Alexander the Great: Letters: A Selection (Aris & Phillips Classical Texts) 1800348622, 9781800348622

Citation preview

ALEXANDER THE GREAT Letters: A Selection

ARIS & PHILLIPS CLASSICAL TEXTS

Giustina Monti

Giustina Monti is Senior Lecturer in Classical Studies (Greek Culture) at the University of Lincoln. Her main research interests lie in Greek Historiography, and she has published articles on Alexander the Great, Herodotus, and Polybius. She is also the co-editor (with K. Scarlett Kingsley and Tim Rood) of The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography (2022).

Letters: A Selection

This book offers the first critical edition with an English translation and commentary on some of the letters attributed to Alexander and transmitted by mainly Plutarch and Arrian. The vast majority of the texts examined here are constituted by Alexander’s ‘private’ letters, but the book also includes some letters regarded as official. Thirtyfour letters are included, although there are many more letters allegedly written by Alexander, which are definitely forgeries. The doubts about the letters mostly come from the fact that the Romance of Alexander is considered a sort of epistolary novel, thus it has been argued that at some point a collection of Alexander’s letters was put together, containing a nucleus of genuine letters, but also expanded with forgeries. This volume attempts to isolate the letters which are regarded as authentic by the majority of modern scholars, with each letter followed by an outline of previous scholarly discussion of its authenticity. The book brings to wider attention a much-neglected corpus by employing an innovative approach. The traditional study of epistolography tends to focus on literary rather than historical aspects of the genre, whereas this book, by exploring the culture behind the action of writing at Alexander’s court and the diverse approaches in relation to the letters, suggests that different criteria and new ways of writing history, prompted by Eastern standards, were introduced at his court. Furthermore, the collection shows that the step Alexander made, when he assumed the title of Great King, had formal and cultural implications. Finally, the book discusses the provenance of the letters, especially who among the historians contemporary with Alexander knew and handed the letters down.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

ARIS & PHILLIPS CLASSICAL TEXTS

ALEXANDER THE GREAT Letters: A Selection EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY BY

www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk

A&P Monti cover chosen CPI.indd 1

Giustina Monti

4/11/2023 5:15:38 PM

Aris and Phillips Classical Texts

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Letters: A Selection

Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary by

Giustina Monti

LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY PRESS

First published 2023 by Liverpool University Press 4 Cambridge Street Liverpool L69 7ZU www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk Copyright © 2023 Giustina Monti

The right of G. Monti to be identified as the author of this book has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication data A British Library CIP record is available ISBN 978-1-80034-862-2 eISBN 978-1-80034-566-9 Typeset by Tara Montane Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY Cover image: Frontispiece to The Life of Alexander the Great. At left is Bellona and at right a female personification of abundance, the Coat of Arms of the Duke of Croy. Antonio Tempesta, 1608 (Publisher: Claes Jansz. Visscher). Accession Number: 41.44.1641. Gift of Henry W. Kent, 1948. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements Preface List of Abbreviations

v vii xi

Introduction 1. The Sources for the Letters of Alexander 2. How Did the Letters Reach Later Writers? The Archive and the Royal Grammatistes 3. The Formula of Salutation used by Alexander in his Letters 4. The Persian Custom of Writing Letters 5. The Contents of the Letters and their Addressees I. The Great King Darius II. Antipater III. Olympias IV. Pedagogues and Friends V. Alexander’s Trust in Doctors: Warning Letters 6. Language 7. History of Modern Scholarship on the Letters Chronological Table Conspectus Siglorum

20 30 35 35 36 38 43 44 49 51 67 69

Letters: A Selection

75

Commentary Bibliography Critical Editions Studies Index Locorum General Index

131

1 6

219 222 242 253

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people and organizations have supported this research and the drafting of this work over the years. I would like to thank Silvana Cagnazzi, Franca Ferrandini, and Domenica Paola Orsi as well as the late Andrea Favuzzi and the late Mario Pani, and all the library staff of the Department of Sciences of Antiquity at the University of Bari, where the first steps of this research were taken. I also thank all the staff of the Senior Common Room at St John’s College (Oxford) for providing me with a hospitable place to work, supported by coffee and afternoon teas. I dearly thank the friends and fellows of St John’s College, in particular Julie Durcan (and Tambo), Stefan Kiefer, and David Siefert as well as Fabiana, Marco, Fabio, Giulia and Karolina, for the pleasant chats during lunches and dinners at the high table. Moreover, I would like to thank my colleagues from the School of Humanities and Heritage here at the University of Lincoln as well as the College of Arts for supporting the last stages of my research with a grant to assist me with a research stay in Oxford. Finally, I would like to thank Alan Sommerstein for reading an earlier draft of this book and for kindly offering me valuable feedback and suggestions as well as everyone at Liverpool University Press, especially Clare Litt and Tara Montane. In particular, many deserve thanks for the rich discussions during the numerous conferences at which I presented the results of my research: Edward Anson, Sulochana Asirvatham, Lyz Baynham, Cinzia Bearzot, Philip Bosman, Hugh Bowden, Stanley Burstein, Waldemar Heckel, Tim Howe, Aleksandra Klęczar, Elias Koulakiotis, Franca Landucci, Alexander Meeus, Sabine Müller, Daniel Ogden, Frances Pownall, Rolf Strootman, Chris Tuplin, and John Yardley. I especially thank Chris Pelling for the fruitful exchange of ideas on Plutarch’s Alexander and for sharing his forthcoming works with me. Special thanks also go to Pat Wheatley for his continued encouragement to keep working and to finish the manuscript. The long chats with Robin Lane Fox were enlightening, and I thank Robin for his enthusiasm

vi

Acknowledgements

and support. Tim Rood greatly deserves my deep sense of gratitude and appreciation for his thoughtfulness, help, and constant support over the years. I will never be able to adequately thank John Marincola not only for having the patience to read the entire manuscript but also, and above all, for his kindness, his advice, and the countless exchanges of emails that have continued since the now distant 2007 when I had the privilege of meeting him in Bologna. Last but not least, I thank my friends Emilia, who has always been enthusiastic about my research and eager to listen to my reports, and Federica, my sensei as regards the study of historiography with whom I shared long and pleasant chats during lunches, dinners, and travels around the world. Above all I thank my family, my sister Lalla and her husband Antonino, especially for providing me with very good food and excellent wine, my kitty Pitagora (a perfect research assistant while napping behind the laptop), my beloved parents, who have never stopped loving me, supporting me, encouraging me, and inspiring me. And it is to the two of them that I dedicate this work. GM Lincoln, July 2022

PREFACE This work is a revised and expanded version of my first doctoral thesis in which I examined the letters of Alexander the Great. The starting point of the research work has been the only contemporary piece of information about Alexander’s letter-writing, i.e. a fragment of Chares of Mytilene, one of the so-called ‘historians of Alexander’, who followed him on the expedition to Asia and was appointed as eisangeleus (chamberlain). Chares writes that Alexander, after he assumed the title of Great King, eliminated from his letters the Greek greeting chairein with the sole exception of those he sent to Phocion and Antipater: a change which could rightly be part of the introduction of Persian customs at court. Moreover, an essential part of the new Persian way of court life is not just the greeting but also the act of writing letters in itself, since Alexander begins to send letters as soon as he arrives in Asia, using, in all certainty, the well-developed Persian postal system. This volume will open new horizons on the figure of Alexander and allow us to examine in depth some aspects of Persian culture. Modern scholars have mostly ignored the allusions to concepts of Persian kingship emerging from the letters written by Alexander mainly because they are largely handed down by Plutarch who has been generally considered unreliable as compared to a source regarded as more historical, because perhaps more Thucydidean, represented by Arrian. On the contrary, Plutarch appears as a key promoter of the image of Alexander as the new Great King, especially from what emerges through the letters. Further to this point, Morrison’s article entitled Authorship and authority in Greek fictional letters deserves consideration, because – although it does not discuss the letters of Alexander but only the collections of letters attributed to Plato, Xenophon, Solon, and Euripides – it offers interesting insights with regard to Alexander’s letters as well. In fact, Morrison highlights the point that these pseudonymous collections may still offer an image of the protagonists which is faithful to how they appeared to those who had fabricated the correspondence. He concludes that some ancient authors believed

viii

Preface

that it was not only the protagonists themselves who could use their voice to tell the truth about themselves, but that it was also possible for other authors to use the protagonist’s voice (in the letters) to reveal what they believed to be the truth.1 Therefore, Alexander’s letters as found in Plutarch are still important regardless of their authenticity (which, in this work, is however discussed in relation to each letter). Indeed, if one applies Morrison’s line of reasoning to the correspondence of Alexander, one might say that the letters can still transmit a certain image of Alexander (even if one thinks that they are not genuine) which was at least regarded as truthful at the time of Plutarch or of his sources. For this research, the reading of works dating back to the nineteenth century was fundamental. In the last century, the theme was treated marginally and briefly, and only within prosopographic works on Alexander or in commentaries on historical works about him. The only exception is represented by Hamilton who in 1961 published a short essay on the letters of Plutarch’s Alexander. Contrary to my initial expectations, I was able to find that, in most cases, there was no clear-cut stance against the authenticity of the letters. Quite the opposite, opinions have often been in favour of the genuineness of at least part of the letters. However, earlier scholars did not offer comments on the letters, but they often asserted their authenticity or non-authenticity without giving reasons for their hypotheses. Finally, this work has allowed me to restore the fundamental role of royal secretary (grammatistes) to Chares, who was a key figure within the general framework of the organization of the Persian empire which Alexander inherited. This volume is not a comprehensive collection of the correspondence of Alexander the Great, but a selection of the letters written by Alexander. Indeed, many more letters were attributed to him. In 1893, for example, Pridik analysed 71 letters written by Alexander,2 and 43 letters which were sent to Alexander.3 1  Morrison 2014: 287–312. 2  Pridik 1893: 17–114. See also Zumetikos 1894: 32–133, who collected slightly more letters than those mentioned by Pridik. 3  Pridik 1893: 115–61.

Preface

ix

The letters were selected according to the following criteria: 1. I started with and have included almost all the letters mentioned by Plutarch both because he is the author who transmits the only contemporary information about the letters of Alexander and because he is the writer who reports the greatest number of them; letters from other authors have been included only when they were related to Olympias (F19) and were linked to other letters (e.g. FF 32–33). 2. I have decided to include only the letters which might be considered authentic (apart from the letter to Aristotle which has been included to offer an example of one of the methodologies we can use to decide whether a letter is a forgery). 3. As per the exchange of letters between Alexander and Darius, I have decided to focus my attention only on the letters contained in Plutarch and Arrian. The reason for my choice is the fact that Plutarch and Arrian wrote monographic works on Alexander, which, although they focus on Alexander, also differ from each other. Thus, it will be noteworthy to note the differences in the versions of the letters. Diodorus, on the other hand, reports only the content of the letters, while the tradition in Justin and Curtius appears as a tradition already elaborated with multiple letters, a tradition that will be further expanded in the Alexander Romance. In the Introduction I have tried to cover the key aspects regarding the letters and the major issues raising from their study. Thus, I have discussed the sources which have transmitted the letters, and the image of Alexander which comes from looking only at the letters. Such sources, however, belong to a time which is much later than the time when Alexander lived. Hence, I have tried to understand who, among the historians contemporary with Alexander, might have been in the position to know and transmit the letters. I have also discussed one formal aspect of the letters, the formula of salutation: although the majority of the letters do not have an opening formula, since they have been transmitted by indirect tradition, I have decided to examine it because it is the sole information about the letters which is contemporary with Alexander. Another question I have tried to answer concerns the reason why Alexander wrote so many letters and why their number increases after 330 BC. The last issue in relation to the letters regards the language: in that section I reflect how there

x

Preface

might still be a point in discussing the language of fragments although they are only known by indirect tradition. Finally, given that, to my knowledge, there is no such volume on the letters of Alexander, I have thought that readers might find it helpful to be provided with a history of modern scholarship on the general issues related to Alexander’s letters in the Introduction, and with a discussion of the authenticity of each letter in the relevant part of the Commentary. Another point I would like to make concerns the reception of the letters of Alexander. I have decided not to deal with this aspect because I believe it requires a separate work which is not within the scope of this volume. However, I would like to briefly mention three examples: 1. the multiplication of the exchange of letters with Darius is already a clear sign of which direction the reception of the letters will take. 2. The Alexander Romance might be regarded as another example of reception given the number of letters it contained which led Merkelbach, whether with good reason or not, to define it as a Briefroman, an epistolary novel.4 3. A letter written by Aristotle to Alexander, which only survives in an Arabic translation, about some of the political aspects of Alexander’s conquest of Asia, which shows that the reception of the letters written to and by Alexander went beyond the Greco-Roman tradition.5 Finally, I would like to make a very last point. All translations are mine unless otherwise stated. Please note, I have tried to produce as close a rendition of the original text as possible to offer the reader a clear idea of what is and what is not in the surviving text. Hence, sometimes literary elegance and idiomatic English have been sacrificed to mirror the source texts.

4  Merkelbach–Trumpf 1977. 5  Plezia–Bielawski 1970. For general comments on this letter, see Swain 2013: 108–22.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ael. Aelian   VH   Varia Historia Aesch. Aeschylus  PV  Prometheus Vinctus Aeschines Aeschin.   In Ctes.   Against Ctesiphon Ar. Aristophanes   Ach.   Acharnenses   Av.   Aves   Eq.   Equites   Nub.   Nubes Arist. Aristotle   [Ath. Pol.] Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία Arrian Arr.   Anab.   Anabasis   Ind.   Indike Ath. Athenaeus BNP H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, Leiden–Boston (2001–). Cicero (Marcus Tullius) Cic.   Fam.   Epistulae ad familiares   Off.   De officiis Clem. Al. Clemens Alexandrinus  Strom.  Stromateis Q. Curtius Rufus Curt. Dem. Demosthenes Diod. Diodorus Siculus DKP K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer (eds), Der kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike auf der Grundlage von Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart (1964–). H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds), Der neue Pauly. DNP Enzyclopädie der Antike, Stuttgart–Weimar (1996–).

xii

List of Abbreviations

Euseb. Eusebius   Hist. eccl.   Historia ecclesiastica FGrHist F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (1923–). FHG C. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (1841–1870). GE F. Montanari et al. (eds), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden (2015). Aulus Gellius Gell.  NA  Noctes Atticae Herodotus Hdt. Heliod. Aeth. Heliodorus, Aethiopica Hyp. Hyperides Isoc. Isocrates  Paneg.  Panegyricus Joseph. Josephus  AJ  Antiquitates Judaicae Just. Epit. Justinus, Epitome (of Trogus) Justin, Apol. Justin Martyr, Apologia LSJ Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn, rev. H. Stuart Jones (1925–1940); Suppl. by E. A. Barber and others (1968). ML R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, rev. edn (1988). Pherec. Pherecydes Philo Philo Judaeus   Leg.   Legatio ad Gaium Phot. Photius  Bibl.  Bibliotheca Plato Pl.  Pol.  Politics Plin. Pliny (the Elder)  HN  Naturalis Historia Plutarch Plut.  Mor.  Moralia    De Alex. fort. aut virt.   De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute

List of Abbreviations

xiii

Vit. Vitae Parallelae   Alex.   Alexander   Arist.   Aristides   Artax.   Artaxerxes   Cim.   Cimon    Dem.    Demosthenes   Eum.   Eumenes   Nic.   Nicias   Phoc.   Phocion   Them.   Themistocles Pollux Poll.  Onom.  Onomasticon Polyaenus, Strat. Polyaenus, Strategemata A. Pauly, V. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus and RE K. Ziegler (eds), Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, Stuttgart (1893–). RO P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC (2003; revised edn 2007). Sen. Seneca (the Younger)  Ep.  Epistulae Suda Greek Lexicon formerly known as Suidas Theophr. Theophrastus   Hist. pl.   Historia plantarum Thuc. Thucydides Tod M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions, Vol. 12 (1946), 2 (1948). Treccani Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana (1929–). Xen. Xenophon  Anab.  Anabasis  Cyr.  Cyropaedia  Hell.  Hellenica

INTRODUCTION 1. The Sources for the Letters of Alexander The letters of Alexander have been mostly transmitted by indirect tradition. “One should be amazed at the fact that he even had so much free time as to write letters of this sort to his friends”.1 This remark by Plutarch on writings whose content was not political and military but strictly personal and friendly helps to delineate the tradition of Alexander’s correspondence: Plutarch is the author who knows the greatest number, 33, of which 29 occur in The Life of Alexander. Arrian (5 letters), Curtius (4 letters), Diodorus (2 letters), and Justin (2 letters) also record some letters, although many fewer than Plutarch. Alexander’s letters were also known to Pliny (HN 6.62–3), who, regarding the description of the places and distances of northern India, wrote that epistulae quoque regis ipsius consentiunt his. Cicero (Off. 2.48) knew of letters written by Philip to Alexander (exstant epistulae et Philippi ad Alexandrum), mentioned as an example of eloquence. At a later time, Athenaeus (Deipn. 11.27, 784a), while explaining a type of Persian cup, batiake (βατιάκη), recalls the ‘letters’ of Alexander using the plural (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ σατράπας) but without indicating the recipient, most likely because the reference was not to a single letter. Hesychius also referred to Alexander’s ‘letters’ in three glosses: the first is Aropanoi (Ἀροπάνοι, α7369),2 of which Hesychius wrote “those found in Alexander’s letters” (οἱ ἐν Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐπιστολαῖς); the second is getika (γητικά, γ539), which indicates a type of cup: “in the letters to Alexander, the cups called as such” (παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐπιστολαῖς, ποτήρια οὕτω καλούμενα); the last is skoidos (σκοῖδος, σ1051), “steward, among the Macedonians 1 Plut. Alex. 42.1. 2  According to the TLG, this term occurs only here in Hesychius. I have checked Kent 1953, and nothing has emerged that might suggest that it belongs to the Persian language; one could, therefore, hypothesize that it is an Indian word: we know, in fact, that Alexander wrote to his mother about India, so it is likely that this was the name of a people and that it was probably mentioned in a letter.

2

Introduction

an office assigned to the courts: the word is in the letters of Alexander (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς Ἀλεξάνδρου)”. As we shall see in Sections 2 and 3, the only information contemporary with Alexander regarding his private letters is Chares’ fragment 10 about the change in the formula of salutation used by Alexander in his letters. Interestingly, this testimony is reported by Plutarch. Indeed, Plutarch is the source where we read the majority of the letters examined in this volume. Moreover, to my knowledge, the Life of Alexander, compared to the other Lives, is the one which contains the greatest number of letters (even more than in the Life of Cicero). It is, then, appropriate to spend some words on Plutarch first, then on the other authors who mention Alexander’s letters, and discuss what kind of letters they report, and what image of Alexander appears through the letters reported by such authors. Out of the 34 letters which constitute the selection of this volume, 29 are handed down by Plutarch. Thus, it comes as no surprise that such letters cover different topics and do not focus on a specific aspect of Alexander’s character. Nevertheless, it is still possible to draw some conclusions based on what we have at our disposal. Indeed, the letters seem to follow a precise pattern designed by Plutarch throughout the Life of Alexander.3 Plutarch seems to have conceived the work as a sort of two-fold biography with the aim to highlight what I would define the ‘two Alexanders’, the Alexander as the avenger of the Greeks against the Persians and the Alexander as the Persian Great King.4 Indeed, after the conquest of the Persian Empire, i.e. after 331,5 Alexander changed 3  Pelling (forthcoming), in the section entitled The biographer at work underlines that Plutarch “read and reread extensively before writing” the Life of Alexander, and that he had in mind the points he wanted to make when choosing the material he deemed worthy of mention or omissions. 4  Asirvatham 2018: 355–56 seems to have a different idea, as she underlines that Plutarch’s Alexander is presented as a hero and “a distinctly ‘Hellenic’ persona reflecting the particular philosophical and cultural dispositions” of the author. She adds that Alexander is presented as “the supreme conquering figure in world history” as he is distinguished from his Macedonian past, his Hellenistic Successors, and the Romans. On Alexander in Plutarch, see the thought-provoking article by Pelling (forthcoming). 5  All dates are BC unless otherwise stated.

Introduction

3

his Eastern policy, so that the year 330 represents a sort of demarcation line between the ‘first’ Alexander, who took the Greeks’ revenge for Persian offenses, and the ‘second’ Alexander, who was now the heir of the Great King. The aforementioned demarcation line is represented by the burning of Persepolis.6 The burning of the palace of Persepolis7 is still part of the plan of revenge on the barbarians, according to some historians.8 During a banquet, which was also attended by women, a certain Thais, a courtesan of great fame (perhaps a native of Athens) and mistress of Ptolemy,9 said that being in the palace of the Persian Kings paid her back for the pains she had suffered wandering around Asia, but that she would rather go and set fire to the house, oikon (οἶκον), of Xerxes who, long before, had set Athens on fire. Alexander let himself be carried away by the enthusiasm of his dining companions and set the palace on fire. But he immediately regretted his actions and had the fire extinguished.10 Plutarch, however, also reports an anonymous tradition according to which the burning was intentional, apo gnomes (ἀπὸ γνώμης):11 the king’s goal was to punish the Persians and avenge 6  For a discussion of the different sources on this episode and the significance of the fire as a cornerstone of “a clash of courts”, see Bosman 2022: 169–87. 7  The palace was another residence of the Achaemenid kings along with Susa, Babylon, and Ecbatana. For the description of the palace, see Nissen 2000: DNP 9, coll. 603–605, s.v. Persepolis. 8 Plut. Alex. 38.8. For an analysis of both Greek and Iranian sources on the burning of Persepolis, see Ciancaglini 1998: 59–81. 9 Ath. Deipn. 13.576d–e writes that, after Alexander’s death, Thais married Ptolemy, son of Lagus and founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, with whom he had three children, Leontiscus, Lagus, and Eirene. On Thais, see Berve 1926: II.175 no. 359, and Heckel 2006: 262. 10  Plut. Alex. 38. 11  Callisthenes may also be among the historians who appear anonymously in Plutarch’s account and who present the king’s action as aimed at avenging the fires set by the Persians in Greece rather than as a fortuitous gesture resulting from drinking to excess. For Callisthenes as the source of the story of the burning in Persepolis, see Berve 1926: II.175 no. 359; Kaerst 1968: I.403–404; see, contra, Hamilton 1969: 100 who deems the hypothesis “uncertain”. For a summary of the positions of the various scholars regarding the episode of the burning and the historical sources, see Bosworth 1980: I. 330–32.

4

Introduction

the burning of the acropolis in Athens.12 His was the final act of the expedition of vengeance against the barbarian invaders of Greece. In this light, it is especially interesting that the account of this episode in the Life of Alexander cuts the biography into two parts, since the chapter regarding the burning of Persepolis is placed almost in the middle of the work. Plutarch’s first Alexander writes for propaganda purposes when he sends a letter with the text of an inscription celebrating the battle at the Granicus River (F1a), or when he writes to Darius (FF7a–8a), to the Greeks of Asia about the abolished tyrannies (F9), and to the Plataeans about the reconstruction of their polis (F10). But this Alexander is also an Alexander who does not create drama about what happens to him, but simply describes the situations in which he finds himself (FF2; 3; 6; 13). He also writes as a king to ensure punishment (F4), to reproach his flatterers (F11), or to tease one of his teachers (F5). As for Plutarch’s second Alexander, while it is true that Alexander keeps writing about the situations he is facing, it is also true that a different Alexander emerges from some letters, as I shall underline in the commentary. The majority of the letters in the second part of the Life are not of a diplomatic nature, but rather of the most disparate types, ranging from those to Antipater to those to his friends. These letters, when properly appreciated, demonstrate that Alexander’s change was not only external, but also internal, ideological and cultural, and that he transformed his mental attitude once he acquired the model of Achaemenid kingship in its entirety.13 On this matter, such letters do give us the most interesting information about the assumption of elements belonging to Eastern – and more 12 Plut. Alex. 38.4. Cf. Hdt. 8.53. 13  Another example of this might be the fact that Alexander transformed the concept of tryphe – considered by the Greeks a negative way of displaying wealth – into a positive way of representing kingship, as highlighted by Calandra 2014: 79–95. Müller 2021: 109–11 underlines the strong links between the Argeads and the Achaemenid Empire, and she emphasises that “Alexander III grew up at a court to which Persian envoys came and where […] the Persian satrap Artabazus lived at Pella with his family […]. There was much time and opportunity to get information about the Achaemenid court and traditions”.

Introduction

5

specifically Achaemenid – kingship. For example, Plutarch reports an exchange of letters between Alexander and the Athenian Phocion (FF22– 23) about the gifts the king offered to the Athenian, and especially about the offering of the revenues from whichever one of four cities in Asia he preferred, whether Cius (in Bithynia), Gergithus (in Troas), Mylasa (in Caria), or Elaea (in Aeolis). The gift of cities, as will be pointed out in the commentary, was a regular practice of the Persian kings. Moreover, Alexander seems to perform the duties of the Great King when he praises Peucestas (F24) or when he is worried about his health and happiness and ensures justice with regard to those who left Peucestas alone (FF25–26). Also, just like the Great King, who is a privileged intermediary between his subjects and the god Ahura Mazda, Alexander does not regard himself as one of the gods, but he merely receives signs from them (F15). Finally, he writes his own history just like the Great Kings (F18). Such images of Alexander embracing even the ideology of the Achaemenid kingship are prominent in Plutarch, especially in the letters. So, even if one is sceptical about the letters, they can still conclude that Plutarch was trying to give a particular image of the second Alexander. What is more, Plutarch, probably via Ctesias,14 is the only Greek author who describes the ceremony of coronation of an Achaemenid Great King, which demonstrates that Plutarch knew the ceremonial and the features of Achaemenid kingship.15 Thus, one can infer that Plutarch had access to and was interested in unusual sources, sources which cannot always be ascribed to a purely Greek background. In this book I have chosen to analyse only 4 letters reported by Arrian (FF1b; 7b; 8b; 19). F1b is a letter also handed down by Plutarch and part of the propaganda orchestrated by Alexander. FF7b and 8b are Alexander’s replies to Darius, and they represent an important source in relation to the hypothesis of the presence of two archives, the official one and another containing private letters. Moreover, they are crucial to the discussion about the tradition of the letters and its augmentation over time. F19 has been inserted because it is one of the 14  Cf. Llewellyn-Jones 2013: 13. 15  He describes it in the Life of Artaxerxes. Orsi 1979–1980: 141–43.

6

Introduction

few letters sent to Olympias. The other letters mentioned by Arrian are of a political and diplomatic nature.16 For the sake of completeness, I have decided to insert a letter to Philoxenus mentioned by Athenaeus (F12) in the part dealing with other letters to Philoxenus. Another letter quoted by Athenaeus (F33) and one from Pollux (F32), both dealing with kitchen utensils, are included because they appear interesting in relation to Olympias. Finally, despite being the earliest non-fragmentary account on Alexander, Diodorus is the great absentee among the sources of the letters examined in this volume. Indeed, not many letters are known from Diodorus, and they are mostly related to political aspects.17 2. How Did the Letters Reach Later Writers? The Archive and the Royal Grammatistes From what has been written in Section 1, it is clear that there is a gap of several centuries between the time when the letters were written and the works in which we read them now. Hence, the question I shall try to answer in this Section regards the identity of the source contemporary with Alexander who might have had a role in the transmission of the letters. Scholars who have dealt with Alexander and his letters, perhaps misled by the use of the plural en tais epistolais (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς) 16 Arr. Anab. 1.10.4 mentions a letter to the Athenians regarding some Athenian orators: the episode is known to Diodorus (17.15.1), Plutarch (Phoc. 9.6 and 17.2), and Just. Epit. (11.4.10), but these sources do not mention the letter. Cf. Plut. Dem. 23.3. See also infra n. 118. Arr. Anab. 1.29.3 reports a letter sent to Parmenion in 333, when Alexander, having arrived in Gordium, asked Parmenion to catch up with him there; 3.19.6 mentions a letter to Menetes in which Alexander gives him orders regarding the Thessalian horsemen; 3.19.8 is another letter to give orders to Cleitus; in 3.26.3 Alexander once again gives orders by letter; 4.5.1 mentions Alexander’s letter in response to the Scythian king; 4.29.4 is once again a dispatch sent by Alexander; 6.12.3 mentions a letter to the soldiers; 6.27.2 are letters sent to India for political reasons; finally, 7.23.6 recalls a letter to Cleomenes, apparently full of offences. 17 Diodorus is aware of the diplomatic exchange with Darius (17.39.1 and 54.1–2); he also mentions a letter to his generals and satraps to disband all mercenaries (17.106.3); finally, at 18.8.4, a letter to Antipater is mentioned, which is related to the exiles’ decree.

Introduction

7

– which, when used, is nevertheless justified by the context – have often been influenced by the idea that a collection of letters, almost certainly forgeries, had circulated.18 A piece of information about a collection is in the Suda. From this, however, we know that it was Antipater, the regent of Macedonia,19 who left a collection of letters in two books (κατέλιπεν ἐπιστολῶν σύγγραμμα ἐν βιβλίοις δυσί).20 In the wake of this testimony, scholars have thought that the most important letters written by Alexander to the regent of Macedonia were merged with the collection of Antipater. In this very regard, Pridik21 argued that the epistolon syngramma (ἐπιστολῶν σύγγραμμα) of Antipater, dated between 323, the year of Alexander’s death, and 319, the year of Antipater’s death, was 18  However, against the argument which uses the presence of the plural to argue against the genuineness of the letters, one might object that in the sources that are closest to Alexander, the collective plural appears very rarely, and the letters are instead handed down individually with an indication of the recipient (in the case of letters written by Alexander) or the sender (in the case of received letters). Only in four cases does Plutarch use the plural “in the letters” without the recipient’s name, although the use is justified by the context: indeed, in Alex. 8.1–2, Plutarch mentions Alexander’s medical skills that can also be seen from what he writes in the letters; in 17.8, after noticing that the rapid crossing of Pamphylia inspired fantastic descriptions, Plutarch recalls that Alexander in his letters makes no mention of divine interventions; in 42.1, there is further – as we have seen – a reference to the letters in general, as Plutarch is amazed that Alexander found time to write private letters to friends; finally, in 60.1 and 60.12, the piece of information is related to the account (which Alexander wrote in his letters) of the battle against the Indian king Porus. 19  On Antipater, see Berve 1926: II.45–46 no. 93, and Heckel 2006: 35–38, s.v. Antipater [1]. See, especially, Landucci 2021: 97–109. 20  Antipater’s letters were also known to Cicero who in Off. 2.48 writes: exstant epistulae et Philippi ad Alexandrum et Antipatri ad Cassandrum et Antigoni ad Philippum filium, trium prudentissimorum – sic accepimus – quibus precipiunt, ut oratione benigna multitudinis animos ad benevolentiam adliciant militesque blande appellando deleniant. Plutarch (Comparison between Alcibiades and Coriolanus 3) knows a letter written by Antipater as well, where, while giving notice of Aristotle’s death, he reports his assessment on the philosopher: “In addition to the other qualities, he also possessed the talent for knowing how to persuade”. 21  Pridik 1893: 7–8.

8

Introduction

a response to the accounts of the historians contemporary with Alexander, who did not give an account employing the historical truth (res non ad historiae fidem [...] scripserunt), but resorted to introducing fabulous elements, and described Alexander’s deeds as being practically the actions of a god (omnia fere divina). Antipater, on the other hand, wanted to show that Alexander himself described his actions precisely (ἀκριβῶς), but without sensational tales. Zumetikos22 disagreed with Pridik, although he did not seem to fully understand the latter’s hypothesis: while Pridik clearly postulated that Antipater had included part of Alexander’s letters in his collection, Zumetikos argued that Pridik had assumed that Antipater’s letters had been published by Antipater, thus misinterpreting the passage in the Suda. The latter conjecture, however, fails to explain the presence of numerous letters that had not been sent to Antipater and which, therefore, could not be included in his collection, also because they were sent to friends who were in Asia and not in Macedonia. Moreover, the analysis of Alexander’s numerous letters to Antipater, his mother, educators, and friends, will show how rich they are in hidden and subtle meanings. Plutarch, as we have seen, is the author who knows the greatest number of them. The fact that in some cases he uses the plural, such as en tais epistolais (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς) or ek ton epistolon (ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν) to indicate, most likely, a source other than a historian and/or the Ephemerides (which he does not fail to mention when he draws on them), might indicate not the fact that he had a collection at his disposal but rather the work of a single historian in which were collected not only the letters written but also those received by Alexander. The first question which arises, therefore, concerns the author of the collection, understood as the one who had the ability and the interest to put together the letters written and received by Alexander. From Plut. Eum. 1.4, we know that Eumenes of Cardia held office as archigrammateus (ἀρχιγραμματεύς), ‘head of the chancery’, at the courts of Philip and, later, of Alexander.23 Therefore, one might 22  Zumetikos 1894: 5. 23  To him are attributed, among other things, the Ephemerides, written together

Introduction

9

suppose that Eumenes not only drew up the documents of the royal chancery, but also had the opportunity to collect and preserve the royal correspondence, thus to keep an archive. Another interesting piece of information in Eum. 2.6–7 could strengthen this hypothesis: after Alexander had Eumenes’ tent set on fire,24 he repented of his action because the documents of the archive were destroyed. So, he wrote to all his satraps and commanders asking to send him copies of the documents that had been destroyed and ordered Eumenes to take everything over (γράψας τοῖς πανταχοῦ σατράπαις καὶ στρατηγοῖς ἀντίγραφα τῶν διεφθαρμένων ἀποστέλλειν πάντα παραλαμβάνειν ἐκέλευσε τὸν Εὐμενῆ). From the passage one can also infer that it was important for Alexander to reconstruct the archive. It is likely that Eumenes dealt exclusively with the official letters.25 However, the matter seems to be much more complex. Indeed, Callisthenes, the official historian of the expedition of vengeance against the Persians,26 “also became letter-writer, epistolagraphos (ἐπιστολαγράφος), of Alexander”, at least according to an inscription27 from Tauromenium dating back to the 2nd century.28 This piece of with Diodotus. See Berve 1926: II.156–58 no. 317, and Heckel 2006: 120–21. 24 Plut. Eum. 2.4–5, writes that Alexander, in order to send Nearchus with some ships to Ocean, asked Eumenes for 300 talents, but he gave the king only 100, adding that he had collected them with difficulty. Alexander, then, ordered his servants to secretly set a fire in the tent of Eumenes, so as to catch him in flagrante while the supposedly concealed treasures were being brought out. 25  Official letters are different from private ones because they are written mainly for administrative, political, diplomatic or military reasons: the writer can be a powerful officer exercising his functions such as an ambassador, a military commander, a statesman or a scribe authorized to write as if they were the authority; a strict protocol for drafting the letter is observed; communication takes place in a unilateral way and for this reason an answer is not always required. Moreover, the official epistles often function as legislative actions or decrees, thus they can also be engraved on stone to be visible to all citizens. See Stirewalt 1993: 10. 26  On Callisthenes, see Berve 1926: II.191–99 no. 408, Pearson 1960: 22–49, Pédech 1984: 15–69, and Prandi 1985: 11–111; cf. Meister 1992: 121–24. 27  On the inscription, see Prandi 1985: 19–22, Mangia 2000–2003: 40–42, Battistoni 2006: 169–80, and Landucci 2010: 107–11. 28  Manganaro Perrone 1974: 389–409.

10

Introduction

information supports the idea that Callisthenes might be the source of FF1, 7b, 8b, 9, and 10, which, as I shall explain in the commentary to each letter, are letters with a strong flavour of panhellenic propaganda. Callisthenes, therefore, in addition to being the official historian of the expedition that was identified as taking vengeance for the offenses committed by the Persians, was also the one who, most likely, dealt with the royal edicts and, therefore, the official correspondence.29 In this volume, however, I have also tried to identify who transmitted Alexander’s private letters, and, in the commentary on each letter, I have hypothesized who the person could have been who was aware of it at Alexander’s court: Chares.30 First of all, the piece of information reported by Chares – and regarding Alexander dropping the typically Greek formula of salutation chairein from his letters –31 has a huge added value: the fact that the historian writes not only that the greeting was eliminated but also that the king kept it only for Antipater and Phocion suggests that he knew all or most of Alexander’s letters, otherwise he could not have insisted on the fact that the king eliminated the Greek greeting after having defeated the Persians. Secondly, as we shall see in the commentary, Plutarch often quotes a fragment of Chares and immediately after it a letter from Alexander. Lastly, important here is the fact that the only piece of information contemporary with Alexander about the letters comes – indeed – from Chares, the eisangeleus, the person closest to the king. At this point it might be useful to summarize the conclusions drawn in the commentary to each letter about the sources which might have transmitted the exchanges of letters analysed in this volume. The letters of the correspondence with Antipater, which make up the highest number, can be classified as follows. The letters which go back to Chares are: 1) the letter concerning the wounding of Alexander at Issus;32 2) the letter regarding the false visit of the queen of the 29  On this, cf. Wallace 2020: 126. 30  On him, see Berve 1926: II.405–406 no. 820, Cagnazzi 2009: 281–311, and Ead. 2015: 1–17. 31  FGrHist 125 F10 (= Plut. Phoc. 17). 32  F3: Plut. De Alex. fort. aut virt. 341c; Alex. 20.9.

Introduction

11

Amazons;33 3–4) the two letters concerning the ‘pages’ conspiracy’;34 5–6) the letter of Antipater and Alexander’s reply regarding the arguments between the regent and Olympias.35 In all probability, the following letters were handed down by Aristobulus: 7) the letter about the crossing of Pamphylia;36 8) the letter about the discovery of an oil spring;37 9) the letter in which the king reports the battle against Porus.38 It is not possible to determine the source of the following: 10) the letter concerning the speech given to the soldiers in Hyrcania;39 11) the letter, transmitted by Justin, of Antipater informing the king of the situation in Greece;40 12–13) the letter of Coenus concerning the events in Europe and Asia, and that of Antipater on Harpalus’ plans to revolt;41 and 14) Alexander’s letter to Antipater concerning the honours to confer on Macedonian veterans returning home.42 Therefore, out of 14 letters, 6 go back to Chares, and 3 to Aristobulus, while for only 5 of them we cannot indicate the source. As for the three letters handed down by Aristobulus, it is nonetheless possible to trace them back to Chares, since, in all likelihood, the historian and chamberlain was the source which Aristobulus drew upon for the composition of his work;43 thus the letters handed down by Chares would become 9 out of 14, a good percentage (64%). 33  F13: Plut. Alex. 46.1–3. 34  FF16–17: Plut. Alex. 55.6–7. 35 Arr. Anab. 7.12.6–7; Plut. Alex. 39.11–13 (F29). 36  F2: Plut. Alex. 17.8. 37  F15: Plut. Alex. 57.8. 38  F18: Plut. Alex. 60.1–12. 39  F14: Plut. Alex. 47.1–4. 40  Just. Epit. 12.1.4. 41  Curt. 10.1.43–45; 10.2.3. 42  F30: Plut. Alex. 71.8–9. 43  Jacoby 1927: 517 had already argued that the source for Aristobulus’ fragment 33 about the punishment of Callisthenes was Chares; Pearson 1960: 61 asserts that, in all probability, serious and scrupulous later writers, such as Ptolemy and Aristobulus, found useful material in Chares’ work; Hamilton 1969: lvi argues that Chares was read by Aristobulus, Duris and, probably, Cleitarchus, and that the source of Aristobulus for Callisthenes’ punishment is Chares (156); Pédech 1984: 342–43 includes Chares among the sources employed by Aristobulus.

12

Introduction

The letters of the correspondence with Olympias can be classified as follows. The following go back to Chares: 1) the letter about the plot of Alexander Lyncestes;44 2) the letter in which Olympias advises Alexander not to give too many gifts to his friends;45 3) the letter about Philotas’ conspiracy;46 4) the letter of Olympias against Hephaestion;47 5) the letter concerning the visit to the oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwah;48 and 6) the letter in which the king thought he had found the sources of the Nile.49 7) The letters regarding Alexander’s gifts to his mother50 might also go back to Chares. Thus, for the correspondence with Olympias, 6 letters are linked to Chares and 3 (but they might be the same letter in different forms) are attributable to him with high probability: the percentage, therefore, is almost 100%. The letters which were part of the correspondence with teachers, friends and doctors can be classified as follows. The following go back to Chares: 1–2) the two letters to Phocion;51 3) the letter to the pedagogue Leonidas;52 4) the letter to Hephaestion;53 5) the letter to the doctor Pausanias;54 6–7) the two letters to Peucestas;55 8) the letter to the physician Alexippus;56 9) the letter to Parmenion about Damon and Timotheus;57 and 10–11) Hagnon’s letter and Alexander’s reply.58 The following letters might go back to Chares: 12) Parmenion’s letter 44  Diod. 17.32.1. 45 Plut. Alex. 39.7–8. 46  Curt. 7.1.6 and 10. 47  Diod. 17.114.3. 48  F6: Plut. Alex. 27.8. 49  F19: Arr. Anab. 6.1.2–5. 50  FF32–33: Poll. Onom. 6.87; Ath. Deipn. 14.659 f–660 a. See also Plut. Alex. 39.12. 51  FF22–23: Plut. Alex. 39.4; Phoc. 18.6. 52  F5: Plut. Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 179 e–f; Alex. 25.8. 53  F20: Plut. Alex. 41.5. 54  F21: Plut. Alex. 41.7. 55  FF24–25: Plut. Alex. 41.4 and 42.1. 56  F26: Plut. Alex. 41.6. 57  F4: Plut. Alex. 22.4–7. 58  F31: Plut. Alex. 22.3.

Introduction

13

about the physician Philip;59 13–17) the exchange of letters with Philoxenus;60 and 18) the letter to Megabyzus.61 As to these letters, therefore, 12 out of 18 go certainly back to Chares, and the other 6 probably go back to him as well. The letters attributable to Chares could therefore be 18 out of 18 (100%). In conclusion, it can be said that out of 41 letters (those mentioned in this book and mostly pertaining to what I have defined as the second Alexander), 36 can be almost certainly attributed to Chares (88%). The historian took part in Alexander’s expedition to Asia, he was part of the circle of the friends who were most loyal to the king, and in 330, when the Persian ceremonial was introduced to court, he was appointed as ‘announcer’ (eisangeleus).62 The position allowed him to come to know very well the situation at court63 and to have at hand quite a lot of information, including confidential information. Probably, among such pieces of information, there were also the letters written and received by Alexander.64 The letters mentioned and/or examined in this book are almost certainly only a part of Alexander’s correspondence: thus, there was a need for a person in charge of the archive containing the king’s private letters which should have been kept separate from the official ones. One might add that the role of Chares as eisangeleus (εἰσαγγελεύς) – which we know from Plutarch only (Alex. 46.2) – was not just that of introducing whoever wanted to confer with the king: Hesychius gives an interesting piece of information when he writes that the 59 Plut. Alex. 19.4–5; Just. Epit. 11.8.1–9. 60  FF11–12: Plut. De Alex. fort. aut virt. 333a; Alex. 22.1–2 and 42.1; Arr. Anab. 3.16.6; Ath. Deipn. 1.22d. 61  F28: Plut. Alex. 42.1. 62  See Berve 1926: II.405–406 no. 820, and Heckel 2006: 83, s.v. Chares [2]. 63  See Cagnazzi 2009: 286–87. 64  Cf. Hansen 1880: 304 who argues that it was Chares who took care of the publication of the letters, since, as chamberlain, he was the person closest to Alexander, and Hamilton 1961: 10, who, in regard to fragment 10 about the formula of salutation used by Alexander, believes that Chares, in his position as court chamberlain, had the possibility of knowing without doubt what formula Alexander used in his letters and that Alexander addressed only the two persons mentioned with chairein.

14

Introduction

eisangeleus was the equivalent of the Persian hazarapatiš.65 In Persia, the azarapateis (ἀζαραπατεῖς) played a far more important role than a simple announcer: they served as a sort of prime minister,66 and the officer who played this role was probably the highest person, after the Great King, and controlled and supervised all the Eastern offices:67 it is easy to think that among these offices there was also that of managing the king’s correspondence. One might argue that Chares, as the person closest to the king,68 may have also been invested with the Persian office of grammatistes (γραμματιστής). The term is a Herodotean neologism and indicates the ‘scribe’ or the ‘secretary’: Hdt. 3.128.2–5 explains that Persian 65  Hesychius (α1441) explains the word azarapateis (ἀζαραπατεῖς) as hoi eisangeleis para Persais (οἱ εἰσαγγελεῖς παρὰ Πέρσαις). On the Persian hazarapatiš, see Schmitt 2007: 355–64. The fact that the term hazarapatiš might mean “commander of a thousand” (but see Schmitt 2007 on this) has sparked some debate about the identification of the hazarapatiš with the chiliarch (see, for example, Collins 2001: 259–83, Meeus 2009: 287–310, and Collins 2012a: 159–67 with more bibliography at page 159 n. 1). But Benveniste 1966: 67–71 explained that the term ‘chiliarch’ was only associated with the hazarapatiš because Greek writers encountered it when Persian armies were involved. 66  In relation to this, Alan Sommerstein has called my attention to the history of the term ‘chancellor’ deriving from the Latin cancellarius, who was an usher who sat at the barrier (cancellus) controlling access to a king, a judge, etc. 67  See Briant 1996: 269. On the term eisangeleus as a speaking neologism and on its importance, see Lenfant 2015: 116–17. The function of the eisangeleus as usher or as one who announces is attested by Hdt. 3.84, who, most likely, corrupted the following tradition. An interesting reflection on the Greek term eisangeleus is the one Christopher Tuplin suggested to me: indeed, he underlines that the term eisangeleus “presumably properly designates someone bringing messages in”, as the prefix eis might suggest. Tuplin offers the example of Prexaspes (Hdt. 3.34). I sincerely thank Professor Tuplin for sharing his notes on chiliarchs and eisangeleis with me. 68  Cf. Levi 1977: 29, who explains the importance of the role held by Chares as that of “working as a private secretary or chief of staff, to resort to modern terminologies” (lavoro da segretario particolare o da capo di gabinetto, per ricorrere a terminologie moderne); Will 1986: 17 defines him as “Protokollchef”. Also Bernardi 2004: 388, perhaps in the wake of Levi, in his translation of Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire: the Reign of Alexander the Great translates the expression “court chamberlain” as “segretario di corte” (court secretary).

