In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great
Page 96
268.Nearchus and Medius served with Hieronymus under Antipater after the battle at Gabiene. Hornblower (1981) suggested they might have been information sources for Hieronymus for events he was not himself an eyewitness to.
269.Diodorus 19.69.1 and 19.81.1 for his ‘friend’s advice’ to avoid battle, thus confirming a relationship.
270.For the aftermath of Gaza and Ptolemy’s chivalry and return of Demetrius’ personal effects, Justin 15.1 and Diodorus 19.85.3. See Anson (2004) pp 23-25 for discussion. Anson does however suggest Diodorus used his own vocabulary. Examples of the reciprocated chivalry can be found in Plutarch Demetrius 6.3 describing Demetrius’ lenient treatment of the captured Cilles, a seeming repayment for the kindness of Ptolemy after Demetrius’ defeat at Gaza. Diodorus 19.86.1-4 for the aftermath of Tyre.
271.Diodorus 20.73.1 for the death of Philip, Antigonus’ son, and Diodorus 20.73.1-2 for Antigonus’ invasion of Egypt.
272.Diodorus 20.75.1 ff for the bribes and desertions. Griffiths (1935) p 114 for the calculation of 5,000 Macedones at the core of Ptolemy’s army. Ptolemy fought at Gaza with 18,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry but captured 8,000 of Demetrius’ men and had them sent to Egypt; Diodorus 19.85.5.
273.Diodorus 20.83.1-20.85.5 for the siege of Rhodes. See discussion of Hieronymus’ eyewitness role in Brown (1947) p 685; the wounds and his participation in battles detailed at Pseudo-Lucian Makrobioi 22 suggest that Hieronymus could have given an eyewitness account of the battle and Antigonus’ death.
274.Hieronymus’ whereabouts at the time of Demetrius’ death are unknown but if already serving Antigonus Gonatas he would certainly have known of the captivity of Demetrius, under Seleucus’ guard, and would have received regular reports on his hopeless fate. Plutarch Demetrius 1.7: a description given when comparing Demetrius to Mark Antony. Plutarch Demetrius 19.6 reported that the Scythians would twang their bowstrings to ‘summon back their courage when it is dissolved in pleasure’. He was in fact referring to Demetrius’ earlier ability to immerse himself in both pleasure and preparations for war with equal effect and without compromising either. Phila had married Balacrus in the mid-330s BCE, Craterus in 322/321 BCE and finally Demetrius in 320 BCE. She bore three sons and a daughter.
275.Pausanias 1.9.7-8 cited Hieronymus as a source for the accusation that Lysimachus desecrated the graves of the Aeacids during the war with Pyrrhus. Pausanias (cf Carney (2006) p 77) did however voice his doubt and reported that Hieronymus was angered by the destruction of Cardia. Pausanias 1.9.8, Diodorus 22.12 and Plutarch Pyrrhus 16.6-7 blamed Pyrrhus’ own Gallic troops. Pyrrhus was thrown out of Macedonia by Lysimachus two years later; discussion in Stewart (1993) pp 285-286.
276.Quoting WS Ferguson in his review of Tarn’s Antigonus Gonatas, Classical Philology, Volume 9 No.3, July 1913, p 323. Gonatas had Philochorus the Attidographer executed for his anti-Macedonian stance; see discussion in Hornblower (1981) p 185. He also executed Oxythemis, probably the brother or nephew of Medius of Larissa; Billows (1990) p 414 for discussion. Stewart (1993) p 287 for Gonatas’ association with Pan. Diogenes Laertius 2.127, 5.58, 5.67, 4.41 for Gonatas’ association with philosophers. Athenaeus 13.578a-b for Medius’ execution.
277.A citation in Strabo 11.530 suggested Medius wrote to some extent on the nature of the lands he campaigned in. See Billows (1990) p 401 for discussion.
278.Quoting Green (1990) p 143 for the ‘first Stoic king’.
