by David Grant
These five extant historians, representing the ‘court’ tradition and the ‘Vulgate’ genre (Plutarch arguably had a foot in each camp), represent the major part of what we have on Alexander today. The geographical treatise of Strabo and the forays into natural history by Pliny, make frequent references to the Macedonian campaign in the East, but little more than that. Supplementing them for detail on the Successor Wars we have Plutarch’s biographies of the generals, kings and politicians who played their part in the fate of the Diadokhoi. We have fragments from anonymous epitomes and codices, such as the Codex Palatinus Graecus 129, known as the Heidelberg Epitome (so named for its discovery in the German city), with its four relevant excerpts, and whilst as vexatious as they are useful, they help us to build a picture of these dramatic war-torn years.281
The ironic result is that the Historical Miscellany of Aelian, a philhellene teaching rhetoric in Rome and whose accomplished florid Greek earned him the title meliglossos (‘honey-tongued’), stands as an irreplaceable goldmine of diverse historical facts and fables, anecdotes, pithy maxims and moralising epithets that occasionally touched on Alexander’s world. This, alongside Athenaeus’ Dinner Philosophers (Deipnosophistae), in which some 1,250 authors and more than 2,500 works are referred to, takes on an incongruous weight in the preservation of the voices of the period.282 Athenaeus’ diversional by-product of the Pax Romana contains no fewer than sixteen of the thirty-six fragments we possess of Duris, the lost Samian historian, and thanks to the Deipnosophistae we have more lines of verbatim Theopompus, who ‘claimed the first place in rhetorical education’ and who ominously credited progress in the ‘art of discourse’ for the improving quality of historians,283 than any other lost Greek historian.284
These cultural snapshots of the classical world, never intended to be histories themselves, beside Diogenes Laertius’ Lives and Deaths of the Eminent Philosophers (whose detail occasionally overlapped statements found in the Suda), have been mined deeply for insights perhaps more thoroughly than their authors intended. Although Nietzsche held a dim view of compilers like Diogenes (‘the dim witted watchman who guards treasures without having a clue about their value’),285 we are faced with the fact that ‘the somewhat greasy heap of a literary rag-and-bone-picker like Athenaeus’ has nevertheless been ‘turned to gold by time’.286 Anthologies and compendiums like these, the productions of what Momigliano would have termed ‘antiquarians’ rather than ‘historians’,287 caught the imagination of the reader, for anecdotal collections are usually accompanied by scandal, slanders and political intrigue: the sugar and spice that sells the bake more effectively than plain dough.
In the centuries between his campaigns in Asia and his refashioning in Roman literature, Alexander was immersed in the agar of philosophical doctrine and epideictic oratory, and preserved in the aspic of Graeco-Roman rhetoric, even if the authors were, at times, unconscious of the damaging effect. The reporting of his death provides us with a unique example of historical wind over tide, leaving us wallowing in uncertainty in the choppy waters of contradiction and romance, and from the Roman investigative viewpoint, logical currents appear to have been dominated by adverse intestate breezes. But if we strip away the additives that infuse his literary corpse, Alexander would become a blander tale attractive to no one. And if in the name of that colour and flavour we agree to leave them in, the health-conscious historian needs to label them with ‘E numbers’ denoting the misdirecting preservatives they are.
NOTES
1.Cicero De Oratore Book 2.13, translated by EW Sutton, Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1942, quoting Marcus Antonius.
2.Momigliano (1977) p 115.
3.Strabo 13.1.27, translated by HC Hamilton and W Falconer, published by Henry G Bohn, London, 1854. Strabo 13.1.1, and 13.1.38 additionally voiced the view that no trace remained.
4.For Alexander’s arrival at Troy see Arrian 1.12.1-6, Diodorus 17.17.3 and Plutarch 15.7-9. Thucydides 1.10-11 is just one example of the historians Alexander would have read who clearly accepted the Trojan epics as fact.
