patroclus’ geography. The titular argument surrounds Ptolemy’s investiture with the title Soter. The chronology argument is based around Cleitarchus’ time studying with Stilpo of Megara. Well summarised in Pearson (1960) pp 212-242 and Brown (1950) pp 137-139 and Hamilton (1961). For Alexander’s entry into the Mallian city and subsequent wounds see Arrian 6.8.4-6.13.5, 6.28.4, Curtius 9.4.26-9.5.30, Diodorus 17.98.1-17.100.1, Plutarch 63.5-13. Curtius 9.4.15 for the mutinous behaviour before entering Mallia.

  184.Arrian 6.11.8 and Curtius 9.5.21 for their polemics on other historians reporting the events, including Timagenes and Cleitarchus.

  185.Tarn (1948) p 27.

  186.‘Begrudging’ because Timagenes fell out with both Caesar and Augustus and was banished from court; see Seneca, On Anger 3.22-23. Timagenes originally arrived in Rome as a slave in 55 BCE; discussed in Hamilton (1961) p 456.

  187.See Robinson (1953) pp 183-243 for the fragments, especially in Arrian, detailing their conflicting accounts.

  188.Arrian 6.11.8 and Curtius 9.5.21 for the lines r
eferred to. For Curtius’ likely publication date see chapter titled Comets, Colophons and Curtius Rufus.

  189.See discussion of the similarities in Robinson (1953) The Ephemerides pp 69-71.

  190.Arrian 6.6.3 for the slaughter of unarmed men and Arrian 6.11.1 for the women and children. For the massacre of the Branchidae see chapter titled The Rebirth of the Wrath of Peleus’ Son.

  191.Arrian Indike 19.8; hyperaspizantes are hypaspists who protected their king or colleague with a shield. Plutarch 63.5 has Limnaus instead of Leonnatus in the role but this could be a manuscript corruption. An aspis is a small light shield though a larger hoplon-style shield is implied.

  192.See discussion in Hammond (1993) pp 268-9 citing Arrian 6.10.2 who in turn cited Ptolemy as his source. For Leonnatus’ actions see Arrian 6.4.3 and Curtius 9.4.15; for Peucestas’ actions, Curtius 9.5.14-18, Arrian 6.9.3, 10.1-2, 11.7-8, 6.28.4, Diodorus 17.99.4. The arrowhead was allegedly four fingers in breadth; Plutarch Moralia 341C gave Aristobulus’ equally detailed account of the wound. Curtius 9.5.24-28 for Critobulus’ role; this is the same name as Philips’ physician at the siege of Methone 28 years before; Pliny 7.37; Arrian 6.11.1 called him Critodemus.

  193.Chapter titled Babylon: the Cipher and Rosetta Stone for discussion of Cleitarchus’ respective treatment of Perdiccas and Ptolemy and Arrian’s belief, probably from Ptolemy, that Alexander never replaced Hephaestion’s chiliarchy. Collins (2001) pp 270-273 for discussion of the chiliarch’s peripheral roles.

  194.Athenaeus 13.576e.

  195.Briant (1974) p 108 for the chronology of Persepolis’ fall, looting and burning. Plutarch 37.6 mentioned a four month stay. Diodorus 17.72 and Curtius 5.7.3-7 embodying Cleitarchus’ version of events; Justin 11.14.10 is too brief for any analysis. The report of Strabo 15.3.6 and Arrian 3.18.12 didn’t mention Thais but focused on Alexander’s political decision to please the Greeks. Plutarch 38 reported both versions. Arrian 6.30.1 claimed Alexander regretted his action upon returning to Persepolis on his way back to Babylon after the Indian campaign.

  196.Diodorus 18.70.3, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1963.

  197.Plutarch 38.2-5 captured the heroic theme but commented that her speech urging on Alexander was not in keeping with her place. Diodorus 17.72 followed closely clearly putting Thais in the lead role. Athenaeus 13.576d-e confirmed Cleitarchus was his source for the reporting of the fire.