279.Quoting Rostovtzeff Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 1, Oxford, 1941, p 2 and Brown (1947) pp 691-3 and p 688. Plutarch Pyrrhus 21.12 for proof that Hieronymus used Pyrrhus’ memoirs when constructing his own history and Plutarch Moralia 119c-d (Consolation to Apollonius) and Aelian 3.5 for the death of Gonatas’ son and his stoic acceptance.
280.Diodorus 19.44.1-4 and Plutarch Eumenes 18-19 for the expanded account.
281.Plutarch Eumenes 18.2 and 19.1.
282.Diodorus 19.48.5 for Peucestas’ fate. Diodorus 19.22.2 stated Peucestas had chosen many Asiatic advisers.
283.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 104; Antigonus Gonatas weeping for the death of Pyrrhus for example at Plutarch Pyrrhus 34.4. Plutarch Eumenes 7.8 for Eumenes weeping over Craterus.
284.See Billows (1990) p 28 on Duris’ anti-Antigonid stance. Nepos 12 claimed a mutiny was brewing because Antigonus had kept Eumenes alive after the council that demanded his death; he was allegedly dispatched by his guards on the third day without food (Antigonus had already delayed seven days) and the guards had his body removed from camp without Antigonus’ knowledge. Plutarch Eumenes 18-19 follows closely though Antigonus did order his execution on the third day.
285.Hornblower (1981) p 211.
286.Following Hornblower (1980) p 197 for comparisons to Odysseus and Spartan resourcefulness in which theft was encouraged, for example in Xenophon’s Hipparchikos 5.11. Xenophon Cyropaedia 1.6.27 for the advice from Cyrus’ father on generalship that promoted cunning. Also Polybius 12.27.10-11 and 12.28.1 for apparently well-known admiration of Odysseus and Pausanias 8.30.8; full discussion in McGing (2010) pp 129-130.
287.Diodorus 18.23.4 for Perdiccas’ charges against Antigonus.
288.Diodorus 18.40.5-8, Plutarch Eumenes 9.2-3 for Apollonides’ treachery and death. Also see Anson (2004) pp 128-130 for discussion of the events at Orcynia.
289.Discussed in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 30th June 2003 of the work by C Schäfer Eumenes von Cardia und der Kampf um die Macht im Alexanderreich, Buchverlag Marthe Clauss, Frankfurt, 2002, p 194.
290.Justin 14.1, Plutarch Eumenes 8.11. Discussed further in chapter titled The Silent Siegecraft of the Pamphleteers. The Samian appealed to Antigonus Monophthalmos for protection after the Polyperchon regime supported Athens’ claim to the island in 319 BCE.
291.Diodorus 18.71.2 for Damis’ experience and 18.71.6 for the siege at Megalopolis and Damis’ defence; 19.83.2 and 19.84.1-3 for Ptolemy’s use of caltrops at Gaza. Remains of a Lower Paleolithic elephant butchering site have been found near modern Megalopolis dating back to 300,000 to 600,000 years (Middle Pleistocene age); Science Daily, November 25th 2015.
292.Diodorus 18.74.1 for the contempt in which Polyperchon was held.
293.Diodorus 19.68.2 implied that Cassander expected Antigonus to cross to Europe and so he sent his own forces into Caria to distract him; Diodorus 19.66.1 pinned this action after a reference to the years 314/313 BCE based upon his Archon references.
294.See chronology arguments in Geller (1990) pp 1-7 and Wheatley (2002). Diodorus does mention an attack on Babylon by Demetrius that echoed that war. Diodorus 19.100.3-7 for details of Demetrius’ entry into ‘abandoned’ Babylon. Also Bosworth (2002) pp 222-225.
295.Plutarch Demetrius 7.2-5.
296.The Babylonian Chronicle was first published with translation and commentary in 1924; see discussion in Hornblower (1981) pp 111-112. See Hornblower (1981) pp 111-114 citing Smith (1924) who proposed Berossus as author. The Chronicle covered the period from 320/19 to late 309 BCE. Further details in Bosworth (2002) p 21 and p 210.