Introduction

15

governors had grammatistas basileious (γραμματιστὰς βασιληίους)69 and that even the kings had their secretaries, who took note of whatever orders were given to them (7.100.1).70 In addition, Xenophon seems to be aware of this particular figure, which he defines as phoinikistes basileios (φοινικιστὴς βασίλειος, Anab. 1.2.20), at least according to an intuition of Asheri’s who seems to link it to the term that the Greeks used to indicate the letters of the alphabet (phoinikeia, φοινικήια).71 Xenophon associates the position with a Persian individual named Megaphernes but does not explain the roles Megaphernes had; he nevertheless appears among the Persian high dignitaries. Indeed, the term, which is generally translated as ‘clothed in purple’, indicates an official among those highest in rank.72 The office of grammatistes had perhaps come to the Persian court from the Babylonians who referred to it with the terms bēl ṭēmi and sipīru73, namely ‘chancellor and scribe’.74 It has been also 69  It occurs only eight times in Herodotus (2.28.1 and 5; 3.123.1; 3.128.3 and 5; 7.100.1; 8.90.4). See Powell 1938: s.v. Asheri 1990: 341 (510–11 in the English translation of 2007), points out that the functions of the γραμματιστής were “of a purely technical nature”, and among them there were reading and writing documents. 70  Indeed, Xerxes, shortly before the battle at Thermopylae, inquired about every people deployed in his army and had everything written down by the secretaries; in 8.90.4, Xerxes, during the battle of Salamis, ordered the secretaries to note down the names of those of the Persian trierarchs who behaved with valour, and also of the name of their father and of their city. 71  To support this hypothesis, Asheri 1990: 341 (= 2007: 511) mentions the discussion in Virgilio 1975: 83–84 on the term phoinikeia (φοινικήια), used by Hdt. 5.58.2 to indicate the letters of the alphabet. Virgilio, however, does not mention Xenophon’s passage, despite the fact that he comments on a Cretan inscription dated back to roughly 500 (SEG 27.631), in which a man named Spensithios obtains the office of poinikastas, ποινικαστάς (in the text of the inscription the term poinikazen [ποινικάζην] also occurs). And, perhaps, it might not be by chance that in the Hellenistic period (perhaps 3rd century), although in a fragmentary context, we find two references to the office of phoinikographos together with the office of grammateus (IG XII 2, 96 and 97) in Mytilene (Chares’ fatherland). 72  See LSJ and GE, s.v. 73 Or sēpiru, which Kuhrt 2014: 132 translates as “parchment scribe”. 74  See Briant 1996: 461.

16

Introduction

pointed out that the expression bēl ṭēmi literally means “master of communications”.75 More precisely, the bēl ṭēmi seems to have been a sort of secretary-scribe, a role that would be inherited by the Persians.76 Amelie Kuhrt reflects on the fact that in a Persian context individuals called “scribes” did not necessarily “perform the physical act of writing”, and thus it might be better to call such offices “senior secretary” or “chief secretary”; these officers were “very near the top of the administrative hierarchy” and should perhaps be thought to be something similar to the “chancellor”.77 In the light of this, one might think that the role Chares held was that of someone at the highest rank among the officers at Alexander’s court. To this one could add that on the letters of the Persian kings, which could be confidential communications, the royal seal was imprinted as a precaution against forgery,78 and that the only one who could know of these communications was the king’s personal secretary. In all likelihood, this figure had the task of keeping the letters as well. Chares could, therefore, have collected and kept the letters written and received by Alexander for the royal archive and, after the death of the king, handed down those present in the archive organized by him. Furthermore, one should keep in mind that it was Persian practice to keep archives of documents and letters that could be consulted, and they were organized with precision, and distributed in the main places of the Persian empire:79 there were, therefore, copies of letters in each archive and it even seems that – in the reply – the Persians used to 75  Radner 2014: 69. 76  On this, see Kuhrt 2014: 131–32. 77  Kuhrt 2014: 131–32. 78  On this topic, see Steiner 1994: 151–52. 79  In the 14th century, the Egyptian scribes of the archive from El-Amarna even used to add, next to the letters written in cuneiform, the notes in hieratic that recorded the date on which they were received (Millard 2003: 231). See also Posner 1972: 118–26, and Mynářová 2014: 10–31. Furthermore, Posner 1972: 127 agrees with Rostovtzeff’s remark according to which “the administrative machinery of Alexander and his successors was practically a continuation of that of the Persian Kings”, and this continuation would not have been possible without the documents and information in the Persian archives. Piras 2009: 49–55 highlights the great importance Assyrians and Achaemenids attached to letters.

Introduction

17

summarize the letter to which they replied. One might find an example of this practice in Ezra 1.6.20–23. Here one reads that, because the Jews mentioned a letter by Cyrus the Great which allowed them to reconstruct their temple, the Persian officers asked Darius to look for the document in the royal archives in Babylon (ἐν τοῖς βασιλικοῖς βιβλιοφυλακίοις ... τοῖς ἐν Βαβυλῶνι). The document was not found there, but in Ecbatana they discovered evidence of it, as the letter/ document was recorded in the ‘register roll’ which was the “daily record of royal actions and activities”.80 Thus, there were at least two archives, one in Babylon and the other one in Ecbatana.81 The archives were not only useful to those who were in charge of the administration, but, since both public and private documents were kept,82 also to those engaged in writing history: in Ezra, for example, when the letters of the Persian kings are mentioned, the formula “of which it is a copy” appears and it refers to the letters stored in the archive, called “house of documents”. This is also confirmed by the fact that there are many stylistic correspondences between the letters mentioned in Ezra and the letters found in the Persian archives.83 In addition, one could mention the archive kept by Zeno dating back to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246), in which were not only the letters he received, but also those he wrote, showing that he corresponded with personalities of the most disparate social extraction and literacy.84 Sarri underlines that Alexander probably used the system of the Persian Empire and that there is some evidence of a postal system used by the Hellenistic Kingdoms, such as the 80  Posner 1972: 126. 81  Cf. Orsi 1979–1980: 129. See also Kuhrt 2014: 132, who points out that in the Achaemenid empire there were “copies of letters accessible to a number of individuals”. 82  The Hittites already maintained archives of private letters (Veenhof 2003: 89). On old Assyrian private archives, see Michel 2018: 43–70. For a description of the archives of the ancient Near East, see Matthiae 2008: 165–232. On letters and archives in the Hittite world, see Weeden 2014: 32–63. On Egyptian archives, see Hagen and Soliman 2018: 71–170. 83  Steiner 2006: 643–48; 650–54. 84  See, in this regard, Petrucci 2008: 8–12.

18

Introduction

fact that Antigonus Monophthalmos controlled Asia Minor through letter carriers or that some papyri of the Ptolemaic era attest to the organization of a postal service with “a daybook of a Ptolemaic postal station” (P.Hib. I.110) recording items received and dispatched, and hours when the post was received and dispatched.85 Lastly, Berve has also advanced the hypothesis that, compared to other contemporary historians, Chares contributed the most to the writing of the Ephemerides.86 In this light, the fact that at the Persian court there was the custom of inserting, or rather copying, the king’s daily activities (including, most likely, the letters) into ‘daily rolls’ appears even more interesting: these registers were called Ephemerides in Greek.87 To conclude, Chares began his task of collecting and arranging the personal letters of the king after 330, in his new function as grammatistes. It was then that Alexander began to use two seals to stamp his letters: his old Macedonian seal for the epistles he sent to Greece, and the seal of Darius for the letters he sent to Persia.88 He introduced Eastern offices, and started wearing Eastern, in addition to Macedonian, clothes. One could infer that he preferred to keep Eumenes in his role as chief secretary (he had held the position even in Philip’s reign), while adding Chares as the new secretary.89 The decision, perhaps, was taken also because the chamberlain came 85  Sarri 2018: 12. 86  See Berve 1926: I.50; 56; II.405. 87  Cf. Posner 1972: 126. See Cagnazzi 2005: 136 n. 28, who sees the editing of the Ephemerides at the court of Alexander as a continuation of the Persian chronicles attested by Diod. 2.32.4 and Esther 6.1. Before her, Samuel 1965: 8–12 had linked the Ephemerides to a Babylonian context arguing that they were based on cuneiform chronicles about Alexander’s last days. 88  Curt. 6.6.6. 89 See contra Anson 2015: 46–47, who claims that Eumenes was aware of all written communications and probably also had the power to screen all correspondence that came to the king. He also believes that, after the conquest of Asia, most of the day-to-day management of the vast empire was in Eumenes’ hands. However, Piras 2012: 436 rightly underlines that it was in Achaemenid Persia where “chancellery, administration and correspondence emerge as a network of communication processes strongly connected”.

Introduction

19

from Mytilene: he had, therefore, the ability to better understand the customs of the Persians and the royal protocol,90 and he was probably bilingual too.91 Thanks to these two positions, eisangeleus and royal grammatistes, Chares perhaps had the opportunity, more than any other historian contemporary with Alexander, to include the correspondence of the king within his historical work. In light of the role Chares played at court, it is odd that so few fragments of the historian have been preserved. The key to this possible damnatio memoriae may be the information contained in a papyrus recently published and dated between the end of the first and the early second century AD.92 The anonymous author expresses a very harsh judgment on Chares (col. I, ll. 2–9), stating that, in addition to the fact that he wrote many falsehoods, he shows malice, “for example, you catch him in flagrante when he puts Parmenion and his friends in a bad light” (οἷ]ο̣ν ἐπ’αὐτῆι φωρᾶι τοὺϲ | πε]ρ̣ὶ̣ Παρμενίωνα μελαί|νει.]).93 Another interesting detail of the papyrus is the characterization of the way in which Chares narrates events: xenikoteron. As rightly highlighted by Robin Lane Fox, the adjective xenikos here is not related to style or composition but rather “to Chares’s use of non-Greek words, and only secondarily to his inclusion of non-Greek tall stories”.94 This characterization also seems particularly fitting to Chares’ role as the new official historian of Alexander the Great after Callisthenes’ fall from grace. Indeed, Chares took this new role at a time when Alexander was no longer the avenger of the Greeks against the Persians but the new 90  See Cagnazzi 2009: 289, and Olbrycht 2014: 48. 91  Lane Fox 2018: 92. 92  P.Oxy. LXXI 4808. For a detailed commentary on this papyrus, see Moggi et al. 2013: 61–122, and Lane Fox 2018: 91–104. 93  The mention of Parmenion raises our interest: surely the anonymous author of the papyrus in question knew passages of Chares’ work that we do not have. A suggestive hypothesis would be to relate this piece of information in the papyrus with the letter in which Parmenion accused the physician Philip: the letter may have been handed down by Chares, so it would not be odd that in the papyrus the historian was accused of being a detractor. On the letter, see infra, Section 5: 45–49. Another explanation could be that Chares put Parmenion in a bad light as Philotas’ accomplice in the conspiracy foiled by Alexander. 94  Lane Fox 2018: 92–93.

20

Introduction

Great King. Hence, Chares could not but write in a xenikoteron way, something that could be translated as ‘in a rather foreign fashion’ or ‘in a way more/rather connected with foreigners’. Chares’ role and activity lead us to reconsider the hypothesis of the existence of a collection of Alexander’s letters that circulated independently and in which most of them were not authentic.95 This idea, as we have seen, was born in the wake of a piece of information given by the Suda according to which Antipater left a collection of letters in two books. In light of this, it was hypothesized that the most important letters written by Alexander to the regent were merged with the collection of Antipater. This speculation would not be far-fetched, since, as we have seen, there was the custom of storing letters sent and received, and perhaps it is no coincidence that those that have come down to us in greater number are indeed Alexander’s letters to Antipater. 3. The Formula of Salutation used by Alexander in his Letters Chares, Plutarch, and Persia seem to be linked by a common thread. Indeed, Plutarch is the only source who reports the information about the role of Chares as eisangeleus. Moreover, Plutarch is the only Greek source, as we have seen, who seems to have access to interesting information about Persian culture, such as the ceremony of coronation of an Achaemenid Great King. Finally, it is Plutarch who informs us of the formula of salutation used by Alexander in his letters, a piece of news which he had read in the work of Duris of Samos.96 This information is crucial because the letters examined in this volume (as well as the majority of the letters written by Alexander) do not have an opening formula, since they are fragmentary.97 95  As many modern scholars, from Heeren to Griffith claim: see infra, Section 7. 96  FGrHist 76 F51 cited by Plut. Phoc. 17.10. 97  Indeed, not many among the letters of Alexander were handed down with the opening formula: 1) Diod. 18.8.4 reports a letter about the Greek exiles which was written after Alexander returned from India where chairein is not attested as a formula of salutation but has only the sender in the nominative case and the receiver in the dative case (Βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος τοῖς ἐκ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων φυγάσι). 2) Gell. NA 13.4 reports the incipit of a letter written to Olympias, which is definitely a

Introduction

21

This is the one and only piece of information which dates back to a period very close in time to when Alexander lived, and which attests to the writing of letters by the king. More precisely, this statement dates back to a period contemporary with Alexander or shortly after Alexander’s death. Indeed, Plutarch adds that the information is also handed down by Chares of Mytilene (FGrHist 125 F10), one of the many historians who lived at the court of Alexander, but who was above all his eisangeleus (εἰσαγγελεύς), chamberlain, a person, therefore, very close to him: ὁ γοῦν Δοῦρις εἴρηκεν, ὡς μέγας γενόμενος καὶ Δαρείου κρατήσας ἀφεῖλε τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τὸ χαίρειν, πλὴν ἐν ὅσαις ἔγραφε Φωκίωνι· τοῦτον δὲ μόνον ὥσπερ Ἀντίπατρον μετὰ τοῦ χαίρειν προσηγόρευε. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ Χάρης ἱστόρηκε. Duris stated that (Alexander), having become ‘great’ and having defeated Darius, removed from his letters the greeting chairein (χαίρειν), except in those which he wrote to Phocion: him alone, as well as Antipater, did he address with the chairein. Chares records this as well.

The first interesting element of the fragment concerns the information regarding a change in style by Alexander who no longer used the greeting chairein as the incipit of his letters.98 An echo of the fact that chairein was the typical greeting of the letters written by Greeks is found in the Suda (χ162) where one reads that it was an innovation compared to a previous colder formula which provided only the name of the sender (in the nominative case), the recipient (in the dative case), the neuter demonstrative pronoun and the verb ‘say’ in the third-person singular. The Suda adds a piece of information which it ascribes to the fourth-century comic poet Eubulus who “says that Cleon first wrote in such a way [sc. with chairein] to the forgery, where the Latin version of the Greek chairein is used (Rex Alexander, Iovis Hammonis filius, Olympiadi matri salutem dicit). 3) Plut. Alex. 7.4, reports a letter written to Aristotle, which is definitely a forgery as we shall see in the commentary, where the greeting formula is eu prattein (Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀριστοτέλει εὖ πράττειν). 98  The piece of information has been generally considered reliable. Only Berve 1926: I.53 casts doubt on it by resuming the position of Gerhard 1903: 39.

22

Introduction

Athenians from Sphacteria”. This statement, however, is denied in the next lemma but one (χ164, another explanation of chairein). In fact, it seems strange and rather ridiculous that it was Cleon, considered by the ancient sources to have been given to violent language, who introduced this polite form of greeting.99 The Suda also reports an example of the formula used previously: “Amasis to Polycrates100 says the following (literally: these things here)”, Amasis Polykratei tade legei (Ἄμασις Πολυκράτει τάδε λέγει).101 The beginning of the letter of the Egyptian pharaoh is part of a tradition that goes back to the royal letters of the archives of Ebla, in the second half of the 99  Thuc. 3.36.6 writes that during the assembly debate about the destruction of Mytilene, Cleon was the most violent of the citizens. He was also ignorant (5.7.2). Ar. Ach. 660–64 defines him as very rude and presents him as a crude man, since he intervened in the assembly raising his voice exaggeratedly (Eq. 137, 218, 256, 274– 75, 285–87, 304, 487, 626, 863, 1018). In addition, Aristotle (or his school), [Ath. Pol.] 28.3, had a negative opinion on Cleon, described as the one who first raised his voice in the assembly and insulted, wearing the apron (περιζωσάμενος), while the others spoke with composure. Plut. Nic. 8.5–6 points out that Cleon introduced a new way of debating in the assembly, shouting, tearing his robe, slapping his thigh and running from side to side as he spoke. For interpretations and reconstructions of the image of Cleon through historical and literary sources, see Paladini 1958: 48–73. 100  Amasis became pharaoh around 569. A philhellene, he gave the Greeks the emporium of Naucratis and made donations to the Greek temples. Polycrates was a tyrant from the island of Samos, which he seized in 540 together with the brothers Pantagnotus and Syloson. He forged alliances with Egypt and Cyrene, but later sent a contingent of Samians suspected of discontent to help Cambyses against Egypt. They went back and attacked the tyrant without success. He was lured to Persia by the satrap Oroetes with a ruse and was impaled in 522. See Jansen-Winkeln 1996: 572, s.v. Amasis (2), Cobet 2001: 69–70, s.v. Polycrates (1), and Carty 2015. See also Haziza 2021: 57–58, s.v. Amasis king of Egypt, and White 2021: 1023, s.v. Oroetes. 101  Hdt. 3.40.1 also reports the letter, which has the incipit with the demonstrative adverb hode (ὧδε) replacing the neuter demonstrative pronoun tade (τάδε). Herodotus uses this formula for beginning letters some other times in his work, and always in relation to Eastern figures: 3.122 (the satrap Oroetes to Polycrates); 5.24 (King Darius to Histiaeus); 7.150 (King Xerxes to the Argives); 8.140a (Mardonius to the Athenians). The formula is also found once in Thuc. 1.129, who reports a letter from Xerxes to Pausanias (ὧδε λέγει βασιλεὺς Ξέρξης Παυσανίᾳ).

Introduction

23

third millennium, when the epistolary incipit uses the model “IbuKAKID thus says”, followed by the message expressed in the firstperson singular,102 and at the time of Hammurabi, in the first half of the second millennium, when letterheads of the sort “Hammurabi thus says” (even when he addressed his son Sin-idinnam) are attested, which the message expressed in the first-person singular follows.103 One should also remember that in the mid ninth century, Ben-Hadàd II, king of the Aramean princedom of Damascus, in a letter written to King Ahab of Israel, begins with the words “Ben-Hadàd says”, followed by the message in the first-person singular.104 Furthermore, one can recall three additional testimonies: the edict of Cyrus, where the king introduces the message with the formula “So says Cyrus King of Persia” after which the letter-edict continues with the king using the first-person singular;105 Darius’ letter to Gadatas, where the words of the king, who speaks in the first person, are introduced by a similar formula: “Darius to Gadatas says the following (literally: these things here)”;106 finally, the Behistun inscription of Darius I written at about the same time:107 “King Darius thus says: You who shall thereafter 102  For the letters in Ebla’s archives, see Fronzaroli 2003 apud Matthiae 2008: 237–39. 103  See, for example, Fronzaroli 1976: 79–86. 104  1 Kings 20.2–3. 105  Ezra 1.1–4. In the text, before quoting the edict, it is stated that it was enacted in the first year of Cyrus’ reign, corresponding to 538: “The Lord, God of heaven, granted me all the kingdoms of the earth; he instructed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. Which one of you comes from his peoples? His God be with him; may he return to Jerusalem, which is in Judea, and rebuild the temple of the Lord God of Israel: he is the God who dwells in Jerusalem. Every survivor wherever he is an immigrant will receive from the people of that place silver and gold, goods and cattle with generous offerings for the temple of God who is in Jerusalem”. The translation is adapted from Rossano, Penna, Galbiati 1963. 106  The opening of the letter is: βασιλεὺς [βα]σιλέ|ων Δαρεῖος ὁ Ὑσ|τάσπεω Γαδάται | δούλωι τάδε λέγε[ι]· | πυνθάνομαί σε [...]. The text is in ML 1969: 20–22, no. 12. Darius’ letter to Gadatas dates to between 522 and 486. Gadatas (whose name appears in Xen. Cyr. 5.3.10 ff.) seems to have been a satrap of Ionia. 107  The inscription is dated to around the years 520–518. It is carved on the sides and is located below a large bas relief representing King Darius as he rests his foot

24

Introduction

behold this inscription which I have inscribed, or these sculptures, do not destroy them, (but) thence onward protect them, as long as you shall be in good strength!”.108 It is interesting to note that the opening formula of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions corresponds to that of a letter. Indeed, many of them appear to be letters left to posterity, since not only does the king speak in the first person (as in the letter), but he also addresses an indefinite you.109 The link between inscriptions and letters seems even clearer from the comparison with the edict of Cyrus of 538, which is said to have been issued “also by letter”. The actual inscriptions, however, were not always edicts, but often served as messages. The incipit formula, which reproduced the expression used by the messenger carrying an oral communication,110 emphasized that it was the king who spoke and left a message to anyone who passed by and read it aloud: it had to be lasting, and for this reason it could not be written in a letter, a document that, over time, suffered wear, but it was appropriate to engrave it on stone. on the magus Gaumata and raises his right hand towards a winged figure (perhaps Ahura Mazda); in front of Darius are aligned, with the rope around their neck, the other eight rebel kings of the year 522/521 (all indicated by name and ethnic). At the bottom is the leader of the “Sakā with the pointy hood”, Skunkha, taken prisoner in 520 or 519; behind Darius are the king’s spear- and bow-bearers. On the relief, the stages, and the history of the document, see Borger and Hinz 1982–1985: 419–50, Schmitt 1991, and Briant 1996: 136–40. 108  DB Kent 4.69–72. 109  See also the inscription E of Persepolis (DPe Kent), the inscriptions A and B at Naqš-i-Rustam (DNa, DNb Kent) and Susa’s T inscription (DSt Kent), for Darius; inscription H of Persepolis (XPh Kent), for Xerxes. On the similarity between letters and royal inscriptions, see Piras 2009: 53. 110  See Van den Hout 1949: 18–41; 138–53, and Bickerman 1976: 72–108. Corcella 1996: 297, notes that the continuity between oral message and letter is not surprising: “the message, even if it is always introduced as oral, is often written, and can become a letter, which will be then read to the recipient – and finally also a written document, stored in the archives or engraved on stone”. Stirewalt 1993: 7 not only thinks of a similar process for Greek letters but goes further and argues that the Greeks began to use the written documents “in support of the oral message of the herald” under the influence and example of Persia.

Introduction

25

Given this strong Achaemenid imprint, it is still worth trying to infer what the formula introduced by Alexander was, even though the letters examined in this volume do not have an opening formula. Both the incipit of Darius’ letter to Gadatas and of the Behistun inscription suggest that the opening formula of the letters, adopted by Alexander after 330, was that of the Persian kings: the name followed by the words tade legei (‘says the following’, τάδε λέγει), which would render the Persian formula formed by the deictic and a verb in the third-person singular with the meaning of ‘say’. Alexander, after the defeat of Darius and the victory over the Persians, no longer presented himself as the avenger of the Greeks against the barbarians, but as the successor to the Great King: this led him to introduce, at his own court, figures which were characteristic of the Persian court,111 such as that of the chamberlain, eisangeleus (εἰσαγγελεύς),112 the taster, edeatros (ἐδέατρος),113 the bodyguard, somatophylax (σωματοφύλαξ),114 the custom of wearing Persian clothes115, and, in 327, the introduction of the practice of proskynesis.116 The writing of letters in which the Greek greeting no longer appeared could rightly fall into this new Persian style: Alexander, once he has 111 Plut. Alex. 45.1–4; Just. Epit. 12.4.1; Curt. 6.2.1–11. 112  FGrHist 125 T2; cf. Hdt. 3.84; Diod. 16.47.3; Hesychius (α1441), who also gives the Persian name, ἀζαραπατεῖς· οἱ εἰσαγγελεῖς παρὰ Πέρσαις; and Suda, s.v. εἰσαγγελεύς (ει219). 113  FGrHist 125 F1; cf. Hesychius (ε413) and, in particular, Suda (ε199). 114  Arr. Anab. 3.27.5; cf. Hdt. 8.85.2 and Hesychius (ο1323), who, as with the office of the chamberlain, provides the Persian variant of the name, ὀρσάγγης· σωματοφύλαξ. ἢ ὁ τὴν βασιλέως οἶκόν ποτε εὐεργετήσας. 115  Ephippus of Olynthus, FGrHist 126 F5 (apud Ath. Deipn. 12.537e–538b); cf. Curt. 6.6.1–10. On Ephippus, see Gadaleta 2001: 97–144, and especially Spawforth 2012: 169–213. For a description of Alexander’s attire and its meaning, see Collins 2012c: 371–402, and Olbrycht 2014: 41–47. A discussion of the ancient sources writing on this matter and the “contemporary concerns” is in Bowden 2021: 129–35. 116 Plut. Alex. 54; Just. Epit. 12.7.1; Curt. 8.5.21. Cf. Hdt. 3.86, 7.136, and 8.118; Xen. Cyr. 8.3.14. On the introduction of the Persian court ceremonial, see Olbrycht 2014: 47–49. On proskynesis, see Matarese 2013: 75–85, and Abe 2017–2018: 1–45.

26

Introduction

become the Great King,117 also assumes the modus scribendi of the Persian kings who did not use polite formulas of greeting, but rather imperatives. The hypothesis can find a supporting proof in the dating of all preserved letters (especially the ones which are not related to political or military reasons), which are after 334, the year of arrival in Asia.118 117  The literal translation of megas genomenos (μέγας γενόμενος), in Chares’ fragment 10, is “having become great”, but the conjoined participle could also take on another meaning: after he assumed the title of Great King. Cf. Cagnazzi 2005: 132–43, who argues that the adjective Great next to the name Alexander had been placed “in the circle of his court as a direct derivation of the Persian use to define the king of Persia ‘Great King’: it is known, in fact, that Alexander presented himself as Darius’ legitimate successor immediately after the victory of Gaugamela”. 118  The sole exception consists of a public letter, dating back to 335, after the campaign against the Triballi and the Illyrians, handed down by Arr. Anab. 1.10.1–4. The historian describes the situation in the Greek cities and, above all, the reaction of Athens, after the punishment of Thebes by Alexander: during the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, the surviving Thebans arrived in Athens following the destruction of their city. The Athenians, in fear, began to organize a move from the countryside to the city (Plut. Alex. 13.1 writes that the Athenians welcomed the Thebans with all respect, against the federal council’s ban, κοινὸν συνέδριον, which, as Diod. 17.14.3 specifies, forbade all Greeks from welcoming the Theban exiles). But at Demades’ suggestion, the people, gathered in the assembly, decided to send Alexander a delegation of ten ambassadors to announce that the Athenian people congratulated him, because he had returned safely from the expedition against the Illyrians and the Triballi and also for punishing the Thebans. Alexander responded benevolently to the ambassadors but sent a letter to the Athenian people in which he demanded Demosthenes, Lycurgus, Hyperides, Polyeuctus, Chares, Charidemus, Ephialtes, Diotimus and Moerocles, since, according to him, they had been responsible for the defeat suffered by the city at Chaeronea and the mistakes made at the time of Philip’s death both against him and against his father. The Athenians had, in fact, welcomed the news of Philip’s death, raised altars and dedicated wreaths to the “tyrannicide” Pausanias: see Arr. Anab. 1.1–2; Aeschin. In Ctes. 170; Plut. Dem. 22.2. The sources are divided on the number and names of the politicians requested by Alexander: Diod. 17.15.1, indicates only two, Demosthenes and Lycurgus; Plut. Dem. 23.4 lists eight (Demosthenes, Lycurgus, Polyeuctus, Charidemus, Ephialtes, Moerocles, Demon and Callisthenes), while in Phoc. 17.2 only four (Demosthenes, Lycurgus, Hyperides, Charidemus); the Suda, s.v. Ἀντίπατρος (α2704), indicates eleven politicians: Demosthenes, Lycurgus,

Introduction

27

Berve had formulated a similar hypothesis, asserting that Alexander, around 330, when he removed chairein from his letters, introduced the formula basileus Alexandros (βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος) followed by the name of the recipient in the dative case, while in the letters written to Eastern people he revived the expression tade legei typical of the Persian kings.119 I believe that the hypothesis of the introduction of the formula basileus Alexandros is hardly tenable: in the first instance, in fact, the adoption of Persian customs took place without distinction of peoples, towards both Greeks and Persians; secondly, the title basileus followed by his own name, which was later also used by Hellenistic kings, was already in use before Alexander’s arrival in Asia, as attested by the title basileus Philippos (βασιλεὺς Φίλιππος) in the inscription from Oleveni of 345 for Philip II, and, for Alexander, both in the letter to Chios (SIG3, 283, ll. 1–18) and in the inscription of Priene, concerning events of 334.120 Thus, I argue that the revival of the expression tade legei occurred not only when writing to Eastern people, as Berve states, but also when writing to Western people: indeed, if Alexander had decided to introduce the Persian formula only for peoples in the East, Chares would not have felt the need to specify that Alexander kept the greeting chairein only in the case of Phocion and Antipater. Most likely, Berve formulated his hypothesis on the basis of the information given by Curtius, 6.6.6, according to which Alexander used two different seals for the letters, the old Macedonian ring for those he sent to Europe, the seal of Darius for those he sent Hyperides, Polyeuctus, Chares, Charidemus, Ephialtes, Diotimus, Moerocles [for correction from Patrocles], Thrasybulus and Cassander. On the issue of the number of speakers requested by Alexander, see Bosworth 1980: I.93–95. Alexander wrote another political letter to the Athenians concerning the problem of the island of Samos between 332/331 and 327/326, in which he informed them that they would not have kept their city free if the lord of that time had not given it to them, “who was also called my father”, καὶ πατρὸς ἐμοῦ προσαγορευομένου, referring to Philip (Plut. Alex. 28.2). I intend to deal with the problems raised by this letter in a future work. 119  Berve 1926: I.53. 120  For these examples, see Virgilio 1998: 115–16, to which I refer for the previous bibliography and for the editions of the individual inscriptions.

28

Introduction

to Asia. In this case, however, we are faced with a different situation, since the use of the royal seal was crucial in order to allow for the immediate identification of the provenance of the letter.121 The second noteworthy element of Chares’ fragment is the people to whom Alexander continued to write letters using chairein: Phocion and Antipater. Phocion was a friend of Alexander, to whom the king granted honours which he generally gave to his closest friends.122 There are two letters written to Phocion by Alexander, which confirm the friendship between them. In one of them, the king became angry with Phocion who did not want to accept his gifts and added that he would no longer consider him a friend if he continued to reject them.123 Scholars have hypothesised that the sources expanded the information regarding the diplomatic relations between Alexander and Phocion, and transferred Phocion’s friendship with Antipater to a more powerful character, namely Alexander.124 The hypothesis is based on the consideration that, in Plutarch’s work, the theme of the friendship between Alexander and Phocion is divided into two main strands. The first is known to the historiographical tradition125 and concerns the information related to Alexander’s welcome of the Athenian ambassadors without the demand to hand over the antiMacedonian orators, and the crucial role played by Phocion, who managed to convince the king to receive the ambassadors so as not to compromise his already difficult relations with Athens. The second concerns Alexander’s frequent gifts rejected by Phocion: of these episodes we receive information only from the biographical and literary tradition,126 while such pieces of information are completely 121  Of a different opinion is Lane Fox 1973: 278, who believes that Alexander, after eliminating chairein, began to use the “royal ‘we’, the title of an absolute monarch”, although he does not offer any explanation for his hypothesis. 122 Plut. Phoc. 17.9. 123  See FF22–23: Plut. Alex. 39.4; cf. Phoc. 18.6; Ael. VH 1.25. 124  See Bearzot 1984: 75–90. 125  Diod. 17.15. Cf. Plut. Phoc. 17.2–10. 126 Plut. Phoc. 18; Cornelius Nepos, Phoc. 1.3–4; Ael. VH 1.25 and 11.9.

Introduction

29

absent in the historical tradition. If one accepts the hypothesis of ‘a distortion of the historiographic tradition’,127 it becomes then difficult to explain why this distorted tradition singles out only those two people for whom the use of chairein remained and not others among Alexander’s friends, or his dearest friend Hephaestion, or his tutor Aristotle or even his mother. In addition, Ael. VH 1.25, the other source for the story of the elimination of the Greek greeting, reports that Alexander addressed only Phocion with chairein and does not mention this use for Antipater. Thus, if Phocion was mentioned only as Antipater’s friend and not Alexander’s, Aelian would have remembered, at best, just Antipater, the one who was actually linked to Alexander by friendship, and not Phocion. Scholars have wondered about the reason for Alexander and Phocion’s friendship, but at the same time, they have not wondered why Alexander continued to address Antipater with chairein, since they assumed that the relations between them were those between the king and the regent. As a result, it was normal for them to communicate only for political and administrative issues. But Alexander wrote from Asia to Antipater also to give him private news as well as instructions on how to administer Macedonia and Greece. Τhe Suda (α2703) reports that Antipater had been a pupil of Aristotle (μαθητὴς Ἀριστοτέλους), Philip’s strategos and, later, Alexander’s. The first piece of information is particularly interesting: Antipater may have attended the school of Aristotle together with Alexander and, probably, it was the close bond in their youth that induced the king to address the regent with chairein.128 At this point it seems appropriate to reflect on the fact that the presence of this greeting or its absence helps with dating a letter. The greeting chairein is also useful for determining whether the letter is authentic or not: the epistles of the Alexander Romance, for example, arouse suspicion. Many of them are reported in direct citation (unlike the letters handed down by Plutarch, Diodorus, Justin, Arrian or Curtius) and chairein always appears both in those written 127  I borrow the terminology from Bearzot 1984: 75–90. 128  Cf. Kaerst 1892: 620.

30

Introduction

by Alexander and in those written by the Persians, which are thus ‘hellenised’: in this way the Alexander Romance contradicts the one and only contemporary piece of information about Alexander’s letters. 4. The Persian Custom of Writing Letters After the formula of greeting in the letters, it seems appropriate to look at an interesting testimony about their content: namely, that the letters were mostly concerned with personal matters and not, as one might assume, with politics or military dispatches. Plut. Alex. 42.1, states: Θαυμάσαι δ’ αὐτὸν ἔστιν, ὅτι καὶ μέχρι τοιούτων ἐπιστολῶν τοῖς φίλοις ἐσχόλαζεν· οἷα γράφει παῖδα Σελεύκου εἰς Κιλικίαν ἀποδεδρακότα κελεύων ἀναζητῆσαι, καὶ Πευκέσταν ἐπαινῶν ὅτι Νίκωνα Κρατεροῦ δοῦλον συνέλαβε, καὶ Μεγαβύζῳ περὶ τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καθεζομένου, κελεύων αὐτὸν ἂν δύνηται συλλαβεῖν ἔξω τοῦ ἱεροῦ προκαλεσάμενον, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἱερῷ μὴ προσάπτεσθαι. One should be amazed at the fact that he even had as far free time as to write such letters to his friends:129 he writes, for example,130 with the order to search for a slave of Seleucus who had fled to Cilicia (F27), praises Peucestas for capturing Nicon, slave of Craterus (F24); (writes) to Megabyzus regarding a slave who had taken refuge as a suppliant in the temple (sc. of Artemis at Ephesus), urging him, if he could, to capture him after calling him out, without laying hands on him in the sacred place (F28).

It is likely that Alexander wrote so many letters either to respond to an objective need for communication, since he was far away, or for reasons of secrecy. However, if one compares such letters to those written by the Greeks, the difference lies in the fact that in Greece letter-writing was not a normal procedure but was reserved for political personalities and only for political and military reasons. Those who 129  Carena 1974: II proposes a different translation: “It is amazing how he found the time to write so many letters to friends on even secondary issues”. 130  The demonstrative toiouton (τοιούτων) should be understood as a proleptic demonstrative adjective in correlation with the adjective hoia (οἷα) which, therefore, introduces an epexegetic proposition.

Introduction

31

wrote also had the economic resources to keep slaves travelling and bringing letters to their destination. In the classical age, then, the act of writing letters was viewed with suspicion,131 not so much because the ease of communication was a distinctive feature of the Persian Empire,132 but above all because, whereas those in charge of a personal government, such as the Persian one or a tyrannical one – thus linked to Persia (one should not forget that many tyrants were “friends of the Persians”133) –, placed trust in written communication, democracy had freedom of speech as its own characteristic.134 The large number of letters written by Alexander may also lead us to reflect upon another point: the ease with which he wrote might be linked to the existence of the well-organized Persian postal service consolidated for centuries, which is described by Hdt. 8.98 with admiration,135 and which the king kept and widely employed. 131 In Iliad 6.118, which Sarri 2018: 6 regards as the earliest reference to letters in the Greek world, and one which may have influenced the negative representation of letter-writing, given that it contained the instruction to kill the letter carrier. On the negative ideas linked to the act of writing letters, see Harris 1989: 88, and Rosenmeyer 2001: 61–97. 132  Cf. Sarri 2018: 6 (together with the bibliography she lists in n. 15), who underlines that “letter writing was used in the ancient Near East long before the earliest attestations of Greek letters”. 133  See de Libero 1996: 414–17, who defines these figures as “die perserfreundlichen Tyrannen”. 134  On this topic, see Stirewalt 1993: 6–8; 11, Steiner 1994: 149–54; 166–74, and Rosenmeyer 2001: 24–35. Steiner 1994: 107–27; 150 points out that the Persian king had a kind of monopoly on the communication system in his kingdom which blocked all other expressions, and the palace was the only place where all written documents were sent and received; Greek historians, on the other hand, frequently passed on secret information intended for a small audience. 135  After having narrated the battle of Salamis and Xerxes’ intention to escape, the historian reports that the Great King sent to Persia the announcement of the disaster and, then, makes an excursus on the Persian postal organization calling it their own invention (οὕτω τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι ἐξεύρηται τοῦτο): the royal letters reached every corner of the empire. On the roads men on horseback were stationed, as many as the days of travel, and the messages passed from hand to hand. The Persian system is also accurately described by Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17–18 as one of the institutions introduced by Cyrus on his return to Babylon. On the Royal Road, the transportation

32

Introduction

Moreover, it may also be no coincidence that ancient tradition assigned the invention of letters to an Eastern milieu. Indeed, in the second century AD, Clement of Alexandria136 quotes the historian Hellanicus of Lesbos137 who said that Atossa was the one who first wrote letters (πρώτην ἐπιστολὰς συντάξαι Ἄτοσσαν τὴν Περσῶν βασιλεύσασάν φησιν Ἑλλάνικος).138 One might wonder why the role of protos heuretes (πρῶτος εὑρετής)139 was assigned to a woman and, above all, what letters or which kind of letters she might have invented. In this regard, scholars have provided various explanations. Hirzel makes two assumptions: first, that it was difficult for a woman to send oral messages; secondly, that Hellanicus may have had access to a letter from Atossa which, according to him, was one of the oldest known to the Greeks.140 Sykutris explains Hellanicus’ information more accurately: Atossa might have been the first to introduce Eastern court protocol according to which subjects were not allowed to submit their requests or their complaints in person, by voice, directly to the king, but only in writing and through an intermediary, who would also transmit the sovereign’s response.141 Sykutris’ hypothesis is not a bad one since there are reports of letters in Eastern settings: these are diplomatic, military, political, and private letters, so one could not affirm that Atossa was and communication system of the Achaemenid empire, see Almagor 2020: 147–85. 136  Clem. Al. Strom. 1.16.76.10–77.1. 137  FGrHist 4 F178. 138  The Atossa mentioned by Hellanicus is not the famous Atossa. Hellanicus (F178a) specifies that Atossa the inventor of the letters was raised by her father Ariaspes like a man, and that she succeeded him to the throne. There is no information about Ariaspes, but Jacoby (FGrHist 4 F178 Kommentar) notes that Atossa’s name appears in the nineteenth place in the list of Assyrian kings by Castor (Ἄτοσσα ἡ καὶ Σεμίραμις) and that Ctesias does not mention her. She could, therefore, be an Assyrian queen – Photius, reporting a fragment of Conon (FGrHist 26 F1.9), calls her ‘the Assyrian Atossa’ –, often confused with the Assyrian queen Semiramis. See Ceccarelli 2013: 88–89, and Pownall 2016: BNJ 4 F178a. 139  The felicitous expression is used by Sykutris 1931: 192; l.27, s.v. Epistolographie. 140  Hirzel 1895: I.302 n. 2. 141  Sykutris 1931: 192, ll. 27–38.

Introduction

33

the first to write letters belonging to the private sphere. In the wake of Sykutris, one could claim that the queen had been the first to introduce the new ceremonial regarding the demands of the subjects. In addition to this, one might remember that Cyrus, the father of another Atossa, a Persian and perhaps the best known Atossa142 thanks to Aeschylus and Herodotus, had introduced the efficient Persian postal system. Another hypothesis could be advanced on the basis of the verb used by Clement of Alexandria who quotes the fragment of Hellanicus: indeed, we do not find the verb grapho (γράφω), but the verb syntasso (συντάσσω) which can carry different meanings, ‘write, compose’, but also ‘compile, arrange’ or ‘order, prescribe’.143 Assuming these nuances, therefore, we could interpret the information as follows: Atossa was, most likely, the first to indicate how the letters should be written or the first to make a collection, since in the fragment the term is in the plural. What is more important, however, regardless of the various interpretations of the fragment, is the fact that the Greeks assigned the invention of the letter to an Eastern figure: Hellanicus’ statement shows that, in the Greek mentality, there was an old recollection that the first to write letters were Eastern figures and, consequently, the Greeks had drawn from them the custom of writing letters. This also seems to explain better the information in the Suda regarding the greeting used before the introduction of chairein, a greeting that was quite similar to that used in letters in the Eastern context. All the more so as, throughout the fifth and early fourth centuries, Greek historians did indeed transmit letters, written also by Greeks, but which originated from the East and were composed exclusively by Greeks who lived in the East and adopted an Eastern practice.144 In Hdt. 142  Atossa (*Utauthā in ancient Persian), daughter of Cyrus (and perhaps of Cassandane), wife at first of his brother Cambyses, then of the false Smerdis and finally of Darius; she had four children, including Xerxes who ascended the throne thanks to her (Hdt. 7.3). See Brosius 1996: 48–51; 107–109, and Rollinger 2021: 197–98. 143  See LSJ, s.v. συντάσσω. 144  It is interesting to note that Herodotus, to indicate the “letter”, uses the term byblion (βυβλίον: 1.123.4; 124.1; 125.2; 3.40.1; 42.4; 43.1; 128.2–5; 5.14.2; 6.4.1;

34

Introduction

5.35, Histiaeus wants to order Aristagoras, tyrant of Miletus, to rebel against the king and sends him a secret message tattooed on a slave’s head; at 7.239, Demaratus, a Spartan king in exile at the Persian court, writes a letter to warn his people of the impending invasion of Xerxes, using a wooden tablet that he covers with wax in order to hide the message.145 In Thuc. 1.128, the Spartan commander Pausanias secretly sends a letter to Xerxes in which he promises to make Sparta and the rest of Greece subject to him; in 1.136–137, Themistocles writes to Artaxerxes seeking asylum at his court; in 8.50–51, Alcibiades, from his gilded exile with Tissaphernes in Sardis, writes a series of letters to Samos against Phrynichus.146 In Xenophon’s Hellenica there are not many occurrences of letters written or received by Greeks. Moreover, they concern military orders.147 In the Anabasis there are only two letters received from Xenophon who is in Asia to fight alongside Cyrus.148 In addition, the use of the letter in the Eastern area is confirmed by an interesting archaeological datum: a letter written on lead, coming from the island of Berezan in the Black Sea, dated between 550 and 500,149 probably shipped from the colony of Olbia or sent to the colony of Olbia, which had been founded by Miletus. The sender, the Greek 7.128.1–3. See Powell 1938, s.v.). The word, which literally means “papyrus-roll” (Ceccarelli 2013: 15), is nothing more than the transliteration of the name of the Phoenician city of Byblos, from where the papyrus was imported: see Chantraine 2009. Even the term, therefore, seems to confirm the Eastern origin of the letter. 145  On the letters in Herodotus, see Bowie 2013: 71–83, and Ceccarelli 2013: 113–29. 146  On the letters in Thucydides, see Ceccarelli 2013: 136–49. 147  1.1.23; 4.3; 7.4; 3.4.11; 4.4.3. 148  In 3.1.5, a friend advises Xenophon, who is already in Asia, to join the Ten Thousand; in 7.2.8, Anassibius entrusts a letter to Xenophon who was about to lead the army to Perinthus and disembark again in Asia. My search for letters in the historians Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon was directed only to epistles written or received by Greeks. I did not take into account the letters written by Eastern figures. In Xenophon, in the Cyropedia, we have the highest number of letters, written by Eastern peoples, especially by Cyrus: see 2.2.9–10; 4.5.26; 31 and 34; 5.5.1 and 4; 6.2.1; 7.2.16–17. On letters in Xenophon, see Ceccarelli 2013: 150–55. More generally, on Greek letters see Sickinger 2013: 125–40. 149  Ceccarelli 2013: 38.