5.For the dating of the fall of Troy see Robbins (2001) p 85. Early dates for the fall of Troy come from Duris at 1334 BCE and later estimates from Eratosthenes at 1184 BCE, for example. Most ancient historians inclined to dates between 1170 and 1250 (within the years proposed by Eratosthenes, Herodotus, Sosigenes, Timaeus and the Parian Chronicle for example). Apollodorus and the so-called Canon of Ptolemy also dated the fall of Troy. Fragments from ancient historians suggested the following dates BCE: Duris 1334, Life of Homer 1270, Herodotus ca. 1240, Cleitarchus 1234, Dicaearchus 1212, Parian Chronicle 1209, Thrasyllus 1193, Timaeus 1193, Eratosthenes and his disciples (Apollodorus, Castor, Diodorus, Apollonius, Eusebius) 1184/3; Sosibius 1171, Phanias ca. 1129, Ephorus ca. 1135; detail taken from Mylonas (1964) p 353. Robinson (1953) pp 60-61 for citations from Callisthenes’ Hellenica and Plutarch’s Camillus stating Callisthenes, Ephorus, Damastes and Phylarchus were in agreement on the month of its fall. See C Baikouzis, MO Marcelo, Is an Eclipse Described in the Odyssey? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (26): 8823, June 24, 2008, for the modern scientific dating of the fall of events said to have occurred at the fall of Troy. Modern archaeoastronomy places Troy’s final fall at 1188 BCE, probably in the Greek month of Thargelion (May-June) – see Pearson (1960) pp 60-61 for ancient sources citing Thargelion; the method scientifically cross-references Homeric mention of Hermes (Mercury), Venus, the Pleiades and the ‘new moon’ along with the additional claim that ‘the sun was blotted out of the sky’, thus a total eclipse, on the day Odysseus’ returned to Greece a decade later. An eclipse occurred on 16 April 1178 BCE, though suspiciously only the seer, Theoclymenus, witnessed the ‘invading darkness’. Homeric discrepancies aside, and unlike most other disciplines for fathoming the past, archaeoastronomy is unique; its usefulness improves with time thanks to scientific advances in astronomical calculations that can be readily backdated.
6.A more extensive report of the finds made in excavations through 1871, 72, 73, 78, 79 was published in Ilios, the city and country of the Trojans, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1881; further discussions of recent works in J Sammer The Identification of Troy in New Light on the Dark Age of Greece, Immanuel Velikovsky Archive, March 1999. Frank Calvert had commenced excavations at Troy in 1865 finding the remains of Greek and Roman cities but lacked the funding to continue. The ruins are now labelled Troy VIIa in excavations.
7.The verdict on Schliemann came from D Easton Schliemann’s Mendacity – a False Trail? Antiquity 58, 1984, p 198.
8.For Rome’s claims to Trojan roots see Spencer (2002) pp 8-14 for full discussion citing Virgil’s Aeneid and Ennius’ Annales. Naevius’ Bellum Punicum was the first poem to recognise the mythical connection of Aeneas (Latinised spelling) and his Trojans with the foundation of Rome. Also see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.14.1 ff.
9.Following Horace Odes 3.3.61-62; see discussion in Baynham (1998) p 11.
10.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 3 for ‘twilight zone’.
11.Polybius 8.10.11 for ‘numerous historians’, who probably included Duris, Diyllus and Demochares; see Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 302. The oft-cited works of the pro-Athenian Diyllus (early 3rd century BCE, his history spanned 356 to 297 BCE, in twenty-six books), along with Timaeus’ thirty-eight-book history of Sicily and then Pyrrhus of Epirus (which reached to the Punic War of 264 BCE), fell into that hole. As did the accounts of Phylarchus (3rd century BCE), the memoirs of Aratus of Sicyon (lived ca. 271-213 BCE) and Philochorus the Atthidographer (ca. 340-261 BCE), all of which are lost bar fragments. Extracts of Euphantus of Olynthus (whose On Kingship was likely dedicated to Antigonus Gonatas), Nymphis of Heraclea and Demochares the nephew of Demosthenes, whose history might have stretched back to Philip’s reign ca. 350 BCE, suggest they also narrated the events of the early Hellenistic world. Discussion in Tarn (1948) p 63 and for Diodorus see Pearson (1960) p 239. Hammond (1994) p 16 for Diyllus and Diodorus 21.5
for Diyllus’ twenty-six books.
12.Diodorus 1.3, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1933.
13.The lack of interest is an observation made in Shipley (2000) p 7; quoting McGing (2010) p 6.
14.A theme discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 236. Also see Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 296.
15.Polybius 1.2.8 for pragmatike historia.
16.Polybius 9.1-2, translation by I Scott-Kilvert, Penguin Classics edition, 1979.
17.Momigliano (1977) p 69.
18.Quoting Billows (1990) p 2 and ‘dissected parts’ from Polybius 1.4.7-8. Flower (1994) p 148 ff for discussion of Theopompus exampling this. McGing (2010) p 51 ff for the works influencing Polybius.
19.Polybius 8.11.4. See discussion in Walbank (1962) p 2 ff for Theopompus’ treatment. The criticism might be unfair as Philip V of Macedonia reduced the work to sixteen books when excerpting detail on only Philip II from it, so much of Theopompus’ fifty-eight-book work must have dealt with other matters.