297.Bosworth (2002) pp 227-226 for the dating of the battle at Gaza and Seleucus’ return to Babylon. Diodorus 19.90-93 for the period under scrutiny. Diodorus 19.93.7 for Ptolemy’s rape and destruction of the coastal cities of Phoenician Syria and Palestine.
298.This follows the reconstruction of Bosworth (2002) pp 216-230.
299.Quoting Wheatley (2002) p 46 for ‘lightning raid’. Plutarch Demetrius 7.3 for the observation on his father’s loss.
300.See chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius for discussion of Seleucus inheritance of Babylon.
301.Translation of both the astronomical diaries and Babylonian Chronicle in Geller (1990) pp 1-7. Geller argues the chronology slippage caused by Diodorus’ method has confused historians and he placed the ‘lost’ campaign in 312/311. Discussed in detail in Hornblower (1981) pp 114-115 and in Bosworth (2002) pp 211-245. The exact date of the founding of Seleucia is uncertain and dates between 312 BCE and
305 BCE have been offered; if the destruction of the campaign of 310-308 BCE made Babylon irretrievable as a capital, then the date must have been post-308 BCE. Seleucia was sited on the confluence of the Tigris and a canal that flowed to the Euphrates, at the site of an old Babylonian settlement of Akshak. Wheatley (2002) p 41 outlines the conflicting dates of August-September 310 to January-February 309 BCE; Wheatley (2002) p 43 for the ‘weeping and mourning’ and p 44 for the final battle following Polyaenus 4.9.1 if attributable (not stated) to this date. Archibald-Davies-Gabrielson (2005) p 32 for the estimated size of Seleucia-on-Tigris.
302.Following the observation of Wheatley (2002) p 46.
303.Diodorus 19.100.3 for Antigonus giving up hope of gaining income from the lands east of Babylon.
304.Diodorus 19.105.1. His assistance to Seleucus was no doubt to produce a combined front that could contain Antigonus. In return Seleucus would have been asked for pledges of support if Egypt was invaded. Whilst Billows (2002) pp 242-243, for example, sees Lysimachus and Cassander abandoning Seleucus, whose recent revival was threatening, it is more likely Ptolemy still considered the principal threat came from Antigonus. Anson (2014) p 149 for Ptolemy being added to the ‘peace’ after the European-based satraps. For Ptolemy’s late entry into the peace accord, see the letter from Antigonus to Scepsis; full discussion in Munro (1899).
305.Demetrius’ murder of Dionysius did not feature in Diodorus but appeared in the Suda; see Simpson (1959) p 374.
306.Diodorus 18.73.3-5 for Seleucus’ attack on Eumenes, and Diodorus 18.39.5-6 for Seleucus’ confirmation as satrap of Babylonia and Arrian Events After Alexander 1.35. For the unreported campaign in Phoenicia, Polyaenus 4.6.8 and see discussion in Hornblower (1981) p 75. For the episode at Triparadeisus involving Seleucus, Arrian Events After Alexander 1.32-33, Diodorus 18.39.4 Polyaenus 4.6.4.
307.Diodorus 19.91.2-92.5 used these terms when describing the loyalty of the inhabitants of Babylonia, Susiane and Media.
308.Plutarch Demetrius 32.4-5.
309.Diodorus 19.90.4; Pyrrhus used a similar tactic in 288 BCE when invading Macedonia; Plutarch Pyrrhus 11.2.
310.Quoting Hornblower (1981) p 180 for the secular reference. Appian Syrian Wars 56 for the Didyma oracle.
311.Plutarch Demetrius 19.1-2 for Medius’ dream vision concerning Antigonus’ forthcoming campaign. Hadley (1969) for the detail of Hieronymus’ use of portents and predictions. Examples at Diodorus 19.90, Appian Syrian Wars 56, Plutarch Demetrius 29.1-2, Justin 15.4.