Introduction

35

Achillodoros who is also a simple person and does not have much culture or education,150 writes to his son Protagoras about family matters. 5. The Contents of the Letters and their Addressees The letters can be divided into two main groups, the first consisting of official and/or public letters, the second group pertaining to the private sphere. In this book, I have mainly devoted my attention to the private letters, although I have also inserted some letters which clearly belong to the public sphere. It comes as no surprise that the official letters – the ones contained in this volume (FF1 and 7–10) – were all written for propaganda purposes. The Alexander of these letters is the avenger of the offences the Greeks had endured from the Persians roughly 150 years earlier, during the Persian Wars. Indeed, Alexander dedicates part of the Persian spoils from the Granicus Battle to Athena on Athens’ acropolis to recall the victory of the Athenians at Marathon (F1). Moreover, after he had finally defeated Darius, he wrote to the Greeks of Asia that all tyrannies had been abolished (F9), and, in particular, he wrote to the Plataeans promising to rebuild their city because their ancestors provided the Greeks with a territory on which to fight for freedom (F10), a reference to the Battle of Plataea in 479. I. The Great King Darius The letters to Darius in response to the Great King’s peace offers (FF7–8) provide an interesting nuance, since they are both official and private. Indeed, it is clear that Plutarch and Arrian report letters of a different flavour, with Plutarch being more interested in Alexander as a character and Arrian still interested in the figure of Alexander as the avenger of Greeks. Moreover, the letters are a valuable resource since they offer the only example of the likely presence of two archives, for private and official correspondence respectively, as one can infer from Diod. 17.39.2, who reports that Alexander, after he received the first 150  Rosenmeyer 2001: 29, defines him as “not very well educated”. The letter, first published by Vinogradov 1971: 74–100, then translated into English and commented by Chadwick 1973: 35–37, dates probably back to 500: see Jayenko 1974: 133–52. See also Ceccarelli 2013: 38–39.

36

Introduction

offer from Darius, hid his original letter (the private one) and wrote another one (which would become the official one) to be produced before the council of the hetairoi (ἑταῖροι). II. Antipater Chares’ contemporary testimony regarding the abolition of chairein as a greeting in Alexander’s letters, except in those sent to Phocion and Antipater (FGrHist 125 F10), enables one to see the correspondence with Antipater in a new light. In addition, this piece of information might be linked to two letters sent to Antipater and mentioned by Plutarch (Alex. 20.9 and 46.3):151 indeed, in both cases the mention of the letter is preceded by the citation of two passages by Chares. One gets the impression, therefore, that there might be a connection between the letters and the historian who, as eisangeleus, had ease of access to Alexander’s correspondence and, as such, may have been a source more interested in letters than his other colleagues. The exchange of letters with Antipater is something that goes beyond a mere official exchange between the king and the regent. The tone of the letters seems rather friendly, especially at the beginning of the expedition. The king writes to Antipater in all honesty about the crossing of Pamphylia taking place without any divine intervention (F2), as others had written, he reassures Antipater about the wound received during the Battle of Issus (F3), and he does not entertain legends about a meeting with the queen of the Amazons (F13), as many historians would do later. Antipater, on the other hand, writes to Alexander about political issues, such as the war undertaken by Agis, king of Sparta, in Greece, the war waged by Alexander the Molossian, king of Epirus, in southern Italy in aid of Tarentum, and that caused by Zopyrion, his lieutenant, in Scythia. Antipater perhaps intended to show that he was perfectly capable of keeping the riots under control. Alexander, for his part and most likely in response to those letters, describes the difficulties with the soldiers and how he managed to overcome them (F14): he writes to Antipater not only as the king but also as a friend. The description of the event is personal despite the fact that the topic is a political one, and the letter 151 See infra FF3 and 13.

Introduction

37

focuses on Alexander’s ability to keep abreast of the situation and on his firm character capable of convincing an entire army. A further letter with a private flavour is that regarding the discovery of a spring of crude oil (F15), where Alexander tells Antipater about the prodigious event that occurred when they were near the river Oxus. Some time later, in 327, Alexander goes back to treating political issues in his correspondence with Antipater when he writes about the conspiracy of the Pages (F17). The letter (or letters) written to Antipater in 326 about the battle against the Indian king Porus has (have) still a political flavour (F18). As we shall see, Alexander’s relationship with Antipater began to deteriorate around 324, due to the frequent quarrels between the regent of Macedonia and the king’s mother, Olympias. FF29–30 are a sign of the worsening: in F29 Alexander still appears concerned about the safety of Antipater, but then writes him a letter with a completely different tone from the previous ones (F30). At this point, it seems appropriate to reflect on the tradition regarding the poisoning of Alexander by the regent at the hands of his son Iolaus, the winepourer (archioinochoos) of the king,152 in light of the analysis of the correspondence with Antipater. Indeed, it was not so much the regent as it was Alexander who changed his attitude, so it does not seem likely that the regent would poison the king because of fear of retaliation due to his disreputable behaviour.153 Moreover, the Ephemerides 152  Diod. 17.118.1–4, Just. Epit. 12.13.10, and Curt. 10.10.14–20 do not question this information, while Plutarch (Alex. 74.4 and 77.1–3) and Arrian (Anab. 7.12 and 27.1–3) report it only as gossip. For Antipater’s loyalty not only to Alexander but also to Philip, see Kanatsoulis 1958–1959: 14–64. 153 Landucci 1984: 97 argues that there are two historiographical strands concerning Alexander’s death, both tendentious: the first, which ignores the history of poisoning, is the official one and is constituted by the Ephemerides, Ptolemy, and Aristobulus; the second is that of poisoning, a version artfully created by Olympias and spread by the Antigonids. Landucci then goes on to state that for the first tendentious strand, Antipater and his friends “who conditioned (if not in fact made up, as in the case of Ptolemy) the ‘official’ writings on Alexander” had an interest in stifling the rumors of Alexander’s violent death; while for the second strand, she rightly observes that firstly Olympias and then the Antigonids intended to put Antipater in a bad light and for this reason fed suspicions about Alexander’s poisoning, emphasizing the bad relations between the king and the regent.

38

Introduction

clearly speak of Alexander’s sickness and a slow death after days of illness.154 I would add that poisoning might not be conceivable for another reason: Alexander had an official taster, edeatros, who would take any food or drink before the king. III. Olympias Olympias’ letters to Alexander are linked by a common narrative thread, namely the aim of accusing Alexander’s friends and advising him on the attitude he should have towards them so as not to favour them too much. Beginning in 324, Alexander’s relations with Antipater shattered and one of the causes was indeed the conflict of the regent of Macedonia with the king’s mother, Olympias. Olympias, in fact, as Diodorus (17.32.1) writes in the narrative about the events of 332/1, advised his son to be wary of Alexander Lyncestes155 and she suggested “other things among the useful ones” (τά ἄλλα τῶν χρησίμων). Diodorus explains that this Lyncestes was one of the king’s friends,156 brave and full of noble qualities: despite this he was arrested and imprisoned for trial, since “other charges” coincided with the letter of Alexander’s mother. Olympias was concerned about her son’s safety. Alexander, however, did not listen to her, as he decided to imprison Alexander Lyncestes only after some other charges. Diodorus’ statement about Olympias giving Alexander advice about “the other useful things” (τά ἄλλα τῶν χρησίμων) can be explained by a letter mentioned by Plutarch (Alex. 39.7–8), whose date is difficult to establish since it is not included in the historical narrative but in the description of Alexander’s character and behaviour. Plutarch 154  FGrHist 117 F3. 155  Son of Aëropus, brother of Heromenes and Arrhabaeus who were both executed by Alexander for their complicity in the murder of his father Philip; unlike his brothers, he was forgiven by Alexander as he was the first to acknowledge him as king (Arr. Anab. 1.25.1–2). He was sent to Thrace in 335 as strategos and, later, during the expedition to Asia, he was elected commander of the Thessalian cavalry; he was executed in 330. See Berve 1926: II.17–19 no. 37, and Heckel 2006: 19, s.v. Alexander [4]. 156  He calls him one of the philoi (φίλοι), while Arr. Anab. 1.25.1 writes that he was one of the hetairoi (ἑταῖροι).

Introduction

39

describes the king as an extremely generous man157 and recalls that his mother in a letter advised him not to give too many gifts to his friends because he would make them too similar to sovereigns and give them the opportunity to surround themselves with a large number of friends, while he would remain increasingly isolated. Plutarch adds that Olympias was not new to such advice and that she often wrote to her son about such topics. Indeed, Alexander had sent letters about gifts to Phocion (FF22–23). He also gave many gifts to his mother (Plut. Alex. 39.12 and F32; cf. F33). Olympias also dealt with another conspiracy. In 330, when three years had passed since Alexander Lyncestes’ imprisonment and Philotas’ conspiracy158 had been recently discovered, Alexander, after he tortured Philotas, decided to question Amyntas and Simmias,159 Philotas’ closest friends. Philotas had often striven to get them the most prestigious positions. As for the two, Alexander had long been suspicious of them because of a letter from Olympias urging him to beware of them (Curt. 7.1.6 and 10). Curt. 7.1.12 adds that Alexander, despite his mother’s admonitions, was the only one who did not believe that the brothers were guilty; he had them arrested only when he had more compelling evidence. Pridik considers the letter authentic: although no author mentions it before Curtius, Olympias had excellent reasons to hate Amyntas.160 Zumetikos does not doubt the authenticity of the letter, but does not explain why.161 157 Plut. Alex. 39.1: Φύσει δ’ὢν μεγαλοδωρότατος. 158  Philotas, son of Parmenion, was a friend of Alexander and had fought in all the most important battles. Philotas’ conspiracy and death are described by Diod. 17.79–80; Plut. Alex. 49.3–13; Arr. Anab. 3.26.1–3; Just. Epit. 12.5.1–3; Curt. 6.7–11. See Berve 1926: II.393–97 no. 802, and Heckel 2006: 216–19, s.v. Philotas [4]. 159  Amyntas and Simmias were two of Andromenes’ four sons (Arr. Anab. 1.8.2; 14.2; Diod. 17.45.7). Although Simmias was older, during the campaign in Asia he was the replacement of his younger brother in command of the battalion, perhaps because Amyntas was one of Alexander’s philoi (φίλοι: Diod. 17.45.7). On the brothers, see Berve 1926: II.26–28; 353–54 nos 57 and 704, and Heckel 2006: 24–25, s.v. Amyntas [4] and 249, s.v. Simmias [1]. 160  Pridik 1893: 132. 161  Zumetikos 1894: 139.

40

Introduction

Atkinson considers the intervention of Olympias against Amyntas and Simmias and, therefore, the letter sent to Alexander to be not entirely fictitious.162 I personally think that the letter is most likely authentic, since its evidence coincides with other pieces of information from other sources: from Plutarch, for example, one knows that Alexander did not allow his mother to meddle in political or military affairs (Alex. 39.12); indeed, Alexander did not immediately give credit to her warning about Amyntas and Simmias but waited to have more concrete evidence before arresting them. Moreover, Olympias’ attitude is completely similar to that already seen in the letter about Alexander Lyncestes: she tried to warn her son against people who were at his court.163 Finally, the queen was not on good terms with Amyntas, who, at least according to the tradition followed by Curtius, claimed to have attracted her dislike. Indeed, when he was sent by Alexander to Macedonia to recruit young people for the war, he had put the interests of the king before those of the queen, since he had enlisted and led to Asia the young men who hid in the palace, and he did this most likely against the will of Olympias but according to what Alexander had ordered him (7.1.36–38). The accusations of Olympias spared no one: Diod. 17.114.3 mentions letters in which Olympias slandered Hephaestion, Alexander’s close friend. The historian gives account of it within the narrative of the year 324/323, after talking about Hephaestion’s death. In one of these letters, the jealous Olympias criticized him harshly and threatened him: the recipient is not indicated, but one can easily infer that it was her son Alexander. Hephaestion’s reaction is also reported. He addressed a letter to Olympias: “Stop slandering me! Don’t be hostile to me and don’t threaten me! If you do, I will care little: you know, in fact, that Alexander is more powerful than anyone”. At this point one can reflect on a piece of information given by Plutarch according to which Alexander did not allow anyone to read the letters he received; except for one time (plen hapax, πλὴν ἅπαξ) when he read a letter 162  Atkinson 2000: 454. 163  Cf. Atkinson 2000: 454.

Introduction

41

from his mother against Antipater164 together with Hephaestion, but then took the ring off his finger and impressed the seal on his friend’s mouth.165 It is therefore likely that the queen had not written directly to Hephaestion, but rather that Alexander had made him read the letter166 and that, later, his friend had decided to write to Olympias. Diodorus considers Hephaestion’s response to be a sign of the great freedom of speech he enjoyed thanks to his friendship with Alexander.167 Indeed, the king gave no credence at all to Olympias’ accusations, but he even allowed his friend to use harsh language and an irreverent tone towards his mother, who was also a queen. With Antipater, however, Alexander did not behave with the same benevolence, but, as we have seen, he blamed him for his complaints against Olympias and added: “Antipater does not know that a mother’s tear erases countless letters”. Plutarch, who gives this account, explains that Alexander patiently endured his mother’s ire (Alex. 39.12–13), so one might think that he preferred not to complain directly to her out of respect. The first letter Alexander writes to his mother, among those preserved by the sources, concerns the visit to Siwah and the secret responses Alexander said he had received from the oracle and would only reveal to her on his return (F6). The second and last letter (in terms of date) handed down by the sources dates to 326, when Alexander, having arrived at the river Indus, described the Indian region and the sources of the Nile, convinced that he had found them in India, despite having inconsistent evidence of such an important matter. In fact, he 164  This detail is handed down by Plutarch in Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 180d. Pridik 1893: 133 writes that the reference to Antipater is most likely an addition by Plutarch who hypothesized that Olympias’ letter was about Antipater, since the hatred they felt against each other was well known. 165  Alex. 39.8. Cf. Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 180d, De Alex. fort. aut virt. 332f–333a, 340a. 166  Cf. Hamilton 1969: 104 who thinks that the recipient of the letters of Olympias was Alexander; see contra Zumetikos 1894: 143–44 who hypothesizes that there were more letters written by Olympias: some addressed to Alexander where she slandered Hephaestion, and others sent to Hephaestion himself in which she reproached and threatened him. 167  Diod. 17.114.3: καθόλου γὰρ ὁ Ἡφαιστίων τοσαύτης ἐξουσίας καὶ φιλικῆς ἐκοινώνει παρρησίας.

42

Introduction

later amended the letter and deleted what he had written to his mother about the sources of the Nile (F19). The letters between Alexander and his mother might seem to deal with topics more in line with men than women and, probably, this is the reason which led many scholars to consider them forgeries. However, the character and attitude of the queen, as shown in the accounts of ancient writers, seems to take shape only from what is written in the letters to her son. One can therefore reflect on the fact that, if the letters are fakes, it is difficult to understand how the sources could have outlined the image of Olympias, since there is no other piece of information about her behaviour during Alexander’s reign, in contrast with the fictional stories about the birth and childhood of the king. Indeed, Plutarch, in the Life of Alexander, speaks of Olympias without referring to the letters only in chapters 2, 3, 9, and 10, all concerning Alexander’s childhood and especially the legends about his conception; and in chapter 68, where he writes only that Alexander had known about the transfer of Olympias to Epirus. Plutarch’s presentation of her character, therefore, depends essentially on her letters, in particular those to Alexander cited in chapter 39. Diodorus dwells a great deal on the purely historical account of the activity of Olympias after the death of her son, while her character, as in Plutarch, emerges from the letters (17.32.1; 114.3; 118.1). Just. Epit. refers only to the alleged adultery of Olympias with the divine snake Zeus, from which Alexander was born (9.5.9; 11.3–6; 12.16.2). Similarly, Curtius does not tell much about Olympias. There are essentially two pieces of information: the first, at 7.1.12, concerns a letter of indictment, written by Olympias to Alexander, against Amyntas and Simmias; the second, at 10.5.30, is related to Alexander’s intention to grant divine honours to Olympias. Arr. Anab. 7.12.5–7 recalls the frequent quarrels between Olympias and Antipater and their letters of reciprocal accusation sent to Alexander; Arrian also recalls the departure of Olympias after Philip’s marriage to Eurydice (Anab. 3.6.5), Alexander’s desire to see his mother again (Anab. 5.27.7), and Alexander’s letter about the Indian region and the sources of the Nile (F19: 6.1.4).

Introduction

43

IV. Pedagogues and Friends Alexander also wrote to his pedagogues and educators. Memorable is a letter written to Leonidas in which Alexander, having gifted him with a great quantity of aromatic herbs, urged the pedagogue not to be stingy with the gods any more (F5). Alexander’s letter to Aristotle is unfortunately not authentic but has been included in this volume to provide an example of what forgeries might look like or, at least, to provide readers with one of the methods which might help to separate authentic from false letters (F34). Other letters are written by the king to his friends: rather short, they often have only a few sentences, even a few words; they are, however, interesting from the point of view of Alexander’s affectionate relationship with those who were often in his company and with whom he had shared his childhood or the important experiences of his life. Alexander wrote to Parmenion about a delicate and important matter: he had learned that the Macedonians Damon and Timotheus, who served in the battalion under Parmenion, had seduced the wives of two mercenaries, and in the letter ordered the general to punish them with death, if the offence was proved (F4). In doing so, the king emphasized his moderation, as Plutarch also points out by providing a number of examples of Alexander’s moderation in relation to his sexual habits (Alex. 22). His friend Philoxenus wrote to him to ask if he wanted to buy two slave boys of superb beauty from a certain Theodorus from Tarentum, who was with him. Alexander became very anxious and, in a loud voice, insistently asked friends what depravities Philoxenus had seen in him to propose such odious dealings: he then replied with a series of insults ordering him to send Theodorus to ruin along with his goods (FF11–12). Still, Philoxenus may have been the recipient of another letter in which Alexander ordered him to search for a slave of Seleucus who fled to Cilicia (F27). In another letter, Alexander instead turned to Megabyzus about another slave who had taken refuge in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, to beg him to capture him, if possible, after getting him out of the sacred place (F28). In the same censorious tone that he used when writing to Philoxenus about Theodorus of Tarentum,

44

Introduction

Alexander responded to Hagnon, reproaching him for writing that he wanted to buy and give him a young man named Crobylus, famous in Corinth for his beauty (F31). The friend with whom Alexander had the closest bond was Hephaestion: to him, when he was away on business, he wrote about an incident that happened to his friend Craterus, who, while they were all playing together and trying to hunt an ichneumon (Egyptian mongoose), had fallen on the javelin of Perdiccas and had injured his thighs (F20). As for Craterus, Alexander was so attached to him that he also cared about the treatments doctors prescribed for him: the doctor Pausanias had advised a treatment based on hellebore, and this preoccupied the king, who even wrote to the doctor both because he was anxious about Craterus’ condition and because he wanted to recommend to him how to administer the drug (F21). Furthermore, Alexander’s concern for Craterus went beyond his health, as it also regarded his slaves. Indeed, he wrote to the Macedonian Peucestas once, praising him for capturing a certain Nicon, a slave of Craterus: the king, therefore, was showing gratitude not for something Peucestas had done for him, but for a friend of his (F24). As for Peucestas, when he was bitten by a bear, he wrote to his friends about what had happened but not to Alexander, who complained about it and sent him a letter in which, however, there was more concern for his health than resentment towards his friend: “But now write me at least how you are and if any of those you hunted with abandoned you, so that they may be punished” (F25). Perhaps as a result of this incident, Alexander wrote to his doctor Alexippus to thank him for healing Peucestas “from an illness” (F26). V. Alexander’s Trust in Doctors: Warning Letters Another doctor who played an important role at Alexander’s court was Philip, a man of Acarnanian origin, who saved the king’s life.168 The 168  Little is known about Philip: in addition to the role in this episode, we know that he healed a wound of Alexander in Gaza (Curt. 4.6.17); in the Alexander Romance 3.31, he appears as a fellow diner at the banquet of Medeius, during which, according to the rumores, Alexander would be poisoned. See Berve 1926:

Introduction

45

episode, which is a constant presence in the tradition about Alexander,169 is also related by Plut. Alex. 19. It dates back to 333, when Alexander was in Cilicia, shortly before the Battle of Issus: the king had made a stop in the region, not because he was afraid of the Persians, as Darius thought, but because he was suffering from a serious illness due, according to some historians including Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F8), to too much physical exertion, and according to others to a bathe that Alexander, despite being hot and sweaty, had done in the clear and inviting but chilly waters of the river Cydnus.170 Alexander suffered from continuous convulsions, and had high fever and insomnia: none of the doctors dared to treat him, because they considered the disease beyond their means. Philip was one of the doctors watching by Alexander’s bedside. He was greatly appreciated for his knowledge of medicine and an esteemed soldier.171 He was extremely devoted to Alexander, whom he as a paediatrician172 had looked after, ever since Alexander was a child. Because he could not stand the idea of not being able to help a suffering patient, Philip alone had the courage to prepare a medicine. He convinced Alexander to take the drug he had prepared immediately, trusting in the friendship between them. Meanwhile, Parmenion “from the camp”, apo stratopedou (ἀπὸ στρατοπέδου), wrote a letter to the king to warn him of Philip’s evil intentions, since he had been corrupted by Darius who had offered him, in exchange for Alexander’s murder, great gifts and the chance to marry one of his daughters.173 Alexander, however, preferred not to give credit to the rumours against his friend and placed the letter II.388–89 no. 788, and Heckel 2006: 213–14, s.v. Philip [9]. 169 Arr. Anab. 2.4.9–10; Plut. Alex. 19.5–10; Val. Max. 3.8 exc. 6; Curt. 3.6.4–17; Sen. de Ira 2.23.2; Just. Epit. 11.8.5–8; cf. Ps-Call 2.8.5; Jul. Val. 2.24. 170  Cf. Curt. 3.5.1 and Arr. Anab. 2.4.7, from whom we also know that the river originated from the Taurus mountains and flowed within the city of Tarsus, dividing it into two parts. 171 Arr. Anab. 2.4.8. 172  Curt. 3.6.1: puero comes et custos salutis (companion and guardian of his health) datus. 173 Plut. Alex. 19.4–5. Arr. Anab. 2.4.9 speaks only of Philip’s corruption, while Curt. 3.6 talks about the offer of 1,000 talents and the marriage to one of Darius’ sisters.

46

Introduction

under his pillow. Shortly afterwards Philip arrived with the drug and, at the same time as the doctor administered the medication to him, Alexander handed him the letter, so that at the same time one took the drug, and the other read what was written in the letter.174 In this way, the king demonstrated to the doctor and to the hetairoi, who were there with him, that he had every confidence in the physician. Philip resented the letter and the accusations against him: this reaction, however, confirmed even more his sincerity and good faith, because he was not at all concerned about slander, but rather about Alexander, and urged him to rest assured that the drug would reach all points of the body and have its effect. According to the tradition followed by Curtius (3.6.14–16), the initial effects of the medication seemed to fuel suspicions against Philip, since his voice and sensory faculties failed the king, and he was breathing with difficulty; but Philip tried to awaken him by making him smell food and wine, reminding him of his mother and sisters, telling him about the impending victory. The drug spread in his veins and Alexander recovered so well that after three days he appeared before his soldiers. The episode won some fame, since, with slight differences, it is mentioned up to the various versions of the Alexander Romance.175 An interesting source is Just. Epit. (11.8.1–9) who gives information about when and where Parmenion wrote: the day before 174 Plut. Alex. 19.6–7. Cf. Arr. Anab. 2.4.9 and Curt. 3.6.7–8. Diod. 17.31.5–6 writes that Alexander accepted the remedy (defined as risky by Philip), because he had learned that Darius had already moved from Babylon with the army. Alexander, then, recovered against all expectations; after granting many honors to the doctor, he included him among his most trustworthy friends. Sen. De Ira 2.23.2, on the other hand, praises Alexander for not succumbing to anger towards his friend and writes that the letter of indictment against Philip was written to Alexander by his mother Olympias. Bosworth 1980: I.191 thinks that Seneca has confused the events concerning the accusation of Olympias with those of Alexander Lyncestes; cf. Atkinson 1998: 301. 175  The story is also reported in P.Oxy. 1798 (= FGrHist 148), which dates back to the 2nd century AD. It could, therefore, be part of the Romance tradition, since it mentions the detail of Parmenion’s hostility towards Philip, which is later found only in the Romance. On the papyrus, see Jacoby 1927, II B: 533–36, Pearson 1960: 255–56, and Prandi 2010: 55–78.

Introduction

47

the administration of the drug, Alexander had received a letter from Cappadocia sent to him by Parmenion, who was unaware of the disease, from the camp. From Arrian (Anab. 2.4.3) we learn that when Alexander went to Cilicia, Parmenion remained with the heavy infantry in the so-called ‘Camp of Cyrus’ in Cappadocia.176 One could try to identify the contemporary source who handed down the letter. The fact that Arrian quotes a fragment of Aristobulus tells in favour of that historian, who could have written about both the doctor who had saved the king’s life and the letter, since he also explains the cause of Alexander’s disease.177 Chares, on the other hand, may have had the opportunity to see the letter some other time, perhaps when, about three years later, he was appointed eisangeleus by Alexander.178 Parmenion’s presence in Cappadocia has raised doubts about the authenticity of the letter, since the general could still have been with Alexander in the camp at Tarsus.179 Indeed, one should bear in mind that the episode won some fame, was narrated by all the sources and, because of this, might have undergone small variations. The original narrative nucleus is most likely to be found in Justin’s version, which contains a small but interesting detail: Parmenion, 176 Xen. Anab. 1.2.21 writes that Cyrus the Younger, before moving to Cilicia with the army, made a one-day stop there. The ‘Camp of Cyrus’ could be located near the present-day Pozanti, about 20 km north of the so-called ‘Cilician Gates’ (today Gulek Bogaz) or near Tekir Beli. See Bosworth 1980: I.189, and Atkinson 1998: 296–97. 177  Cf. Fränkel 1883: 71; 302; 327. 178  Atkinson 1998: 301 thinks of Chares but does not justify his hypothesis. 179  See Pridik 1893: 119, and Berve 1926: II.388 who follow Curt. 3.4.14–15, where a piece of information, which has remained isolated in the tradition, is given according to which Parmenion headed to Tarsus to conquer the city. Arr. Anab. 2.4.5–6, however, reports that Alexander had rushed to the conquest of the city and had already moved away from it by the time Parmenion arrived. Sisti 1982: 146, and Id. 2001: I.402, again based on the testimony of Curtius, argues that there is no news of sending Parmenion to Cappadocia, but that the general had been sent to Tarsus in advance. See contra Hamilton 1969: 49, who believes that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter, and Bosworth 1980: I.191, who, basing himself on Arr. Anab. 2.5.1, points out that Parmenion had most likely already been sent to occupy the passes marking the border between Cilicia and Syria.

48

Introduction

who was in Cappadocia, did not yet know about Alexander’s disease. This particular is in line with Arrian’s statements about Parmenion initially remaining in the ‘Camp of Cyrus’, to Kyrou stratopedon (τὸ Κύρου [...] στρατόπεδον) and later joining Alexander. At this point it is possible to link Plutarch’s statement that Parmenion sent the letter from the camp, apo stratopedou (ἀπὸ στρατοπέδου), with what Arrian wrote.180 One can hypothesize that Plutarch used a brachylogy, omitting the genitive Kyrou (Κύρου), most likely because at that time those who read about a camp and knew that the events took place between Cappadocia and Cilicia, immediately thought of the ‘Camp of Cyrus’.181 Strabo 12.2.9, in the book devoted to Cappadocia, describes the location of the city of Mazaca and writes that it was located 800 stades south of the Pontus region, just under twice the distance from the Euphrates, and six days walking distance from the ‘Cilician Gates’ and the ‘Camp of Cyrus’, passing through the city of Tyana. One might reflect on the fact that Strabo, using the best known geographical coordinates such as Pontus, the Euphrates, and the city of Tyana, indicates the distance from the Kyrou stratopedou (Κύρου στρατοπέδου), and does not even feel the need to describe it. One might also reflect upon the fact that the contents of the letter also speak in favour of its authenticity. Parmenion wrote that Philip had been corrupted by Darius to poison Alexander. To begin with, Persian kings were not new to corruption through money: towards the end of the Persian Wars, in 479, the Thebans advised Mardonius to send money to the Greek cities to provoke disagreements among each other (Hdt. 9.2.3); and before the Battle of Plataea, Artabazus considered it appropriate not to seek a pitched battle with the Greeks, but to retreat within the walls of Thebes and offer the leaders of the Greek cities the gold and silver that were in the Persian camp. He thought that in this way, the Greeks would immediately give up 180  Sisti 1982: 146, on the contrary, interprets the term used by Plutarch as if Parmenion had written from the camp at Tarsus: this would make the letter implausible, because Parmenion could report by voice what he had come to know, since the king was also in Tarsus at the moment. 181  See Plut. Alex. 18.5, where Alexander is said to have subdued the Paphlagonians and Cappadocians, and then to have moved to Cilicia.

Introduction

49

their freedom (Hdt. 9.41.2–3).182 After the victory at the Granicus, according to the tradition followed by Arr. Anab. 2.14.4–9, Alexander himself blamed the Great King because he tried to bribe the Greek cities. Shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, the tradition followed by Curtius reports that Alexander intercepted a letter from Darius addressed to his soldiers in which the Great King urged them to kill him or betray him (4.10.16). Darius’ offer to marry one of his daughters, according to the tradition followed by Plutarch, may also be plausible since marriage meant alliance. Finally, the idea of poisoning was no stranger to the customs of the Persian court,183 where they were so frequent that the Great King even had his own official taster, edeatros. 6. Language As we have seen, the letters examined in this volume are preserved by indirect tradition. Hence, one may not be able to fully discuss the language of the letters for two main reasons: first, most of them are very brief; second, such letters should be considered in the same manner as we consider the fragments of ancient historians,184 i.e. that we cannot ascertain whether they contain the ipsissima verba written by Alexander. However, this does not mean that one should totally refrain from reflections on specific language matters. As well demonstrated by Dominique Lenfant, discussions on certain language aspects of fragments are crucial and help to advance our knowledge of the author.185 But one should look at the language of a fragment without neglecting important aspects of fragmentary historiography. 182  Cf. Diod. 11.28.1–2. On Persian corruption by means of gold, see Lewis 1989: 227–35, and Lombardo 1989: 197–212. 183  See Cagnazzi 2001: 56; Llewellyn-Jones 2013: 141–43; 200–202. 184  When discussing fragments, one should always keep in mind Dominique Lenfant’s reflection about the word fragment which is “clearly a hangover from a time when scholars felt they were rediscovering within extant works texts which, until then, had been considered lost” (Lenfant 2013: 289). Indeed, the nature of the texts is completely different from material papyrus fragments and, in the case of fragments by indirect tradition, there is “an additional stage in the process of transmission”: Lenfant 2013: 289–90. 185  Lenfant 2013: 289–305.

50

Introduction

More than forty years ago, Peter Astbury Brunt highlighted one of the most complicated aspects of working with fragments: they are handed down in a variety of forms.186 In fact, in almost all cases fragments are not verbatim quotations of texts, by they may consist of paraphrases, reworkings, allusions. Sometimes, the transmitting source may omit details, add something, or change something else. In 1997, Guido Schepens focused his attention on the fragile and complex relation between the fragment, its source, and the lost original text.187 He came up with the idea of cover-text as the definition of those works in which the fragments are contained: playing with the threefold meaning of the verb cover, he explained that the transmitters play three roles at the same time, they preserve the fragment, they conceal it within the transmitting text (so that it is difficult to distinguish the writing and style of the fragment from those of the transmitters), and they enclose it in a new context “which may impose interpretations that differ considerably from the original writer’s understanding of his texts”.188 Hence, the intermediate author has an active role in the transmission of the fragment.189 More recently, Marina Polito has called for a careful approach and “an in-depth inspection” of the role of the transmitter especially in terms of distortion, so that the study of the fragment goes hand in hand with the study of the quoting context.190 Thus, I have tried to pay attention to this aspect and to embed it in the analysis of the letters of Alexander. Given that the transmitter is also important, I have discussed – whenever I deemed it necessary – the language used by Plutarch to signpost some of the letters. Indeed, it is also valuable to appreciate the interpretation which the transmitting sources give of what they read and accessed at the time (which, as we have seen, is different from how the fragment appears to us). As a result, one might anyway gather clues about Alexander’s different approach to different topics and letters, as is the case of Plutarch when 186  187  188  189  190 

Brunt 1980: 477–94. Schepens 1997: 144–72. Schepens 1997: 166–67; n. 66. Lenfant 2013: 291. Polito 2020: 303–308.

Introduction

51

he distinguishes between a letter which Alexander wrote “in brief” (F3b) and a letter which Alexander wrote “accurately” (F13). A final aspect of the importance of the language used by the transmitting source concerns the opinion such source might reveal about a certain aspect, for example when Plutarch describes Alexander as “the very author of the battle” and uses the evocative term poietes (F18). 7. History of Modern Scholarship on the Letters191 The last part of this Introduction aims to offer a summary of the discussion about the letters in earlier scholars. Apart from the issue raised about the presence of a collection of the letters of Alexander, more generally, the historiographical tradition has posed numerous questions and tried to address them in different ways, making contributions rich in hypotheses and ideas, sometimes stimulating, but never properly explained: the authenticity of the letters written and received by Alexander; the existence of a collection; the hypothesis that it was Chares, Alexander’s chamberlain, who handed the letters down; Arrian’s greater trustworthiness than Plutarch’s, utilized to support the authenticity of the letters he handed down compared to the letters in Plutarch; lastly, the relationship between the letters and the Ephemerides. These have been discussed piecemeal, but it is appropriate to address the history of modern scholarship that centres on these hypotheses without separating them in order to have an overall view of the issues at stake. The interest in the ancient world, Greek in particular, increased from the beginnings of Humanism and the Renaissance, when the first philologists began to prepare the critical editions of ancient historical and literary works, and it intensified from the early 18th century. Although he did not write about the letters of Alexander, Bentley,192 deserves to be mentioned before anyone else because his work on the letters of Phalaris, Themistocles, Socrates, and Euripides, and his demonstration of these as forgeries might have influenced later 191  This is a revised and updated version of Monti 2016. 192  Bentley 1699.

52

Introduction

scholars’ reflections on the letters of Alexander193 or even their choice of ignoring the letters. In addition, while it is true that Athens occupies a prominent place in historical works written in these decades, it is also true that interest in Alexander was not lacking, at least from what we read in the introduction to the Greek History of Stanyan,194 who justified the choice to stop at the death of Philip II of Macedonia by explaining that his was an athenocentric history and that he would mention other states only when events had influenced the history of Athens. He added that he would not be dealing with Alexander because in that case the events were more related to Macedonia and Persia than to Athens and that much had been written about the king, perhaps meaning that a treatment was not necessary in a general history. In the 1770s, Goldsmith, the author of The Vicar of Wakefield,195 wrote a historical work that ended with Alexander’s death, and in it he mentioned the letters as a useful tool to understand the character of the king. From his remarks, one can infer that he not only gave credit to the letters, but that he also used several sources such as Plutarch and Justin: his discussion of the destruction of Thebes, his detailed account of Alexander’s childhood and his mention of the presence of an ancient oath against Thebes – dating back to the time of the second Persian expedition and in which the Greeks pledged to devote a tenth of the medizing poleis – all suggest the use of Plutarch, who gives a very detailed description of the first years of the king, and Justin, the only author who recalls the ancient oath.196 In the following year, Sainte-Croix197 published his analysis of the ancient sources 193  Cf. Pridik 1893: v, who believed that Bentley had influenced later scholars working on every kind of letters (de omnium fere, quotquot memorantur, epistularum fide dubitare coeperunt homines docti). 194  Stanyan 1707–39: praefatio, vols I and II. The work of Ampolo 1997 provides a useful antiquarian bibliography, through which I recovered the references to the works of Stanyan and Goldsmith. 195  Goldsmith 1774: II.132. 196  On the oath and the employment that Alexander made of it, see Monti 2012: 195–207. 197  Sainte-Croix 1775: 46.

Introduction

53

on Alexander, in which he also referred to the letters, but just as a marginal note: he merely admitted the difficulty of establishing their authenticity and wondered whether they were part of a collection published after the king’s death or had emerged separately and following various circumstances (mises au jour séparément et par l’effet des circonstances). Fabricius198 dealt with the problem in a different way: he expressed reservations about the letters and, without giving reasons, preferred to offer cautions about their authenticity: the reference to the letters in later collections which were especially created in the environment of rhetorical schools, however, leads us to think that his opinion was spoiled by the not-so-positive assessment about them. Heeren,199 on the other hand, tried a different solution and was the first to take a clear position in favour of the letters: the epistolary exchange between Alexander, who was in Asia, and his mother, Antipater, and other friends, had to be frequent and no wonder that the king, who was occupied with a great number of matters, also wrote about them. According to Heeren, the letters handed down by Plutarch could be part of a collection formed shortly after Alexander’s death, although, even then, there were those who questioned their authenticity because they considered them the result of a rhetorum officina. He pointed out that Plutarch, however, did not doubt them at all: in the letters he handed down, in fact, there were no elements that could suggest a school of rhetoric. Unlike Heeren, Müller, in the preface to the fragments of pseudoCallisthenes,200 was most likely influenced by the letters contained in the Alexander Romance and expressed a negative opinion on them and believed that almost all of them were false. Westermann,201 on the other hand, attempted a sort of compromise and argued that there were two traditions for the letters of Alexander: the first is connected to the king’s contemporary writers, such as 198  199  200  201 

Fabricius 1790: I.683; 694. Heeren 1820: 60–1. Müller 1846: Praef. ad Pseudo-Callisthenem, xviii–xix. Westermann 1852: II.5–7.

54

Introduction

Eumenes of Cardia as “head of the chancellery”, or Ptolemy, both of whom most likely reported in their works letters that mimicked those actually written; the second was the tradition of a later collection, from which Plutarch drew and which was surely not authentic. Westermann’s opinion, however, seems spoiled by the negative judgment that these scholars had regarding Plutarch, an author – in their eyes – not of a proper history, as opposed to the positive opinion they had about the military and deeds-centred history of Ptolemy from which Arrian had drawn. Thirlwall202 even recalled the letters extensively in his history of Greece and examined them individually, expressing his doubts where he considered them spurious. But even more interesting is the fact that Grote203 not only inserted the letters into his monograph, as had Thirlwall, but also used them as a proper source: indeed, he called Alexander – the author of the letters – an “authority”. Other scholars have not troubled to provide explanations, but only personal opinions. Haug204 was aware that one of the sources most often mentioned by Plutarch were Alexander’s letters, but he admitted, in an almost despairing way, that it was not possible to determine whether they were authentic or not. Rose,205 on the other hand, had the feeling that there had been a collection of false letters attributed to Aristotle, his disciples, Alexander, his commanders, and friends from which Plutarch drew without being at all critical of them: the unfavourable position that, at that time, Plutarch occupied among scholars, again seems to play a very important role here. Schoene206 too seems to have been influenced by the opinion that Plutarch drew on a corpus of spurious letters without verifying its authenticity; he also introduced another idea, destined to gain much support later, namely the greater reliability of Arrian compared to Plutarch; the former, although he 202  Thirlwall 1839–55: vi–vii. 203  Grote 1857: XII.198 (“we know, from the authority of Alexander himself, whose letters Plutarch quotes”) and 223 (“we have the state of Alexander’s mind disclosed by himself, in one of the references to his letters given by Plutarch”). 204  Haug 1854: 67. 205  Rose 1854: 113–14. 206  Schoene 1870: 31.

Introduction

55

handed down some letters of Alexander, nevertheless – according to Schoene – made a critical selection of what he considered authentic. Although there had already been some discussion about the letters, it is interesting to note that Hercher,207 in his collection of supposedly fictitious letters attributed to historical figures, inserted only three letters written by Alexander:208 from the standpoint of authenticity this constitutes a positive note, since he did not consider Alexander’s correspondence spurious. Oncken209 returned to the discussion of the genuineness of the letters: he argued that one could not doubt most of them since they were in stark contrast with the way in which rhetoricians expressed themselves. He was also the first to hypothesise that Plutarch and the other authors had drawn the letters, or at least their content, from the Ephemerides published by Eumenes and Diodotus. Droysen210 took a moderate position, arguing that some letters were authentic, others spurious, and it was thus appropriate to evaluate the authenticity of each individual letter. In the same year, however, Vogel, in his discussion of the sources of the Life of Alexander,211 stated that the letters were widely exploited by Plutarch and, apparently, used as a first-hand source, although they had been most likely handed down in a collection after Alexander’s death. On the basis of this hypothesis, therefore, without giving any justification, he assigned them to a tradition regarding the history of Alexander that deserved little credence, and whose main representative was Cleitarchus. Once again, Plutarch’s bad reputation influenced the judgment of this scholar as well. Hansen,212 on the other hand, echoed the hypothesis of authenticity: 207  Hercher 1873. In his list there are not only letters written by philosophers, wise men, men of literature, and orators, but also by politicians, tyrants or kings such as Artaxerxes, Brutus, Dion, Periander, Phalaris, and Themistocles. 208  The letters which he included are Alexander’s letter to Aristotle (Plut. Alex. 7.7), the one to Darius contained in Arr. Anab. 2.14.4, and the letter to the Greeks regarding the return of the exiles that Diodorus reports at 18.8.4. 209  Oncken 1875: II.280. 210  Droysen 1877: 604. 211  Vogel 1877: 4; 17–18. 212  Hansen 1880: 258–304.

56

Introduction

there was no reason for doubting the veracity of individual letters to Antipater, Olympias, or of other letters handed down without indication of a recipient. They could be read in the Ephemerides, where they were summarized with the purpose of “preserving fragments of private communications for future generations”. He points out, for example, that hunting and the various occupations of Alexander are mentioned both in the letters and in the Ephemerides. He also added an interesting idea: that copies of at least the most important letters were kept in the king’s archives, even if their fate was not known after the dissolution of the vast kingdom. And perhaps they were published by Chares, who, in his capacity as chamberlain, was the closest person to Alexander. Hansen’s flaw is that he does not support and explain his hypothesis. Fränkel213 did not express his views about authenticity and formulated a hypothesis already present in Vogel: he thought of a collection – independently formed – of the letters of Alexander, Olympias, and Antipater. For such letters it was difficult to hypothesize into which corpora they were merged and who collected them. He added that Plutarch drew on this collection without having the need to read the works of historians who, perhaps, preserved the letters. Adler214 went further and believed that Plutarch had used multiple collections of letters, since there seemed to be no trace of the hand of a single forger. This scholar considered authentic only some military letters handed down by Arrian: again, his thoughts were most likely related to the prejudice against the work of Plutarch, who was not a proper historian compared to the reliability of Arrian’s political and military history. The view that the letters were not authentic was taken up by Kaerst,215 who was of the opinion that those cited by Plutarch were spurious because the writers of Alexander’s deeds did not know many of the letters he mentioned, and hence Plutarch drew on a corpus. He added that the non-authenticity was due to the fact that Plutarch drew on Chares of Mytilene for private letters, especially for those 213  Fränkel 1883: 300–301. 214  Adler 1891: 8–9; 32. 215  Kaerst 1892: 602–22.

Introduction

57

contained in chapters 22, 39 and 42. It was the first time that a scholar justified his hypotheses by referring to specific chapters of the Life of Alexander. In the formulation of his assumptions, however, Kaerst shows the limit of being strongly influenced by the communis opinio at the time, according to which Chares, as a courtier close to Alexander, did not write a truthful history. Pridik,216 on the other hand, assumed the existence of a collection of authentic letters, which Plutarch had at his disposal when he was writing the Life of Alexander and which he used very carefully (diligentissime). He added that a collection of Antipater’s letters and one of Eumenes’ had been compiled: in his line of reasoning, there was certainly an epistolary exchange between Antipater and Alexander and at least Alexander’s most important letters, if not all, ended up in the collection of Antipater. The scholar was convinced that the letters of Olympias, of Cleomenes, and of Alexander’s other friends were also collected, but that it was not possible to establish how many collections there were: the collections were in any case put together, in all probability, shortly after Alexander’s death, between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century. But Plutarch, continued Pridik, did not draw the letters only from these collections but also from the work of Duris who in turn had found them in Chares: he was influenced here by the passage in which Plutarch quotes what is now fragment 51 of Duris (FGrHist 76) about the greeting used by Alexander in the letters, in which it is said that the piece of information was also known to Chares. Pridik also dismissed as false Hansen’s hypothesis that the Ephemerides kept summaries of the letters: from the few fragments of the Ephemerides, Pridik commented, it is clear that everything that happened every day within Alexander’s court was briefly described. He stated that he could not understand where in the Ephemerides the summaries could have been included, since some of the letters (such as the account of the battle against Porus) were sometimes quite long, but he considered it more likely, although at the same time not attractive, to assume that the initial parts of the letters were reported in the Ephemerides. 216  Pridik 1893: 7–13.