  198.Plutarch Alexander 3.5. Valerius Maximus Memorable Deeds and Sayings 8.14.5 recorded that the arsonist of Ephesus was found. The Ephesians decreed that his name never be recorded, according to Aulus Gellius 2.6.18. It was Strabo 14.1.22 who revealed it. Originally the name had been preserved by Theopompus in his Philippika, but that work is now lost. See Plutarch 3.5 for the links to Alexander’s birth.

  199.Athenaeus 13.576e. A daughter, Eirene, married Eunostus of Soli, King of Cyprus, and a son by Thais fought at Salamis in 307/6 BCE against the Antigonids according to Justin 15.12. Bosworth (1996) p 3 disagrees that Cleitarchus would have dared change Ptolemy’s version of events at Persepolis.

  200.Plutarch 46.4-5, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

  201.Following Jacoby’s statement in Brown (1949) p 6.

  202.Heckel (2006) p 183 and Pearson (1960) pp 84-85 for discussion on Onesicritus’ age.

  203.Discussion in Pearson (1960) pp 224-225 for Cleitarchus’ use of Nearchus.

  204.Brown (1949) p 7 for the comparison of the length of Onesicritus’ work with that of Xenophon’s On the Education of Cyrus, its model which was similarly divided into eight books, as was the Anabasis of Arrian. Pearson (1960) pp 83-84 for discussion of Nearchus’ criticism of Onesicritus, citing Arrian 7.20.8-10 and Indike 32.9-13. A more specific rebuttal of Onesicritus’ claims appears at Indike 3.5 and Strabo 15.1.12.

  205.See discussion on the relative chronology of Nearchus’ and Onesicritus’ publication dates in Brown (1949) pp 4-5, Pearson (1960) p 84 and in Brown (1950) pp 5-7. Plutarch 46.4 for the reference to Lysimachus. Heckel (2008) p 7 brings to our attention the fact that the Journal claimed Nearchus read an account of his voyage to Alexander in his final days in Babylon, thus suggestive that he published soon after. However the Journal citations are spurious and reading excerpts from a diary does not imply an immediate publication when events that followed were so calamitous.

  206.See chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers for further discussion.

  207.Thucydides 11.87, cited by Plutarch in Moralia 333c or Fortune 12.

  208.Tarn (1948) p 4 citing Diodorus 17.118.2.

  209.Though Ptolemy I Soter, the Egyptian dynast, had married Cassander’s sister Eurydice in 321/320 BCE, he was to repudiate her in 317 BCE in favour of Berenice, Eurydice’s lady-in-waiting who ‘had the greatest influence and was foremost in virtue and understanding’; Plutarch Pyrrhus 4.4. Pyrrhus singled her out for his affections knowing she held sway with Ptolemy. Berenice was nevertheless of the Antipatrid house; her paternal grandfather was the brother of the regent Antipater, the father of the accused Cassander. Cassander’s own sons were exploited by Pyrrhus the ‘Eagle of the Epirotes’ (Plutarch Pyrrhus 10.1), and executed by Demetrius and Lysimachus for their internecine intrigues; by 294 BCE the power once wielded by the house of Antipater, the former regent, and his offspring, was finally spent; see Plutarch Pyrrhus for Pyrrhus’ relations with the sons of Cassander – though he had provided aid to one brother (Alexander) against the other (Antipater), he ultimately made both pay. Moreover, Ptolemy II Philadelphos, who succeeded his father in 282 BCE (he had been co-ruler with his father from 285 BCE), put to death his half-brother by Cassander’s sister, Eurydice, who was based at Miletus in Caria by 287 BCE where she formed a dynastic alliance with Demetrius Poliorketes, Cassander’s old enemy (Eurydice offered her daughter, Ptolemais, to Demetrius in 298 BCE – Plutarch Demetrius 32 and 46). Philadelphos allegedly murdered his half-brother for inciting the Cypriots to revolt (Pausanias 1.7.1); the half-brother might have been in league with Ptolemy Keraunos, another son of Eurydice, to oust Philadelphos. Lysimachus, once married to another of Cassander’s sisters, Nicaea, died at Curopedion in 281 BCE. Eurydice’s eldest son, Ptolemy Keraunos (thus Cassander’s nephew), who had been passed over for the kingship in Egypt, died in the Gallic invasions in 279 BCE, and her second son, Meleager, followed him soon after. Between them they had held the Macedonian throne for less than three years (281-279 BCE) at the court based at Cassandreia. Antipater Etesias, the son of Cassander’s brother, soon followed them as his reign lasted just forty-five days – ‘as long as the Etesian Winds blew’. For Seleucus’ possible Pamphlet guilt see chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers.