312.See Hornblower (1981) p 107. It seems Hieronymus attributed much to tyche but avoided other divine digressions. The strategic use of superstition in a military capacity was however more interesting to him. Chapter titled Sarissa Diplomacy: Macedonian Statecraft for more on Polybius’ quoting Demetrius of Phalerum.
313.Roisman (2012) p 18 and pp 9-30 for a discussion of the bias in Hieronymus.
314.Discussed in Brown (1947) p 685 citing Pseudo-Lucian Makrobioi 22; age 104 drawing from Agatharchides.
315.Macaulay (1828).
316.Diodorus 18.3.1. Arrian Events After Alexander 1.34-38, Justin 13.4.15, Curtius 10.10.2 As an example, the prosopography of Heckel (1988) attempts to triangulate the political leaning of the Pamphlet’s author by comparing the satrapal allocations made in the Pamphlet Will with ‘the historical situation’ in 323 BCE. However that so-called historical situation is Hieronymus-derived.
317.Pausanias 1.13.8.
318.Marsyas of Pella was likely Antigonus’ half-brother. A citation in Strabo 11.530 suggested Medius wrote to some degree on the lands he campaigned in. See Billows (1990) p 401 for discussion.
319.For Marsyas’ career see Billows (1990) pp 399-400.
320.Lucian How to Write History 7 for the analogy to an isthmus. Billows (1990) pp 319-320 on Hieronymus’ bias, which highlighted Antigonus’ ambition. Also see discussion in Hadley (1969) p 149.
321.Antigonus II Gonatas was born to Demetrius Poliorketes by Phila, daughter of Antipater and sister of Cassander.
322.Roisman (2012) pp 9-30 for a discussion of Hieronymus’ anti-Macedonian stance.
323.Examples of Hieronymus’ hostile treatment of Peucestas at Diodorus 19.38.1, 42.2, 43.5; discussed in Hornblower (1981) p 155. Hornblower (1981) p 17 citing Pausanias for Hieronymus slandering Lysimachus and Pyrrhus. For Hieronymus’ treatment of Peucestas see discussion in Roisman (2012) pp 13-14. See Justin 13.6.9 and Plutarch Phocion 23-25 for Polyperchon’s behaviour after Antipater’s death. Diodorus’ portrait is one of a man who was manipulated by Cassander; see discussion in Wheatley (1998) p 12.
324.As proposed by Wheatley (1998) pp 13-14. For the death of Heracles, Diodorus 20.28, Justin 15.2.3, Pausanias 9.7.2 and for discussion of his identity see chapter titled Lifting the Shroud of Parrhasius. See Diodorus 18.74.1 for Polyperchon’s failure at Megalopolis and 18.75.1-3 for his ‘lack of energy and wisdom’; 20.20.1-3 for his ambition; 20.28.2 for his fickle character; 20.100.6 for his ‘plundering’ of Greece; 20.103.7 for his ‘failure to come to aid’.
325.Herodotus noticed the symbiotic relationship of the crocodile and birds who picked leeches from its mouth to clean it, and then flew out unharmed; mentioned by Pliny 6.2.25.
326.Attributed to Charles Darwin, the quote cannot be found in his works in this form, and seems to be a summary of many conclusions found in his On the Origin of Species.
327.Following the argument of Shipley (2000) p 13.
328.It has been alternatively argued that the encomiastic treatment of Eumenes against a more neutral background in Diodorus’ texts comes from Duris; namely Diodorus 18.57.3-4; 58.2-4; 59.3; 60.4-63.6; 58.1; Plutarch Eumenes, 1.4-5; 12.2-4; 12.6-7. As identified in Hadley (2001) p 32.
329.Aelian 3.23.
330.For Hecataeus’ early career and use by Alexander see Diodorus 17.2.5 (and implied by Curtius 7.1.38) for his role in the crossing to Asia and assassination of Attalus. Nepos gave an explanation that in Greece, royal secretaries only came from a good family, which also argues against allegations of low birth, as does Plutarch Eumenes 1.2 that has Eumenes’ father in a guest-friend relationship with Philip.