58

Introduction

Zumetikos,217 just like Pridik, advocated for authenticity: he focused on the fact that the plural used by Plutarch does not necessarily indicate the biographer’s use of a collection. Few letters, in fact, were merged into corpora in which false letters were also included, while most of the authentic letters were taken from the works of Alexander’s contemporary historians (e libris rerum scriptoribus prioris aetatis), who were in a position to know them and have easy access to them, since they were all friends of Alexander. He added that the kinds of letters reported by Plutarch, private letters dealing with personal topics, would be of no interest to the forgers, since with them they would not have had the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and rhetorical experience. Indeed, in the letters one could not read persuasive speeches or exhortations to virtue, but simply pieces of news concerning common life and little-known topics. For these reasons there was no doubt that all these letters were authentic and had been taken from the same source from which the events – to which these letters were added – were drawn. Like Pridik, Zumetikos thought that this source was Chares. Although Berve218 knew Pridik and Zumetikos (he cited their works in his bibliography), he did not discuss the hypotheses they formulated. Nevertheless, within the chapter on the organization of Alexander’s court, he devoted a section to the king’s correspondence and chancellery, and in a footnote he asserted that the authenticity of some writings was completely evident. He also explained that among the tasks of the chancellery in the first place was, of course, the management and organization of correspondence and, because of Alexander’s personal power, there was not a clear division between public and private writing (eine feste Trennung zwischen amtlichen und privaten Schreiben). In the section devoted to historians, Berve stated that the letters rightly fell into the group of historical accounts, as did the Ephemerides. He suggested that there had been a literary rehash of the epistles of Alexander and the illustrious figures of his circle, as had happened for the Ephemerides (which were reworked by Strattis of Olynthus and edited by Eumenes and Diodotus), and for the reports of the Bematists (re-elaborated by Baiton). 217  Zumetikos 1894: 1–28. 218  Berve 1926: I.44–45, 44 n. 2; 69–70.

Introduction

59

Perhaps one should hold Jacoby219 responsible for the almost total later silence regarding Alexander’s letters. In his collection of the fragments of the Greek historians, although he dedicated a section to Alexandergeschichte where he also dealt with the Ephemerides, he did not bother at all with the letters and did not discuss any of the problems related to them – not even the most general, the one regarding authenticity. The letters were not even mentioned in the commentary on Duris’ fragment 51 (Chares’ fragment 10), which attests to the elimination of the greeting chairein and, therefore, to Alexander’s own letter-writing. Jacoby did not even cite Kaerst,220 whom he knew and mentioned in a quick cross-reference about Callisthenes’ fragment 14 on Alexander’s journey to the oasis of Siwah. A decade later, Powell221 resumed the discussion of Alexander’s contemporary historians and, in his article about the sources of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, devoted little more than a page to the letters. He had no doubt that contemporary historians were aware of authentic letters, which constituted the basis for the formation of a later collection expanded with spurious letters, of which, according to Powell, there was no trace until Cicero’s times (Off. 2.48). Tarn,222 on the other hand, returned to a more moderate position and believed that among Plutarch’s sources there were also the letters – or those that were considered as such – of Alexander: they, therefore, had to be considered individually, because it was not possible to establish a priori whether they were fictitious or authentic. He also thought that Plutarch certainly had one or more corpora of epistles at his disposal, and he offered a criterion for the identification of false letters: it is the private ones dealing with political events that arouse suspicion, and it is not difficult to recognize the reason for their presence: an attempt to smear Alexander and his deeds. 219  Jacoby 1927: 421. 220  Kaerst 1892: 602–22. 221  Powell 1939: 229–30. He cites two letters from Arrian’s Anabasis as support for this latter hypothesis: a letter to Cleomenes at 7.23.7–8 and a letter to Olympias at 7.1.4–5. 222  Tarn 1948b: 300–301; 305.

60

Introduction

Pearson223 also considered it appropriate to analyse the letters individually, as some could be authentic, others spurious. According to him, it was not possible to establish their authenticity from a short fragment and proceed as Pridik and Zumetikos had, i.e. considering them authentic especially on the basis that “it contained a remark which might suitably have been made by Alexander”.224 Pearson considered beyond doubt that Alexander had written and received numerous letters, both official and personal, and wondered “how complete a record of these letters” was kept in his headquarters and what happened to the original manuscripts after Alexander’s death. He added that the letters reported by Arrian are much more convincing than those reported by Curtius, who, thanks to his rhetorical skills, was able to create epistles ex novo. Instead, it was much more likely that Arrian had drawn from contemporary historical sources, such as Ptolemy or Aristobulus: unlike Plutarch, Arrian does not refer to the ‘letters of Alexander’ as if he were drawing on a ‘published’ collection and does not report letters that contrast with the narrative provided by his usual sources. Once more, Plutarch is not considered trustworthy, although – as has already been pointed out – the plural is used by Plutarch only in very rare cases.225 After much discussion, the silence of Helmbold and O’Neil226 concerning Alexander’s letters in the monograph on Plutarch’s quotations appears strange. A few years later, Hamilton227 carried out a comprehensive review of the letters contained in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and tried to establish their authenticity or non-authenticity by analysing them individually. Indeed, it was possible that, apart from the many false letters circulating in the Hellenistic period, there were also many authentic ones. Hamilton, however, despite these intentions, did not in most cases take a position. He also hypothesized that both false and authentic epistles could have been merged into the 223  Pearson 1954/55: 443–50; 1960: 258. 224  Pearson 1954/55: 445. 225 See supra, Section 2, pp. 7–8 and n. 18. 226  Helmbold–O’Neil 1959. 227  Hamilton 1961: 9–21; 1969: lix–lx.

Introduction

61

same collection, or that the collections of letters could be completely authentic or non-authentic, such as the letters of the Romance. Finally, he considered it dangerous to think of a ‘publication’ of the correspondence shortly before 280, when Ptolemy and Aristobulus composed their works: indeed, Chares most likely knew Alexander’s letters without necessarily having a collection. Hamilton, then, resuming Kaerst’s hypothesis that private letters were present in Chares’ work, deemed it correct, though not demonstrable, and added that, in any case, Plutarch may have used multiple collections. All these questions seem to have been ignored by Ziegler,228 who made no explicit reference to a collection from which Plutarch drew. However, he was of the opinion that the letters were second-hand quotations that Plutarch did not read directly but which he found in other authors. Griffith229 returned to a clear position of rejection and argued that the letters – coming from a collection prepared in the third century – could not all be authentic. Sisti230 believed that “for Alexander’s letters the time has come for a critical rethink” and that it was necessary to recover what could be authentic from them, because these documents offered an important testimony to Alexander’s history. One of Sisti’s merits was indeed to have done a review of the letters, with a brief discussion for each individual letter. He, however, still suffered from and was misled by the belief in Arrian’s superiority, since, in his opinion, the historian had taken the letters directly from the source, whereas Plutarch had taken them from a collection. He added that some letters, certainly the official ones, were in the Ephemerides and that shortly after the king’s death a collection was made from which, then, other spurious material was developed. Among the scholars of the recent past, perhaps Bengtson231 and Will232 occupy an important place in the discussion, not because they 228  229  230  231  232 

Ziegler 1965: 327–28. Griffith 1968: 33. Sisti 1974: 91–92. Bengtson 1985: 249–50. Will 1986: 13.

62

Introduction

wrote a monographic work about the letters, but because in a few lines they expressed ideas with which one could very much agree. According to Bengtson the archive that housed all the correspondence of the king is of great importance, since it must have included not only the reports of the Bematists and the official dispatches, the letters that the king sent to Aristotle and, in particular, to the regent of Macedonia, Antipater, but also the epistles to friends and relatives and the Hypomnemata with Alexander’s latest projects. According to this scholar, then, the fact that Alexander, following the burning of his archive, requested transcriptions of the letters to the satraps and officials helps to understand the important role attached to the correspondence. Will offers a similar hypothesis and thinks that Plutarch had drawn on an “Informationfundus” belonging to Alexander’s chancellery and that the letters are mostly authentic: they represent a valuable aid to the understanding of Alexander’s policy, whereas writings belonging to the official propaganda deceive readers. Will also assumes that they were posthumously “published”, although in Alexander’s time there were already conditions for the “publication” of the correspondence, since copies of the letters had been sent, and the entire correspondence was collected and stored in the archive. The collections of letters, in the form in which they were probably used by Plutarch, could contain authentic letters, but above all would have letters with fictitious or falsified content. Will, therefore, concludes that every single letter should be subjected to a thorough examination, although, at best, it can only be said that the details of the letter and those of other sources do not contradict each other. Centanni233 also thinks of the presence of “original materials” at the base of the collections in which spurious letters ended up, the result of the exercises in the schools of rhetoric, and on which the Alexander Romance was modelled. The existence of collections of letters not only of Alexander, but also of Antipater, of which many were undoubtedly fictitious, convinces Hammond as well.234 He adds that, however, most of the letters 233  Centanni 1991: xx. 234  Hammond 1988: 131; 1993: 158–62.

Introduction

63

reported by Plutarch in the narrative passages seem authentic. Plutarch retrieved some letters from historians, others from collections, others from the Ephemerides. Some authentic letters, present in the historical works dealing with Alexander, derived from the Ephemerides, where Eumenes, the “head of the chancellery”, had recorded those sent to and received by the king together with all the details of the diplomatic negotiations. Baynham,235 on the other hand, speaking of the sources for the history on Alexander, makes only a brief mention of the letters and considers it highly unlikely that this material is authentic. It may also be interesting to mention the studies of the last three decades on epistolography in general, where there is almost no reference to Alexander’s correspondence. Stirewalt236 called for a study of both Philip and Alexander’s letters, believing that it would be “instructive”. Almost a decade later, however, Costa,237 in his work on “fictional letters”, still does not mention Alexander’s letters, not even those of the Romance, although he deals with epistles in Greek novels. Soon after, Jenkins,238 dealing with “intercepted letters” in Greek and Roman literature, is once again silent about Alexander. So is Rosenmeyer239 in her collection of “literary letters”, apart from a quick reference to the Alexander Romance which, she believes, may have originated from a collection of letters. Morello and Morrison,240 in the preface to a collection of essays on ancient epistolography, still give no information about Alexander’s letters, not even those contained in the Romance. Petrucci and Muir remain unconcerned with Alexander, although the former writes a work that has as its theme “Writing letters” and its history,241 and the latter, in a monograph about letters in the ancient Greek world, emphasizes the central role of Alexander’s reign in the transition from an exercise of power in oral form – as was 235  236  237  238  239  240  241 

Baynham 2003: 5. Stirewalt 1993: 8, n. 20. Costa 2001. Jenkins 2006. Rosenmeyer 2006: 34. Morello and Morrison 2007. Petrucci 2008.

64

Introduction

that of the city-states – to one in written form.242 Faraguna, on the other hand, discussing the diplomatic contacts between Darius and Alexander in Phoenicia, reflects on the fact that at least the content of Alexander’s letter to Darius, as reported by Arr. Anab. 2.14.4–9, “must be considered authentic and, something almost unique in the tradition, [...] direct reflection of Alexander’s mental attitude at this stage of the expedition”.243 If the almost total silence about Alexander of the most recent scholars who have dealt with epistolography arouses astonishment, it might be even more surprising that scholars have not dealt with the letters of Alexander even at the international conference on ancient letters that has been held in Tours every two years since 1998, apart from a quick reference by Le Moigne244 to the exchange of letters with Darius in the Romance of Alexander, and, two years later, Squillace’s contribution entitled ‘The construction of consensus during the reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great: the use of the letters’,245 which was not published in the proceedings.246 Squillace himself,247 in 2012, published an article on the same subject, in which he dealt with official letters of Philip and a single one by Alexander, written in response to a letter received from Darius following the battle of Issus. More recently, Bearzot, in an interesting article on royal autobiographies, briefly discusses Alexander’s epistolary production and, reflecting on Alexander’s anxiety to leave letters containing correct information, underlines that Alexander himself attributed considerable documentary value, even in autobiographical terms, to epistolary documents.248 242  Muir 2009. 243  Faraguna 2008: 429. 244  Le Moigne 2008: 49–65. 245  Giuseppe Squillace (Univ. de Calabria-Italie): “La costruzione del consenso durante i regni di Filippo II e Alessandro Magno: l’uso delle lettere”, Colloque Epistulae Antiquae VII, 24–26 November 2010, Tours, Université François Rabelais de Tours. 246  Guillaumont-Laurence 2012. 247  Squillace 2012: 111–25. 248  Bearzot 2011: 43–44; 2020: 37–38.

Introduction

65

Finally, when discussing the sources for Alexander’s history, Sabine Müller does not consider the letters quoted by Plutarch a reliable source, expressing the vague suspicion that he drew on a collection of letters written later, and that he reported them without subjecting them to proper scrutiny. She does not justify her hypothesis, however, but merely expresses her impressions on the letters in little more than a page. She also quotes a passage from Lucian (Pro lapsu inter salutandum 8) who, to her mind, would make fun of the credibility of his colleagues regarding the alleged letters sent by Alexander from the camp.249 Lucian’s passage, however, mentions neither Plutarch nor the letters of Alexander, but only a letter from Eumenes of Cardia to Antipater.250 A number of interesting details emerge from this review of the scholarly literature. As we have seen, the discussion about the letters was much more intense until the end of the 1800s: they were considered to be proper sources and analysed as such, even though scholars were deeply divided about their nature and authenticity. A further discussion about the letters and sources for Alexander’s history, probably arose from the publication of the collection of the fragments of Alexander’s historians by Müller in 1846. From 1900 the debate became increasingly rare, a situation that was perhaps due to Jacoby’s silence. Thereafter, there was a tendency to emphasize the need to analyse the letters individually, and Bengtson and Will seem to have taken all these reflections to heart, proposing more elaborate and interesting hypotheses that, however, have never been examined in depth. Moreover, the negative opinion that scholars once had about Plutarch seems to have given way to a greater confidence in the 249  Müller 2019: 17–18. 250  Ὅτε Ἀλέξανδρος τὴν ἐν Ἰσσῷ μάχην ἀγωνιεῖσθαι ἔμελλεν, ὡς Εὐμένης ὁ Καρδιανὸς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον ἐπιστολῇ λέγει, ἕωθεν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἡφαιστίων, εἴτ̓ ἐπιλαθόμενος εἴτε ταραχθεὶς ὥσπερ ἐγὼ εἴτε καὶ θεοῦ τινος τοῦτο καταναγκάσαντος, ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ ἔφη, Ὑγίαινε, βασιλεῦ, καιρὸς ἤδη παρατάττεσθαι. ταραχθέντων δὲ τῶν παρόντων πρὸς τὸ παράδοξον τῆς προσαγορεύσεως καὶ τοῦ Ἡφαιστίωνος ὀλίγου δεῖν ὑπ̓ αἰδοῦς ἐκθανόντος, Ἀλέξανδρος, Δέχομαι, εἶπε, τὴν κλῃδόνα. τὸ γὰρ σώους ἐπανήξειν ἀπὸ τῆς μάχης ἤδη μοι ὑπέσχηται.

66

Introduction

biographer and, as a result, the letters have also seemed to benefit from the decline of scepticism (apart from the recent work by Sabine Müller). I believe that this line of research could prove fruitful for a new image and view of Alexander as heir of the Persian Great King and the personalities that gravitated around him at his court, since the letters can be rightly considered a complementary and valuable source for the study of Alexander’s history: only through the commentary and analysis of these texts, in fact, was it possible to hypothesize the presence of an archive at court. What has also emerged is the important role of Chares as the one who, in all likelihood, had handed down the letters. Finally, another very important detail emerges from the letters: the step Alexander took when he assumed the title of Great King had not only formal implications, but above all ideological and cultural implications, and the letters show that Alexander, once he arrived in Persia, learned to appreciate actual Persian culture and the nature of Achaemenid kingship. He was fascinated by it and therefore began to behave and think like a ‘Great King’,251 within the ideological framework of Achaemenid kingship.252

251  On Alexander as a Herodotean Persian king, see Taietti 2016: 159–78. 252  On this concept, see supra, Section 1, pp. 4–6, together with Sections 2, 3, and 4.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 359 343–342 340 338 336 335 334 334–333 333 332 332–331 331 330 330–329

Philip, father of Alexander, becomes regent of Macedonia and then king Philip invites Aristotle to his court to educate his son Alexander Alexander is the regent in Pella while Philip is occupied with the war against Athens Battle of Chaeronea (2nd August) Pausanias kills Philip – Alexander becomes king of Macedonia Rebellion of Thebes – Alexander destroys Thebes but spares Pindar’s house Battle of Granicus Letter to the Athenians and the Greeks (F1) Alexander at Gordium Letter of Alexander about the Pamphylian sea (F2) Battle of Issus Letter to Antipater about the wound at Issus (F3) Letter to Parmenion about Damon and Timotheus (F4) Siege of Tyre Letter to Leonidas (F5) Alexander in Egypt – Journey to Siwah – Foundation of Alexandria Letter to Olympias about Siwah (F6) Exchange of letters with Darius (FF 7–8) Battle of Gaugamela (near Arbela) Letter to the Greeks of Asia (F9) Letter to the Plataeans (F10) Burning of Persepolis – Darius is assassinated by Bagoas – Conspiracy of Philotas and killing of Parmenion Letter to Philoxenus (F11) Letter to Antipater about the Amazons (F13) Letter to Antipater about the soldiers in Hyrcania (F14)

68

Chronological Table

328 Killing of Cleitus Letter to Antipater about the spring of crude oil (F15) Conspiracy of the Pages 327 Letter to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas (F16) Letter to Antipater (F17) 326 Battle against Porus Letters about the battle (F18) 326 or 325 Letter to Olympias about the sources of the Nile (F19) Letter to Hephaestion about Craterus (F20) Letter to the physician Pausanias (F21) 326–324 Letter about Seleucus’ slave (F27) 324 Wedding at Susa 324–323 Letters to Phocion (FF22–23) Letter to Peucestas about Craterus’ slave (F24) Letter to Peucestas about the bite of a bear (F25) Letter to the physician Alexippus (F26) Exchange of Letters with Antipater (FF29–30) 323 Alexander dies in Babylon (10th June)

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM

FF 1a; 2; 3a; 4; 5b; 6; 7; 8a; 9; 10; 11a; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 20; 21; 22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; [34a]

Λ = L cum apographis A D Iunt. et in Alex.–Caes. et B L = cod. Laurentianus conv. suppr. 206 saec. X A = cod. Parisinus 1671 a. 1296 D = cod. Parisinus 1674 saec. XIII/XIV B = cod. Parisinus 1672 saec. XIII/XIV Iunt. = editio Iuntina anni 1517 K = cod. Marcianus Venetus 386 saec. XI P = cod. Palatinus Heidelbergensis 168 + 169 saec. XI H = cod. Parisinus 1678 saec. XI/XII Q = C B M Vb aut omnes aut plures C = cod. Parisinus 1673 saec. XIII/XIV B = cod. Parisinus 1672 saec. XIII/XIV (sed de Alex.–Caes. cf. sub Λ) M = cod. Monacensis 85 saec. XII Vb = cod. Vindobonensis 60 saec. XII Notae Am. = Amyot Anon. = Anonymus Br. = Bryan Cast. = Castiglioni Cor. = Coraes Herw. = van Herwerden Kron. = Kronenberg Rei. = Reiske Ri. = Richards Sch. = Schaefer Sint. = Sintenis Sol. = Solanus Zie. = Ziegler

70

Conspectus Siglorum CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM FF 1b; 7b; 8b; 19

Codices Arriani. A = Vindobon. hist. 4, A2 = manus correctrix, v. p. V ss V = Ambros. E 11 inf. 2, v. p. XXII ss. Codex Excerptorum de sententiis. δ = Vatic. 73, v. p. XXXIX Notae Krüg. (ed.) = editio C. G. Krügeri postrema, a. 1851, quae textum tantum continet, v. p. XLV Vulc. = editio B. Vulcanii, a. 1575, v. p. XLIII vulg. = lectio vulgata inde ab editionibus Veneta (a. 1535) vel Basileensi (a. 1539) ab omnibus vel plerisque editoribus recepta. [] inclusi, quae delenda sunt. < > inclusi, quae in codicibus desiderantur.

Conspectus Siglorum CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM FF 3b; 5a; 11b

A = Par. 1671 a. 1296 E = Par. 1672 paulo post a. 1302 G = Barb. 182 p. I saec. XI J = Ambr. 881 saec. XIII O = Ambr. 528 p. I saec. XIII S = Vat. 264 saec. XIV Z = Marc. 511 saec. XIV c = Harlei. (Lond.) 5692 saec. XV d = Laur. 56, 2 saec XV g = Pal. Vat. 170 saec. XV o = Par. 1678 saec. XI s = Vat. 1012 saec. XIV v = Vind. 46 saec. XV w = Vind. 36 saec. XV x = Vat. 1396 saec. XV y = Vat. 1009 saec. XIV z = Vind. suppl. 23 saec. XV α = Ambr. 859 brevi ante a. 1296 Σ = J S c s y Voss. 3 Par. 2076 Π=αAE Φ=dvwxz Ο = codd. omnes praeter citatos Notae Na. = Nachstädt

71

72

Conspectus Siglorum CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM F5c

M = Codex (Monei) rescriptus (qui nunc in bibliotheca Imperiali Vindobonensi adservatur), saec. V–VI D = Codex Vaticanus 3861, saec. XI F = Codex Leidensis Lipsii 7, saec. X E = Codex Parisinus Latinus 6795, saec. X–XI. e = Codex Parisinus Latinus 6796, saec. XIII a = Codex Vindobonensis CCXXXIV, saec. XII–XIII Notae r = reliqui codices praeter eos qui ad eandem lectionem adnotati sunt. v = veteres editores vel lectio vulgata inde a vetustissimis editionibus usque ad hanc aut ad eam quae una adnotata est. v. = versu, versum. D = Detlefseni editionis vol. II. Berolini 1867.

Conspectus Siglorum

73

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM F23

Λ = L cum apographis H A D Iunt. L = cod. Laurentianus conv. suppr. 206 saec. X H = cod. Parisinus 1678 saec. XI/XII A = cod. Parisinus 1671 a. 1296 D = cod. Parisinus 1674 saec. XIII/XIV Iunt. = editio Iuntina anni 1517 K = cod. Marcianus Venetus 386 saec. XI P = cod. Palatinus Heidelbergensis 168 saec. XI Q = C B M Vb aut omnes aut plures C = cod. Parisinus 1673 saec. XIII/XIV B = cod. Parisinus 1672 saec. XIII/XIV (sed de Alex.–Caes. cf. sub Λ) M = cod. Monacensis 85 saec. XII Vb = cod. Vindobonensis 60 saec. XII Z = F Fa Mb F = cod. Parisinus 1677 saec. XIV Fa = cod. Parisinus 1676 saec. XIV Mb = cod. Marcianus Venetus 385 saec. XIV/XV CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM F32

F = Falcoburgianus: Parisinus 2646 saec. XV v. p. VIII S = Schottianus: Salmanticensis Hispan I 2. 3 saec. XV v. p. VIII A = Parisinus 2670 saec. XV C = Palatinus Heidelbergensis 375 saec. XII v. p. IX L = Laurentianus 56.1 saec. XIV B = Parisinus 2647 saec. XIII v. p. X

74

Conspectus Siglorum CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM F33

C = cod. Parisinus, suppl. gr. 841 saec. XVI (?) E = cod. Laurentianus, Plut. 60.2 saec. XV (?) Notae K = Kaibel Mus = Musuro Schw. = Schweighäuser Wilam. = Wilamowitz CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM [F34b]

ω = consensus codicum FOXΠNQZB vel quotquot supersunt F = codex Leouardiensis Prov. Bibl. van Friesland 55, saec. IX O = codex Vaticanus Reginensis latinus 597, saec. IX X = codex Leidensis Vossianus F112, saec. X Π = codex Vaticanus Reginensis latinus 1646, saec. XII N = codex Florentinus Bibl. Nat. J. 4. 26, saec. XV Q = codex Parisinus Bibl. Nat. latinus 8664, saec. XIII Z = codex Leidensis Vossianus F7, saec. XIV B = codex Bernensis 404 una cum codice Leidensi B. P. L. 1925, saec. XII

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

LETTERS: A SELECTION

76

Alexander the Great F1. To the Athenians and the Greeks Spoils after the battle at the Granicus River (334)

F1a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 16.17–18 1



5





κοινούμενος δὲ τὴν νίκην τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἰδίᾳ μὲν τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ἔπεμψε τῶν αἰχμαλώτων τριακοσίας ἀσπίδας, κοινῇ δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις λαφύροις ἐκέλευσεν ἐπιγράψαι φιλοτιμοτάτην ἐπιστολήν· “Ἀλέξανδρος [ὁ] Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων”.

Apparatus: [M et mg. P] 5 ἐπιστολήν] ἐπιγραφήν ΛPHQ | ὁ del. Zie. cl. Arr. 1.16.7.

F1b: Arrian, Anabasis 1.16.7 1



5



ἀποπέμπει δὲ καὶ εἰς Ἀθήνας τριακοσίας πανοπλίας Περσικὰς ἀνάθημα εἶναι τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ ἐν πόλει· καὶ ἐπίγραμμα ἐπιγραφῆναι ἐκέλευσε τόδε· Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων.

Apparatus: 4 Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου in eodem titulo Plut. Alex. 16

Letters: A Selection

77

F1. To the Athenians and the Greeks Spoils after the battle at the Granicus River (334) F1a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 16.17–18 To share the victory with the Greeks, and with the Athenians in particular, he sent three hundred shields of the prisoners, while, concerning the rest of the booty he publicly ordered that an extremely proud letterinscription be engraved: “Alexander, the son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, from the barbarians inhabiting Asia”.

F1b: Arrian, Anabasis 1.16.7 In addition, he sent three hundred Persian panoplies to Athens to be a votive offering to Athena on the acropolis; and ordered that the following inscription be engraved: “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, from the barbarians inhabiting Asia”.

78

Alexander the Great F2. Anonymous recipient Alexander in Pamphylia vs the proskynesis of the sea (334/3)

F2: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 17.8–9 1



5





αὐτὸς δ’ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον τερατευσάμενος, ὁδοποιῆσαί φησι τὴν λεγομένην Κλίμακα καὶ διελθεῖν ὁρμήσας ἐκ Φασηλίδος. διὸ καὶ πλείονας ἡμέρας ἐν τῇ πόλει διέτριψεν· ἐν αἷς καὶ Θεοδέκτου τεθνηκότος (ἦν δὲ Φασηλίτης) ἰδὼν εἰκόνα [ἀνα]κειμένην ἐν ἀγορᾷ, μετὰ δεῖπνον ἐπεκώμασε μεθύων καὶ τῶν στεφάνων ἐπέρριψε πολλούς, οὐκ ἄχαριν ἀποδιδοὺς ἐν παιδιᾷ τιμὴν τῇ γενομένῃ δι’ Ἀριστοτέλην καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὁμιλίᾳ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα.

Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 1 τοιούτωι P τοιοῦτο e ras. H || 3 φασιλίδος ΛHC βασιλίδος PM: em. Aldina || 5 φασιλίτης ΛPH | ἀνακειμένην: em. Sint., tuetur Flac. || 7 ἐν παιδιᾷ ἀποδιδούς: trp. Zie. (ἐν π. τ. ἀπ. Benseler); μετὰ παιδιᾶς ἀποδιδούς: Castiglioni (Gnomon 1937, 13: 140)

Letters: A Selection

79

F2. Anonymous recipient Alexander in Pamphylia vs the proskynesis of the sea (334/3) F2: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 17.8–9 But Alexander himself, in his letters, without mentioning any such wonder, says that he made his way through the so-called ‘Ladder’, and that he went through it starting from Phaselis. For this reason, he spent more days in the town; and during those days he also saw the statue of Theodectes (he was from Phaselis), who was already dead at the time, placed in the market square. And after dinner, when he was drunk, he went around the statue with a party of revellers and threw many garlands on top of it, giving – in a playful manner – an honour not disrespectful to the kinship struck up with the man thanks to Aristotle and philosophy.

Alexander the Great

80

F3. To Antipater Alexander wounded at Issus (333) F3a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 20.9 1



Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ περὶ τῆς μάχης ἐπιστέλλων τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀντίπατρον οὐκ εἴρηκεν ὅστις ἦν ὁ τρώσας, ὅτι δὲ τρωθείη τὸν μηρὸν ἐγχειριδίῳ, δυσχερὲς δ’οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ τραύματος συμβαίη, γέγραφε.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 4 συμβὰν PM

F3b: Plutarch, De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute II 341c 1



5

αὐτὸς δ’ Ἀλέξανδρος ἁπλῶς γράφων καὶ μετὰ πάσης ἀληθείας πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον ‘συνέβη δέ μοι’ φησί ‘καὶ αὐτῷ ἐγχειριδίῳ πληγῆναι εἰς τὸν μηρόν· ἀλλ’οὐδὲν ἄτοπον οὔτε παραχρῆμα οὔθ’ ὕστερον ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς ἀπήντησεν’.

Apparatus: 3 εἰς del. Abresch

Letters: A Selection

81

F3. To Antipater Alexander wounded at Issus (333) F3a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 20.9 Alexander, however, sending a letter to Antipater about the battle, has not mentioned who was the one who wounded him, but only that he was wounded in the thigh by a dagger, and that anyway nothing unpleasant resulted from the wound.

F3b: Plutarch, De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute II 341c But Alexander himself, writing in brief and in all truth to Antipater, says: “It also happened that I myself was wounded in the thigh by a dagger; but nothing harmful occurred from the wound either immediately or afterwards”.

82

Alexander the Great F4. To Parmenion About Damon and Timotheus (end of 333)

F4: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.4–6 1



5



10



πυνθανόμενος δὲ μισθοφόρων τινῶν γύναια διεφθαρκέναι Δάμωνα καὶ Τιμόθεον Μακεδόνας τῶν ὑπὸ Παρμενίωνι στρατευομένων, ἔγραψε Παρμενίωνι κελεύων, ἐὰν ἐλεγχθῶσιν, ὡς θηρία ἐπὶ καταφθορᾷ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γεγονότα τιμωρησάμενον ἀποκτεῖναι. καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ λέξιν ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ γέγραφεν· “ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐχ ὅτι ἑωρακὼς ἂν εὑρεθείην τὴν Δαρείου γυναῖκα ἢ βεβουλημένος ἰδεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τῶν λεγόντων περὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας αὐτῆς προσδεδεγμένος τὸν λόγον”. ἔλεγε δὲ μάλιστα συνιέναι θνητὸς ὢν ἐκ τοῦ καθεύδειν καὶ συνουσιάζειν, ὡς ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἐγγινόμενον ἀσθενείας τῇ φύσει καὶ τὸ πονοῦν καὶ τὸ ἡδόμενον.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 2 γυναῖκα L1A | δάμονα P || 4 στρατ. – Παρμενίωνι del. P || 6 τιμωρησόμενον ΛPC || 8 εὑρεθείην Λ: εἴην PQ | βεβουλευμένος: em. Sint. || 9 οὐδὲ Cor.: οὔτε

Letters: A Selection

83

F4. To Parmenion About Damon and Timotheus (end of 333) F4: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.4–6 When he learned that Damon and Timotheus, two Macedonians in the service of Parmenion, had seduced the wives of some mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenion and ordered him to exact vengeance from them, if proven guilty, with death as beasts born for the ruin of men. And about himself he wrote the following verbatim in this letter: “Indeed, I was not caught looking at Darius’ wife or even desiring to see her, nor did I even allow myself to listen to those who were speaking about her beauty”. He said he understood that he was mortal mainly because he slept and had sex, and that from a single weakness of nature came both suffering and pleasure.

Alexander the Great

84

F5. To Leonidas The spice-bearing land (332) F5a: Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 179e 1



ἀπέσταλκά σοι τάλαντα λιβανωτοῦ καὶ κασίας, ἵνα μηκέτι μικρολογῇ πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ τῆς ἀρωματοφόρου κρατοῦμεν.

Apparatus: 1 ἀπέστειλα δὲ J ἀπέστειλα (om. δὲ) c πρὸς αὐτ. ἀπέσταλκα om. in lac. 9 litt. S || 2 post τάλαντα add. ἑκατὸν St. cf. v. Alex. 25 an excidit α = χίλια post τάλαντα? Na. | μικρολογῇς GOΦ || 3 πρὸς SgoGO v. Alex. cf. v. Cic. 24 fin. Ars. περὶ Πv cf. 73a ἐπὶ z

F5b: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 25.8 1



τότ’οὖν Ἀλέξανδρος ἔγραψε πρὸς αὐτόν· “ἀπεστάλκαμέν σοι λιβανωτὸν ἄφθονον καὶ σμύρναν, ὅπως παύσῃ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς μικρολογούμενος”.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 ὁ ἀλέξανδρος C

Letters: A Selection

85

F5. To Leonidas The spice-bearing land (332) F5a: Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 179e I have sent you some talents of incense and cassia so that you may no longer be stingy towards the gods, knowing that I am now the lord of the land that produces aromatic herbs.

F5b: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 25.8 At that time, then, Alexander wrote to him: “We have sent you abundant incense and myrrh, so that you may stop being stingy towards the gods”.

86

Alexander the Great F5. To Leonidas The spice-bearing land (332)

F5c: Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 12.62 Alexandro Magno in pueritia sine parsimonia tura ingerenti aris paedagogus Leonides dixerat, ut illo modo, cum devicisset turiferas gentes, sup plicaret. At ille Arabiae potitus ture onustam navem misit 5 et exhortatus est, ut large deos adoraret. 1

Apparatus: 4 arabiae MEaD. -ia DF v. || 5 et MD. ei rv | est MD. om. rv | adoraret Eav. odor- DF. or- M

Letters: A Selection

87

F5. To Leonidas The spice-bearing land (332) F5c: Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 12.62 To Alexander the Great, who as a youth was heaping incense on the altar without parsimony, the pedagogue Leonidas had said that he could supplicate the gods in that way when he had conquered the peoples who produce incense. But he (Alexander), having become master of Arabia,

sent a ship laden with incense and urged him (Leonidas) to worship the gods with abundance.

88

Alexander the Great F6. To Olympias Siwah (332/1)

F6: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 27.8 1





αὐτὸς δ’ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν ἐπιστολῇ πρὸς τὴν μητέρα φησὶ γεγονέναι τινὰς αὐτῷ μαντείας ἀπορρήτους, ἃς αὐτὸς ἐπανελθὼν φράσει πρὸς μόνην ἐκείνην.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 ὁ ἀλέξανδρος C || 3 φράσειν Herw.

FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331) FF7a–8a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 29.9 1





πρὸς δὲ τὸν Δαρεῖον ἔγραψεν, ὡς οὐδενὸς ἀτυχήσει τῶν φιλανθρώπων ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτόν, εἰ δὲ μή, αὐτὸς ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον ἤδη πορεύσεσθαι.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 3 πορεύεθαι: em. Naber, defenderit Pelling (JHS 1973, 93: 232)

Letters: A Selection

89

F6. To Olympias Siwah (332/1) F6: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 27.8 But Alexander himself in a letter to his mother says that there were some secret prophecies for him, which he would reveal to her alone on his return.

FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331) FF7a–8a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 29.9 He wrote to Darius that, if he came to him, he would not fail to obtain a friendly welcome; but if not, he would immediately march against him.

90

Alexander the Great FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331)

F7b: Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.4–9 (beginning of 332 BC) Πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντιγράφει Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ξυμπέμπει τοῖς παρὰ Δαρείου ἐλθοῦσι Θέρσιππον, παραγγείλας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν δοῦναι Δαρείῳ, αὐτὸν δὲ μὴ διαλέγεσθαι ὑπὲρ μηδενός. ἡ δὲ ἐπιστολὴ ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔχει 5 ὧδε· Οἱ ὑμέτεροι πρόγονοι ἐλθόντες εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα κακῶς ἐποίησαν ἡμᾶς οὐδὲν προηδικημένοι· ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγεμὼν κατα σταθεὶς καὶ τιμωρήσασθαι βουλόμενος Πέρσας διέβην ἐς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ὑπαρξάντων ὑμῶν. καὶ γὰρ Περινθίοις 10 ἐβοηθήσατε, οἳ τὸν ἐμὸν πατέρα ἠδίκουν, καὶ εἰς Θρᾴκην, ἧς ἡμεῖς ἤρχομεν, δύναμιν ἔπεμψεν Ὦχος. τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς ἀποθανόντος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιβουλευσάν των, οὓς ὑμεῖς συνετάξατε, ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστο λαῖς πρὸς ἅπαντας ἐκομπάσατε, καὶ Ἀρσῆν ἀποκτεί15 ναντός σου μετὰ Βαγώου, καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν κατασχόντος οὐ δικαίως οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸν Περσῶν νόμον, ἀλλὰ ἀδι κοῦντος Πέρσας, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας γράμματα οὐκ ἐπιτήδεια διαπέμποντος, ὅπως πρός με πολεμῶσι, καὶ χρήματα ἀποστέλλοντος πρὸς Λακεδαι20 μονίους καὶ ἄλλους τινὰς τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων πόλεων οὐδεμιᾶς δεχομένης, Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ λαβόντων, καὶ τῶν παρὰ σοῦ πεμφθέντων τοὺς ἐμοὺς φίλους διαφθειράντων καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην, ἣν τοῖς Ἕλλησι κατεσκεύασα, διαλύειν ἐπιχειρούντων—ἐστράτευσα 25 ἐπὶ σὲ ὑπάρξαντος σοῦ τῆς ἔχθρας. ἐπεὶ δὲ μάχῃ 1





Letters: A Selection

91

FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331) F7b: Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.4–9 (beginning of 332 BC) Regarding these words, Alexander wrote a letter in response and sent, together with those who had come from Darius, Thersippus, instructing him to deliver the letter to Darius, but not to discuss anything with him. Alexander’s letter contained the following: “Your ancestors, having come to Macedonia and to the rest of Greece, harmed us without having suffered injustices from us previously; I, therefore, having been appointed hegemon of the Greeks and wanting to punish the Persians, crossed the sea to Asia, after you had started hostilities. And in fact, you had helped the inhabitants of Perinthus, who perpetrated injustice toward my father, and Ochus sent an army to Thrace, a region over which we ruled. And since my father was killed by conspirators whom you organized, as you yourself boasted in the letters you sent to everyone, and since you yourself together with Bagoas killed Arses and seized power not justly nor according to the law of the Persians, but perpetrating injustice toward the Persians, and because you sent to the Greeks unseemly writings about me, in order that they would wage war against me, and because you sent money to the Spartans and the other Greeks, and while none of the other cities accepted, the Spartans accepted, and because your envoys tried to bribe my friends and ruin the peace, which I had prepared for the Greeks – for these reasons I made an expedition against you since you had begun the hostilities.

92

30



35



40



Alexander the Great νενίκηκα πρότερον μὲν τοὺς σοὺς στρατηγοὺς καὶ σατράπας, νῦν δὲ σὲ καὶ τὴν μετὰ σοῦ δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν χώραν ἔχω τῶν θεῶν μοι δόντων, ὅσοι τῶν μετὰ σοῦ παραταξαμένων μὴ ἐν τῇ μάχῃ ἀπέθανον, ἀλλὰ παρ’ ἐμὲ κατέφυγον, τούτων ἐπιμέλομαι καὶ οὐκ ἄκοντες παρ’ ἐμοί εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἑκόντες ξυστρατεύονται μετ’ ἐμοῦ. ὡς οὖν ἐμοῦ τῆς Ἀσίας ἁπάσης κυρίου ὄντος ἧκε πρὸς ἐμέ. εἰ δὲ φοβῇ μὴ ἐλθὼν πάθῃς τι ἐξ ἐμοῦ ἄχαρι, πέμπε τινὰς τῶν φίλων τὰ πιστὰ ληψομένους. ἐλθὼν δὲ πρός με τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ εἰ ἄλλο τι θέλεις αἴτει καὶ λάμβανε. ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν πείθῃς ἐμὲ ἔσται σοι. καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ ὅταν πέμπῃς παρ’ ἐμὲ, ὡς πρὸς βασιλέα τῆς Ἀσίας πέμπε, μηδὲ [ἃ] ἐξ ἴσου ἐπίστελλε, ἀλλ’ ὡς κυρίῳ ὄντι πάντων τῶν σῶν φράζε εἴ του δέῃ· εἰ δὲ μή, ἐγὼ βουλεύσομαι περὶ σοῦ ὡς ἀδικοῦντος. εἰ δ’ ἀντιλέγεις περὶ τῆς βασιλείας, ὑπομείνας ἔτι ἀγώνισαι περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ μὴ φεῦγε, ὡς ἐγὼ ἐπὶ σὲ πορεύσομαι οὗ ἂν ᾖς.

Apparatus: 4 ἐπιστολὴ ἡ] ἡ, quod. coni. Krüg., habet A || 21 δὲ Schn., τε A || 37 πείθῃς] πείσῃς Krüg. (ed.) || 39 [ἃ] om. vulg.; ἃ V; fortasse μηδέ τι Roos; τὰ ἐξ ἴσου aut ὡς ἐξ ἴσου Schenkl || 42 ἔτι: ἔτι aut ἔτι Reiske

Letters: A Selection

93

Since I had previously conquered in battle your generals and your satraps, and now you and the army under your command, I am in possession of the region since the gods have given it to me. I take care of all those who fought alongside you and were not killed but took refuge with me; they are not with me against their will, but gladly fight by my side. Since I am the lord of all Asia, come to me. If you are afraid that something unpleasant might happen to you, send some of your friends to ask for guarantees. When you come to me, ask for your mother, your wife, your children, and whatever you want, and you will get it. Whatever you persuade me to give you will be yours. And from now on, whenever you send a letter to me, send it to me as the king of Asia and do not write to me as if I were your equal, but, should you need something, tell me as the lord of all things; otherwise, I will deliberate about you as one who has perpetrated injustice. If you intend to object (such charges) for the kingdom, stay and fight for it, and do not flee, because I will reach you wherever you are”.

94

Alexander the Great FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331)

F8b: Arrian, Anabasis 2.25.3 (332 BC) 1





5



ἔφη γὰρ οὔτε χρημάτων δεῖσθαι παρὰ Δαρείου οὔτε τῆς χώρας λαβεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς πάσης τὸ μέρος· εἶναι γὰρ τά τε χρήματα καὶ τὴν χώραν αὑτοῦ πᾶσαν· γῆμαί τε εἰ ἐθέλοι τὴν Δαρείου παῖδα, γῆμαι ἂν καὶ οὐ διδόντος Δαρείου· ἐκέλευέ τε αὐτὸν ἥκειν, εἴ τι εὑρέσθαι ἐθέλοι φιλάνθρωπον παρ’αὑτοῦ.

Apparatus: 2 λαβεῖν Pol. || 4 εἰ ἐθέλοι δ, ἂν ἐθέλοι A; ἂν ἐθέλῃ Vulc. || 5 τε] δὲ δ || 6 ἐθέλοι] θέλει δ

F9. To the Greeks of Asia About tyrannies (331) F9: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 34.2 1





φιλοτιμούμενος δὲ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἔγραψε τὰς τυραννίδας πάσας καταλυθῆναι καὶ πολιτεύειν αὐτονόμους.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 φιλοφρονούμενος P

Letters: A Selection

95

FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331) F8b: Arrian, Anabasis 2.25.3 (332 BC) He said that he did not need riches from Darius or receive a part of the region instead of all of it; indeed, both the riches and the whole region were his; and if he wanted to marry Darius’ daughter, he would marry her even without Darius’ consent; and he ordered him to come to him if he wished to find a friendly welcome from him.

F9. To the Greeks of Asia About tyrannies (331) F9: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 34.2 Wanting to earn honours among the Greeks, he wrote that all tyrannies had been abolished and that they [sc. the cities] ruled autonomously.

Alexander the Great

96

F10. To the Plataeans Reconstruction of Plataea (331) F10: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 34.2 1





ἰδίᾳ δὲ Πλαταιεῦσι τὴν πόλιν ἀνοικοδομεῖν, ὅτι τὴν χώραν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ἐναγωνίσασθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας παρέσχον.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 2 ὅτι τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν L1

FF11–12. To Philoxenus (330/329 and no date) F11a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.2 1





τὸν δὲ Φιλόξενον αὐτὸν ἐν ἐπιστολῇ πολλὰ λοιδορήσας ἐκέλευσεν αὐτοῖς φορτίοις τὸν Θεόδωρον εἰς τὸν ὄλεθρον ἀποστέλλειν.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 2 ἐκέλευεν ΛQ

F11b: Plutarch, De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute 1.333a 1





ὦ κάκιστ’ ἀνθρώπων, τί μοι πώποτε τοιοῦτον συνέγνως, ἵνα τοιαύταις με κολακεύσῃς ἡδοναῖς;

Apparatus: 1 ἀνθρώπων Π ἄνθρωπε O || 2 τοιοῦτον O τοιοῦτο Z | με τοιαύταις ΣZ | κολακεύσῃς Σ (exc. S) κολακεύῃς O

Letters: A Selection

97

F10. To the Plataeans Reconstruction of Plataea (331) F10: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 34.2 In particular, (he wrote) to the Plataeans that he would rebuild the city, since their fathers had given the Greeks the land to fight for freedom.