20.Polybius 1.3 stated that main narrative commenced at 220 BCE, the 140th Olympiad and at 1.5 he explained the Roman starting point as Rome’s first overseas venture in the 129th Olympiad, so dovetailing with Timaeus’ history. Discussed in McGing (2010) pp 21-22 and p 97 and in Hornblower (1981) pp 183-184.
21.Callisthenes is mentioned at Polybius 6.45.1 and 12.17-22 where he is termed ‘ignorant’ and unable to distinguish the impossible from the possible. See Robinson (1953) p 55 for the full entries.
22.Bosworth-Baynham (2000) pp 286-306 for a useful summary by R Billows of Polybius’ view of Alexander; p 289 for the passages concerning Alexander. McGing (2010) p 130 ff for his dating and age.
23.Polybius 1.4 for ‘entire network of events’. Hammond (1994) p 90 for ‘double-abbreviated’.
24.Polybius’ critique didn’t deter him from extracting detail from their works; Philinus had lived through the First Punic War (264-241 BCE) adopting a pro-Carthaginian perspective, whilst Pictor fought for Rome in the Second Punic War against Hannibal (218-201 BCE); Polybius 1.14-15 for Philinus’ role with Hannibal. Polybius also attacked Xenophon, Plato and Demosthenes, but Timaeus in particular, dedicating much of his twelfth book to a polemic on his methods.
25.Polybius 1.1.5; Polybius 12.11 described Timaeus’ comprehensive cross-referencing of Olympiads with list of ephors, kings, Athenian archons and priestesses of Hera at Argos in the forms of tables; Momigliano (1977) pp 49-50. Lucian Makrobioi 22 for Timaeus’ age.
26.Polybius 3.59.2; discussion and translation in Walbank (1962) p 1.
27.See discussion of Polybius’ polemics against Timaeus in Walbank (1962) pp 8-11 and Momigliano (1977) pp 50-51. Pseudo-Lucian Makrobioi 22 claimed Timaeus lived to age ninety-six.
28.Strabo 14.1.22 for Timaeus’ epithet. Also discussion in Walbank (1962) p 3. For Polemon’s Against Timaeus see discussion in McGing (2010) p 65. Timaeus’ invective spawned a twelve-book (or more) retaliatory work by the antiquarian Polemon, a contemporary of Polybius, suitably titled Against Timaeus. Momigliano (1977) pp 54-55 for the founding date of both cities, upheld by Timaeus.
29.Quoting Polybius 12.25a1-12.25b4 (Loeb) and 12.27.10-11 for his emphasis on the importance of military experience when writing about war.
30.Discussion in Pitcher (2009) pp 106-107 on Polybius’ critiques and method. Also Green (1990) was particularly scathing about Polybius’ partisan approach. For discussion of Polybius’ speeches see Champion (2000) p 436 quoting FW Walbank for ‘subjective operations’. Quoting Walbank and discussed in Momigliano (1977) p 71 on Polybius’ final chapters. Following McGing (2010) p 15 for ‘writing himself into Roman history’.
31.Quoting Hatzopoulos (1996) p 265.
32.Polybius provided his own explanation of anakyklosis at 6.3.5-6.4.13; following Bosworth-Baynham (2000) p 308 for Herodotus’ empire progression.
33.Polybius 6.43.1, 6.44.9 and 6.10-18 for the ‘mixed constitution’ discussion. Polybius 6.9.12-14 for the prediction of Rome’s decline and 6.9.10 for politeion anakyklosis.
34.Polybius 1.3.3-6, translation by I Scott-Kilvert, Penguin Classics edition, 1979.
35.Polybius 3.59.3 ff for credit to Alexander, quoting 1.1.3 and for ‘Fortune’s showpiece’ 1.1.4. He was referring to the years 200 BCE, the beginning of Rome’s war against Hannibal, down to 168/176 BCE and the defeat of King Perseus of Macedonia at the Battle of Pydna.
36.Polybius 12.4b.2-4; for his attitude to Rome and use of barbaroi discussed in Champion (2000) pp 425-444; more on the development of the Greek term barbaroi in chapter titled The Rebirth of the Wrath of Peleus’ Son.
37.Quoting T Mommsen and cited by Walbank (1981) p 19.
38.The Annales Maximi were city records kept by the Pontifex Maximus; Cicero in his De republica 1.25 claimed they were legitimate until 400 BCE when an eclipse was mentioned. They were assembled into eighty books and finally published by Publius Mucius Scaevola in 130 BCE; for full discussion see Frier (1979) chapter 8 p 162 ff, and for their dating see Crake (1940) p 379.