331.Aelian 12.43.
332.Athenaeus 1.17e-18a for reference to Cassander. The slander could have been linked to Antipater soon before his death and thus emerged as late as 319 BCE; it came from Hegesander and survives in Athenaeus 1.18a. The allegation applied to 319 BCE at the latest when his father died.
333.Athenaeus book 4.128a for reference to Duris studying under Theophrastus though this is a 19 th century emendation and may not be accurate. This is not universally accepted: see Dalby (1991) for summary of the debate.
334.Proposed light-heartedly, though Kebric (1997) assumes Duris may have drawn detail from Lynceus for his own history. Duris’ influence discussed in Hadley (2001). See Hornblower (1981) p 235 on their different perspective and Antigonid affiliations. Also Kebric (1977) p 5 for Duris’ contact with Antigonus. Billows (1990) pp 333-336 for a summary of Duris’ career; he might have only been a child when Antigonus came to power.
335.Plutarch Eumenes 1.1-2. Philip II first noted Eumenes’ wrestling ability. See also Kebric (1977) p 2 for Duris’ career and p 2 for his father’s Olympic victory. Pausanias 6.13.5 believed a commemorative was to Duris’ son who won the boy’s boxing title; some scholars refute this and believe Duris was too young to have a son ‘when the Samians were in exile’ and so credit the boxing victory to his father.
336.Quoting Carney (2006) p 110 for ‘scrap of partisan literature’.
11
THE SILENT SIEGECRAFT OF THE PAMPHLETEERS
Under what circumstances might the detail of Alexander’s testament and the conspiracy to kill him have first been circulated, and for what specific purpose?
The tumultuous years between 320 and 315 BCE revealed the true nature and subterfuges of the alliance between Eumenes, Polyperchon, Olympias and Cleopatra, and also the extent of the opposition arrayed against it.
We analyse the s
pecific detail within the Pamphlet and argue why the Will and the conspiracy were constructed as we read them. Finally, we try and pinpoint the timing of its release and why its incendiary claims never achieved their intended outcome.
‘Shut up there and surrounded by the enemy with a double wall, he [Eumenes] had no one to give him aid in his own misfortune. When the siege had lasted a year and hope of safety had been abandoned, there suddenly appeared an unexpected deliverance from his plight; for Antigonus who was besieging him and bent on destroying him, changed his plan, invited him to share in his own undertakings.’1
Diodorus Bibliotheke
‘Where the skin of the lion does not reach, it must be patched with the skin of a fox.’2
Plutarch Apophthegms or Sayings of Kings and Commanders
In 1813 John Macdonald Kinneir, a captain in the service of the East India Company, explored an ancient stone fortress above a deep gorge known as both ‘Yengi Bar’ and ‘Nour’, and he was convinced it was Nora, a site referred to as ‘Neroassus’ in Strabo’s day. In 1923 William Mitchell Ramsay published his Military Operations on the North Front of Mount Taurus IV: The Campaigns of 319 and 320 B. C. in which he recounted his own 1891 journey to discover the site at which Antigonus had fought Perdiccas’ brother, Alcetas, in the ‘funnel’ of the Pisidic Aulon.3 He noted the abundance of castle ruins close to the Taurus Mountains, even if, as he pointed out: ‘Taurus was a general term given by the ancients to anything of a gigantic nature.’4 Only one site exhibited natural springs, a necessary feature to align it with Plutarch’s description of ‘water in abundance’ flowing down from a natural source. ‘Neroassus’ most likely translated as ‘the castle of Nerreus’ and the site did sit broadly where Plutarch related: a ‘small… but wonderfully strong’ grain-stocked stronghold for Eumenes to flee to following battle with Antigonus at Orcynia, another debated location and a name otherwise unknown.5