FF11–12. To Philoxenus (330/329 and no date) F11a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.2 In a letter, he then blamed Philoxenus himself with many insults and ordered him to send Theodorus and all his goods to hell.

F11b: Plutarch, De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute 1.333a O worst among men, what behaviour of such sort have you ever discerned in me that you would flatter me with such pleasures?

98

Alexander the Great FF11–12. To Philoxenus (330/329 and no date)

F12: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.40, 22d (Kaibel) 1





Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλόξενον ἐπιστολῇ μέμνηται Θεοδώρου καὶ Χρυσίππου. F13. To Antipater About the Amazons (330)

F13: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 46.1–3 1





5



10



Ἐνταῦθα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφικέσθαι τὴν Ἀμαζόνα οἱ πολλοὶ λέγουσιν, ὧν καὶ Κλείταρχός ἐστι (FGrHist 137 F15) καὶ Πολύκλειτος (FGrHist 128 F8) καὶ Ὀνησίκριτος (FGrHist 134

F1) καὶ Ἀντιγένης (FGrHist 141 F1) καὶ Ἴστρος (FGrHist 334 F26). Ἀριστόβουλος (FGrHist 139 F21) δὲ καὶ Χάρης ὁ εἰσαγγελεύς (FGrHist 125 F12), πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Ἐρετριεὺς (Scr. rer. Alex. M. 49 M.) καὶ Πτολεμαῖος (FGrHist 138 F28a) καὶ Ἀντικλείδης (FGrHist 140 F12) καὶ Φίλων ὁ Θηβαῖος (FHG III 560 not.) καὶ Φίλιππος ὁ Θεαγγελεὺς (FGrHist 741 F4) καὶ Φίλιππος ὁ Χαλκιδεὺς (FHG IV 475) καὶ Δοῦρις ὁ Σάμιος (FGrHist 76 F46) πλάσμα φασὶ γεγο-

νέναι τοῦτο. καὶ μαρτυρεῖν αὐτοῖς ἔοικεν Ἀλέξανδρος· Ἀντιπάτρῳ γὰρ ἅπαντα γράφων ἀκριβῶς, τὸν μὲν Σκύθην φησὶν αὐτῷ διδόναι τὴν θυγατέρα πρὸς γάμον, Ἀμαζόνος 15 δ’οὐ μνημονεύει.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 δὲ om. P || 3 πολύκριτος: em. Cor. || 6 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Ἑκ. ὁ Ἐρ. h. l. hab. C, post Φίλ. ὁ εἰσαγγ. (9) cet. || 9 Θεαγγελεὺς Reinesius: εἰσαγγελεύς || 14 αὐτῶι φησι PQ

Letters: A Selection

99

FF11–12. To Philoxenus (330/329 and no date) F12: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.40, 22d (Kaibel) Alexander in the letter to Philoxenus makes mention of Theodorus and Chrysippus. F13. To Antipater About the Amazons (330) F13: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 46.1–3 And it was here [in Scythia] that the majority (of the writers) say that the Amazon came to him, among whom there is also Cleitarchus, and Polycleitus, and Onesicritus, and Antigenes, and Ister. On the other hand, Aristobulus, Chares the chamberlain, and in addition to these Hecataeus of Eretria, and Ptolemy, and Anticleides, and Philon the Theban, and Philip of Theangela, and Philip the Chalcidian, and Duris of Samos say that this is an invention. And Alexander seems to testify in their favour: indeed, writing everything accurately to Antipater, he says that the king of Scythia offered him his

daughter as a bride, but he does not make mention of the Amazon.

100

Alexander the Great F14. To Antipater Addressing the soldiers in Hyrcania (330–329)

F14: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 47.1–4 1





5



10



15

Φοβούμενος δὲ τοὺς Μακεδόνας μὴ εἰς τὰ ὑπόλοιπα τῆς στρατείας ἀπαγορεύσωσι, τὸ μὲν ἄλλο πλῆθος εἴασε κατὰ χώραν, τοὺς δ’ ἀρίστους ἔχων ἐν Ὑρκανίᾳ μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ, δισμυρίους πεζοὺς καὶ τρισχιλίους ἱππεῖς, προσέβαλε, λέγων ὡς νῦν μὲν αὐτοὺς † ἐνύπνιον τῶν βαρβάρων ὁρώντων, ἂν δὲ μόνον ταράξαντες τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀπίωσιν, ἐπιθησομένων εὐθὺς ὥσπερ γυναιξίν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἀφιέναι γε τοὺς βουλομένους ἔφη, καὶ μαρτυράμενος ὅτι τὴν οἰκουμένην τοῖς Μακεδόσι κτώμενος ἐγκαταλέλειπται, **** μετὰ τῶν φίλων καὶ τῶν ἐθελόντων στρατεύειν. ταῦτα σχεδὸν αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον ἐπιστολῇ γέγραπται, καὶ ὅτι ταῦτ’εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ πάντες ἐξέκραγον, ὅπου βούλεται τῆς οἰκουμένης ἄγειν. δεξαμένων δὲ τούτων τὴν πεῖραν, οὐκέτ’ἦν χαλεπὸν προσαχθῆναι τὸ πλῆθος, ἀλλὰ ῥᾳδίως ἐπηκολούθησεν.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 μακεδόνας ἀλέξανδρος C || 3 ἀρίστους εἶχεν ... προσέλαβε Cor. || 5 πεῖραν add. Zie. cl. 14 et Brut. 12.3, respuunt Hamilton et Flacelière | προσέβαλε corr. in ἐνέβαλε L2 προσέλαβε (Anon.) restituunt Hamilton et Flacelière προέβαλε λόγον Sol. ἐνέβαλε λόγον Sint. | † ἐνύπνιον] ἐνώπιον (Zie. olim) prob. Hamilton et Flacelière (ἐνόπλους , post Zie. ἐν ὅπλοις , Erbse) (cf. Curt. 6.3.8 vestris armis continentur, non suis moribus, et qui praesentes metuunt, in absentia hostes erunt) || 6 ὁρώντων corr. in ὀρρωντων Hamilton et Flacelière || 8 ἀφιέναι Bekker: ἀπιέναι codd. ἀφεῖναι Anon. ἀπιέναι γε τοὺς β. ἀφῆκε, μαρτυράμενος (sine lac. v. 10) post Hamilton et Flacelière: cf. vit. Alex. 60,15. Cim 8,8 | τοῖς βουλομένοις Cor. | ἔφη καὶ] ἐφῆκε Cor. Sint. ἀφῆκε Flacelière || 10 lac. stat. Zie., e.g. τὸ λοιπὸν ἔφη (deinde στρατεύσειν) excidisse ratus | ἐθελοντῶν [στρατεύειν] Br. et Hamilton, praetulerit Gärtner || 13 ὅποι M ὅπη C || 15 προαχθῆναι: em. Zie. | τὸ πλ. Rei.

Letters: A Selection

101

F14. To Antipater Addressing the soldiers in Hyrcania (330–329) F14: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 47.1–4 Fearing that the Macedonians would refuse to continue on with what remained of the expedition, he left the majority of the army near the region, and he addressed – as a test – the most valiant he had with him in Hyrcania, twenty thousand infantrymen and three thousand horsemen, saying that now the barbarians saw them † but if they left after only causing havoc in Asia, the Persians would attack them as if they were women. However, to those who wanted to, he said to depart, testifying that while he was trying to conquer the inhabited world for the Macedonians he had been abandoned, **** with his friends and with those who wanted to fight. This is written in almost the same words in the letter to Antipater, and (also) that, after uttering these words, everyone shouted out that he should lead them to whichever part of the inhabited world he wanted. Since they had given this proof, it was no longer difficult for the multitude to be brought along, but they easily followed him.

102

Alexander the Great F15. To Antipater The discovery of a spring of oil (328)

F15a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 57.5–9 οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ βέλτιόν τι σημεῖον γενόμενον τὴν ἀθυμίαν ἔλυσεν. ὁ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν στρωματοφυλάκων τεταγμένος ἀνὴρ Μακεδὼν ὄνομα Πρόξενος, τῇ βασιλικῇ σκηνῇ χώραν ὀρύττων παρὰ 5 τὸν Ὦξον ποταμόν, ἀνεκάλυψε πηγὴν ὑγροῦ λιπαροῦ καὶ πιμελώδους· ἀπαντλουμένου δὲ τοῦ πρώτου, καθαρὸν ἀνέβλυζεν ἤδη καὶ διαυγές [ἔλαιον], οὔτ’ ὀσμῇ δοκοῦν ἐλαίου διαφέρειν οὔτε γεύσει, στιλπνότητά τε καὶ λιπαρό τητα παντάπασιν ἀπαράλλακτον, καὶ ταῦτα τῆς χώρας 10 μηδ’ ἐλαίας φερούσης. λέγεται μὲν οὖν καὶ τὸν Ὦξον αὐτὸν εἶναι μαλακώτατον ὕδωρ, ὥστε τὸ δέρμα τοῖς λουομένοις ἐπιλιπαίνειν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ θαυμαστῶς Ἀλέξανδρος ἡσθεὶς δῆλός ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν γράφει πρὸς Ἀντί πατρον, ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις τοῦτο τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγο15 νότων αὐτῷ τιθέμενος. οἱ δὲ μάντεις ἐνδόξου μὲν στρα τείας, ἐπιπόνου δὲ καὶ χαλεπῆς τὸ σημεῖον ἐποιοῦντο· πόνων γὰρ ἀρωγὴν ἔλαιον ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ θεοῦ δεδόσθαι. 1





Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 2 διέλυσεν et ὅπερ (pro ὁ γὰρ) Phot. cod. M || 3 ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων Phot. | ἀνὴρ Μακεδὼν om. Phot. || 4 χώρ. ὀρ. τῇ βας. σκ. Phot. cod. M || 5 ὄξον Phot., item v. 10 | ἀπεκάλυψε Phot. || 7 ἔλαιον del. Zie., ἔλαιον (7) tuetur, ἐλαίου (8) del. Cast., quo efficitur, ut ordo verborum traditus servari possit; sed obstare videtur clausula (Gärtner) || 8 οὔτε γεύσει ἐλαίου διαφέρειν: trp. Zie. (ο. ἐλ. γ. δ. Phot. cod. M ο. γ. δ. ἐλ. Sint.) | στιλπνότητα C: στιλβότητα cet. (στιλβότητα δὲ καὶ λαμπρότητα Phot.) || 11 εἶναι om. Phot. || 11.12 τοὺς λουομένους Λ Phot. || 12 ἐπιλεαίνειν C | καὶ add. Phot. | θαυμαστὸν Phot. cod. A || 13 Ἀλέξανδρος τῷ σημείῳ ἥσθη Phot. πρὸς τὸν C || 15 στρατιᾶς: em. Br. || 17 θεοῦ om. L1 P τοῦ vel τῆς θεοῦ Zie.

Letters: A Selection

103

F15. To Antipater The discovery of a spring of oil (328) F15a: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 57.5–9 However, a better omen happened and took away his despondency. For a Macedonian called Proxenus, in charge of those who were guardians of the linens, while digging near the river Oxus to plant the royal tent there, discovered a source of oily and fatty liquid. After the first spurt, pure and transparent oil was now flowing, which looked no different from olive oil, in neither smell nor taste, and was quite similar to it in density and colour; and all this despite the region having no olive trees. It is said, however, that the river Oxus has a very oily water, so much so that it makes the skin of those who take a bath sleek. However, it is clear from what he wrote to Antipater that Alexander was marvellously pleased, considering it one of the greatest signs that came to him from the god. The soothsayers saw it as the sign of a glorious but hard and toilsome expedition, for oil was given by the god to men as help against toils.

104

Alexander the Great F15. To Antipater The discovery of a spring of oil (328)

F15b: Theophrastus, F159 Wimmer apud Ath. Deipn. 2.42f 1



Ἀλέξανδρος ἐπέστειλεν ὡς ἐλαίου κρήνην εὑρηκώς.

F15c: Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 2.755 Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ περὶ Ἀσιάτιδος ἐπέστειλεν ἀναβλύσεως ὡς [ἐλαίου κρήνην εὑρηκώς.

1

Letters: A Selection

105

F15. To Antipater The discovery of a spring of oil (328) F15b: Theophrastus, F159 Wimmer apud Ath. Deipn. 2.42f Alexander wrote that he had found the source of the oil. F15c: Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 2.755 About the Asiatic gushing up, Alexander wrote that he had found the source of the oil.

106

Alexander the Great

FF16–17. To Craterus, Attalus and Alcetas; and to Antipater The Pages’ conspiracy (327) F16: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 55.6 1





ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος αὐτὸς εὐθὺς Κρατερῷ γράφων καὶ Ἀττάλῳ καὶ Ἀλκέτᾳ φησὶ τοὺς παῖδας βασανιζομένους ὁμολογεῖν, ὡς αὐτοὶ ταῦτα πράξειαν, ἄλλος δ’οὐδεὶς συνειδείη.

F17: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 55.7 1





5



ὕστερον δὲ γράφων πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον καὶ τὸν Καλλισθένην συνεπαιτιασάμενος, “οἱ μὲν παῖδες” φησὶν “ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων κατελεύσθησαν, τὸν δὲ σοφιστὴν ἐγὼ κολάσω καὶ τοὺς ἐκπέμψαντας αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑποδεχομένους ταῖς πόλεσι τοὺς ἐμοὶ ἐπιβουλεύοντας”.

Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 2 καὶ τὸν om. Λ | καλλισθένη ΛHM

Letters: A Selection

107

FF16–17. To Craterus, Attalus and Alcetas; and to Antipater The Pages’ conspiracy (327) F16: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 55.6 But even Alexander himself, writing immediately to Craterus, Attalus and Alcetas, says that the young men confessed under torture to having plotted these actions themselves, whereas no one else had been an accomplice. F17: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 55.7 Later writing to Antipater and accusing Callisthenes as well, he says: “The young men were stoned to death by the Macedonians, but I will punish the sophist and those who sent him to me, as well as those who welcome in the cities those who are conspiring against me”.

108

Alexander the Great F18. Anonymous recipients The battle against Porus (326)

F18: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 60.1–11 1



5





10



15







20







25



30





Τὰ δὲ πρὸς Πῶρον αὐτὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ὡς ἐπράχθη γέγραφε. φησὶ γάρ, ἐν μέσῳ τῶν στρατοπέδων τοῦ Ὑδάσπου ῥέοντος, ἀντιπρῴρους ἱστάντα τοὺς ἐλέφαντας ἀεὶ τὸν Πῶρον ἐπιτηρεῖν τὴν διάβασιν. αὑτὸν μὲν οὖν καθ’ ἡμέραν ἑκάστην ψόφον ποιεῖν καὶ θόρυβον ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ πολύν, ἐθίζοντα τοὺς βαρβάρους μὴ φοβεῖσθαι· νυκτὸς δὲ χειμερίου καὶ ἀσελήνου λαβόντα τῶν πεζῶν μέρος, ἱππεῖς δὲ τοὺς κρατίστους, καὶ προελθόντα πόρρω τῶν πολεμίων, διαπερᾶσαι πρὸς νῆσον οὐ μεγάλην. ἐνταῦθα δὲ ῥαγδαίου μὲν ἐκχυθέντος ὄμβρου, πρηστήρων δὲ πολλῶν καὶ κεραυνῶν εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον φερομένων, ὅμως ὁρῶν ἀπολλυμένους τινὰς καὶ συμφλεγομένους ὑπὸ τῶν κεραυνῶν, ἀπὸ τῆς νησῖδος ἄρας προσφέρεσθαι ταῖς ἀντιπέρας ὄχθαις. τραχὺν δὲ τὸν Ὑδάσπην ὑπὸ τοῦ χειμῶνος ἐπιόντα καὶ μετέωρον ἔκρηγμα ποιῆσαι μέγα, καὶ πολὺ μέρος ἐκείνῃ φέρεσθαι τοῦ ῥεύματος, αὐτοὺς δὲ δέξασθαι τὸ μέσον οὐ βεβαίως, ἅτε δὴ συνολισθάνον καὶ περιρρηγνύμενον. ἐνταῦθα δ’ εἰπεῖν φασιν αὐτόν· “ὦ

Ἀθηναῖοι, ἆρά γε πιστεύσαιτ’ ἄν, ἡλίκους ὑπομένω κινδύνους ἕνεκα τῆς παρ’ ὑμῖν εὐδοξίας;” ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν Ὀνησίκριτος εἴρηκεν (FGrHist 134 F19)· αὐτὸς δέ φησι τὰς

σχεδίας ἀφέντας αὐτοὺς μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων τὸ ἔκρηγμα διαβαίνειν, ἄχρι μαστῶν βρεχομένους, διαβὰς δὲ τῶν πεζῶν εἴκοσι σταδίους προϊππεῦσαι, λογιζόμενος, εἰ μὲν οἱ πολέμιοι τοῖς ἵπποις προσβάλοιεν, πολὺ κρατήσειν, εἰ δὲ κινοῖεν τὴν φάλαγγα, φθήσεσθαι τοὺς πεζοὺς αὐτῷ προσγενομένους· θάτερον δὲ συμβῆναι. τῶν γὰρ ἱππέων χιλίους καὶ τῶν ἁρμάτων ἑξήκοντα συμπεσόντα τρεψάμενος, τὰ μὲν ἅρματα λαβεῖν ἅπαντα, τῶν δ’ ἱππέων ἀνελεῖν τετρακοσίους. οὕτω δὴ συμφρονήσαντα τὸν Πῶρον,

Letters: A Selection

109

F18. Anonymous recipients The battle against Porus (326) F18: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 60.1–11 As for the military actions against Porus, he himself [Alexander] wrote in his letters how they were done. For he says that, since the river Hydaspes flowed between the camps, Porus always kept the ford under surveillance by placing the elephants in front of it. As for himself, [he says that] every day he produced noise and great tumult in the camp, to accustom the barbarians not to be alarmed by this; then, on a stormy and moonless night, having taken a part of the infantrymen and the best cavalrymen, and advancing far from the enemies, he crossed over to a not large island. There a violent storm broke out, with many bursts of thunder and lightning bolts bearing down on the army, and in spite of seeing some killed and burnt to cinders by the lightning bolts, he set out from the islet to move to the opposite banks. But the Hydaspes, coming on rough and high because of the storm, had formed a great ravine, and a large part of the current darted straight on in that ravine, and they [the Macedonians] stood in the middle of the current without steadiness, inasmuch as it was slippery and breaking all around. Then they say that

he [Alexander] said: “Athenians, would you believe what great dangers I have faced to gain good repute among you?”. Now this is what Onesicritus has said.

But he himself [Alexander] says that, having left the rafts, the Macedonians crossed the ravine with their weapons, getting wet up to their chests, and Alexander, having passed over, rode forward twenty stades ahead of the infantry, calculating that, if the enemy attacked with their cavalry, he would win by a wide margin, and if they moved the phalanx up instead, his infantrymen would join him in time. And one of the two things happened. After he turned to flight a thousand of the horsemen and sixty chariots which attacked him, he captured all the chariots, and killed four hundred of the horsemen. Thus Porus, having

110

Alexander the Great



ὡς αὐτὸς εἴη διαβεβηκὼς Ἀλέξανδρος, ἐπιέναι μετὰ πάσης τῆς δυνάμεως, πλὴν ὅσον ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τοῖς διαβαίνουσι τῶν Μακεδόνων ἀπέλιπε· φοβηθεὶς δὲ τὰ θηρία καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολεμίων, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐνσεῖσαι κατὰ θάτερον 35 κέρας, Κοῖνον δὲ τῷ δεξιῷ προσβαλεῖν κελεῦσαι. Γενο μένης δὲ τροπῆς, ἑκατέρωθεν ἀναχωρεῖν ἀεὶ πρὸς τὰ θηρία καὶ συνειλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐκβιαζομένους, ὅθεν ἤδη τὴν μάχην ἀναμεμειγμένην εἶναι, καὶ μόλις ὀγδόης ὥρας ἀπειπεῖν τοὺς πολεμίους. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ τῆς μάχης 40 ποιητὴς αὐτὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς εἴρηκεν. Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 2 μέσωι τῶι στρατοπέδωι: em. Aldina || 3 ἀντιπόρους (P Sint.) praeferunt Hamilton et Flacelière (-πρώρου L1) | ἱστῶντα C ἱστάντας, sed ς erasa, H || 8 μέρους LH ante ras. | προσελθόντα P || 14 ἀντιπέραν Q || 16 αὐτὸς: em. Sch. (αὐτοὺς δὲ διανήξασθαι Cor.) || 17 συνωλίσθανον P συνολισθαῖνον L2 || 19 πιστεύσαιτε ἂν L2: πιστεύσεται ἂν L1 πιστεύετε ἂν P πιστεύσετε ἂν HAB πιστεύσετε C πιστεύσετε ἄρα γε ἂν M || 25 τῇ ἵππῳ Zie. cl. Arr. 5, 14, 1.2 | προσβάλλοιεν Sch. cl. κινοῖεν || 27 ἑκάτερον Madvig || 32 τῆς om. C | ὅσους Zie. || 33 ἀπέλειπεν L1HM || 34 κατ’ἀριστερὸν Sol. || 35 Κοῖνον Blancardus ad Arr. 5, 17, 1: κοινῆι || 37 ὅθεν ἤδη] ἕωθεν δὲ (vel ἤδη) Sol.

Letters: A Selection

111

understood that Alexander himself had crossed [the river], attacked him with all his forces, except those he had left behind as an obstacle for those of the Macedonians who were crossing. Alexander himself, fearing the animals and the large number of the enemy, attacked the left wing, while he ordered Coenus to attack the right. Having been put to flight on both sides, the defeated Indians continually withdrew to the beasts and crowded around them. From this point onwards, the battle went on in a confused way, and the enemy yielded only with difficulty at the eighth hour. And this is what the very author of the battle says in his letters.

112

Alexander the Great F19. To Olympias The sources of the Nile (326 or beginning of 325)

F19: Arrian, Anabasis 6.1.4–5 1





5



10



καὶ δὴ καὶ πρὸς Ὀλυμπιάδα γράφοντα ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἰνδῶν τῆς γῆς ἄλλα τε γράψαι καὶ ὅτι δοκοίη αὑτῷ ἐξευρηκέναι τοῦ Νείλου τὰς πηγάς, μικροῖς δή τισι καὶ φαύλοις ὑπὲρ τῶν τηλικούτων τεκμαιρόμενον. ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἀτρεκέστερον ἐξήλεγξε τὰ ἀμφὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ Ἰνδῷ, οὕτω δὴ μαθεῖν παρὰ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων τὸν μὲν Ὑδάσπην τῷ Ἀκεσίνῃ, τὸν Ἀκεσίνην δὲ τῷ Ἰνδῷ τό τε ὕδωρ ξυμβάλλοντας καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ξυγχωροῦντας, τὸν Ἰνδὸν δὲ ἐκδιδόντα ἤδη ἐς τὴν μεγάλην θάλασσαν, δίστομον τὸν Ἰνδὸν ὄντα, οὐδέ τι αὐτῷ προσῆκον τῆς γῆς τῆς Αἰγυπτίας· τηνικαῦτα δὲ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τῆς πρὸς τὴν μητέρα τοῦτο ἀμφὶ τῷ Νείλῳ γραφὲν ἀφελεῖν.

Apparatus: 10 τὸν Ἰνδὸν del. Pol. | add. Vulc. | τι] τε dub. Reiske || 12 Reiske et Krüg. (ed.), Wirth 1985 et Geier (ed.), vs. 13 ἔγραφε retinens || 12.13 τοῦτο ἀμφὶ τῷ Νείλῳ ἔγραφε A, (τὸ) adn.: iam Reiske, [του]τὸ ἀμφὶ τῷ Νείλῳ γραφὲν scribi volunt Castiglioni (Stud. It. di Fil. Cl. 1909, 17: 316) et Sisti || 13 γραφὲν Vulc. et Krüg. (ed.), ἔγραφε A

Letters: A Selection

113

F19. To Olympias The sources of the Nile (326 or beginning of 325) F19: Arrian, Anabasis 6.1.4–5 And, moreover, writing to Olympias about the land of the Indians, he wrote both other things and that he thought he had discovered the sources of the Nile, although in such important matters he was judging by certain small and trivial things. But when he investigated more deeply the matters about the river Indus, in this way he learned from the natives that the river Hydaspes pours its waters into the Acesines, that the Acesines joins itself with the Indus and that they lose their names, and that the Indus finally flows into the great sea by two mouths, and has nothing to do with the land of Egypt. And at that time, then, he deleted from the letter to his mother what he had written about the Nile.

Alexander the Great

114

F20. To Hephaestion About Craterus’ wound (326–325) F20: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.5 1





τοῖς δὲ περὶ Ἡφαιστίωνα διὰ πράξεις τινὰς ἀποῦσιν ἔγραψεν, ὅτι παιζόντων αὐτῶν πρὸς ἰχνεύμονα τῷ Περδίκκου δορατίῳ περιπεσὼν Κρατερὸς τοὺς μηροὺς ἐτρώθη.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 4 κρατερῶς P

F21. To the physician Pausanias About hellebore and Craterus (326–325) F21: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.7 1





ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Παυσανίᾳ τῷ ἰατρῷ βουλομένῳ τὸν Κρατερὸν ἐλλεβορίσαι, τὰ μὲν ἀγωνιῶν, τὰ δὲ παραινῶν ὅπως χρήσηται τῇ φαρμακείᾳ.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 2 ἐλεβορίσαι P || 3 χρήσεται Cor. Sint. | φαρμακία L1

Letters: A Selection

115

F20. To Hephaestion About Craterus’ wound (326–325) F20: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.5 To Hephaestion, who was absent on some business, he wrote that Craterus, while they were playing to catch an Egyptian mongoose, he had fallen on Perdiccas’ javelin and injured his thighs.

F21. To the physician Pausanias About hellebore and Craterus (326–325) F21: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.7 He wrote to the doctor Pausanias, who wanted to give Craterus hellebore, partly because he was anxious, and partly to advise him how to administer the drug.

Alexander the Great

116

FF22–23. To Phocion About gifts (324–323) F22: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 39.4 1





καὶ Φωκίωνι μὲν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολήν, ὡς οὐ χρησόμενος αὐτῷ φίλῳ τὸ λοιπόν, εἰ διωθοῖτο τὰς χάριτας.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 3 διωθεῖτο P

F23: Plutarch, Life of Phocion 18.6 ἐπεὶ δ’ Ἀλέξανδρος ἠγανάκτησε καὶ πάλιν ἔγραψε τῷ Φωκίωνι φίλους μὴ νομίζειν τοὺς μηδὲν αὐτοῦ [δεομένους

1

Apparatus: [ΛPQZ] 1 καὶ om. Z || 2 τῷ om. ZC | αὐτοῦ Z: αὐτῶ cet.

F24. To Peucestas About Craterus’ slave (324–323) F24: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 1





καὶ Πευκέσταν ἐπαινῶν ὅτι Νίκωνα Κρατεροῦ δοῦλον συνέλαβε

Letters: A Selection

117

FF22–23. To Phocion About gifts (324–323) F22: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 39.4 And he wrote Phocion a letter, saying that he would not consider him a friend in the future if he did not accept his kindness.

F23: Plutarch, Life of Phocion 18.6 For this reason Alexander became angry and wrote back to Phocion that he did not consider those who asked nothing of him to be his friends.

F24. To Peucestas About Craterus’ slave (324–323) F24: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 He praises Peucestas because he captured Nicon, slave of Craterus.

118

Alexander the Great F25. To Peucestas About the bite of a bear (324–323)

F25: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.4 1



5





Πευκέστᾳ μὲν ἔγραψε μεμφόμενος, ὅτι δηχθεὶς ὑπ’ ἄρκτου τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ἔγραψεν, αὐτῷ δ’οὐκ ἐδήλωσεν. “ἀλλὰ νῦν γε” φησί “γράψον τε πῶς ἔχεις, καὶ μή τινές σε τῶν συγκυνηγετούντων ἐγκατέλιπον, ἵνα δίκην δῶσι”.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 4 τε Anon.: τὸ codd. (sed. τὰ L1), om. M Rei. Sint. θ’ ὅπως Cor.

F26. To the physician Alexippus About Peucestas’ illness (324–323) F26: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.6 1





Πευκέστα δὲ σωθέντος ἔκ τινος ἀσθενείας, ἔγραψε πρὸς Ἀλέξιππον τὸν ἰατρὸν εὐχαριστῶν.

Letters: A Selection

119

F25. To Peucestas About the bite of a bear (324–323) F25: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.4 He wrote to Peucestas reproaching him because, when he was bitten by a bear, although he had written to the others, he had not informed him (Alexander). “But now” he says, “write to me at least about how you are and whether any of those you hunted with abandoned you, so that they may be punished”.

F26. To the physician Alexippus About Peucestas’ illness (324–323) F26: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 41.6 Because Peucestas had recovered from an illness, he wrote to the doctor Alexippus to thank him.

120

Alexander the Great F27. Anonymous recipient About Seleucus’ slave (326–324)

F27: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 1





οἷα γράφει παῖδα Σελεύκου εἰς Κιλικίαν ἀποδεδρακότα κελεύων ἀναζητῆσαι

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 οἵας Ri.; Zie. maluit colon ponere | παῖδες L || 1.2 Σέλευκον Sint. propter hiatum; fort. nomen servi excidit

F28. to Megabyzus About a slave (no date) F28: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 1





καὶ Μεγαβύζῳ περὶ τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καθεζομένου, κελεύων αὐτὸν ἂν δύνηται συλλαβεῖν ἔξω τοῦ ἱεροῦ προκαλεσάμενον, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἱερῷ μὴ προσάπτεσθαι.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 Μεγάβυξος vocatur Dittenberger Syll.3 282,1 et ut vid. Plin. n. h. 35,93; cf. Bremmer (2008: 353–56) || ἱερῷ] scil. Dianae Ephesiae || 3 προκαλεσάμενος: corr. Sch.

Letters: A Selection

121

F27. Anonymous recipient About Seleucus’ slave (326–324) F27: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 He writes, for example, with the order to search for a slave of Seleucus who had fled to Cilicia.

F28. to Megabyzus About a slave (no date) F28: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 42.1 And (he writes) to Megabyzus regarding a slave who had taken refuge as a suppliant in the temple, urging him, if he could, to capture him after calling him out, without laying hands on him in the sacred place.

Alexander the Great

122

FF29–30. To Antipater The change in the relationship with Antipater (324) F29: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 39.11 1





πρὸς δ’ Ἀντίπατρον ἔγραφε κελεύων ἔχειν φύλακας τοῦ σώματος ὡς ἐπιβουλευόμενον.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 ἔγραψε temere Sint.

F30: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 71.8–9 1





καὶ γράψας πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον, ὅπως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγῶσι καὶ τοῖς θεάτροις προεδρίαν ἔχοντες ἐστεφανωμένοι καθέζοιντο. τῶν δὲ τεθνηκότων τοὺς παῖδας ὀρφανοὺς ὄντας ἐμμίσθους ἐποίησεν.

Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 3 καθέζονται L1

Letters: A Selection

123

FF29–30. To Antipater The change in the relationship with Antipater (324) F29: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 39.11 He wrote to Antipater advising him to get bodyguards because people were plotting against him.

F30: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 71.8–9 … and writing to Antipater that in all competitions and theatres they should be given the right to sit in the front row and be garlanded. He made sure that the orphaned children of the fallen should be salaried.

124

Alexander the Great F31. To Hagnon A reproach (no date)

F31: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.3 1





ἐπέπληξε δὲ καὶ Ἅγνωνι νεανικῶς γράψαντι πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅτι Κρωβύλον εὐδοκιμοῦντ’ ἐν Κορίνθῳ βούλεται πριάμενος ἀγαγεῖν πρὸς αὐτόν.

Apparatus: [ΛPQ] 1 ἄγνωνι codd. praeter M | νεανικῶς Sol.: νεανίσκωι || 2 κροβύλον P | νεανίσκον add. Am., post εὐδοκιμοῦντα Kron.

F32. To Olympias The Spoon (no date) F32: Pollux, Onomasticon 6.87 1





καίτοι ἐν Ἀλεξάνδρου πρὸς τὴν μητέρα ἐπιστολῇ μέμνημαι ἐν ἄλλοις σκεύεσι καὶ τὸν μύστρον εὑρών.

Apparatus: 1 καίτοι] καί τοι ἐν Ἀλ. Dindorf, in MS. desunt κ. ἐ. Ἀλ. etc. εὑρών cum mediis. Iung. || 2 μύστρον] μυστιλάριον Dindorf, μυστιλλάριον Iung.

Letters: A Selection

125

F31. To Hagnon A reproach (no date) F31: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.3 He also vehemently rebuked Hagnon, who had written to him that he wanted to buy the young man Crobylus, who was highly popular (for his beauty) in Corinth, and bring the young man to him.

F32. To Olympias The Spoon (no date) F32: Pollux, Onomasticon 6.87 And further, in Alexander’s letter to his mother, I remember among other utensils that I also found the spoon.

126

Alexander the Great F33. To the Satraps A list of kitchen utensils (no date)

F33: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 11.27, 784a–b 1





5



Ἀλεξάνδρου δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν ταῖς Ἐπιστολαῖς ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ σατράπας φέρεταί τις ἐπιστολὴ ἐν ᾗ ταῦτα γέγραπται· “βατιάκαι ἀργυραῖ κατάχρυσοι τρεῖς. κόνδυα ἀργυρᾶ ροϛʹ· τούτων ἐπίχρυσα λγʹ. τισιγίτης ἀργυροῦς εἷς. μύστροι ἀργυροῖ κατάχρυσοι λβʹ. λαγυνοθήκη ἀργυρᾶ μία. οἰνοφόρον βαρβαρικὸν ἀργυροῦν ποικίλον ἕν. ἄλλα ποτήρια παντοδαπὰ μικρὰ κθʹ, [ἄλλα ποτήρια μικρά] ῥυτὰ καὶ βατιάκαι Λυκιουργεῖς ἐπίχρυσοι καὶ θυμιατήρια καὶ τρυβλία”.

Apparatus: 3 βάτια καὶ CE: corr. Mus et Casaubon || 6 λαχανοθήκη CE: corr. K || 6.7 οἰνοφόρον – ποικίλον ἕν fort. explicatio vocabuli τισιγίτης (v. 4.5): suspicatus est K || 8 inclusa del. Wilam. | βατία (βασία C) καὶ CE: corr. K | Λυκιουργοὶ E Λυκουργοὶ C: corr. Schw., cf. 11.72, 486c

Letters: A Selection

127

F33. To the Satraps A list of kitchen utensils (no date) F33: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 11.27, 784a–b Among the letters of king Alexander to the satraps of Asia a letter is transmitted in which these things are written: “3 gilded silver Persian cups; 176 silver jugs, of which 33 are gilded; a silver vase; 32 gilded silver spoons; a silver container for bottles; a silver Persian wine vase, painted with a variety of colors; 29 other small cups of various types, including horn-shaped cups, gilded Persian cups produced in Lycia, censers, and basins”.

128

Alexander the Great [F34]. To Aristotle About the acroatic discourses

[F34a]: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 7.7 1





5



Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀριστοτέλει εὖ πράττειν. οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐποίησας ἐκδοὺς τοὺς ἀκροατικοὺς τῶν λόγων· τίνι γὰρ δὴ διοίσομεν ἡμεῖς τῶν ἄλλων, εἰ καθ’οὓς ἐπαιδεύθημεν λόγους, οὗτοι πάντων ἔσονται κοινοί; ἐγὼ δὲ βουλοίμην ἂν ταῖς περὶ τὰ ἄριστα ἐμπειρίαις ἢ ταῖς δυνάμεσι διαφέρειν. ἔρρωσο.

Apparatus: [ΛPHQ] 2 ἀκροατικοὺς L1 et Gell.: ἀκροαματικοὺς cet., ἀκροαματικὰς, -οὺς tuetur Flacelière, fort. recte (Gärtner) | δὴ om. C Zon. || 3 τῶν ἄλλων διοίσομεν (om. ἡμεῖς) Zon.

[F34b]: Andronicus Rhodius F662 VR. apud Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 20.5.11 1





5



Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀριστοτέλει εὖ πράττειν. Οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐποίησας ἐκδοὺς τοὺς ἀκροατικοὺς τῶν λόγων. τίνι γὰρ δὴ διοίσομεν ἡμεῖς τῶν ἄλλων, εἰ καθ’οὓς ἐπαιδεύθημεν λόγους, οὗτοι πάντων ἔσονται κοινοί; Ἐγὼ δὲ βουλοίμην ἂν ταῖς περὶ τὰ ἄριστα ἐμπειρίαις ἢ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν διαφέρειν. Ἔρρωσο.

Apparatus: 2.3 ἀκροαματικοὺς Plut. || 6 ἐμπιρίας ω

Letters: A Selection

129

[F34]. To Aristotle About the acroatic discourses [F34a]: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 7.7 Alexander sends greetings to Aristotle. You have not acted rightly in publishing the acroatic lectures: indeed, in what will we differ from the rest, if the very same lectures by which we have been educated will be popular among everyone? I would rather stand out because of my knowledge of the best things than because of my strength. Farewell.

[F34b]: Andronicus Rhodius F662 VR. apud Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 20.5.11 Alexander sends greetings to Aristotle. You have not acted rightly in publishing the acroatic lectures: indeed, in what will we differ from others, if the very same lectures by which we have been educated, will be popular among everyone? I would rather stand out because of my knowledge of the best things than because of my strength. Farewell.

COMMENTARY F1. To the Athenians and the Greeks. Spoils after the battle at the Granicus River (334) F1a.2. the victory: After the victory in the battle fought between May and June of 334 on the banks of the Granicus River. As for the year, Diod. 17.17.1 provides the archonship of Ctesicles and the consulship of Gaius Sulpicius and Lucius Papirius as temporal details. As for the month, May/ June, Plutarch, using the Macedonian calendar, writes that the battle took place during the month of Daisios, corresponding to Thargelion in the Attic calendar: cf. Hamilton 1969: 39. Euseb. De Martyribus Palaestinae (recensio brevior) 1.2 and [Hippocrates], Epistula ad Ptolemaeum regem de hominis fabrica 295.10 and 14 think of the month of June. F1a.5. letter-inscription: It is important that Codex M (Monacensis 85, 12th century) reports epistolen (ἐπιστολήν) instead of epigraphen (ἐπιγραφήν), while in the margin of codex P (Palatinus Heidelbergensis 168 + 169, 11th century) as an alternative to epigraphen (ἐπιγραφήν) one finds the reading epistolen (ἐπιστολήν). The translations interpret the passage as if the inscription had been engraved on one of the spoils (see, for example, the Loeb translation by Perrin “upon the rest of the spoils in general he ordered a most ambitious inscription to be wrought”). On the contrary, it is perhaps more likely that Alexander had the dedication engraved on a bronze foil, easy to transport from Asia to Greece. Thus the booty travelled accompanied by an inscription: this suggestion could have perhaps prompted an ancient copyist to correct epigraphen (ἐπιγραφήν) in epistolen (ἐπιστολήν), as if the spoils travelled with a proper covering letter. Indeed, Alexander, when he sent to Greece gifts that came from Asia or the spoils resulting from the conquest of a city, had letters accompany them: for example, after the conquest of Gaza he wrote to his tutor Leonidas, announcing that he had sent him a great deal of incense and myrrh so that he would cease to be stingy with the gods (Plut. Alex. 25; see infra F5), and to his mother Olympias, listing the utensils he had sent to her, including “the spoon”, ton mystron (τὸν μύστρον, Poll. Onom. 6.87; see infra F32). Ath. Deipn. 11.784a (a passage to which E. Bethe already referred in the Teubner critical edition of the Onomasticon of Pollux, Lexicographi Graeci, vol. 9: Pollucis Onomasticon, p. 25, line 16),

132

Commentary

preserves a letter, probably sent to the Satraps of Asia, in which Alexander listed some kitchen items taken as booty (see infra F33). F1a.5. and the Greeks: The inscription celebrates Alexander and the Greeks: Alexander’s army, however, was not solely composed of Greeks, who constituted the cavalry of the allies under the command of Philip (son of Menelaus, most likely a Macedonian: see Berve 1926: II.384 no. 779, and Heckel 2006: 212, s.v. Philip [4]), and there were barely 600 units: Diod. 17.17.4 is the only historian who provides the numbers of the individual departments that made up the army with which Alexander landed in Asia; the other historians provide only the total number: Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F35) reports 40,000 infantrymen and 4,500 cavalrymen; Ptolemy (FGrHist 138 F4) 30,000 infantrymen and 5,000 cavalrymen; Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F4) 30,000 infantrymen and 4,000 cavalrymen, Anaximenes of Lampsacus (FGrHist 72 F29) 43,000 infantrymen and 5,500 cavalrymen; Arr. Anab. 1.11.3, just over 30,000 infantrymen and more than 5,000 cavalrymen; Just. Epit. 11.6.2, 30,000 infantrymen and 4,500 cavalrymen. But there were also Thessalian cavalrymen under the command of Calas (son of Harpalus, probably a cousin with the same name as Alexander’s bestknown treasurer: see Berve 1926: II.188 no. 397, and Heckel 2006: 74–75, s.v. Calas), Thracians under the command of Agathon (son of Tyrimmas, most likely of Macedonian origin: see Berve 1926: II.6–7 no. 8, and Heckel 2006: 7, s.v. Agathon [1]) and, above all, Macedonians, who were the most numerous: seven squadrons of cavalry of the hetairoi; the archers and the Agrianes under the command of Philotas, son of Parmenion; the cavalrymen “armed with the sarissa” (sarissophoroi, σαρισσοφόροι), commanded by Amyntas, son of Arrhabaeus; the Paeonians and the 8th squadron of cavalry, commanded by Socrates; the Hypaspists, under the command of Nicanor, son of Parmenion; and also the phalanxes of Perdiccas, Coenus, Craterus, Amyntas, Philip son of Amyntas, and Meleager. See Arr. Anab. 1.14.1–3. On Philip son of Amyntas, “an obscure individual”, see Bosworth 1980: 1.118. For the number of soldiers who participated in the battle, see Diod. 17.17 and the observations by Hammond 1980: 82–83; for the disposition of the troops, see Nikolitsis 1974: 20–24, 34–35, and 64–65. On Alexander’s Thessalian cavalry, see Strootman 2010–2011: 51–67. Alexander should have ideally listed all the peoples who had participated in the battle, as, for example, in the inscription (ML 1969: 57–60, no. 27) which lists all the peoples who had fought in the Persian wars, beginning with the Spartans, the Athenians and the Corinthians, engraved on the coils

Commentary

133

of the serpentine bronze column seen by Pausanias (σῶον καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ ἔτι ἦν: 10.13.9), surmounted by a golden tripod (Hdt. 9.81; cf. Diod. 11.33.2), probably melted down during the third sacred war: cf. Tires 1945: 1.434, and Asheri 2006: 9.283–86. Instead, Alexander mentioned only the Greeks, who, as we know, had participated in small numbers compared to the Macedonians (a hypothesis that sought to explain the mention of the Greeks alone was put forward by Wilcken 1933: 83, already ninety years ago, according to which Alexander treated the Greek contingents not as allies but rather as hostages intended to secure peace in Greece). As for the absence of the Macedonians in the letter/inscription, one explanation could be that the Macedonians were included, in an innovative way, among the Greeks (cf. Sisti 2001: 1.366). Isocrates, in the year 346, still distinguished Greeks (whom Philip was to benefit) from Macedonians (over whom he was to reign), and from barbarians (whom he had to conquer): Philip 154: τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας εὐεργετεῖν, Μακεδόνων δὲ βασιλεύειν, τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ὡς πλείστων ἄρχειν. And in an official document that recorded the talents returned by the Phocians at the end of the Third Sacred War, all the peoples who were part of the Amphictyonic council were indicated, though not the Macedonians, but only Philip: see Tod 1948: 209–14, no. 172 A, and RO 2003: 338–43, no. 67. In Alexander’s time things had probably changed: Alexander perhaps wanted to suggest that the victory at the Granicus was of all Greeks, regardless of ethne (cf. Lane Fox 1973: 123) and that the Macedonians were now Greeks among Greeks, so there was no reason to explicitly indicate them in the inscription that accompanied the spoils taken from the enemy: it was a small sacrifice of the Macedonians in favour of Hellenic unity or, even, a gift that Alexander intended to offer them, making them feel part of the Greeks. On the other reasons for the absence of the Macedonians, see Monti 2009: 37–39. F1a.6. except the Lacedaemonians: The explicit exclusion of the Spartans, fighters par excellence, from the glory of victory is a striking element. One might think that the expression “except the Lacedaemonians” is due to the fact that they had not attended the congress in Corinth, held in 338/337 to establish the common peace and Philip’s hegemony as strategos autokrator (στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ) of all Greeks (the title is attested by Diodorus at 16.89.3, and, even earlier, in P.Oxy. I.12, col. III, ll. 11–12), when they had entrusted him with the command of the expedition against Persia, a command that after his death, in 336, passed to Alexander. As a result, the Spartans had