39.Gudeman Romans (1894) p 145 for the unlikely speech, as an example, of Scipio Africanus recorded by Livy, though Cicero informs us that Scipio left no written commentary on his activity.
40.Quoting Hegel (1837) II, Reflective History, 1, Universal History.
41.HG Gadamer Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Mohr-Siebeck, 1960 and quoting Braudel (1969) p 47 for the analogy to time and soil. Following Braudel (1969) p 4 and p 6 for liking narrative history to a personal philosophy and ‘child of its time’.
42.Quoting Momigliano (1977) p 79 on Livy’s use of Polybius.
43.Livy 1.1 and Livy Preface 1, translation by Rev. Canon Robert, EP Dutton and Co., 1912 and Livy 6.1 for his comments on the fire and loss of genuine public records.
44.Macaulay The Lays of Ancient Rome, Introduction.
45.Malthus (1798) 2.20.
46.Quoting from Macaulay (1828).
47.Quoting Gibbon (1776 to 1789) 26.5 on Marcellinus. For Tacitus’ view of the lower classes and Ammianus Marcellinus, see Grant (1995) p 62.
48.Ammianus Marcellinus 15.5.22 and 31.16.9 for the declaration of his career and ethnicity.
49.Discussed in detail in Seeley (1881) pp 12-14.
50.The authenticity of the Libri Lintei has been questioned. Discussed in Gudeman Romans (1894) p 143. They appeared in the Historia Augusta 1.7-10 which is perhaps an endorsement of their doubtfulness.
51.Ennius’ Annals was an epic poem in fifteen books, later expanded to eighteen covering Roman history from the fall of Troy (stated as 1184 BCE) down to the censorship of Cato the Elder in 184 BCE; see Brown (1959) p 5 for discussion. About 600 lines survive. Naevius’ Bellum Punicum was the first poem to recognise the mythical connection of Aeneas and his Trojans with the foundation of Rome. Also Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.14.1 ff. For Rome’s claims to Trojan roots see Spencer (2002) pp 8-14 for full discussion citing Virgil’s Aeneid and Ennius’ Annales.
52.Discussed in Champion (2000) pp 431-432. It is an unlikely claim by Timaeus for horses were regularly sacrificed before battle by many barbarian tribes according to Polybius 12.4c.1.
53.Aulus Gellius 19.8.15.
54.Macaulay The Lays of Ancient Rome, Introduction.
55.Macaulay (1828).
56.Dioxippus is said by Aristobulus to have quoted Homer’s lines on ichor the blood of the gods, after which Alexander snubbed him with a retort; see discussion in Tarn (1948) pp 358-359. The quote comes from Athenaeus 251a. Also Plutarch 28.3 has Alexander reminding his men that he was losing blood and not ichor from an arrow wound. The quote is also attributed to Callisthenes (Seneca Suasoria 1.5) and Anaxarchus (Diogenes Laertius Anaxarchus 9.60).
57.Quoting Dean (1918) p 41 on ‘filial forbearance’.
58.Aristophanes Frogs 1391.
59.Diogenes Laertius Pyrrho 64-65 quoting Timon’s Silli, translation from the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1925
60.Hesiod Theogonia 8
3-87, based on the translation by ML West, Oxford World Classics, 2008 edition p 5.
61.Herodotus 2.53 suggested Homer and Hesiod ‘gave the Hellenes their gods’. Following Jaeger (1939) and the observation that Hesiod was uniquely speaking to men of his own time, about his own time.
62.The later date was first proposed by Neitsche Die Florentinischer Tractat über Homer und Hesiod, in Rhetorica (Rheinisches museum für philology) 25 (1870:528-40) and 28 (1873:211-49). For its link with the Delian festival see discussion in Shelmerdine (1995) p 8.
63.Hesiod Theogonia 22-34. Hesiod Theogonia 27 claimed the Muses instructed him as he tended his lambs in his mountain pastures. Translation from Jaeger (1939) p 75.
64.Following Barber (1993) p 103.
65.Cicero De Oratore 2.36, translation from Dominik (1997).
66.Cicero De Oratore 2.62-63, translation by AJ Woodman and appearing in Pitcher (2009) p 15. This was set after the death of Marcus Licinius Crassus (91 BCE) and shortly before the Social War and the war between Marius and Sulla commenced. Cicero’s house had already been sacked and he himself had recently returned from exile.
67.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. Cicero’s De Oratore was built around a fabricated dialogue in 91 BCE between L Licinius Crassus, Marcus Antonius the orator, P Salpicius Rufus and C Aurelius Cotta, plus others.
68.Cicero Brutus 11.42.
69.Discussed in Bailey (1978) p 104.
70.Flumine orationis – ‘fluency of speech’.