  210.Arrian 4.13.5-6, also Curtius 8.6.16 for the Syrian prophetess. See further discussion of Aristobulus as source of the portentous in chapter titled The Guardians and Ghosts of the Ephemerides.

  211.There is a lacuna in point in Curtius’ account preceding Alexander’s death, but Justin (so we assume Trogus) and Diodorus captured the supernatural detail. Hammond (1998) pp 420-421 assumes Curtius drew directly from Aristobulus for some portentous incidents, but he could equally have taken the detail from Cleitarchus. And Curtius never mentioned Aristobulus as a source elsewhere.

  212.Cleitarchus’ reference to the embassy from Rome was recorded by Pliny 3.57-58; many scholars doubt Rome could have sent the embassy as early as 323 BCE, whereas in Cleitarchus’ day Rome was clearly on the rise, which argues for a late-Cleitarchean publication date. Refuted by Tarn (1948) pp 22-23 who believes Pliny was mistaken in identifying Cleitarchus as its source.

  213.Arrian 7.15.4-6 for the embassies to Babylon and sources behind them. He was doubtful on the report; Aristus is further mentioned as a historian of Alexander in Athenaeus 10.10 and Strabo book 15.

  214.Well summed up by Tarn (1949) pp 374-378; see Justin 12.13.1 for Trogus’ list of embassies.

  215.Polybius 3.22. Momigliano (1977) p 104 for discussion; the Pyrgi
Tablets relating to ca. 500 BCE suggest an Etruscan-Carthaginian relationship which may be the basis of Polybius’ claim.

  216.See Justin 12.2.12-13 and Livy 8.17.10 for the peace treaty with Rome in the Varronian years, so 332 BCE. The date of the death of Alexander of Epirus is uncertain though Livy 8.24.1 credited it to the year of the founding of Alexandria, thus 332/1 BCE, yet Livy dated these events to 326 BCE, so uncertainty remains. Alexander Molossus had married Alexander’s sister, Cleopatra, his own niece.

  217.Justin 12.3.1 for the funeral games. Justin 12.2.2-4 and 12.1.14-15 for the oracle of Dodona that warned Alexander to beware of the city of Pandosia and the river Acheron.

  218.Strabo 5.3.5, Memnon FGrH 434 F.

  219.In Arrian 7.15.4-6 the Tyrrhenians, alongside Lucanians and Bruttians, were reported to be sending ambassadors to Babylon and this could have referred to Etruscans or other Latins bordering the Tyrrhenian Sea. Arrian 7.1.3 for the alleged plans to campaign in Sicily and Italy.

  220.Diodorus 17.113.2, Justin 12.13.1.

  221.Chugg p 11 for a discussion of Rome’s emergence after Pyrrhus’ campaigns, and for the Rhodian trade discussion see Berthold (1984) p 80.

  222.For Tarquinus’ heritage Pliny 35.152, Livy 1.34, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3.46; discussed in Boardman (1964) p 202. Whether the original Cloarca Maxima was all subterranean or an open canal remains debated. It was certainly built over by later Rome.

  223.Plutarch Camillus 22.2-3. The date of the sacking of Rome is often stated as 390 BCE based on the faulty Varronian chronology. This stems from Heracleitus’ claim that Hyperboreans descended on a Greek city named Rome; Aristotle apparently credited Camillus as its saviour.

  224.Pliny stated that Theophrastus was the first foreigner to write about Rome in detail, though Theopompus had mentioned the capture of Rome by Gauls; discussion in Pearson (1960) p 233. The coverage of Rome in Timaeus and Callias came from their associations with Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse; Diodorus 21.17.1-4 for their relative positions; Momigliano (1977) pp 52-55 for discussion.