134

Commentary

not left for Asia (see, for example, Levi 1977: 220, Sisti 2001: 366, and Gehrke 2002: 36; on the relationship between Sparta and Macedonia see also Landucci 2013: 265–85). To the hypothesis that the Spartans are excluded only for the fact that they had not participated in the congress of Corinth, Hamilton 1969: 42 adds an observation concerning the Greeks: the fact that Alexander dedicated the remains together with the Greeks and not with the Macedonians was a diplomatic gesture aimed at ingratiating himself with the former since we know that only 600 cavalrymen were Greeks, while the bulk of the troops was Macedonian. Lane Fox 1973: 123–24, on the other hand, tries to identify the hidden meaning of Alexander’s gesture: he considers the exclusion of the Spartans as “one of the most brilliantly diplomatic slogans in ancient history” and capable of recalling emotions that had their roots in the Greek history of the last two centuries, because the victory in the war of vengeance had taken place without the contribution of a people who, in the past, had fought valiantly at Thermopylae and contributed to the victory against the barbarians, but who, after liberating the Greeks of Asia, had also abandoned them to the Persians. Will 1983: 56 n. 55, emphasizes another aspect of the issue: by excluding the Spartans and sending spoils in number of 300, like the 300 Spartans who died at Thermopylae, Alexander was intentionally aiming at underlining that the Spartans had given up avenging the deaths of their men in 480. Flower 2000: 110 seems to take up Lane Fox’s idea and identifies the reason for the exclusion of the Spartans as Alexander’s intention to recall the past: in 412 and in 387/386, the Spartans had betrayed the trust placed in them by the Greeks of Asia, abandoning them to the mercy of the Persians, in addition to now refusing to take part in the war of vengeance against the barbarians. Cartledge 2003: 232, like Will, emphasizes the presence of the number 300 and the words “except the Lacedaemonians”, pointing out that it was a calculated insult and a public humiliation of Sparta, who had not participated in the war of revenge against the Persians. In the exclusion of the Spartans, ideological motives could also be identified. Alexander, who has not at this time defeated the Persians definitely, is not yet the new Great King, the heir to the Persian kingship, but still plays the role of avenger of the Greeks against the Persians. For the Greeks and in particular for the Athenians, always ready to celebrate their glorious past, it was a great source of pride to see a leader helping them to return to being “the saviours of Greece”, as they had been for Herodotus (7.139.5), and of emulating the glorious deeds of roughly a

Commentary

135

hundred and fifty years earlier, bringing the war of vengeance to Persian soil: already Isocrates, with the Philip in 346, had intended to assign the task to Alexander’s father. In 380, at the time of the Panegyric, this was still entrusted to the Athenians. While, however, Philip, between 337 and 336, after the congress of Corinth, had sent ahead an exploratory mission of 10,000 men under the command of Parmenion and Attalus to Asia (Diod. 16.91.2), Alexander immediately decided to leave in person, taking with him even an official historian, Callisthenes. Moreover, in the historical and literary tradition, his expedition no longer has economic motivations like those of his father Philip (Momigliano 1934: 165–66), but from the very beginning the expedition is characterized by symbolic gestures. As soon as he arrived in Asia, Alexander went to Troy, offered sacrifices to Athena and poured funeral libations on the graves of the heroes who were buried there: in particular, he anointed the stele of Achilles with oil, ran naked around it with his companions, and garlanded it. When, as he went around the city, they asked him if he wanted to see Paris’ lyre, he replied that he cared very little about it, but that he was looking for another lyre on which Achilles sang the glory and deeds of the valiant men of the past (Plut. Alex. 15.7–9; Diod. 17.17.3–18.1). Arrian adds new elements by means of references to the Trojan War: while mentioning an idea most likely dating back to Alexander’s contemporary historians, he writes that the king was the first, after Protesilaus (Iliad 2.702), to land in Asia under arms; Alexander raised altars to Zeus, protector of the landing, to Athena, and Heracles; at Troy he sacrificed to Athena Ilia and dedicated his full armour in the temple (according to Bosworth 1980: 1.102, the sacrifices to the goddess Athena point out that Alexander’s was above all a crusade to avenge Athens), taking in return the sacred weapons preserved since the Trojan War (Arr. Anab. 1.11.7–8): he thus became a new Achilles who had received divine weapons before going out to battle (Iliad 18.477–481; see Lane Fox 1973: 112–13). In the letter/inscription that celebrated the battle at the Granicus, the call to share the victory with the Greeks, especially with the Athenians, and, on the other hand, the exclusion of the Spartans indicated the wish to establish a link between the experience of the Granicus and the Persian wars. The Spartans, at the time of the Ionian revolt, which was considered by Herodotus to be the precondition of the Persian wars, had refused to help the Ionians, because Asia was a land too far away (Hdt. 5.49.1–51). The first Persian expedition had been conducted by Darius exclusively against Athens and Eretria, in revenge for the only two cities that had sent aid to the

136

Commentary

Ionians: the Athenians had asked the Spartans for help, but they had arrived late and when the battle of Marathon had already ended (Hdt. 6.106.3 and 120). Similarly, the battle of the Granicus is the first fought by Alexander against the Persians, just as the first battle of the Persian wars is Marathon, in which, in fact, the Spartans did not participate. The victory of Marathon is emphasized by the sources, in particular by the Athenians in Herodotus (9.27.5), as an exclusively Athenian victory, although there had been an important contribution from a thousand Plataeans (6.108.6; 111.1; 113.1). Alexander, therefore, had won at the Granicus, just as the Athenians, without the Spartans, had won at Marathon. On this topic, see Monti 2009: 35–53. F1a.6. from the barbarians: The term used by Alexander is a crucial one. The victory at the Granicus is considered an all-Greek victory in the war of revenge against the Persians who are not called by their name but are defined as “barbarians”. Such definition was common from Herodotus up to the time of Isocratean propaganda. Moreover, the idea of a war of vengeance waged against the Persians had already animated the congress convened by Philip in Corinth: the reasons for the impending expedition to Asia, in fact, were traced back to the 5th century and consisted precisely of the offenses committed by Xerxes against the Greek temples (Diod. 16.89.2 is the only testimony regarding the motivation of Philip’s expedition to Asia). F1b.1–3. to Athens ... on the acropolis: Arrian specifies that the inscription was sent to Athens to be put on the acropolis. But unlike Plutarch he does not give the reason for Alexander’s gesture. F1b.2. panoplies: While Plutarch writes of three hundred shields, Arrian reports that the donation was made of panoplies, i.e. the complete suits of armour. F1b.2–3. a votive offering to Athena: Sending 300 panoplies as booty (if Arrian’s tradition is correct) to the sanctuary of Athena Polias takes on an important significance: the goddess had been the protector of the Greeks during the Persian wars (cf. Nenci 1979: 33–35), and the temple of Athena on the acropolis had been the most notable of the sanctuaries destroyed during Xerxes’ expedition of 480 (Hdt. 8.52–55; cf. Bosworth 1980: 1.127, who observes that Alexander “necessarily” had to send the first fruits of vengeance against the Persians to the temple, since it had been the main victim during the war), and in the period after the end of the wars, around the middle of the 5th century, on the occasion of the Great Panathenaia, the

Commentary

137

cities that joined the maritime league had the custom of offering Athena a panoply (see Squillace 1992–1994: 17–18, where he reports some epigraphic testimonies, and Squillace 2004: 154–55). On Alexander’s Persian Wars, see Yates 2019: 214–47. F1b.3. inscription: Arrian uses epigramma (ἐπίγραμμα) whereas Plutarch uses epistolen (ἐπιστολήν) or epigraphen (ἐπιγραφήν). F1. Source for the letter: The letter/inscription celebrating the victory at the Granicus River is handed down by Plutarch and Arrian, later authors, who may have taken the citation from a contemporary historian who was following Alexander in the expedition to Asia. Since not even Pausanias speaks of the inscription or mentions the spoils sent by Alexander, it is reasonable to think that already in the 2nd century AD the spoils were no longer there. Most likely the source of Arrian and Plutarch is Callisthenes: cf. Bosworth 1980: 1.127, who wonders whether Ptolemy and Aristobulus, Arrian’s sources for the information and the text of the inscription, may depend on the work of Callisthenes, but does not make arguments in support of his hypothesis. I believe that Callisthenes may be a good candidate for being the source of F1 since he was the official historian of the expedition to Asia, and his work was pregnant with symbolism and references to the Persian wars, which had convinced the victorious Greeks of their superiority over the barbarians. Moreover, as we have seen in the Introduction, Section 2, pp. 9–10, he was also epistolagraphos (letter-writer) of Alexander. On Callisthenes, see Berve 1926: II.191–99 no. 408, Pearson 1960: 22–49, Pédech 1984: 15–69, and Prandi 1985: 11–111; cf. Meister 1992: 121–24. F1. Discussion of authenticity: To my knowledge, no one discusses the authenticity of the letter, probably due to the fact that Arrian and some of Plutarch’s codices report it as an inscription rather than a letter.

F2. Anonymous recipient. Alexander in Pamphylia vs the proskynesis of the sea (334/3) F2.1–2. But Alexander himself … without mentioning any such wonder: After giving the account of the battle at the Granicus, Plutarch writes that Alexander decided to strengthen his position by securing control of the regions of the coast up to Phoenicia and Cilicia. Plutarch contrasts the account of the historians with the testimony of Alexander who “in the letters”, en tais

138

Commentary

epistolais (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς), does not mention the marvel at all. Indeed, Plutarch explains that Alexander’s rapid crossing of Pamphylia provided many historians with a source of inspiration for fantastic tales, and there were even those who hinted at divine interventions and reported that the sea withdrew before Alexander because of the intervention of a god (17.6). The reference is to Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F31 apud Schol. T Eust. Hom. Iliad 13.29) who writes that the sea curved back towards him and seemed to perform a sort of proskynesis to Alexander. In Callisthenes’ account there is an allusion to a Homeric passage (Iliad 13.26–30) where Poseidon, eager to bring help to the Achaeans, goes to his palace and then crosses the sea, which joyfully opens at his passage. Prandi 1985: 81–82 considers the reference to proskynesis as an addition of the scholiast and not as part of Callisthenes’ fragment: Callisthenes reinterpreted the Homeric passage adapting it to the situation experienced by Alexander, since the army was not crossing a strait, but walking along a coast whipped by the waves, so the sea could not ‘open’ but only rise, leaving the path dry. Pace Prandi, I suspect that the historian did indeed intend to show that the sea of the barbarian land paid homage to Alexander with the act of submission that the Persians performed before the Great King, as a sign of the future conquest of Asia. Moreover, one should not forget that other fragments of Callisthenes have a similar flavour: he wrote, for example, that Alexander, on his way to the oasis of Siwah, got lost in the desert due to a sandstorm and was rescued by a sudden thunderstorm and two ravens showing him the way; that a spring of the oasis began to gush; and that in Memphis the oracle predicted the victory of the king at Arbela, the death of Darius, and the rebellion of Sparta in Greece (FGrHist 124 F14a and F14b). In addition, Callisthenes may be included among the anonymous historians in Plutarch’s account of the burning of Persepolis (Alex. 38.4), who presented the king’s action as aimed at avenging the Persian fires in Greece at the time of the Persian wars, rather than as a fortuitous action resulting from excess drinking. On this, see also Monti 2009: 46–48. F2.2. the so-called ‘Ladder’: A rocky path on the east coast of Lycia, dangerous because often beaten by violent waves. See Ruge 1921: coll. 845–46, and Stark 1958: 115–18. The entry is missing in Grant 1986. Strabo 14.3.9 writes that there is a mountain called Climax (Hamilton 1969: 45 deems Strabo’s statement wrong, whereas Plutarch’s ‘path’ is deemed right) near the sea that laps the shores of Pamphylia and leaves a narrow passage along the coast, walkable in the absence of wind when it is free

Commentary

139

from water, but impassable and flooded if the sea has risen. According to Strabo, Alexander’s crossing has nothing supernatural about it: the king, in fact, trusting in his good luck, set out before the waves receded, and throughout the day the soldiers continued as the water reached to their navel. The testimony of Strabo, who does not accept the explanation of divine intervention, matches Plutarch’s. A different tradition, which ignores Alexander’s letter, and is generally considered reliable, goes back to Arr. Anab. 1.26.1–2: Alexander left Phaselis and sent part of the army through the mountains to Perge in Pamphylia, while he led the rest of the army along the sea through the coastal area where the crossing was possible only with strong winds coming from the north. According to the historian, these winds blew “not without divine will – as Alexander and those close to him thought – and offered a quick and easy transit”. Similarly, Joseph. AJ 3.348 had drawn a parallel between Alexander’s story and the crossing of the Red Sea by the Jews and had also written that the deity wanted the annihilation of the Persian hegemony. Paradoxically Plutarch, considered a biographer prone to gossip, in this case behaves like a scrupulous historian since not only does he not accept sensational tales, but goes further and recalls the letters in which Alexander himself did not mention divine interventions. See contra Hamilton 1969: 45, who argues that it is not possible to say that Plutarch (and Alexander) are in conflict with Arrian since the king did not need to mention the extraordinary event especially while writing to a sceptical Macedonian leader (perhaps Antipater). However, one might infer that Alexander while describing the path he had taken to conquer the coastal areas did not yet consider himself as a god. We are, in fact, in 333, the king will visit the temple of Zeus Ammon in the oasis of Siwah in 332, and, therefore, his divine ancestry has not been proclaimed yet. Cf. Hansen 1880: 284, and Pridik 1893: 102. F2.3. Phaselis: The mention of Phaselis could be read as a symbolic reference to the Persian wars and the expedition of vengeance against the barbarians. Indeed, Phaselis was the city through which the border line between the Persian territories and the autonomous cities of Asia Minor went, at least according to the division of the zones of influence sanctioned in 449 by the peace of Callias: Diod. 12.4.5 (cf. Isoc. Paneg. 118) writes that all Greek cities of Asia Minor had to be autonomous, the satraps were not to approach within three days’ march of the sea, and no Persian warship could sail along the coasts near Phaselis or the Cyanean Rocks; and the Athenians were not to send troops into the territory under the King’s control. Thus, by

140

Commentary

proceeding within Asia Minor, Alexander crosses the border of the Persian Empire (cf. Bosworth 1980: 1.165). On the peace of Callias, see Schrader 1976, Badian 1987: 1–39, and Parmeggiani 2020: 7–23. F2.4. Theodectes: The ancient tradition mentions two men named Theodectes, father and son. It is unclear whose statue Alexander saw in Phaselis. The father, son of Aristander, was a rhetorician and tragedian of the fourth century. The confusion between the two comes from the Suda, θ139, which recalls a Theodectes son of Theodectes who wrote historiographic and ethnographic works, a text for rhetorical instruction in 7 books, and an encomium of “Alexander of Epirus”. Theodectes father of Theodectes is said to have been a student of Plato and Aristotle (Suda θ138; cf. Plut. Alex. 17.9). Weißenberger 2006 (BNP, s.v.) believes that Alexander paid tribute to Theodectes son of Theodectes, since from the text it is clear that Alexander and Theodectes had been Aristotle’s students at the same time. F2. Recipients: Alexander’s version may suggest that one of the letters had been written to Antipater, in his capacity as regent of Macedonia and politician: the king most likely told him about his strategy, his intentions after the battle of the Granicus, and the issues he had encountered along the way. Alexander may have also written to his mother, perhaps to describe the territory and climate of the region, as when he wrote to her from India, being convinced that he had found the sources of the Nile (see infra F19). Cf. Zumetikos 1894: 44, who, taking up a hypothesis by Droysen, writes that the letters had been written to his mother. Less likely as a recipient is Aristotle, since the philosopher was already in contact with Callisthenes, a sort of science correspondent who accompanied Alexander in the expedition as the official historian (see Mangia 2009: 313–41). F2. Source for the letter: It is very likely that the source for the letter is Aristobulus, of whom Strabo preserves a fragment describing the wind and tides of the region (FGrHist 139 F9b): cf. Kaerst 1917: 1.355 n. 4; Tarn 1948a: 373; and Bosworth 1980: 165. This hypothesis is not far-fetched if one considers that the historian participated in the expedition to Asia and is among the people close to Alexander in Arrian’s account of Callisthenes’ death sentence in 327 (Anab. 4.14.3). Aristobulus may also have decided to include the letter in his History of Alexander, which suits his remaining fragments where excursus of a geographical nature appear. F2. Discussion of authenticity: The authenticity of the letter is supported by Hansen 1880: 282–84 who does not give the reasons for his opinion. Kaerst 1892: 611, on the contrary, denies the authenticity and asserts that the letter

Commentary

141

is too short, and not only contrasts with what Arrian writes, but also with the character of Alexander who would surely have expanded the events. One could argue that Alexander does not habitually expand events, as when, e.g., he does not mention a visit of the queen of the Amazons, but rather tends to minimize it; likewise for the injury at Issus (see infra F3 and F13). Pridik 1893: 100–102 considers the letter authentic since the news regarding divine interventions written by the historians follow the letter and, in particular, Alexander’s visit to the oracle of Ammon. Zumetikos 1894: 43–44 considers the letter authentic, criticizes Kaerst’s position, and notes that Alexander would have included exaggerations in the letter if it had been sent to Eastern individuals such as the Persians, or to soldiers, to amaze the one and to raise the morale of the other; the letter, on the other hand, was most likely addressed to his mother or to Antipater, to whom Alexander always writes. Pearson 1954/55: 447, on the contrary, considers the letter an example of a forgery composed to dismantle the statements made by historians: he, however, does not explain his opinion. Hamilton 1961: 12, on the other hand, considers the letter authentic and adds that Alexander could not have expanded the events in a letter addressed to the Macedonian leaders.

F3. To Antipater. Alexander wounded at Issus (333) F3a.1. Alexander, however: The letter concerns the battle that took place in the autumn of 333 at Issus, in northern Syria. Plutarch writes that Alexander himself commanded the right wing of the army and succeeded in putting the Persians to flight, fighting on the front line (ἐν πρώτοις ἀγωνιζόμενος). After giving the general picture of the battle, Plutarch quotes Chares who had written that Alexander had been wounded by a sword (xiphei, ξίφει) to the thigh by Darius himself, since they had engaged in close combat (συμπεσεῖν γὰρ αὐτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας, FGrHist 125 F6 = Plut. Alex. 20.8–9). The letter does not represent a denial of Chares’ account, as Plutarch wants it to be understood, since, of course, the letter was written first (perhaps immediately after the battle) and the historical work of Chares later. F3a.1. Antipater: Son of Iolaus, from Paliura in Macedonia, he was born in 399/8. He was one of Philip’s hetairoi (Plut. Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 179b; Ath. Deipn. 10.435d), and played a political role at the Macedonian court, for example when, together with Parmenion, he probably dealt with the negotiations who brought to the so-called Peace of Philocrates

142

Commentary

between Athens and Macedonia in 346 (Dem. 19.59; Aeschin. 3.72; Dinon 1.28), or when he was sent to Athens in 338, after the battle of Chaeronea, to discuss the peace. In 342, Antipater represented Philip II as theoros at the Pythian games (Dem. Philippic 3.32; cf. Libanius 23.311), and he was also the regent of Macedonia when the king was absent (Isoc. Epistle 4), a role which he kept after Alexander succeeded to the throne (on Antipater, see Berve 1926: II.45–46 no. 93, and Heckel 2006: 35–38, s.v. Antipater [1]; see, especially, Landucci 2021: 97–109). See also supra, Introduction, Section 3, pp. 29–30. F3a.2–3. has not mentioned … who wounded him: Later historians (Diod. 17.34.5; Arr. Anab. 2.12.1; Curt. 3.11.7–12) know the news about Alexander’s injury to the thigh, but none of them mentions Darius. The only one who seems to confirm the piece of information regarding a close combat between Alexander and Darius, and to follow Chares in the version of the battle is Just. Epit. 11.9.9, as he mentions the wounding of both kings: uterque rex vulneratur. Apart from Plutarch, no other historian mentions Alexander’s letter to Antipater. The information about the injury at Issus is considered reliable by modern scholars. Not all scholars, by contrast, give credit to Chares’ account of Alexander being wounded by Darius in person: rather, they consider it an invention of the court historiography which intended to emphasize the role of the young king in the clash with Darius, especially as Chares’ account of the injury does not correspond to the one given by Alexander himself in the letter he writes to Antipater. Indeed, Jacoby (1927, Kommentar II BD: 434) states that the wounding really happened, but Chares’ account according to which it was Darius that injured Alexander forms part of the inventions typical of the courtier. Moreover, those who prefer the tradition contained in the letter to that of Chares adduce as proof the fact that even Cleitarchus did not mention the wound Alexander received from Darius: according to Jacoby (1927, Kommentar II BD: 434) Cleitarchus rejected Chares’ tradition. However, the only fragment of Cleitarchus about the battle of Issus (FGrHist 137 F8) is reported by Cicero (Fam. 2.10.3), who is describing to Caelius, after he had become curule aedile, the victorious battle against the Parthians fought by himself in the area around Mount Amanus near Issus (see Prandi 1996: 15–16). And Cicero seems to simply mention Cleitarchus, as the fragment does not describe the battle accurately, but only gives its result (Ita victoria iusta imperator appellatus apud Issum, quo in loco, saepe ut ex te audivi, Clitarchus tibi [sc. Caelio] narravit Dareum ab Alexandro esse superatum).

Commentary

143

Zumetikos 1894: 42 (cf. Mederer 1936: 18 and 22) hypothesized that the tradition found in Chares according to which it was Darius who wounded Alexander originated from the link between the letter where Alexander writes that he was wounded (without naming who injured him) and the account of the battle of Issus in the official historian Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F35): Alexander turned around to approach Darius and his generals who were beating a retreat (ἐπεὶ συνεγγίζοιεν οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἐξ ὑποστροφῆς ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἀναχωροῦντες […] Δαρεῖον καὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας). He hurried to the enemy line (where Darius was) to engage in battle with him in person. Darius initially wanted the same, but later changed his mind (τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον σπουδάζειν κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, ἵνα κατὰ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν ποιήσηται τὴν μάχην· ὁμοίως δὲ κατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς καὶ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν βούλεσθαι κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, ὕστερον δὲ μετανοῆσαι). Thus, according to Zumetikos, Chares might have taken a step forward and completed the story by asserting that it was Darius who wounded Alexander. Bosworth 1980: 1.215 disagrees and does not believe that Callisthenes inspired this tradition, since he was interested in highlighting Alexander’s heroism, and he would have hardly underlined a similar heroism in Darius; for him Darius’ cowardice would have been ‘a more congenial theme’. One might add that Chares does not seem to have included the missing piece between the two accounts, Alexander’s letter and Callisthenes’ fragment, by adding Darius as the one responsible for the wound, but that Chares’ fragment is a testimony closer to the facts than Callisthenes. Moreover, Chares’ version does not appear as an account intended to flatter the king: indeed, from the Greek it is clear that it was Darius who sought the direct clash with Alexander since the participle in the genitive case agrees with the genitive Dareiou (ἐν Ἰσσῷ ξίφει τὸν μηρόν [sc. ἐτρώθη Ἀλέξανδρος], ὡς Χάρης φησίν, ὑπὸ Δαρείου τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ συνδραμόντος). Thus, the courtier Chares was writing a version of the story which was not entirely favourable to Alexander, whereas the official historian, Callisthenes, underlined Alexander’s desire to seek a direct clash with Darius. F3a.3. dagger: Arrian (Anab. 2.12.1) might have followed Chares for the type of weapon with which Alexander was wounded, as he mentions a sword (xiphei, ξίφει); less precise is Curtius (3.11.7–12) who uses the generic term mucro, ‘sharp weapon’. F3b.1. But Alexander himself: In the pamphlet, the quote of Chares about the fight between Alexander and Darius is more precise, and the battle

144

Commentary

comes under a different light, as I have already noted (see supra F3a.2–3, has not mentioned…who wounded him): indeed, it is highlighted that Darius came to blows with Alexander who was eventually wounded. As for Alexander’s letter, Plutarch is also more precise in the pamphlet than in the biography: in De Alex. fort. aut virt. not only does he stress that the king had written to Antipater “in brief and in all truth”, but – unlike the Life where he paraphrases the letter – he also mentions a passage of the letter. The fact that, in the pamphlet, the quotation is more precise than in the Life could be due to the distance in time between the two works: De Alex. fort. aut virt. belongs to Plutarch’s juvenile period, whereas the biography was written in mature age, after the twelfth pair, Dion and Brutus (Ziegler 1965: 93, 102, and 315). F3b.1. writing in brief: I translate in line with the explanations of the lemma provided by ancient lexicographers. Indeed, Hesychius (α6240) writes that it is synonymous with syntomos (συντόμως); Suda (α3239) explains it with ex anankes (ἐξ ἀνάγκης) and choris prosthekes (χωρὶς προσθήκης), with the idea of saying only the bare minimum, without adding details. I prefer to give the adverb the value of ‘in brief’ rather than ‘simply’ in order to highlight the contrast with the other letter preceded by the mention of Chares, the one about the visit of the queen of the Amazons, where Alexander will write to Antipater ‘everything accurately’ (ἅπαντα […] ἀκριβῶς, see infra F13). F3. Source for the letter: Pridik 1893: 58 suggests that the letter belongs to a collection of Alexander’s letters used by Plutarch (on this, see supra, Introduction, Section 2, pp. 6–10, and Section 7), whereas Zumetikos 1894: 42 hypothesizes that the letter was handed down by Chares. Indeed, it cannot be completely excluded that Chares reported the news of the injury as well as the letter of Alexander. In all probability, the historian, who was contemporary with the king, in reporting Alexander’s letter in addition to his own account, intended to underline the king’s modesty, as he minimized the injury and did not say that it was Darius himself who had wounded him. Thus, with the insertion of the letter in his account, Chares let the image emerge of a simple king, far from boastful. The two versions (that of the letter and that of Chares) may appear different on a first reading. But if one reads the passages more carefully, one might be able to establish a connection between them. It is likely that Chares, as one of the people closest to the king, provided a more accurate and detailed account of the battle of Issus, while Alexander, in his letter to Antipater, wrote superficially

Commentary

145

about the fight, and above all did not give much importance to the question of his injury. The tone of the king’s words seems to be precisely that of someone who does not consider the thing relevant: indeed, he writes “It also happened that I myself was wounded in the thigh by a dagger” (συνέβη δέ μοι […] καὶ αὐτῷ ἐγχειριδίῳ πληγῆναι εἰς τὸν μηρόν), almost wanting to relegate this piece of information in the background, because it was a minor injury. One can even suggest that Chares’ account and the letter referred to two different moments of the battle: a clue for this interpretation might be the different weapon with which Alexander is wounded, as Chares mentions a sword, whereas Alexander talks about a dagger. Lastly, it is interesting that the letter is considered a very reliable historical source, perhaps because it seems to ignore the account of Chares, often considered a frivolous court historian. F3. Discussion of authenticity: The vast majority of modern scholars consider the letter authentic, and Chares’ account false. Pridik 1893: 58 considers it authentic, even though he does not provide any justification for his hypothesis; Zumetikos 1894: 34 and 41 states that, from the piece of information regarding the use of chairein reported by Duris through Chares (see Introduction, Section 3), it is clear that the historian and ‘chamberlain’ had the opportunity to see the letters to Antipater; he also argues that, undoubtedly, a forger would never narrate such an important event like the clash at Issus aplos (ἀπλῶς), and would certainly have inserted the tradition of the wounding by Darius. This is one of the few cases where Hamilton 1969: 52 takes a position on the letters: he believes that there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. The only scholar who does not consider it genuine is Kaerst 1892: 611, who rejects it because it deals with the battle in general and contains no “individuelles Moment” (individual moment) and “nichts Besonderes und Eigenartiges” (nothing special and peculiar). From my point of view, both the letter and Chares’ account could be reliable, and the authenticity of the one would not exclude the authenticity of the other.

F4. To Parmenion. About Damon and Timotheus (end of 333) F4.1. When he learned: The letter can be dated to the end of 333, both because Plutarch inserts it after the description of the battle of Issus and because on this occasion the Macedonians not only seized the luxurious tent

146

Commentary

of Darius but also captured many prisoners and, above all, Persian prisoners, among whom it is plausible were also the wives of the mercenaries. F4.2–3. Damon and Timotheus: Nothing is known about these two soldiers under the command of Parmenion. See Berve 1926: II.115 and 373–74 nos 241 and 750, and Heckel 2006: 102 and 268 (s.vv. Damon and Timotheus [1]). F4.6. to exact vengeance: The verb used to indicate the punishment of the guilty is interesting. In timoresamenon (τιμωρησάμενον) the idea of revenge still prevails. By contrast, in the letter written to Peucestas at a later time, as we shall see, the punishment serves to restore justice (see infra F25). The difference most likely finds its explanation in the date of the letters: with the letter to Parmenion we are, in fact, in 333 when Alexander has not yet definitively defeated Darius, so he is not yet the Great King. He cannot, therefore, be the guarantor of justice as king of Asia (as he will be in the letter to Peucestas) but can only seek revenge and punish those who have acted wrongly. F4.7–10. I was not caught ... about her beauty: Indeed, Alexander, having learned that among the prisoners were Darius’ mother, wife and daughters, allowed them to bury the Persian nobles whom they wished to, to live secluded, and so prevented them from any offence. Alexander believed that victory over desires rather than over enemies befitted a king, and he claimed that, although the beauty of the Persian captives was a torture for the eyes, he had never taken advantage of them: Plut. Alex. 21; cf. Just. Epit. 11.9.12 and 12.7; Diod. 17.36–38; Arr. Anab. 2.12.3–5; Curt. 3.11.24–26. F4. Source for the letter: It is likely that Chares was aware of the letter, since Plutarch, a few paragraphs earlier, reports a fragment of the historian related to the wounding at Issus: Chares, therefore, could have known and described the events following the victory in the same way as he narrated the battle. Cf. Pridik 1893: 73 and 76, who offers no reasons for his hypothesis; Zumetikos 1894: 88 writes that the source for the letter was Chares since his history was characterized by the account of events belonging to private life. F4. Discussion of authenticity: As for the authenticity of the letter, Hansen 1880: 296 (cf. Fränkel 1883: 327) writes that there is no sign which might spark doubts about the letter. Only Kaerst 1892: 616 considers it a forgery suitable for demonstrating Alexander’s restraint and temperance. Pridik 1893: 73–77 leans towards authenticity. Zumetikos 1894: 36–37 considers the letter authentic because a forger could not have included the two Macedonians Damon and Timotheus, who are not otherwise known, in the narrative, nor could he quote Alexander’s words that went against the vulgate (since he said he had never seen Darius’ wife, while historians

Commentary

147

recounted his meeting with her). Hamilton 1961: 13 believes that it is not possible to tell whether the letter is authentic or not.

F5. To Leonidas. The spice-bearing land (332) F5a.1. I have sent: The letter dates to around 332 since Plutarch specifies that Alexander wrote it immediately after the siege of Gaza, the largest city in Syria, which took place between September and October of that year. Gaza was an ancient city of the Philistines, on the coast of southern Palestine. Alexander’s conquest played an important role because the city was located in a fertile region and in a strategic position on the road connecting Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia. It was also one of the most important cities in terms of trade (from Plin. HN 12.64 we know that it was the last city on the incense route that started from the south of Arabia). See Knauf-Leisten 1998: coll. 815–16. On the siege and the course of events, see Romane 1988: 21–30. F5a.1. you: The letter is sent to Leonidas, one of his preceptors. From Plut. Alex. 5.7, we know that Alexander had many tutors and that Leonidas, a relative of Olympias, was the most important one. See Berve 1926: II.235–36 no. 469, and Heckel 2006: 146–47, s.v. Leonidas [1]. F5a.2. some talents of incense and cassia: Alexander sent most of the booty from Gaza to his mother, his sister Cleopatra, and close friends. Cassia is an aromatic herb of the Leguminose family, whose sweet fruits are used in medicine as laxatives. See Cortesi 1949: 330–31. Since a talent equals about 60 minae and the mina, in turn, has an average value of 500 grams, one can infer that Alexander sent about 3 tons of incense and cassia, if we agree with the integration based on Alex. 25.6. See Hitzl 2000: col. 208, and Id. 2001: coll. 1230–31. In Alex. 25.6 (see also F5b), Plutarch hands down a different quantity, and the cassia disappears: the gift consists of 500 talents of incense and 100 of myrrh, therefore about 15 tons of incense and 3 tons of myrrh. The quotation of the letter in the pamphlet seems to be more precise, more complete and, most likely, more truthful: Alexander himself concludes the letter with a joke that recalls the rebuke made by Leonidas some years earlier. Most likely due to a lapsus, Plutarch, in the Life of Alexander, replaced the cassia, probably not very well known, with the better-known myrrh. Even in the case of the letter regarding Alexander’s wounding at Issus, Plutarch is more precise in the De Alexandri Magni fortuna aut virtute (F3b) than in the Life of Alexander (F3a).

148

Commentary

F5a.2–3. no longer … stingy towards the gods: The joke was a belated response to an episode which occurred when Alexander was still a boy. During a sacrifice, Alexander took a great heap of incense with both hands, poured it on the fire, whereupon Leonidas rebuked him, saying that he could burn such a great amount of incense only when he had conquered the land that produced it, but until then he should be more moderate (Plut. Alex. 25.7; see also F5c). F5a.3. land that produces aromatic herbs: The definition of the region given by Alexander was apt since Arabia was known for the production of aromatic herbs: in particular we know from Theophr. Hist. pl. 4.4.14 and 9.7.2 that Arabia, Syria (where Gaza was located), and India were the lands that produced incense, myrrh, cassia, and other aromatic herbs of the same type (cf. Diod. 2.49.3 and 3.46.2; Arr. Anab. 7.20.2; Heliod. Aeth. 10.26.1; Oribasius, Collectiones Medicae 11.10.7). The testimony of Hdt. 3.107.1 and 110–113 is also interesting, where we read that Arabia is the only land which produces frankincense, myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, and labdanum, and that Arabia “gives off a scent as sweet as if divine”. F5a.3–4: I am now the lord: The intention of emphasizing the fact that he was “the lord of the land that produces aromatic herbs” and, therefore, that he had the freedom to consume them in abundance might also lead one to reflect on the relationship that Alexander was establishing with the Persian kingship: the historian Dinon of Colophon, in an anecdote about the figs of Attica (FGrHist 690 F12a), records that the Persian kings ate nothing that did not come from their land. Plutarch also knows the anecdote of the figs (Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 173c) and points out that Xerxes had stated that he would not eat the figs of Attica that had been brought to him and would only do so when he had conquered the land that produced them. In addition, evidence of Dinon’s testimony could be found in Hdt. 1.193, who points out that Persians did not grow olive trees and did not use olive oil, but sesame oil (on this subject, cf. Cagnazzi 2010: 543–49). According to Ael. VH 3.38, figs and olive trees were typical of Athens, and the Athenians were considered the inventors of figs and olive trees (ἐν Ἀθήναις εὑρεθῆναι λέγουσι πρῶτον τὴν ἐλαίαν καὶ τὴν συκῆν). Alexander’s statement, therefore, seems to go in a particular direction if placed in a Persian perspective or, rather, in a perspective of Persia as imagined by the Greeks: in stating that he could now use in abundance what was produced by the land he had conquered, Alexander behaved in the same way as the Persian Great Kings, in particular Xerxes. Cf. also Müller 2021: 109–11, who highlights the familiarity of the Argeads with the Achaemenid court and traditions. See also supra, Introduction, p. 4 with n. 13.

Commentary

149

F5c.4. ship laden with incense: Pliny mentions neither cassia nor myrrh. He summarizes and generalizes the contents of the letter, speaks of Arabia in general and of a ship not full of incense, but loaded: the adjective he uses, in fact, is not plenus but onustus formed from the root of the substantive onus indicating the cargo of a ship or any other object (see Ernout-Meillet 1959: 462, s.v. onus). F5c.5. urged him: Pliny does not specify that Alexander sent a letter, but it is anyway clear from the context. F5. Source for the letter: Plin. HN 1.12c, when listing the sources used for Book 12, recalls various historians contemporary with Alexander, among whom are Callisthenes, Duris of Samos, Nearchus, and Chares, the last of whom seems to be once again the most likely source for the letter, not only because he was the closest author to the king, but mainly because one of his fragments, FGrHist 125 F7, deals with the siege of Tyre (Chares narrates an event which occurred in August 332, just before the siege of Gaza) and the gift sent to Leonidas. Cf. Fränkel 1883: 298; 300. Pridik 1893: 92 believes that Plutarch read the letter in Duris who, in turn, had read it in Chares; Zumetikos 1894: 35 follows Fränkel; none of the scholars, however, explains their reasoning. F5. Discussion of authenticity: As for the authenticity of the letter, Onken 1875: 282, Hansen 1880: 297, and Pridik 1893: 92 confine themselves to having no doubts about its genuineness. Hamilton 1961: 13, on the other hand, considers it impossible to determine whether the letter is spurious or not. I believe that the letter might be authentic because it contains a detail, the mention of the cassia, which is unlikely to have been invented, since the most well-known aromatic substance was myrrh and was located precisely in the territories just conquered by Alexander.

F6. To Olympias. Siwah (332/1) F6. Siwah: After defeating Darius III at Issus in 333, Alexander decided not to chase the Great King who fled to the Euphrates: see Arr. Anab. 2.13.1 and Curt. 4.1.3; cf. Diod. 17.37.1 (towards the upper satrapies) and Just. Epit. 11.12.1 (in Babylon). Instead, he opted to continue south, to Egypt, where he planned to cross the desert to visit the oracle of the temple of Zeus Ammon at the oasis of Siwah. In Diod. 17.49.2 we read: “After fixing the affairs in Egypt, Alexander proceeded to the temple of Ammon, because

150

Commentary

he wanted to ask for responses from the god” (καταστήσας δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον προῆλθεν εἰς Ἄμμωνος, βουλόμενος χρήσασθαι τῷ θεῷ); cf. Arr. Anab. 3.3.1; Just. Epit. 11.11.1–2; Curt. 4.7.5. On the motivations for this trip, ancient testimonies are numerous: Just. Epit. (11.11.9), Diodorus (17.51.2–3), Plutarch (Alex. 27.5–7), and Curtius (4.7.27) agree that the young king intended to question the god to know whether he had punished all of his father’s assassins and whether he would conquer the Persian Empire. Just. Epit. 11.11.6 even claims that Alexander, eager to obtain recognition of a divine origin, had sent his envoys to bribe the priests; and Arr. Anab. 3.3.2, writes that the young king went to Siwah to get answers about his origin or to be able to say that he had received answers (on the discussion about the sources, see Mederer 1936: 37–68, Jouguet 1943/1944: 91–107, Gitti’s 1951 monograph, Kraft 1971: 48–59, and Langer 1981: 109–27). On the strong relationship between Siwah and the Macedonian court (through the link with the Epirote shrine of Dodona), see Caneva 2011: 198–205. For Alexander it was probably necessary to have a reliable position by securing control of the coasts of Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt, before continuing the march to the heart of the Persian Empire: see Droysen 1940: 178–79, who has been followed by many scholars including Beloch 1922, III.1: 641, Kaerst 1927: I.379–82, Tarn 1927: 373–79, Hammond 1981: 111; 121–30, and Badian 1985: 432. An isolated voice is Bloedow 2004: 99, who assigns a single purpose to the whole Egyptian mission, and not only to the trip to Siwah: namely, to visit the oracle of Ammon and question it about his paternity; cf. Langer 1981: 109–27, Collins 2014: 62–77, and Trampedach 2020: 55. See also Bowden 2014: 43–53, who discusses the procedure for the request of an oracle at Siwah, Ogden 2014: 9–14, and Zahrnt 2016: 303–24. On the evolution of the tradition on Siwah starting from Alexander, passing through the Diadochi, up to the Roman era, see Howe 2013: 57–70. However, it should be emphasized that Alexander could not fail to be aware of the enormous importance and the strong international value that the shrine held, since other Greeks had gone there before him. According to Pausanias, the Spartans were the first to interrogate the oracle in Libya (3.18.3 and 21.8). Plutarch reports that Cimon, in 451/450, at the time of the siege of Cyprus, had gone to Siwah to obtain answers (Cim. 18) and that later there had been a consultation of the oracle regarding the expedition to Sicily of the year 415 (Nic. 13.1–2). Finally, it is no coincidence that Aristophanes put on the same level the oracle of Ammon in Siwah, that of Zeus in Dodona, and that of Apollo in Delphi (Av. 716).

Commentary

151

The reason for all these consultations was, therefore, the political experience of the priests of the sanctuary: they, it seems, were so powerful as to condition political decisions and even the accession to the throne of the Egyptian pharaoh. In this regard it is interesting to add that Pl. Pol. 290d had written that in Egypt it was not possible to govern without the art of priests and if, by chance, a pharaoh had come to reign with the support of another class, he had to win the favour of the priestly caste. This influence would have led Cambyses to undertake the mission against the Ammonians (Hdt. 3.17.1), which was intended to limit the political and economic power of the shrine: see Briant 1996: 915. On the economic and geopolitical importance of Cambyses’ expedition, see Müller 2016: 223–46. Very few oracles pronounced in this shrine survive, but it is equally possible to understand the authority and modus operandi of the priests through a comparison with the methods adopted by the priests of the only other temple dedicated to Ammon in Egypt, that of Thebes, which, among other things, had founded its ‘twin’ in Siwah (see Curnow 2004: 33). In the 15th century, the priests of Ammon organized a kind of coup d’état, favouring the accession to the throne of an illegitimate son of Thutmose II, who served in the temple of Ammon in Thebes. Indeed, they resorted to a ruse: during a procession in honour of the god, the bearers of the last row of the ship on which was the divine statue, came to an agreement to shrug their shoulders in such a way as to simulate a gesture of assent by the statue of the god towards the one who would become Thutmose III. The priests preferred a ruler who belonged to their community: their power was enormous, and they possessed vast tracts of land: they were a ‘state in the state’ (see Vandenberg 1982: 65–66). Hatshepsut, a few years later, also ascended the throne with a similar ploy. Two hundred years later, Ramses II used the clergy to legitimize his kingdom: he had recently become pharaoh and had to face the problem of the appointment of the new high priest. Not wanting to alienate the clergy, he very cunningly thought to make the priests decide, proactively invoking the consent of the god Ammon. During the procession, Ramses pronounced the names of the candidates for the office, waiting for a nod from the statue of Ammon which chose Nebwenenef. See also Curnow 2004: 36–37. On the importance of the oracle of Siwah before and after Alexander’s visit, see Caneva 2011: 193–219. On the presence of Ptolemaic propaganda in the tradition of Alexander’s visit to Ammon, see Pownall 2021: 33–53. F6.1. But Alexander himself: Once again, Plutarch mentions a letter by Alexander that contrasts with what is narrated by most historians (hoi pleistoi,

152

Commentary

οἱ πλεῖστοι), a tradition which he does not seem to credit. Plutarch reports the testimony of Callisthenes, the official historian, who, as if to point out that the journey to Siwah was divinely inspired, describes the supernatural interventions that accompanied the difficult march through the desert: the rains mitigated the heat, and the ravens pointed the way to the army. He also writes that the priest said openly to Alexander at the temple that he was the son of Zeus: FGrHist 124 F14a (= Strabo 17.1.43); F14b (Plut. Alex. 27.4). On Callisthenes’ role as official historian at Siwah, see Pownall 2014: 56–68. On Callisthenes and Alexander’s sonship, see Collins 2012b: 1–14. Plutarch, who does not cite his source, reports that Alexander, who had asked if his father’s assassins had been avenged, was invited to rephrase the question because his father was not mortal (Alex. 27.5–6). Nevertheless, according to another tradition known to him, Plutarch (Alex. 27.9) explains that the response obtained by the oracle was, in fact, affected by a mistake in the pronunciation of the priest, a stranger who, intending to greet Alexander with the affectionate nickname of ‘child’, o paidion (ὦ παιδίον), because of Alexander’s young age, said involuntarily o paidios (ὦ παιδίος), which the soothsayers rushed to understand as o pai Dios (ὦ παῖ Διός), “O son of Zeus”, and, consequently, as a recognition of his divine parentage. Alexander and Zeus Ammon: A confirmation to the hypothesis that Alexander’s anxiety was not to obtain a divine investiture comes from Plutarch (Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 180d), where it is clear that Alexander did not consider himself a god. When the prophet of Ammon greeted him as the son of Zeus, he replied “It is not at all surprising, because Zeus is by nature the father of all and makes his children the best”: the episode is also mentioned in Alex. 27.11, where, however, it is associated with Alexander’s meeting with the philosopher Psammon (cf. Andreotti 1956: 289, who considers Psammon only a variant of Ammon). Alexander’s response completely ignored the fact that, having been declared Pharaoh at Memphis, he was inevitably the son of Ammon, since the religious investiture was almost automatic. Indeed, the Egyptian sovereign was the representative of the god on earth, was recognized as a living god and hailed as Horus, divine son of the sun god, Ra, for the inhabitants of Lower Egypt, and the creator god of the universe, Amun, for the inhabitants of Upper Egypt (see Tarn 1948a: 347–48; 350, Lane Fox 1973: 203–204, Levi 1977: 304–308, and Anson 2021: 21–22; contra Fredricksmeyer 2003: 271–74). Stoneman 2007: 522 rightly emphasizes that his designation as “son of Ammon” made sense only in an Egyptian context. Grimm 1978: 105 and Figure 88, asserts

Commentary

153

that the ram horns of Ammon were present on the Pharaonic crown as early as the eighteenth dynasty. Burstein 1991: 139–45, on the other hand, does not believe that there was an official coronation of Alexander at Memphis, since none of the historical sources (Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Justin and Plutarch) report the event: although Alexander had assumed the title of pharaoh, he had not been crowned as such, but this indicated that he had been accepted by the priests as king. Burstein argues that the title given by the priests to Alexander was fictitious and aimed only at having a stable government in Egypt, the priests having their reservations about the new Macedonian monarch. Further on the alleged coronation, Bowden 2014: 40–43 and Ogden 2014: 3–4, who summarizes the positions in favour of and against this hypothesis (page 3 n. 12). Schäfer 2014: 71–76 claims that Alexander was de facto legitimized as pharaoh after being declared the son of Amun: the Egyptian recognition was underlined by the fact that Alexander initiated a restoration program and the construction of a new temple. To this we can add that, at the beginning of the Indian campaign, in 327/326, when Alexander was wounded by an Indian arrow in the land of the Assacenians, a people of India (Stephanus of Byzantium, epitome of the Ethnica, s.v.; see also Arr. Ind. 1.8 and Strabo 15.1.27), he responded to his flatterers (who addressed him as a god and among whom there was the Athenian pancratiast Dioxippus: Aristobulus, FGrHist 139 F47 = Ath. Deipn. 6.251a) by adapting a Homeric verse (Iliad 5.340): “This is blood, as you can see, and not ichor that flows through the veins of the blessed immortals”: Plut. De Alex. fort. aut virt. 341b; cf. Alex. 28.3; Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 180e. Arr. Anab. 4.26.4, who does not report the episode of Dioxippus, also deals with the wounding in the land of the Assacenians. Regarding the wound in India, Curt. 8.10.28 writes that Alexander said that he still felt the sufferings of a sick body, even though he was called the son of Jupiter; cf. Sen. Ep. 59.12, who makes Alexander say: omnes iurant esse me Iovis filium, sed vulnus hoc hominem esse me clamat. F6.1–2. in a letter to his mother: This is the first letter, among those which have come down to us, written to his mother Olympias. In the tradition regarding the revelation of the divine filiation two letters are inserted: they are almost certainly forgeries and show an Alexander convinced and proud of his divine origin. The first, sent to Olympias, is reported by Gell. NA 13.4, who cites a fragment of the Logistorici by Varro: in the incipit the king calls himself Rex Alexander Iovis Hammonis filius. The second, sent to the Greeks, is mentioned by Ael. VH 2.19: Alexander, after defeating Darius

154

Commentary

and taking power in Persia, “thinking greatly of himself” (μέγα ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ φρονῶν), wrote to the Greeks to issue a decree to declare him a god. F6.2–3. some secret prophecies: Modern scholars’ opinions about the meeting with the priest and the oracle given are divided. Wilcken 1933: 133 speculates that Alexander asked for answers regarding the conquest of Asia; Tarn 1948a: 354, on the contrary, argues that the responses Alexander received were explanations about his two fathers; Fredricksmeyer 2003: 274 takes up Tarn’s thesis and explains that Alexander considered himself at the same time the son of Philip and the son of Zeus: the priest confirmed and explained the matter in order to make it clear to the king. To understand what the secret answers were, it seems appropriate to consider Alexander’s behaviour after his visit to Siwah. In this regard, Plutarch provides some very interesting clues. Alexander appears as having made a very clever use of the meeting with the priest. After the account of the visit to Siwah, in fact, Plutarch (Alex. 28.6) reports that Alexander adopted a different attitude towards the Greeks and the Eastern peoples: while with the former he observed more moderate conduct, with the Eastern peoples he presented himself as if he were indeed a god. Plutarch concludes by noting that Alexander did not believe nor did he boast of being born from a god, but rather used the episode of Siwah to keep the Persians subdued. One could, therefore, speculate that after the visit to Siwah Alexander developed the idea of recalling to his advantage the Egyptian belief that conceived of the pharaoh as divine progeny and, more generally, the Eastern belief that conceived of the king as a privileged intermediary between the people and god. Darius, in fact, in the Behistun inscription, frequently emphasized and recalled the concept of having received his kingdom from the god Ahura Mazda. Iranists, who cite the Persian royal inscriptions, agree with this interpretation of the role of the Great King in relation to divinity: see, for example, Ghirshman 1972: 116–24, Cook 1983: 132–57, Wiesehöfer 1994: 55, Briant 1996: 253, Asheri 2006: 75–97, and Brosius 2006: 32–37; 63–70. See also Garrison 2011: 15–104. In the testimony of Curt. 8.5.11, on the other hand, the Persian kings become gods (reges suos inter deos colere). In the case of Egypt, however, the Persian rulers assumed the title of Pharaoh and were assimilated to the gods as a mark of respect for the beliefs of the Egyptian people (see Brosius 2006: 64). According to Braccesi 1978: 68–69, the visit to Siwah had a political value only for the Greeks, since Alexander, proclaiming himself the son of a god, was no longer bound by the koine eirene stipulated in Corinth as “son of Philip”. Levi 1984: 55, on the contrary, argues

Commentary

155

that Alexander, after he had himself proclaimed Pharaoh, continued the policy of his father Philip, who “had found a formula of addition of monarchical powers”, adding to the Macedonian basileia, the Thessalian tegia and the hegemonia of the League of Corinth: to these Alexander added the titles of King of Asia, Pharaoh, King of Babylon and the four parts of the world, on the model of the Achaemenid rulers. In light of these observations, one could hypothesize that, in order to act in this way, Alexander had certainly received shrewd advice about the management of Eastern politics from experts such as the Egyptian priests. No doubt they also knew the state system and the way in which Persian kings governed, since Egypt had suffered Persian domination and, most likely, there had been Egyptian priests in the service of the Persian kings, as evidenced by the presence, at the court of Cambyses and then of Darius, of Udjahorresnet, priest of the city of Sais: see Grimal 1990: 468–71, and Briant 1996: 68–70; 92–93; 361; 489–90; 498–99. See also Colburn 2020: 59–74. Interestingly, Udjahorresnet, so he himself claims, created the Egyptian royal titulary for Cambyses by associating the Great King with Ra: Ladynin 2020: 88–99. The secret answers Alexander mentioned in his letter to his mother could, therefore, reasonably relate to precise advice on how to firmly govern, respecting the traditions of the vast and heterogeneous empire he wanted to conquer, rather than the revelation of a divine origin. A confirmation of this might be the way in which Alexander dealt with his subsequent entry into Babylon, as also recorded in a Babylonian Astronomical Diary (Van der Spek 2003: 297–99), where Alexander is described as negotiating not just with the city’s authorities but also with the temple and its community, knowing exactly what to do in this situation. On this, see Jursa 2020: 169–70. One can observe a similar process in India, where Alexander will be identified with the universal ruler, chakravartin, as is emphasized by Grossato 2008: 275–312. F6.3–4. he would reveal to her alone on his return: The revelations were so secret that they could not be revealed even by letter. Since at the beginning of the Life (Alex. 3.3) Plutarch had cited the testimony of Eratosthenes that the king’s own mother, in greeting her son on his way to Asia, had revealed the secret of his origin (FGrHist 241 F28), one can immediately observe that the letter, most likely, would not have had Olympias as recipient if indeed the revelation of the response regarding the lineage of Alexander from Zeus had already occurred at the departure. F6. Source for the letter: The source for this letter could be Aristobulus,

156

Commentary

since he was interested in geographical descriptions, and so he would not neglect to outline the landscape of Siwah and complete the story with the visit to the temple of Zeus Ammon and with the letter written to Olympias. An even more likely source might be Chares since he was probably with Alexander when he wrote. In addition, a fragment of his, handed down by Plin. HN 37.33 (FGrHist 125 F8), had, perhaps, the oasis of Siwah as the main subject: the historian speaks of “an island of Ammon”, in Ethiopia, where there were the temple, the oracle of the god, and the source of amber. F6. Discussion of authenticity: Kaerst 1892: 612 considers the letter a forgery and speculates that it is the first version on which later writers drew, i.e. those who handed down the letters where Alexander declared himself the son of Ammon, and placed the emphasis on the relationship of Olympias with the god. His assessment is hard to understand: it is difficult to explain what the connection might be between the letter in Plutarch and the subsequent falsehoods. Likewise, one might also think that forgers drew on the letter of Plutarch, which was nevertheless authentic, and invented a completely new one. In the wake of Kaerst, whom he also quotes, Jacoby 1927, Kommentar II BD: 421, speaks of the letter as news which one should much doubt. Lane Fox 1973: 214 writes that it may be a forgery, but he does not explain why he thinks this. Hansen 1880: 286–88 does not doubt its authenticity and observes that, on the contrary, a forger would have displayed his rhetorical skills. Pridik 1893: 87–88 considers it authentic both because it matches what Arrian says, that Alexander did not reveal to anyone the oracle’s responses, and because a forger certainly would not have omitted the answers that subsequently spread about this visit; in that case, Plutarch would have reported the letter in full without neglecting the answers. Zumetikos 1894: 44–45 does not consider the letter as the work of a forger because there are no arguments that could interest authors of that sort. Tarn 1948a: 348 n. 2 considers the letter authentic and wonders what reason a forger would have had to write what appears in the letter. Hamilton 1961: 13 echoes Pridik’s motivations and writes that the letter is authentic because it does not deviate from what Arrian writes. I believe that the letter is authentic precisely because it maintains total secrecy, while a forger would surely have embroidered the secret answers.

Commentary

157

FF7–8. Replies to Darius (332–331) FF7a–8a. He wrote to Darius: Immediately after Alexander’s victory at Issus and the Great King’s flight, sometime between 333 and 331, Darius wrote to Alexander making him an offer of peace. In Plutarch’s account, the chronology is not well defined. According to Arrian, a few months after the first peace offer Alexander started the siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre which ended in August 332: the city had resisted for seven months protected by its ‘insular’ position. Alexander, in fact, had built an embankment with the purpose of cutting the strait that separated Tyre from the coast (see Aristobulus, FGrHist 139 F12; Diod. 17.40.2–46; Arr. Anab. 2.18–24; Plut. Alex. 24.5–25.3; Curt. 4.2–4; on Alexander’s conquest of Tyre, see Romane 1987: 79–90, Abramenko 1992: 166–78, and Bloedow 1998: 255–93). Plutarch says that the Great King offered him 10,000 talents as ransom for Persian prisoners, all the territory between the coast of Asia Minor and the Euphrates, one of his daughters as wife, and a treaty of alliance and help. Alexander rejected the offer, writing to Darius that if he came to him, he would obtain a friendly welcome, but if, on the contrary, he did not come, Alexander would march against him. From the letter one might infer that the Persian king, given Alexander’s successes, preferred to attempt an agreement so as to preserve the most important regions of his empire, while offering Alexander territories that were difficult to govern, being far from the headquarters of power, and having badly endured Persian rule. Alexander’s answer is clear: he was in a position to refuse a peace agreement, since he had already conquered most of the regions offered by the Great King, who was on the run. The brevity of the letter reported by Plutarch seems to confirm the now famous reflection that Plutarch makes at the beginning of the Life of Alexander, when he points out that he is interested in details different from those of a political and military historian, because he does not write histories but lives. Apart from Plutarch, who knows two letters, namely Darius’ offer of peace and Alexander’s reply (Alex. 29.7–9), the other authors who hand down the epistolary and diplomatic exchange between Alexander and Darius are: Diodorus (17.39.1 and 54.1–2) and Arrian (Anab. 2.14.1–9 and 25.1–3), both of whom are aware of four letters, with two offers from Darius and the related answers of Alexander; and Just. Epit. (11.12.1–4 and 9–16) and Curtius (4.1.7–14; 5.1–9 and 11.1–22), both of whom mention a triple

158

Commentary

exchange of letters. As I have underlined in the Preface, this volume focuses only on the letters contained in Plutarch and Arrian, who wrote monographic works on Alexander which, nevertheless, differed from each other in both style and aims. Thus, it might be interesting to note the differences in the versions of the letters. Diodorus, on the other hand, reports only the content of the letters, while the tradition in Justin and Curtius appears as a tradition already elaborated with multiple letters, a tradition that will be further expanded in the Romance. On the exchange of letters between Alexander and Darius, see Squillace 2006: 355–65. On the exchange in the Romance, see Whitmarsh 2013: 86–100. Content of the other diplomatic exchanges: Diodorus (17.39.1 and 54.1–2) writes that Darius, who arrived in Babylon after the Battle of Issus, wrote to Alexander asking him to behave with humanity, and offering him 20,000 silver talents for the release of the prisoners and all the territory west of the Halys River. Having received a rejection from Alexander, he wrote again shortly before the battle of Gaugamela, to thank him for treating his mother and the other prisoners well, to offer him the region west of the Euphrates, 30,000 silver talents and one of his daughters. Alexander refused the offers and told friends that the earth could not maintain its harmony if two kings reigned, just as the universe could not preserve its order if there were two suns (on this statement, see Jamzadeh 2012: 49, who sees the awareness of an Iranian cultural context in the mention of the sun). Just. Epit. (11.12.1–4 and 9–16) reports that Darius, after fleeing to Babylon, wrote to Alexander to allow him to redeem his captives and offered him a large sum of money; Alexander, however, demanded not money but the whole kingdom as ransom. After some time, Darius wrote back to Alexander offering him a part of the kingdom and one of his daughters in marriage, but Alexander replied that he was being offered things already in his possession, and he ordered Darius to come to him in supplication. Shortly before the battle of Gaugamela, the Great King wrote once again to Alexander thanking him for treating his family well and offered him the kingdom up to the Euphrates, his second daughter as wife and 30,000 talents as ransom for the other prisoners. As in Diodorus, Alexander responded once again by rejecting offers of peace, since the land could not accommodate two sovereigns, just as the world was not ruled by two suns. Curtius (4.1.7–14; 5.1–9 and 11.1–22) writes that Darius sent a first letter to Alexander demanding the return of his mother, wife, and daughters in exchange for all the money that could be contained in Macedonia; he ordered him to retire to the kingdom inherited from his

Commentary

159

father. Alexander rejected the offers and accused Darius and his ancestors: the Darius from whom he had taken his name, had devastated Greece and the Greek colonies of Asia Minor; Xerxes then, with uncivilised barbarian troops, put Greece under siege and, after losing at Salamis, left Mardonius to plunder all the cities of Greece; Philip, moreover, had been murdered by hitmen paid by the Great King himself. Darius, however, wrote a second time to Alexander offering his daughter Statira as wife and the region between the Hellespont and the river Halys; he would have to accept his offerings because the war he was waging was difficult and long, given the vastness of the empire. Alexander refused because what the Great King offered him was already his, and Darius made one last offer to Alexander: the marriage with his daughter and, as dowry, he proposed the territory between the Hellespont and the Euphrates; he offered his son Ochus as guarantee, former prisoner of Alexander, and a ransom of 30,000 talents of gold for his mother and two unmarried daughters. Alexander refused, saying that he was already beyond the Euphrates, so those lands were already in his possession. F7b.1. Regarding these words: In the first request for peace, Darius asked Alexander to release his mother, wife, and children, to become friends and make an alliance with him. F7b.1. Alexander wrote a letter in response: The tradition of the exchange between Alexander and Darius in Arrian differs from the one in Plutarch mainly because it does not report a single diplomatic exchange, but two: the first would go back to the period when Alexander was still in Maratus, thus at the beginning of 332 (Anab. 2.14.1–9; see also F7a), the second to the final stages of the siege of Tyre, thus towards August 332 (Anab. 2.25.1–3; see also F8b). As Bosworth 1980: I.233 and Sisti 2001: I.437 rightly observe, all of Alexander’s arguments come from the official propaganda by Callisthenes. F7b.2. Thersippus: Thersippus, possibly a Greek, was sent to Darius with the Persian envoys Arsimas and Meniscus. The Nesiotic league honoured him with an inscription for his services under Philip III and Alexander IV as well as under the regents Antipater and Polyperchon (OGIS 1.4). On him, see Berve 1926: II.179 no. 368, and Heckel 2006: 264. F7b.5. Your ancestors: Darius I (522–486) and Xerxes (486–465/464). F7b.5–7. having come to Macedonia ... injustices from us previously: Mardonius’ moving to Macedonia in 492, the naval expedition against Naxos, Eretria, and Athens which ended with the battle of Marathon

160

Commentary

(490) and the second Persian expedition marked by the conquest of Attica (480–479) are thus unified. Moreover, one should note that during the two Persian wars Macedonia had never been invaded, but on the contrary the Macedonians had already voluntarily submitted during the first expedition. See Hdt. 6.43–44 and, in particular, 44.1 (τὰ γὰρ ἐντὸς Μακεδόνων ἔθνεα πάντα σφι ἤδη ἦν ὑποχείρια γεγονότα). F7b.9–10. You had helped the inhabitants of Perinthus: Persian satraps helped Perinthus which was under siege by Philip in 341: Diod. 16.75.1–2 and Paus. 1.29.10. On this, see Momigliano 1934: 150–51; n. 3, Wüst 1953– 1954: 123–30, and Ellis 1976: 174–76. F7b.11. Ochus ... Thrace: The information regarding an intervention in Thrace by Artaxerxes Ochus is given only here. See Sisti 2001: 438. F7b.12–14. my father ... arranged: Badian 1963: 248 and n. 21 underlines that the Persians were, in all likelihood, happy to perform the role of those behind the scenes who were responsible for the death of Philip. Sisti 2001: 438 suggests that this was the Macedonian official version regarding Philip’s murder. F7b.16–17. Seized power ... law of the Persians: Alexander recalls one of the fundamental principles of Iranian royalty: the king must be the guarantor of justice (see, for example, Ghirshman 1972: 119; see also infra F25). Darius, therefore, does not deserve to be the Great King since he has acted against justice. F7b.21–22. The Spartans accepted: According to Cartledge and Spawforth 2002: 21, Agis III, King of Sparta, in 335 or 334, was indirectly involved in negotiations with Memnon of Rhodes, who commanded Darius’ fleet. On Memnon, see Berve 1926: II.250–53 no. 497, and Badian 1999: coll. 1204– 1205. Darius’ attempt was most likely due to the fact that he had already seen Parmenion fighting in Asia: indeed, according to a piece of news reported by Polyaenus, Strat. 5.44.4, Parmenion, sent by Philip to Asia as a vanguard together with Attalus and Amyntas, had defeated Memnon of Rhodes at Magnesia on the Meander. It was not the first time that the Persian kings had tried to bribe the Greeks by offering gold: since 479, they had tried to corrupt, unsuccessfully, Athenians and Spartans (Diod. 11.28.1–2). Hdt. 9.2.3, recounts that the Thebans advised Mardonius to send money to the Greek cities to cause disagreements with each other, and that before the Battle of Plataea Artabazus felt it appropriate not to seek an open clash with the Greeks, but to withdraw within the walls of Thebes and offer the leaders of the Greek cities the gold and silver that were in the Persian camp: in this way, he said, the Greeks would

Commentary

161

immediately renounce freedom (9.41). On Persian corruption using gold, see Lewis 1989: 227–35, and Lombardo 1989: 197–212. F7b.23. ruin the peace: At Corinth, in 337, Philip had proclaimed a koine eirene (common peace), which Alexander proclaimed once again in 335. See Sisti 2001: 439. F8b.1. He said: This is the answer to Darius’ second letter. In the second peace request, Darius offered 10,000 talents in exchange for his mother, wife, and children, the region between the Euphrates and the coast of Asia Minor, and one of his daughters in exchange for friendship and an alliance. F8b.6. friendly welcome: The term (philanthropon, φιλάνθρωπον) is the same as the one used in FF7a–8a.2 (philanthropon, φιλανθρώπων), but they differ in case and number. FF7–8. Source for the letters: The letter handed down by Arrian, so pregnant with references to the two Persian expeditions, could, with good reason, have been elaborated at the court of Alexander: they could also be the result of the propaganda of the royal entourage and be traced back to Callisthenes (cf. Fränkel 1883: 213; 229, Pridik 1893: 50–51, and Seibert 2001: 139; Griffith 1968: 33; 36–37; 48, claims that Arrian drew the letter from Ptolemy’s work, which reported the official version of the exchange of letters that is traceable back to Callisthenes), who had included it in his historical work since he held the role of Alexander’s adviser on communication: I borrow an expression used by Briant 1996: 790, who asserts that Alexander and his “conseillers en communication” sought through the letter, which was the fruit of Macedonian propaganda, to legitimize his imperial claims. Briant, however, does not mention either Callisthenes or other contemporary historians of Alexander. Callisthenes, then, taking as his starting point the offer of ransom and peace by the Great King, transformed Alexander’s negative response by enriching it with the affirmation of his role as champion of the Greeks and his right to assume the role of king of Asia: cf. Bosworth 1980: I.232–33. A confirmation of this hypothesis might, perhaps, be found in a piece of information given by Diod. 17.39.2, who reports this epistolary exchange: after Alexander received the first offer from Darius, he hid the letter and wrote another one, with a view towards his interest (πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτῷ συμφέρον) to be presented before the council of the hetairoi. It is interesting not only that Alexander keeps the authentic letter for himself, hides it, and does not

162

Commentary

destroy it, but also that he writes another one for personal and persuasive purposes with regard to the council he would convene. This information allows one to reflect on the fact that the young king was able to handle the documents of the archive as he pleased and, if necessary, for propaganda purposes. Griffith 1968: 43–45; 47–48, claims that Darius’ letter as written by Alexander was part of the official version; the young king’s response, on the other hand, was, according to Griffith, a “dual-purpose letter”, such as to satisfy both the response to Darius’ authentic letter and the one elaborated by Alexander. Seibert’s opinion (2001: 137–39) is more complex: Eumenes, head of the chancellery, advised Alexander, who would not have made such a deception himself, to rewrite the letter, and had the letter processed by Callisthenes. In this regard it is useful to recall the definition of Callisthenes as “letterwriter, epistolagraphos (ἐπιστολαγράφος), of Alexander” in an inscription of the 2nd century (see Introduction, Section 2, pp. 9–10). Callisthenes, therefore, might be the source (and maybe the writer?) of the letters in Arrian which carry a strong propagandistic panhellenic flavour, something which might be fully appropriate to the official historian of the panhellenic expedition against the Persians, undertaken to avenge the offences suffered by the Greeks. Alexander’s letter to Darius as reported by Plutarch contains, most likely, the most reliable version and, as a result, one might think that it was part of the king’s private collection, to which Chares attended as royal grammatistes, after the introduction of Persian customs. After the conquest of Asia and the death of Callisthenes, Alexander needed a new figure, different from the historian of the propaganda of Greek revenge against the Persians, which Callisthenes had been. This new historian, the historian of ecumenical propaganda about the unity of Greek and Persian cultures, is most likely to be identified in the figure of Chares of Mytilene, the chamberlain and the royal secretary. FF7–8. Discussion of authenticity: Modern scholars disagree on the authenticity of these letters, although the majority argues that they are authentic. Pridik 1893: 55–57 does not have any doubts about Arrian’s letters because there is no trace that the historian looked at a collection of Alexander’s letters. Similarly, Zumetikos 1894: 132–33 believes that the letter cannot be a forgery, also because Arrian could have read the letters in Ptolemy. Helmreich 1927: 95, Kaiser 1956, and Pearson 1955: 429–55 and Id. 1960: 258–59 think that the exchange was authentic; Briant 2003: 324–25 has doubts about them. See also Squillace 2006: 360–61, for a summary of the different arguments.

Commentary

163

F9. To the Greeks of Asia. About tyrannies (331) F9.2. he wrote: After the Battle of Gaugamela and his acclamation as king of Asia (Plut. Alex. 34.1). F9.2–3. all tyrannies had … autonomously: In the announcement of the abolition of tyrannies one could see an implicit reference to the behaviour of the Spartans, since, despite having become the prostatai of all Greece after the victory in the Peloponnesian War, and following the Battle of Cunaxa and Cyrus’ death, they had not been able to secure autonomy for the Greek cities of Asia Minor (see Xen. Hell. 3.1.3); moreover, by subsequently favouring the stipulation of the peace of Antalcidas, they had even ratified the dominion of the Great King over the Greek cities (see Xen. Hell. 5.1.31; Diod. 14.110.3). Alexander is credited with yet another gesture that recalls the Persian conflict. The king, having settled in the city of Susa, seized the royal treasure: Arr. Anab. 3.16.7 records that the treasure consisted of 50,000 silver talents, and Curt. 5.2.11 adds that the silver was preserved as raw bullion; Diod. 17.66.12, on the other hand, recalls 40,000 gold and silver unminted talents and 9,000 talents of gold minted in the form of ‘darics’. The testimony agrees with the fragment of Polycleitus of Larissa (FGrHist 128 F3a), who states that among Susa’s treasure most of the gold and silver was not minted but utilized for furnishings, and that the rest was minted from time to time as needed. Plut. Alex. 36.1 reports the same figures and specifies that the talents were minted; Just. Epit. 11.14.9 also speaks of 40,000 talents, but does not specify whether they were minted, and whether they were gold or silver. Plutarch (Alex. 36.2) writes that among other precious objects they found purple from Hermione, a port in the Argolis, worth 5,000 talents, stored and kept intact for a hundred and ninety years, which had preserved its fresh and alive colour because it was immersed in honey. Many items from the royal treasure which had been stolen by Xerxes during the Persian expedition were also recovered, among which were the bronze statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which were subsequently returned to Athens. The group, which celebrated the slayers of Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus and brother of the tyrant Hippias (see Hdt. 5.55–56 and 6.123.2, Thuc. 1.20.2 and 6.54–59, Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 18), was the work of Antenor, and it dated to 510, when Hippias had been driven out of Athens (Plin. HN 34.17). Removed by Xerxes in 480, it was replaced by a second group by Kritios and Nesiotes in 477/476 (see Stein-Hölkeskamp 1996: coll.

164

Commentary

1109–10, s v. Aristogeiton [1]). See contra Moggi 1973: 1–42, who does not believe that Xerxes removed the statues from Greece but sees the story as a later invention. Plutarch does not speak about the return of the statues by Alexander, but Arrian (Anab. 3.16.7–8 and 7.19.2) and Pliny (HN 34.69– 70) do record this piece of information. Alexander’s gesture is significant in terms of revenge against the Persians, since he takes possession of the treasure but returns what the Great King had unduly stolen from Athens. With this gesture Alexander did not intend to reject the accusation (often made against him by many Greek cities and Athenian orators) of behaving like a tyrant (this is the hypothesis supported by Moggi 1973: 13–23), but, most likely, he intended once again to allude negatively to Sparta which had hosted Hippias and, moreover, had imposed on Athens the government of the Thirty. For Alexander’s relationship with Sparta, see also F1. F9. Source for the letter: For the reasons given for F1, the source of this letter might have been Callisthenes, given that it presents Alexander as the avenger of the Greeks against the Persians. Cf. Pridik 1983: 36, Zumetikos 1894: 47, and Hamilton 1961: 14, who think that Plutarch was following a historical source. F9. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 292 thinks that there are no grounds for doubting this letter. Pridik 1893: 36 has no doubts about the authenticity of the letter and thinks that Plutarch has read it in the work of a historian rather than in a collection of letters. Zumetikos 1894: 47 deems the letter authentic and gives an explanation similar to that given by Pridik.

F10. To the Plataeans. Reconstruction of Plataea (331) F10.1. In particular: It is interesting that the special role played by the Athenians who receive the spoils of the Granicus (F1.2) and by the Plataeans who are beneficiaries of Alexander’s promise, is underlined by Plutarch using the same adverb, hidia (ἱδίᾳ). Alexander seems to really care about the Athenians who are the main target of his propaganda. Moreover, the highlight of the special role played respectively by the Athenians and the Plataeans helps Alexander to point up the two battles which he had in mind. F10.2–3. since their fathers ... freedom: It was the Delphic oracle who advised the Greeks to fight the battle in the territory of Plataea. Since the oracle said that the Greeks should fight in Athenian territory, the Plataeans decided to eliminate their boundaries on the Attic side and to give over their land to the Athenians. There is no trace of this tradition in Herodotus, but

Commentary

165

the account is found in Plut. Arist. 11.3–9. Sansone 1989: 189 hypothesised that the story depended on local traditions (Plataea, Delphi, or both). More recently, Marincola 2016: 853–60 has argued that Plutarch’s source could have been the local history of Athens by the Atthidographer Cleidemus. The promise that Alexander made to the Plataeans has an even stronger meaning than the promise in F9, and it is important to note that Alexander thanks them not for something they had done for him, his father or the Macedonians, but for something which dated back to the Persian wars: now that he has avenged the Greeks and defeated the Persians, he intends to reciprocate those actions from which the Greeks, of whom he is now the hegemon (ἡγεμών, see Plut. Alex. 14.1), had benefited at the time of the Persian expeditions. Alexander’s gratitude was also expressed to the Crotonians to whom he donated some of the spoils so as to honour the courage and virtue of the athlete Phayllus who had armed a ship at his expense to take part in the battle of Salamis (Plut. Alex. 34.3; see Cagnazzi 1996: 11–19). F10. Source for the letter: For the reasons given for F1, the source of this letter might have been Callisthenes, as it presents Alexander as the champion of the Greeks against the Persians. Cf. Pridik 1983: 36, Zumetikos 1894: 47, and Hamilton 1961: 14, who think that Plutarch was following a historical source. F10. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 292 thinks that there are no grounds for doubting this letter. Pridik 1893: 36 has no doubts on the authenticity of the letter and thinks that Plutarch has read it in the work of a historian rather than in a collection of letters. Zumetikos 1894: 47 deems the letter authentic and gives an explanation similar to that given by Pridik.

FF11–12. To Philoxenus (330/329 and no date) F11a.1–2. Philoxenus: About the Philoxenus of the letter handed down in Plut. Alex. 22.2, we read that he held the position of “strategos of the troops on the sea”, ὁ τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάττης στρατηγός (Perrin 1958: 285 translates “the commander of his [sc. Alexander’s] forces on the sea-board”; Carena 1974: II.453 offers “general who had command of coastal regions”; Magnino 1987: 87 interprets it as “head of the maritime provinces”). In Plut. De vitioso pudore 531a, which does not mention the letter, the office is defined more precisely: Philoxenus is more specifically “he who administered matters on the sea on behalf of Alexander”, ὁ τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ πραγμάτων Ἀλεξάνδρου στρατηγός (de Lacy-Einarson 1959: VII.61 translate as “admiral of

166

Commentary

Alexander”), and therefore not a strategos of the troops. In Plut. De Alex. fort. aut virt. 333a, he is hyparchos tes paralias (ὕπαρχος τῆς παραλίας), thus a kind of head of the maritime provinces (Cole Babbitt 1962: IV.419 translates as “governor of the coast-lands of Asia Minor”). Polyaenus, Strat. 6.49 in relation to an episode different from the letter, calls him hyparchos Ionias (ὕπαρχος Ἰωνίας). In addition to the definition of the office held by Philoxenus, Plutarch (in De vitioso pudore) and Polyaenus report two events in which Philoxenus played a significant role: Polyaenus recounts that in 324 he searched for and imprisoned the murderers of Hegesias, the tyrant of Ephesus (see Berve 1926: II.166 no. 343); Plutarch describes events that happened in the same year and refers to Harpalus’ escape to Athens: he explains that while the Athenians were about to help the treasurer and fight against Alexander, Philoxenus suddenly “appeared” (ἐπεφάνη). Arrian (Anab. 3.16.6) informs us of another letter written to Alexander by Philoxenus who, after the battle of Gaugamela, had been sent to Susa. Philoxenus had sent the letter through a courier, epistoleus (ἐπιστολεύς), to inform Alexander that the inhabitants had handed the city over and that all the riches were safe. It is not clear whether Plutarch’s Philoxenus and Arrian’s are the same person, since there is no patronymic or a position which might help to distinguish them. In Arrian’s Anabasis, Philoxenus, in addition to being the sender of the letter, appears three more times: at 3.6.4, where it is stated that between July and August 331, on Alexander’s return from Egypt, he was given the responsibility of collecting the tribute of the regions west of the Taurus; in 7.23.1, Alexander, on his return to Babylon in 323, found, among others, Philoxenus who had come from Caria with an army; in 7.24.1, Arrian says that the troops had come from the sea, apo thalasses (ἀπὸ θαλάσσης), with Philoxenus. From Diod. 18.39.6 we know that a Philoxenus, in 322/321 after Alexander’s death, obtained Cilicia from Antipater, while according to Arrian (ta meta Alexandron [τὰ μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον], FGrHist 156 F9.34) he had already obtained the region earlier. The fact that the various Philoxenuses are assigned similar positions by the tradition may suggest the existence of a single Philoxenus whose office had undergone an evolution: most likely he had been at first a mere strategos, later hyparchos and, by virtue of these duties, most likely had the opportunity to move from the region assigned to him. Alexander instructed him to collect tribute in the coastal region of Ionia; then, in all probability,

Commentary

167

Philoxenus joined him near Gaugamela, partly because the tribute he received could have been used for the war he was waging. According to Badian 1966: 55, Philoxenus sent Alexander the syntaxeis (συντάξεις) collected in the Greek cities of Asia. Alexander then sent him to Susa, after the Battle of Gaugamela (1st October 331), perhaps because of his role as tax collector or treasurer, since we see that it mattered to Philoxenus to inform the king that the city’s treasures were safe; about seven years later, in 324, we find him as an official of the maritime provinces, when he imprisoned the killers of Hegesias of Ephesus, and in Athens, at the time when, most likely, he sent a delegation to ask for the extradition of Harpalus (Hyp. In Demosthenem F3 col. 8). The Athenians’ fear of his “appearance” was perhaps due to the harsh attitude he took regarding the punishment of the assassins of Hegesias in Ephesus, a city founded by the Athenians, or perhaps because the killers of Hegesias, after being captured by Philoxenus, had fled to Athens. In 323, he finally reached Alexander in Babylon from Caria, arriving by sea. The indication of Arr. Anab. 7.24.1, paralia apo thalasses (παραλία ἀπὸ θαλάσσης), allows us to establish a link with Philoxenus’ office as indicated by Plutarch, ho ton epi thalattes strategos (ὁ τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάττης στρατηγός) and hyparchos tes paralias (ὕπαρχος τῆς παραλίας): Caria overlooked that paralia (παραλία) which Plutarch designated as the domain of Philoxenus. His speed of travel, then, does not contradict the hypothesis of a single Philoxenus: in this regard one can remember Arrian’s information at Anab. 3.16.7, according to which Alexander took 20 days to reach Susa from Babylon, namely to travel 365 km, with a long stop, among other things, in the plain to the east of Tigris, the so-called Sittacene (cf. Diod. 17.65.2 and Curt. 5.2.2). One might think that the movements of Philoxenus, as well as those of Alexander, were favoured by the excellent communication routes with which the Persian Empire was provided (on them, see Briant 1996: 369–98), but that, unlike the king, he travelled with a small contingent which allowed him to travel even faster. Among modern scholars, Pridik 1893: 76 n. 2 does not see why more Philoxenuses should be recognized in Arrian. Berve 1926: II.389–91 nos 793–96 distinguishes four Philoxenuses. Hamilton 1969: 57 prefers not to take a position, admitting that the hypothesis that the Plutarchean Philoxenus is the same person as the one in Arr. Anab. 7.23.1 and 24.1 cannot be proved. Bosworth 1980: I.281–82 is of the opinion that there was only one Philoxenus operating in Caria and there could hardly be two men of the same name operating in the same territory: all references allude to a single

168

Commentary

person who had a position of “fiscal superintendent” in Caria in 331 and was promoted to satrap after the death of the queen Ada of Caria. A suggestive hypothesis is that of Heckel 2002: 57–60, and Id. 2006: 272, who argues that the Philoxenus sent to Susa by Alexander is none other than the man named Xenophilus, for whom there was an exchange between the first and second parts of the name: Philo-xenos (Φιλό-ξενος) instead of Xeno-philos (Ξενόφιλος). This Xenophilus appears in Curt. 5.2.16, where he is placed in Susa with 1,000 veterans as phrourarchos (the same man whom Diod. 19.18.1 defines as thesaurophylax). Dates: Regarding the letter in Plutarch, as we read it in De Alex. fort. aut virt., Philoxenus writes that the young people offered by him were in Ionia, where he was stationed, presumably for the office entrusted to him by Alexander around 331. The letter could therefore be inserted in the time frame between 330, when Philoxenus after Gaugamela returned to Ionia, and 324/323, when he went from Caria to Babylon where the king was. Hamilton 1969: 57 speculates more broadly that the episode to which the letter refers dates back to a period after 331. More precisely it could be assumed that the letter dates back to 330/329, after Alexander introduced Persian customs to his court: perhaps Philoxenus, with his offer, thought he would please the new Great King, believing that he did not mind two young men who could offer their services at court. F11a.2. in a letter: In the series of examples concerning the moderation of Alexander, as seen in relation to his sexual habits, Plut. Alex. 22.1–2 also inserts an exchange of letters of the king with his friend Philoxenus, who wrote to him to ask if he wanted to buy from a certain Theodorus of Tarentum, who was with him, two young boys of superb beauty. Alexander became very angry and, shouting, insistently asked his friends what depravity Philoxenus had seen in him to propose such odious dealings. He answered him, then, directly with a letter. F11b.1. O worst among men: Plutarch had already given information in the pamphlet De Alex. fort. aut virt. 333a, where the account is more detailed and part of the letter written by Alexander is quoted verbatim. In that version, Philoxenus wrote to Alexander from Ionia, telling him that there was a young man like no other for grace and beauty and asked if he should send him the boy. F11b.2. flatter me: In this version what leaps to the eye is the fact that Alexander immediately recognizes the attempt at flattery (kolakeuses,

Commentary

169

κολακεύσῃς) by Philoxenus and points it out. From Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 1099d, one also knows that Alexander was on the verge of deposing Philoxenus from his post (τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς ἀποστῆσαι, LSJ intend it as ‘guardianship’). F12.1. in the letter to Philoxenus: This letter is probably not the same as the one where the king rebuked Philoxenus for the ignoble offer of two beautiful boys, as Pridik 1893: 76, Zumetikos 1894: 35, Berve 1926: I.176, and Hamilton 1961: 13 claim. Instead, Athenaeus inserts it into the narrative about dances and famous dancers: “Famous dancers were Bolbus, mentioned by Cratinus and Callias, Zeno of Crete, the great favourite of Artaxerxes, mentioned by Ctesias. Alexander, in his letter to Philoxenus, recalls Theodorus and Chrysippus”. From the passage one might infer that they were dancers much appreciated by the king and who were presumably at his court, just as Zeno of Crete was at the court of Artaxerxes. F12.2. Theodorus and Chrysippus: The Theodorus mentioned in the letter in Plutarch (F11) was originally from Tarentum and was the one who wanted to sell two boys, so one would hardly think that Theodorus and Chrysippus were their names. The two dancers were so famous for their skills that Eustathius mentions them in his commentary on Od. 8.383 (Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam I 306), although he does not relate them to Alexander: in Odyssey 8.383 Odysseus, after witnessing dances during the banquet in the house of Alcinous, King of the Phaeacians, congratulates him and describes the dancers as excellent. Eustathius also names Bolbus and Zeno of Crete, a close friend of Artaxerxes (πάνυ Ἀρταξέρξῃ φίλος) as good dancers. The reference to Artaxerxes’ friend might move the letter to a different level: Zeno of Crete was a great dancer and very attached to Artaxerxes (ὁ πάνυ Ἀρταξέρξῃ προσφιλέστατος), as one reads in Ath. Deipn. 1.22d, who reports a fragment of Ctesias (FHG F47). From Ctesias, FGrHist 688 F32 (apud Plut. Artax. 21.3–4), we know that it was suggested to Conon, who had to send a letter to the king, to hand it over first to Zeno of Crete or to Polycritus of Mende or, if the two were absent, to Ctesias himself, so that one of the three would give it to the king: a figure emerges, therefore, who is quite distant from the simple dancer identified as a slave or lover, and instead much more complex: he enjoys the trust of the king, is held in his esteem, and is perhaps able to influence his decisions. The high regard these dancers enjoyed is another element which might lead one not to consider Theodorus and Chrysippus to be the boys offered by Philoxenus in F11,

170

Commentary

since Alexander replied that Theodorus of Tarentum should go to hell, an expression that outlines rather completely opposite feelings. FF11–12. Source for the letters: Hansen 1880: 294–95 believes that Plutarch did not draw the letters from a collection, but from a historical source. Pridik 1893: 76 thinks of Chares but does not explain his reasons. FF11–12. Discussion of authenticity: Kaerst 1892: 616 considers the letters a forgery suitable for demonstrating Alexander’s restraint and temperance. Pridik 1893: 76–77 is cautious about their authenticity. Zumetikos 1894: 36 considers the letters authentic because a forger could not have included the name of a man who was not widely known.

F13. To Antipater. About the Amazons (330) F13.1. And it was here: In Scythia, immediately after the crossing of the river Orexartes in Sogdiana, and the escape of the Scythians who had rebelled against Alexander (330/329). On the escape of the Scythians, cf. also Arr. Anab. 4.1–4 and Curt. 7.6–9. On the grounds for the uprising, see Bosworth 1995: II.17–18, and Atkinson 2000: 469. F13.1–2. The majority ... the Amazon came to him: The tradition was, in fact, that the Amazons lived in an area close to the river Thermodon, in the city of Themiscyra, in Asia Minor, in the Pontus area (Aesch. PV 723–725; Pherec. FGrHist 3 F15). See Ley 1996: coll. 575–76, and Monti 2021: 1441. Apart from the historians mentioned in F13.2–5, Just. Epit. 12.3.5–7, Diod. 17.77.1–3, and Curt. 6.5.24–32 accept the news of the visit of the Queen of the Amazons as true. Queen Thalestris came to Hyrcania to have a child with Alexander, and the king granted her a 13–day stopover. Justin has a variant of the name, Minithya, while Curtius specifies that she wanted to have two children from Alexander, a female whom she would keep with her, and a male whom she would give to his father. By contrast, Arr. Anab. 7.13.2–3, Strabo 11.5.4 [505], and Plut. Alex. 46.1–3 reject this tradition. Arrian explains: “It was there (in the plain of Nesaea) – they say – that Atropates, satrap of Media, handed over to him a hundred women, saying that they were a group from the Amazons. [...] Alexander turned them away from the army, lest they suffer some violence from the Macedonians or the barbarians but ordered them to announce to the queen that he would come to her to conceive a child. Neither Aristobulus nor Ptolemy nor any other

Commentary

171

author whose testimony on this matter is reliable report this story”. It would be interesting to know what the other authors whose testimony was reliable were. Arrian denies only the visit of the Amazon to Alexander, not their existence: to be precise, he believes that in Alexander’s time the Amazons no longer existed and certainly not even before Alexander, since otherwise Xenophon would have mentioned them (Anab. 7.13.4). F13.2. Cleitarchus: He is considered the founder of the so-called ‘vulgate’ on Alexander. All we know about his life is that he was the son of the historian Dinon and a pupil of the philosopher Stilpo. He did not take part in Alexander’s expedition. His History of Alexander covered the period from Alexander’s accession to the throne to his death, in at least 12 books, of which 36 fragments remain. See Jacoby 1921: coll. 622–54. F13.3. Polycleitus: Polycleitus of Larissa, author of a history of Alexander, is best known as Strabo’s geographical source. There are 10 fragments of his work. See Gisinger 1952: coll. 1700–1707. F13.3. Onesicritus: Onesicritus of Astypalaia, probably born before 375, took part in Alexander’s expedition, along with the writers and philosophers who lived at the king’s court. In 326, he was sent by Alexander to Taxila to the Gymnosophists, in his capacity as an exponent of the Cynic school. He was appointed helmsman of the royal ship for the voyage on the Hydaspes and the Indus rivers. Around 315 he wrote, in the wake of Xenophon’s Cyropedia, a work entitled How Alexander was educated, of which 38 fragments remain. See Strasburger 1939: coll. 460–67. F13.4. Antigenes: He is mentioned only twice by Plutarch in the passage concerning the visit of the Amazons and by Herodian for the name of a river in Macedonia, Zuscos. Plin. HN 1.5 writes that Antigenes is one of his sources for the part concerning the area and the populations of Asia Minor, Africa, Egypt, and Syria (FGrHist 141 T 1). See Schwartz 1894: col. 2399. F13.4. Ister: Ister, probably a native of Paphos, belonged to the circle of Callimachus. An antiquarian rather than a historian, his main work concerned the antiquities of Athens and was in at least 14 books; 77 fragments remain of it. See Jacoby 1916: coll. 2270–82. F13.5. Aristobulus: Most likely a native of Phocis, he became a citizen of Cassandrea, founded in 316. He took part in Alexander’s expedition with the team of technicians and engineers. His work, of which neither the title nor the length is known, detailed the history of Alexander from his accession to the throne to his death; 62 fragments remain. Its drafting began around 290. See Schwartz 1895: coll. 911–18.

172

Commentary

F13.7. Ptolemy: Ptolemy, son of Lagus, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, was born around 367 and died in 283. He took part in Alexander’s expedition and was appointed bodyguard, somatophylax, in the autumn of 330; he also served as an official taster, edeatros. Of his work on Alexander, of which 30 fragments remain, we know neither the title nor the structure nor the period of the drafting, which most likely occurred during his old age when he was already king of Egypt. On Ptolemy, see Kornemann 1935, and Seibert 1969. F13.8. Anticleides: Anticleides of Athens lived in the early 3rd century. He wrote a history of Alexander, a mythological work, and a work on the antiquities of Delos. A total of 21 fragments have been handed down. See Schwartz 1894: coll. 2425–26. F13.9. Philip of Theangela: He wrote a chronicle of Caria in the 3rd century, of which 3 fragments remain. See Laqueur 1938: col. 2349. Jacoby, FGrHist 741 F4, marks the fragment about the visit of the queen of the Amazons as spurious, because one codex (Reinesius) offers the reading eisangeleus (εἰσαγγελεύς) instead of Theangheleus (Θεαγγελεύς). F13.6–10. Hecataeus ... Philon ... Philip the Chalcidian: For these writers we have no fragments, but only their names in the Plutarchean passage regarding Alexander’s alleged encounter with the queen of the Amazons; they are also missing in the RE, DKP and DNP entries. F13.11. invention: I deem Chares’ testimony as reliable especially because he, as chamberlain, would have introduced the queen of the Amazons before the king if Thalestris (whoever she was) had ever visited him. Thus Chares, in this case, would have been a witness to the event. For the historians who mythologised Alexander, on the other hand, it was crucial that the king, as the new Achilles (cf. Cagnazzi 2009: 281–311), met the queen of the Amazons. Penthesilea, queen of the Amazons, provided reinforcements to Troy after the death of Hector, fought valiantly, but was killed by Achilles who mourned her to such an extent that Thersites accused him of falling in love with her (this event is narrated in the Aethiopis): see Harder 2000: coll. 529–30. But Chares, a serious historian, says – at least according to Plutarch – that this story is nothing more than a plasma (πλάσμα): this judgment allows us to consider the historian of Mytilene not a fanciful writer nor a man devoted to court gossip, but a proper historian. F13.12. And Alexander seems to testify: Plutarch reports a letter from the king to Antipater and dwells, once again, on the value of the letter: contrary to the letter on the wounding at Issus (F3), this time Alexander seems to support those historians, including Chares, who denied the visit of the queen

Commentary

173

of the Amazons. In this case, therefore, Alexander’s letter does not contradict Chares’ information, and it is indeed mentioned precisely as supporting proof. This once again induces us, as with F3, to reflect on the relationship between Chares’ work and Alexander’s letters. Another observation can be made about the letter. From Plutarch it might be inferred that the figure of Alexander was mythicized already within his court, if the geographical area in which he was at that time had led some historians to invent the visit of the queen of the Amazons, a visit which was denied, among others, by Chares, as we have seen. But it is indeed the king who corrects the invented rumour by telling Antipater that he had received the visit of the king of the Scythians. Plutarch, immediately after reporting the letter, gives another piece of interesting information: some time later, Onesicritus read Book 4 of his historical work, in which he dealt with the meeting with the queen of the Amazons, to Lysimachus (Alexander’s companion and successor, one of his bodyguards; on him, see Landucci 1992), now king, who, smiling, said “Where was I then?” (Alex. 46.4). This piece of information also allows us to state that Alexander did not intend to refute his contemporary historians with his letter (which chronologically was written before the historical work, as we have also seen for F3, the one related to the wound in the battle of Issus), but it is Plutarch rather who seems to assign this peculiar function to the letter. F13.13. writing everything accurately: Plutarch’s usage of the adverb underlines that F3 and F13 are not contrasting letters in their function – i.e. both are not in contrast with Chares’ relevant fragment preceding each of them –, as one might indeed gather from the terms Plutarch uses to introduce the two epistles, haplos (ἁπλῶς) and akribos (ἀκριβῶς): in the first case, Alexander writes a letter to Antipater about the battle of Issus narrating how things really went, but he writes it “in short”, not deeming it important to say from whom he had received the wound, perhaps because it was not a serious wound; in the second, he narrates the visit of the king of the Scythians and he does it “with accuracy” (LSJ consider haplos and akribos opposite terms). F13. Source for the letter: One should not exclude the possibility that the letter was present in Chares’ work, since the criticism of the description of the meeting with the Amazon had been most likely raised by him. Cf. Landucci 1997: 109–10, who thinks that the explicit accusation of falsehood goes back to Chares in the first place. F13. Discussion of authenticity: The authenticity of the letter has not been questioned by most modern scholars. Pridik 1893: 60 does not doubt it even

174

Commentary

if he does not explain why. Zumetikos 1894: 42 considers the letter authentic because it is not a subject suitable for rhetorical exercises and adds that it, although authentic, is not proof of the missing visit of the Amazon, since, even if Alexander does not speak about it, it can be assumed but not proved that there was indeed no visit. Jacoby 1927, FGrHist Kommentar, II BD: 470, 491–92 makes no mention of Alexander’s letter in the commentary on the individual fragments of historians talking about the visit of the queen of the Amazons. Hamilton 1961: 14 considers the letter authentic: it would be difficult to say otherwise since the visit of the Scythian king (also attested by Curt. 7.1.9 and Arr. Anab. 4.15.3) is not so well-known an episode as to inspire a forger. The only one who considers the letter fake is Pearson 1954/55: 447, who attributes it to someone who intended to dismantle the claims made by historians.

F14. To Antipater. Addressing the soldiers in Hyrcania (330–329) F14.1. Fearing ... expedition: Probably between 330 and 329. F14.3. Hyrcania: An important region of Iran, both historically and geographically, located on the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea (called Hyrcanian Sea: Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F291), between the Elburz mountains (south) and the Aralo-Caspian steppe (north). The most important city of the region appears to be Zadracarta, an Achaemenid satrapal residence. Under Darius III, it was governed by the satrap Phrataphernes (Arr. Anab. 3.23.4), who after the death of Darius was reinstated by Alexander (Arr. Anab. 3.28.2; 5.20.7; Curt. 8.3.17). See Wiesehöfer 2006, in BNP, s.v. As for the location of the episode, only Plutarch places it in Hyrcania, while Diodorus (17.74.3), Curtius (6.2.15), and Justin (Epit. 12.3.2–4) write that Alexander was in Parthia. As for the period in which the events described by Alexander’s letter took place, the three historians do not agree with each other: Diodorus places them two days before Alexander arrived at Hecatompylos, while Curtius when the king was already in the city. Arr. Anab. 3.19.5 writes that Alexander, when he was in Ecbatana, before Darius’ death, sent back the Thessalian horsemen and other allies, having paid them the wages in full and added 2,000 talents out of his pocket, but says nothing about the uprising. F14.11–12. in the letter to Antipater: In the letter Alexander reports his speech and the reaction of the soldiers to Antipater. He writes not only as the king but also as a friend. The description of the event has a personal flavour despite the

Commentary

175

fact that the topic holds political relevance, and the whole letter plays on the central figure of Alexander as a determined and firm leader with the ability to convince an entire army: the king seems to want to prove to Antipater that he is able to lead the army, to direct their decisions by means of a mere speech. Curt. 6.9.12 and 24 writes that Alexander knew how to arouse the soldiers’ feelings, calling them brothers, fathers, relatives. He too (6.3.1–4.1) reports Alexander’s speech but expands it into a rhetorical exercise: cf. Pridik 1893: 63 (Curtius orationem ipse rhetorice exornavit). Cf. also Atkinson 1994: 175–79, who provides examples which show that Curtius has expanded the speech and has Alexander speaking like a Roman: in 6.3.2 the use of ut omittam is an example of praeteritio, while the phrase alia ductu meo, alia imperio auspicioque is a typical Roman form; in 6.3.8 the use of the terms commercio linguae emphasizes the fact that Curtius writes as someone who has experience of the policy of Romanization of the provinces; in 6.3.13 the phrase cui nos victores pepercissemus [...] ne a nobis conservari posset, occidit is part of the vocabulary of Roman rhetoric used in the context of paternalistic imperialism and to display magnanimity after a victory in civil war or the revelation of conspiracies. It is, however, interesting to note that Curtius might have had at his disposal Alexander’s letter as a starting point for the re-elaboration of the speech: cf. Hamilton 1961: 15. The epistle could be Alexander’s answer to Antipater’s letters sent to him from Macedonia, of which Just. Epit. 12.1.4 speaks, placing them at the moment when the king, during the pursuit of Darius, held the funeral of the fallen soldiers: Antipater wrote to him of the war undertaken by Agis, king of Sparta, in Greece, of that waged by Alexander the Molossian, king of Epirus, in southern Italy in aid of Tarentum, and the one started by Zopyrion, his lieutenant, in Scythia. Indeed, Agis III (338–331), king of Sparta of the Eurypontid dynasty, organized the resistance of the Greeks against Macedonia during Alexander’s campaign in Asia. With the help of gifts of ships and money from Persian admirals, he gathered an army, mostly made up of 8,000 Greek mercenaries who had fled after Issus. He achieved successes in Crete and the Peloponnese, where some regions rebelled against Macedonia (331). Athens, Megalopolis, Messene, and Argos did not join the rebellion and, while besieging Megalopolis, Agis faced Antipater, by whom he was defeated and died in battle. The chronology of the war conducted by Agis is controversial: some scholars place it in the period from spring to autumn of 331, because Curt. 6.1.21, writes that the battle of Megalopolis took place before Gaugamela, thus before October 1, 331. See Berve 1926: II.8–9 no. 15, and Badian 1967: 188–92. Other scholars, however,

176

Commentary

place the war between the summer of 331 and the end of 330 (see Cawkwell 1969: 170–71, and Bosworth 1975: 27–43). As for Antipater’s letter, the regent’s purpose seems not only to keep Alexander up to date on the situation in the West, but above all to make him understand the danger he was running if he continued to stay in Asia, risking the disintegration of the kingdom. At the same time Antipater perhaps intended to show that he was perfectly capable of keeping the rebellions under control, since he had defeated the Spartan king. Alexander, perhaps not wanting to be outdone, wrote what he himself had managed to do, keeping the soldiers united by using a single weapon, that of speech. F14.13–14. everyone shouted out ... he wanted: In reporting the contents of the letter, Plutarch dwells on the reactions of the soldiers. Plutarch’s focus makes one reflect on the fact that he considers Alexander’s letter a historical source. Ziegler 1965: 327–28, after dividing the authors used by Plutarch into two groups, the first comprising the authors that the biographer had surely read directly (Callisthenes, Chares and Duris), the second comprising the authors for whom direct reading was quite likely (Aristobulus, Ister, Cleitarchus, Onesicritus and Ptolemy), writes that there is a third group of authors, as numerous as the previous ones, for which the hypothesis that Plutarch did not read them directly, but mentioned them at second hand seems well founded: among these authors Ziegler also inserts Alexander (i.e. his letters and the Ephemerides) and Antipater (i.e. his letters). I do agree with Ziegler’s hypothesis that “the material relating to anecdotes and quotations was drawn by Plutarch for the most part from collections that had long since been compiled partly for rhetorical purposes, partly for purposes of philosophical dissemination”: indeed, the anecdote could rightly fit into a type of history such as that written by Alexander’s contemporary historians, a story centred on a single charismatic figure, as Alexander was. F14. Discussion of authenticity: The letter is considered authentic by most modern scholars. Hansen 1880: 264–66 believes that Curtius and Justin found the account of the rebellion in Cleitarchus, who most likely was aware of the letter; by contrast, according to Kaerst 1892: 608 (the only one who does not consider the letter authentic), Alexander’s words are not appropriate to the situation and the Macedonian army, but much more fit in with the situation in Parthia at the time of the pursuit of Bessus and, moreover, are not connected to the narrative. Pridik 1893: 61–64 considers the letter authentic, but merely reports the opinions of previous scholars and does not justify his own. Zumetikos 1894: 52–56 also thinks the letter to

Commentary

177

be authentic: a forger would not have provided so many details (such as ἐν Ὑρκανίᾳ and δισμυρίους πεζοὺς καὶ τρισχιλίους ἱππεῖς), at the risk of being unmasked, and also because Alexander had given speeches to soldiers both in Hyrcania and in Parthia. Hamilton 1961: 15 seems to consider the letter authentic, since it gives credence to Plutarch’s rather than Diodorus’ and Curtius’ versions.

F15. To Antipater. The discovery of a spring of oil (328) F15a.1–2. However, a better omen happened: The episode occurred towards the end of the spring of 328 (Hamilton 1969: 158). See contra Berve 1926: II.328 who thinks of the year 329. Before mentioning the letter, Plutarch (Alex. 57.4) reports that a sheep gave birth to a lamb which had around its head something that looked like a tiara, in shape and colour, with two testicles on each side; horrified by the omen Alexander was purified by the Chaldean priests, and said to his friends that he was upset not for himself but for them, fearing that once he had passed away, the demon would give power to a man not noble and without courage. F15a.3. a Macedonian called Proxenus: We have no other information about this Greek or Macedonian man. See Berve 1926: II.328 no. 662. F15a.3. in charge of those who were guardians of the linens: It was a very important role at the court of Alexander, introduced after the Pages’ conspiracy. It seems that the stromatophylakes (στρωματοφύλακες) were in charge of bedding and table linen, tasks previously entrusted to the pages. See Berve 1926: I.41. The term is attested only twice and in relation to this episode, in the passage of Plutarch previously mentioned, and in Phot. Bibl. cod. 245, 396a. F15a.5. river Oxus: Perhaps the river on the border between Bactria and Sogdiana, as Arr. Anab. 4.15.7–8 and Curt. 7.10.13–14 write, i.e. modern Amu Darya. See Grant 1986: 97–98, s.v. Bactria. Müller 2018: 132 n. 4 underlines that the location of the river is debated and mentions GrenetRapin 1998: 81 who identify the Oxus with the Wakhsh, a tributary of the Amu Darya. F15a.5–6. discovered a source of oily and fatty liquid: Alexander’s discovery was already known to the philosopher Theophrastus (F15b: F159 Wimmer apud Ath. Deipn. 2.42f), who inserts the information within the description of various types of water sources. In the territory subject to Carthage, there

178

Commentary

was a spring with surface water similar to oil, but darker in colour, which the native populations skimmed off in globules and used for flocks and animals; there were also sources with similar amounts of fat, such as the one in Asia which Alexander discovered and of which he wrote that he had found the source of the oil. Theophrastus’ expression “territory subject to Carthage” seems to refer to western Sicily, which was under the Carthaginians, as one can deduce from Plin. HN 35.179, who adds that water was used to protect and treat the coat of animals from parasites. Vitruvius 8.3.8, on the other hand, places the spring in the territory of Carthage, in present-day Tunisia. Further, Eustathius in the 12th century AD, in his commentary on Il. 2.755, recalls the information given by Theophrastus and the letter of Alexander (F15c: Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ περὶ Ἀσιάτιδος ἐπέστειλεν ἀναβλύσεως ὡς ἐλαίου κρήνην εὑρηκώς). Arrian (Anab. 4.15.7–8) and Curtius (7.10.13–14), who do not mention the letter, are also aware of the prodigious event, though with many differences. Arrian writes that not far from Alexander’s tent, and therefore not while digging to pitch the tent as Plutarch writes, two sources, one of water and one of oil, spurted forth; in the tale the discovery is ascribed to Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who, in turn, communicates it to Alexander. Moreover, we know the name of one of the soothsayers who interpreted the event, Aristander (on him, see Landucci 1993: 123–38). Curtius, on the other hand, provides an even more different account: the soldiers were not digging to pitch the king’s tent, but were digging wells, because the river Oxus, carrying silt, was muddy and its water was not drinkable. Although they had dug deep, no water came forth. Some time later, however, a spring was discovered right in the king’s tent and, because they had noticed it belatedly, they pretended that it had suddenly flowed forth, and Alexander himself wanted it to be interpreted (credi voluit) as a gift of the gods. Strabo 11.11.5 gives an explanation for the discovery: “It is said that, by digging at the river Ochos, they would find a source of oil; this is likely, since this land is lapped by liquids rich in nitro, aluminium, bitumen and sulphur. Similarly, they found fat; it seems strange because it rarely happens”. On the site of the discovery of the source, Oxus or Ochos, see Atkinson 2000: 477–78. On the various versions of the discovery, see Müller 2018: 131–47. F15a.12–13. Alexander was marvellously pleased: Plutarch insists on the feelings that the news aroused in Alexander. One should emphasise that Alexander writes to the regent of Macedonia not only about political topics, but also about small pieces of news belonging to daily life. Alexander

Commentary

179

writes to Antipater as a friend, since he shows his wonder in the face of an extraordinary event (see also F14). And such behaviour might also explain the reason why he left the greeting chairein in the letters sent to Antipater and Phocion (See Introduction, Section 3). The topic of this letter brings to mind Plutarch’s astonishment in Alex. 42.1, where he marvels that Alexander found time to write to friends even about small episodes of daily life. The episode, however, lent itself also to a reading from a political and military perspective. Indeed, the interpretation of the soothsayers explained the event as a prophecy of a glorious expedition, but, at the same time, harsh and tiring, since the oil had been given by the gods to men as refreshment for fatigue (see ll.15–17). F15a.14–15. one of the greatest signs that came to him from the god: The letter dates to a period following the visit to the oracle of Zeus Ammon and, therefore, after the proclamation of divine descent. Alexander, as previously noted, sees in the discovery one of the signs sent to him by the god. Therefore, he does not call attention to the fact that he is the son of Zeus. He, who has now conquered the Persian Empire and is the heir to Darius, rather stands as an intermediary between human beings (his subjects) and the god like his predecessor: the Great King is not Ahura Mazda, but governs with his support, as we read in the Persian inscriptions. Cf. Ghirshman 1972: 116–24, who points out that Ahura Mazda is the one who with his will leads the actions of kings, “the action of the king must be ratified by the great god. [...] The Persia of the Achaemenids, however, is not a state founded on religion [...]. There is no real imperial cult, but the simple fact that the king is placed on the throne at the behest of Ahura Mazda gives the Persian world a kind of unity” (119–20). On this topic, see Cook 1983: 132–57, Schwartz 1985: 684–95, Asheri 2006: 75–97, and Brosius 2006: 32–37; 63–70, who adds that, in Egypt, Persian kings assume the title of Pharaoh and are assimilated to the gods out of respect for the Egyptian people (64). Tuplin 2017: 94–105 highlights that “Persian evidence for Persian divine kingship is elusive” (102) and that the same phenomenon could be seen in the Greek evidence, since the Greeks did not see living Persian kings as gods but rather as descendants of a god. F15. Source for the letter: Apart from the testimony of the letter, it is quite likely that the discovery was described in the Ephemerides, where all the events of the court were recorded day by day: the fragments speak, in fact, of the king’s passion for hunting (FGrHist 117 F1), of his behaviour during banquets (F2), of what he did during the travels and how he enjoyed himself (Plut. Alex. 23.4). It can also be assumed that Alexander’s letter to Antipater

180

Commentary

was recorded in the Ephemerides as well (for the hypothesis that the letters were included in the Ephemerides, see Introduction, Section 2, pp. 17–18, and Section 7, pp. 55–58). Among Alexander’s contemporary historians who could have been aware of the incident and the letter, we can include Ptolemy who, in Arrian’s version, reports the discovery to Alexander, Chares who, as chamberlain, may have introduced Ptolemy or Proxenus at Alexander’s presence, and Aristobulus of Cassandrea. Indeed, Strabo 11.11.5 speaks of the river where the oil was discovered immediately after quoting a fragment of Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F28). F15. Discussion of authenticity: According to Hansen 1880: 270–71, the letter is not authentic not only because Curtius’ account seems novelistic, but also because there was no reason to write to Antipater about things that had no relation to politics or military actions. Hansen’s hypothesis is hardly sustainable because Curtius does not know the letter, so it is not clear how it can be considered false based on a story that does not recall it. The fact that neither Arrian nor Curtius knew Alexander’s letter to Antipater led Kaerst 1892: 606 to reject its authenticity. Pridik 1893: 70, on the other hand, not only observes that the letter is remembered (commemoratur) not long after Alexander’s death, but also thinks that Athenaeus had found it in Theophrastus. Zumetikos 1894: 40 merely observes that Arrian and Strabo omit (praetermittunt) the letter, but he does not comment on its authenticity (see also Hamilton 1961: 16). The letter, despite the fact that Arrian, Curtius and Strabo do not mention it, could be authentic: the historical works of Arrian and Curtius and the geographical work of Strabo have a different character from Plutarch’s biography and the encyclopaedic work of Athenaeus, so one should not be surprised if the former did not recall the letter, deeming it superfluous or not relevant to their type of history. Moreover, the information given by Alexander in the letter seems well founded since oil really is present on both banks of the river Oxus, where it is exploited. Cf. Bernard 1982: 134, who points to important discoveries of hydrocarbon deposits also made in the modern age, west of Bactra, in northern Afghanistan.

Commentary

181

FF16–17. To Craterus, Attalus and Alcetas; and to Antipater. The Pages’ conspiracy (327) F16.1–2. But even Alexander himself : In 327, Alexander, who was in Sogdiana, wrote about the conspiracy of the pages, which had recently been discovered. The letters highlight two moments within the punishment of the conspirators: the king, in fact, wrote immediately (εὐθύς) to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas, and later (ὕστερον) wrote to Antipater, including Callisthenes in the accusation. F16.2–3. Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas: They were busy in Bactria quelling the revolt of Catanes and Austanes: Catanes is most likely the noble from Sogdiana who, along with Spitamenes, handed Bessus to Alexander (Curt. 7.5.41–43); later he was among the promoters of the revolt in 329 (Curt. 7.6.14–15). Austanes’ name is found only in Curt. 8.5.2 and in Arr. Anab. 4.22.1–2. See Berve 1926: II.202 and 95 nos 415 and 186, and Heckel 2006: 64, 81–82. The reasons why Alexander wrote to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas are not very clear (see infra F16.2–3). F16.2. Craterus: Officer of Alexander, after the death of Parmenion he became second-in-command after the king. He distinguished himself particularly in Bactria and Sogdiana (329–328), and in India, in the Battle of Hydaspes. In 324 he was tasked with bringing the Macedonian veterans back to his homeland and taking over from Antipater as regent of Macedonia and protector of Greece. Alexander’s relationship with Craterus can be clarified by considering some passages of the Life of Alexander: Alexander, after the conspiracy, wrote to Hephaestion to tell that Craterus, while he was trying to capture an Egyptian mongoose, had fallen on Perdiccas’ spear and injured his thighs (41.5; see infra F20); when Craterus had a disease, Alexander had a vision in his dreams after which he made sacrifices and also recommended that Craterus make them (41.6); he expressed his concerns to the doctor Pausanias who wanted to give Craterus a herb, the hellebore (41.7; see infra F21). Furthermore, Alexander called Craterus philobasileus (φιλοβασιλεύς), “friend of the king”, while Hephaestion was called philalexandros (φιλαλέξανδρος), “friend of Alexander”: Plut. Alex. 47.10 speaks of mutual jealousy between the two friends but points out that the king’s relations with Craterus were close although not on the same level as those with Hephaestion, since he honoured (ἐτίμα) the first, but loved the second very much (ἐφίλει μάλιστα). About the conspiracy of Philotas, Plut. Alex. 48.6

182

Commentary

writes that Craterus, while they were in Damascus, got the news from a woman and immediately reported what he had learned to Alexander. Thus, Alexander’s relationship with Craterus was so strong that the king worried about his health, put him almost on the same level as Hephaestion, and trusted him: it is not strange, therefore, that Alexander sent him a letter to tell him about the discovery of the conspiracy. F16.2. Attalus: Son of Andromenes, brother of Amyntas, probably Alexander’s peer; no military action performed by him is mentioned before 328, when Alexander, having moved to Sogdiana, had left him behind in Bactria along with Polyperchon, Gorgias, and Meleager, with the order to keep the region under surveillance (Arr. Anab. 4.16.1). As for Alexander’s relationship with Attalus, we know that Attalus was Alexander’s agemate (aequalem: Curt. 8.13.21) and brother of Polemon, Simmias (Arr. Anab. 3.27.1) and Amyntas, one of Alexander’s philoi (Diod. 17.45.7). Heckel 1992: 166, and Id. 2006: 63, claims that Attalus was perhaps a syntrophos of Alexander, but he does not mention any sources: syntrophoi of Alexander, on the other hand, are the Macedonian Proteas, son of the nanny of Alexander (Ael. VH 12.26), Leonnatus (the Suda, λ249, says that he is syntrapheis [συντραφείς] with Alexander), and also the historian Marsyas of Pella. F16.3. Alcetas: Perdiccas’ younger brother. He almost certainly had assumed the command of his battalion after Perdiccas had become a bodyguard (somatophylax), most likely in 330. See Berve 1926: II.22–23; 92– 93; 220–27 nos 45, 181 and 446, and Heckel 2006: 8–9; 63–64 (s.v. Attalus [3]); 95–99. As for Alcetas, Alexander most likely writes to him by virtue of his connection to Perdiccas, since he was his younger brother (Diod. 18.29.2; Just. Epit. 13.6.15): Perdiccas, at the time of Philip II’s assassination, is somatophylax and, moreover, kills Pausanias, Philip’s assassin, along with Attalus and Leonnatus (Diod. 16.94.4); he is also among Alexander’s bodyguards (Diod. 18.2.2; Arr. Anab. 4.21.4, 5.13.1, 6.11.1); he is one of the hetairoi (Plut. Alex. 15) and one of the most influential generals, so much so that the king, on the verge of death, will give him his ring (Diod. 17.117.3 and 18.2.4; Just. Epit. 12.15.12; Curt. 10.5.4). F16. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 267–68 considers the letter to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas to be authentic for various reasons: first, because Alexander had a valid reason to write to the three officers, namely to avoid having worrisome and exaggerated rumours spread; second, it is unlikely

Commentary

183

that a forger would conceive of a letter in which Alexander himself, who had discovered the conspiracy and tortured the pages, wrote that they had acted alone, indirectly accepting Callisthenes’ innocence; lastly, the letter is not at odds with the account of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, as it is found in Arrian: the two historians write that Callisthenes was accused, but they do not hand down the confession of the pages. On the contrary, Kaerst 1892: 607 argues that the content of the letter is at odds with the account of Ptolemy and Arrian, since Alexander would not write to Craterus while he was away only for a short expedition. Kaerst’s statements might be questionable: instead, I agree with Hansen when he writes that Alexander intended to prevent false news about the conspiracy from spreading. The king was also unable to know how long the expedition to Bactria would last and thus how long Craterus would be away from him. Pridik 1893: 65–67 considers the letter authentic and criticizes Kaerst’s positions using Hansen’s arguments. Zumetikos 1894: 48 also considers the letter authentic and criticizes Kaerst, agreeing with Hansen. Moreover, he adds a compelling observation to support the authenticity of the letter: a forger would not indicate three recipients of the letter, but only one, also because it was difficult to know who of the commanders of Alexander’s army were far away at that time. Further, Hamilton 1961: 15–16 criticizes Kaerst’s positions: the content of the letter does not contradict what Ptolemy and Aristobulus record because Alexander, when he wrote that “no one else” was involved in the conspiracy, most likely meant specifically no other Macedonian and not no one else in general. He also criticizes the hypothesis that Alexander would not write to Craterus who was away for a short time: Hamilton, taking up Hansen’s hypothesis (which he does not mention), suggests that the king intended to silence the gossip about the conspiracy. Moreover, in contrast with Kaerst, Hamilton deems the absence of Polyperchon among the recipients – he had also been sent against Catanes and Austanes – to be of considerable importance: Curt. 8.5.2, in fact, reports that Polyperchon, when the letter was sent, was operating independently from the three generals, so it was logical that Alexander did not write to him, but only to the generals who, in fact, operated together. F17.2. writing to Antipater: Alexander writes to Antipater because he could perhaps be interested not only in the conspiracy for its political implications, but also in the end of Aristotle, whose pupil he had been. Between the two letters (F16 and F17) a difference of tone emerges, and Alexander seems to

184

Commentary

turn much more amicably to Antipater: he shows him his anger and, perhaps, also his disappointment with Callisthenes and Aristotle. On the contrary, in the letter to the three officers the account is more detached, Alexander shows no feelings, neither hatred, nor anger, nor disappointment, perhaps because in this case it is the king who speaks to his subordinates, even if they are people close to him. In the light of this letter, it is also possible to better understand what Alexander meant when he defined Craterus as philobasileus (φιλοβασιλεύς) and Hephaestion as philalexandros (φιλαλέξανδρος). F17.2–3. accusing Callisthenes as well: Alexander had in all likelihood become aware of Callisthenes’ involvement in the conspiracy at a later time or had suspected his guilt by inferring it from some of his attitudes, such as Callisthenes’ refusal to perform proskynesis (FGrHist 125 F14). Plut. Alex. 55.2 writes that Lysimachus and Hagnon reported to Alexander that Callisthenes said he wanted to abolish tyranny, and that the youth gathered around him; some slanderers also pointed to Callisthenes as having instigated Hermolaus’ attempt to assassinate Alexander. Callisthenes was punished by Alexander. Some historians claim that he died hanged at the orders of the king. Ptolemy (FGrHist 138 F17 apud Arr. Anab. 4.14.3) says that he was tortured and died by hanging. Other historians claim that he died of illness while in prison: Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F33 apud Arr. Anab. 4.14.3) says that Callisthenes was led away bound in stocks and later died of illness. Jacoby 1927: Kommentar, II BD, 517, writes that Aristobulus’ source for the punishment is Chares; cf. Hamilton 1969: 156. Chares (FGrHist 125 F15) writes that, after his arrest, Callisthenes was held in prison for seven months, waiting to be judged by the council (i.e. the assembly of the Corinthian League: see Hamilton 1969: 156) in the presence of Aristotle, but he then died of obesity and phthiriasis, around the same time when Alexander was wounded in India (Plut. Alex. 55.9). Bosworth 1970: 411 thinks that Chares invented his version of the facts because, by writing that Callisthenes died of illness, he intended to clear Alexander of the charge of an arbitrary execution of the historian. F17.3–4. The young men were stoned to death by the Macedonians: The information is also in Arr. Anab. 4.14.3. F17.4–6. but I will punish ... conspiring against me: Plutarch explains that Alexander alluded to Aristotle when he wrote that he wanted to punish those who sent Callisthenes. Those who had welcomed him were the Athenians: cf. Hamilton 1969: 156. From the letter to Antipater a strong reaction of Alexander emerges:

Commentary

185

his anger towards not only Callisthenes but also his tutor. But the feeling will be placated since Aristotle will not be punished and he will die in 322. The king, however, will retain a little grudge against him, if, around 324 or 323, in a discussion with Cassander, son of Antipater, he will exclaim with irony: “Here is one of the typical sophisms (σοφίσματα) of Aristotle’s circle, valid for all speeches”. In Alex. 74.4–5, Plutarch recounts that Cassander had gone to Alexander to defend his father Antipater from the accusations that had been made against him by some: the king replied that those who accused his father would not have come so far to make a false accusation. Cassander retorted that the fact that they had travelled so far from those who could contradict them might indicate that the charges were false. Alexander, then, laughing, replied with the reference to Aristotle’s circle and added: “If it turns out that you have done even a little wrong to these men (the accusers of Antipater), you will pay dearly”. Plutarch (Alex. 8.4) highlights the negative evolution of Alexander’s relationship with Aristotle, but at the same time the fact that Alexander does not punish him: “As for Aristotle at first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) he admired him and loved him no less than his father (as he himself said), because his father had given him life but the philosopher had taught him to live well; later (ὕστερον) he started to be suspicious of him, not so much, however, as to hurt him, but his behaviour no longer indicated affection and showed detachment”. In Plut. Alex. 77.3, Aristotle is dragged in to the supposition that Alexander was poisoned: “Some say that it was Aristotle who recommended that action to Antipater and even that he himself procured the poison; this, they say, was revealed by a certain Hagnothemis who had heard it from King Antigonus”. Hamilton 1969: 214 believes that the inclusion of Aristotle in the tale on poisoning is a later invention. Even Arr. Anab. 7.27.1 knows this version, with a worse account, I believe: Aristotle was the one who prepared the poison, even if he did not play the role of instigator of the poisoning; the philosopher also feared Alexander because of what had happened to Callisthenes. F17. Discussion of authenticity: As for the letter to Antipater, the fact that Alexander did not punish Aristotle does not constitute evidence, according to Hansen 1880: 267, against its authenticity because a forger would not have inserted the discrepancy with Callisthenes’ guilt that is missing in the letter previously sent. Kaerst 1892: 607–608, on the other hand, considers the letter an invention born within the tradition that considered the death of Alexander by poisoning an action performed by Antipater and Aristotle: on the one hand, Plutarch does not speak of a threat to the life of Aristotle, on

186

Commentary

the other hand, Chares, had he been aware of the letter, would have spoken of the danger that Aristotle ran. Pridik 1893: 68 rightly does not consider it necessary for Chares to have spoken of the danger of Aristotle, especially since one should not forget that we do not have the whole work of Chares but only a few fragments. As for the tradition of Alexander’s death, Zumetikos 1894: 50 notes that a forger would have written a threatening letter not only about Aristotle, but also about Antipater. Hamilton 1961: 15–16 criticizes Kaerst’s arguments as very weak, since Alexander’s anger towards Aristotle was short-lived. Thus, the letter to the generals is not in real contrast with that to Antipater, although Plutarch, evidently, thinks so. Bosworth 1970: 411–12 considers the letter an invention: the forger knew the tradition of Callisthenes’ punishment and deduced from his kinship with Aristotle that even Aristotle was in danger. I believe that the letter cannot be spurious. A forger who writes after the events and after the figure of Alexander has assumed a certain, even legendary, importance has no interest in inventing content that contradicts the facts and, above all, the forger knows that Aristotle died immediately after Alexander in 322, therefore not due to the punishment of the king. Even a forger interested in making Alexander appear in an unfavourable light would have had no reason to invent a letter saying that Aristotle would be punished, an event which, in the end, did not happen: it would bring out, on the contrary, a positive side of the king’s character, his magnanimity towards the tutor and the ability to forgive. FF16–17. Source for the letters: These letters provide important data. As has already been seen for the letters concerning the wounding at Issus (F3) and the visit of the queen of the Amazons (F13), Plutarch reports letters of Alexander and immediately after a fragment of Chares: it is then not to be excluded that these letters were also present in Chares’ work, especially because the fragment of the historian seems to complete their contents. The historian, chamberlain of Alexander, appears to be the link between the two letters, the one to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas, and the one to Antipater: in particular, Callisthenes’ incarceration coincides with Alexander’s account in the letter to Antipater, when he writes that he would punish the philosopher. The death by illness in prison, instead, corresponds to the account of the story that Alexander offers to Craterus, Attalus, and Alcetas, since he reported the confession of the pages who had said that they had acted alone; and therefore Alexander had no evidence to execute Callisthenes immediately. Cf. Zumetikos

Commentary

187

1894: 52, who proposes that the two letters may derive from Chares since they are well integrated into the narrative of events: the adverbs euthys (εὐθύς) and hysteron (ὕστερον) also indicate the temporal succession of the letters, and lead Zumetikos to hypothesize not only that they were handed down in Chares’ work, but also found in the same book; see contra Hamilton 1961: 16, who considers the adverbs a deduction of Plutarch’s.

F18. Anonymous recipients. The battle against Porus (326) F18.1. As for the military actions against Porus: In the period following the conspiracy of the pages, in 327 precisely, Alexander decided to keep conquering and exploring the East. In the same year he formed an alliance with Taxiles, king of Taxila. The city was the capital of a kingdom that stretched from the Indus River to the Hydaspes (now Jhelum) or the Acesines (now Chenab) east of Gandhara and the Paropamisus mountain range (now Hindu Kush). After an alliance with the Persian Empire, the local king Omphis (Ambhi) – one of a series of monarchs who controlled Gandhara and were known by the Greeks as Taxiles – welcomed Alexander without worrying about his neighbour Porus (Parvataka, Parvatesha, Paurava). See Karttunen 2002a: col. 62 and 2002b: coll. 62–63. Later, in the spring of 326, after crossing the Indus, Alexander entered the kingdom of his ally. In late April, he pushed eastward to the Hydaspes River, which marked the border between the kingdom of Taxiles and that of Porus. The battle against Porus, mentioned by all sources, took place on the banks of this river: Diod. 17.87–88; Arr. Anab. 5.8.4, 18.5; Just. Epit. 12.8.1–4; Curt. 8.13.5–14.33. F18.1. Porus: King Paurava (in Greek Porus) ruled the region between Hydaspes and Acesines. Defeated by Alexander, he became his ally and received Eastern Punjab from him, when Alexander was forced to turn back to the Beas. If Porus is the Parvataka of Mudrārākshasa, he later helped Sandracottus to snatch north-western India from the Macedonians. He was killed before 318 by the Macedonian Eudamus, satrap of Parthia, who took possession of his elephants. See Berve 1926: II.340–45 no. 683, and Heckel 2006: 231–32. F18.1–2. he himself wrote in his letters: Only Plut. Alex. 60.1 writes that the story is told by Alexander himself in his letters. F18.5–7. Every day he produced ... alarmed by this: The only historian who does not mention Alexander’s deception is Curtius.

188

Commentary

F18.8. a part of the infantrymen: The Hypaspists, the squadrons of Cleitus and Coenus, the archers, and the Agrianes. Meleager, Attalus, and Gorgias, on the other hand, were with the mercenary infantry between the main camp and the crossing area. Alexander left Craterus in the main camp with two regiments and 5,000 Indians. See Arr. Anab. 5.11.4. F18.8. the best cavalrymen: The Agema of the Companions, four cavalry regiments (including the Bactrian, Sogdian, and Scythian cavalry), and the mounted archers. F18.9. he crossed over to a not large island: The sources used by Arrian report different details: Aristobulus (Anab. 5.14.3) describes the island as small (mikra, μικρά), while Ptolemy (Anab. 5.13.2) as large (megale, μεγάλη); most likely the two historians speak of different islands. Curtius (8.13.12 and 17), in fact, says that in the middle of the river there were numerous islands, but there was one larger than the others, covered in woods, suitable for concealing an ambush. The description of Arrian (Anab. 5.11.1) corresponds to that of Curtius. F18.14–15. Coming on rough ... had formed a great ravine: The thunderstorm and the description of the ravine correspond to the description of Arr. Anab. 5.13.3. F18.21. Onesicritus has said: FGrHist 134 F19. On Onesicritus, see supra F13.3. F18.21. But he himself says: This passage also requires some reflection about Plutarch’s sources. As we have already seen for the visit of the queen of the Amazons (F13) and for the speech given to the Macedonians (F14), Plutarch once again appears to compare the sources at his disposal and point out that the tradition of Onesicritus does not correspond to the truth since Alexander in his letters gave another version of the facts. F18.23. Getting wet up to their chests: See also Arr. Anab. 5.13.3. F18.24–27. if the enemy ... join him in time: Arr. Anab. 5.14.2 provides a more detailed and, in part, different account of the reason why Alexander decided to bring the cavalry before him: if Porus and his men had attacked him with the whole army, he would have had the better of Porus by counterattacking him with the cavalry, and could have defended himself until the infantry arrived; and if the Indians, frightened by the audacity of the crossing, had fled, he would have pursued them. F18.27–29. After he turned ... attacked him: Porus’ son had been sent to oppose Alexander. Arr. Anab. 5.14.3–6 hands down the different versions regarding the size of the enemy led by the son of Porus: Ptolemy speaks of

Commentary

189

2,000 horsemen and 120 chariots, Aristobulus of 60 chariots. Curtius 8.14.2, on the other hand, speaks of 4,000 horsemen and 100 chariots led by Porus’ brother. F18.29–30. killed four hundred of the horsemen: The number of the fallen in Plutarch, who knows the letters; Aristobulus, Ptolemy and, therefore, Arrian agree: about 400 horsemen of the army of Porus perished. F18.33–34. fearing the animals and the large number of the enemy: For the number of the enemy the sources are discordant: Plutarch provides the smallest number, most likely drawing on Alexander’s letters (62.1; cf. Hamilton 1969: 166). Indeed, he speaks of 20,000 infantrymen and 2,000 horsemen, while the other historians provide higher numbers: in Arrian (Anab. 5.15.4) there are 30,000 infantrymen, 4,000 horsemen, 300 chariots, and 200 elephants; Curtius (8.13.6) differs from Arrian only in the number of elephants that are 85; in Diod. 17.87–88, we find 50,000 infantrymen, 3,000 horsemen, more than 1,000 chariots, and 130 elephants. Arrian also follows Ptolemy here, as he declares in Anab. 5.14.4 (Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου, ὅτῳ καὶ ἐγὼ ξυμφέρομαι). Plutarch, on the other hand, perhaps follows the letters in this case too. F18.35. Coenus: Coenus, son of Polemocrates, commanded the militias of the Elimea. His marriage to a daughter of Parmenion compromised him, and in 326 he attracted even more the ire of Alexander by speaking on behalf of the troops who did not wish to go beyond the Hyphasis. See Berve 1926: II.215–18 no. 439, and Heckel 2006: 91–93. F18.38. at the eighth hour: Plutarch is the only one who knows the duration of the battle. F18.39–40. the very author of the battle: My proposed translation aims at underlining the duality of the meaning of the term poietes (ποιητής) used by Plutarch to describe Alexander, as it can indicate both the author, the one who participated in the battle, and the author of a written work, the poet who sings it. Indeed, according to Arrian (Anab. 1.12.1) and Plutarch (Alex.15.8– 9), Alexander considered Achilles happy because he had found Homer as singer of his deeds. Therefore, the term might also allude to the “Poet” par excellence, Homer (see LSJ, where one of the explanations of ho poietes, ὁ ποιητής, is that it indicates Homer). This meaning leads one to think that there might be the precise intention to indicate Alexander as the ‘new Homer’: just as the epic poet described a great war of the Achaeans against the Trojans – Eastern people –, in the same way Alexander describes his war at the head of the Greeks against a population of the Far East. Indeed, a

190

Commentary

fragment of Onesicritus (FGrHist 134 F38), handed down by Plutarch (Alex. 8.2), recalls that Alexander kept the edition of the Iliad by Aristotle always with him, and placed it under his pillow together with a dagger because he considered this work “a viaticum of warlike virtue”. However, the king differs from the poet, since Homer also involves the gods in the battles between the Greeks and the Trojans, whereas Alexander – as we have seen in his letters about the march along the coast of Pamphylia (F2), Issus (F3), and the visit of the Queen of the Amazons (F13) – does not mention divine interventions. His own account is the history of a leader, but at the same time that of a man who gives a version of the events from his own point of view and not from the omniscient point of view of the epic poet. In this light, Alexander appears the perfect successor to Darius, since he is now the Great King who writes his own history (cf. Canfora 1979: 353; 1989: 235, who, commenting on the formulae of the Persian inscriptions and giving as examples the incipit ‘so speaks Hattusili’ and ‘so speaks Darius’, states that “what Hattusili or Darius ‘say’ is history”). F18. Recipients: The plural used by Plutarch, rather than suggesting a collection of letters from which the information was taken, leads to the hypothesis that Alexander had described the battle to several people. It is quite likely that one of the recipients was Antipater: the regent of Macedonia, in fact, is the only person to whom Alexander can describe a battle, as he had previously done regarding the battle of Issus. The other recipient, most likely, is his mother; Arr. Anab. 6.1.4–5, for example, mentions a letter from Alexander addressed to Olympias about India (see infra F19). F18. Source for the letters: As for the source, it is likely that the letters were found in Aristobulus’ history, just as in the case of the letter regarding the discovery of the oil well at the river Oxus (F15). Moreover, the 60 chariots that Porus’ son led appear in Aristobulus (FGrHist 139 F43), while Ptolemy doubles them (FGrHist 138 F20). F18. Discussion of authenticity: The letters have often been considered forgeries because the narrative is not in line with that provided by Arrian. Kaerst 1892: 608–11 already questioned them because he considered Arrian’s description much clearer and more detailed than that of Plutarch. Moreover, Plutarch contradicts Arrian on the numbers of chariots and horsemen of the son of Porus: if Ptolemy, on whom Arrian depends, had known the letter, he would not have written different numbers; Ptolemy and, therefore, Arrian speak of 120 chariots and 2,000 horsemen, while Plutarch, who has the letter of Alexander, of 60 chariots and 1,000 horsemen.

Commentary

191

This is one of the few cases where Jacoby (1927, Kommentar, II BD: 476–77) deals with Alexander’s letters: in the commentary on fragment 19 of Onesicritus, he considers the letters a forgery because they belong “to the official representations of the king by the literary office of Alexander” (zu den offiziellen darstellungen aus Alexanders literarischem bureau), published day by day immediately after the events as a kind of bulletin. One could, however, object to Jacoby’s hypothesis that, if the letter had been written for the official version, it certainly would not have contained numbers of the enemy that turn out to be lower than the later historical tradition but would have instead mentioned higher numbers to bring out Alexander’s courage. Tarn 1948c: 197, in agreement with Kaerst, does not consider the letter authentic asserting that it does not correspond to Arrian’s narrative. Further, Hammond 1993: 42–44 considers the letters forgeries because they exaggerate the dangers of crossing the river and the concerns about the climate with epic proportions, a mistake that does not suit Alexander in any way. Hammond’s opinion, however, might be questionable and one might underline that, on the contrary, Plutarch, who follows the letters, provides the fewest number for the enemy compared to other sources: in the case of epic exaggeration, one would think that the enemy number would also be inflated. The letters are considered authentic by Pridik 1893: 104–108 since a forger would not have written lower numbers than those mentioned by Ptolemy and, therefore, Arrian. Furthermore, Aristobulus hands down the same number as Plutarch for the chariots of the son of Porus, so it is not likely that this historian minimized the numbers of the enemy army, thereby diminishing the achievement of Alexander (num omnino verisimile est etiam Aristobulum regis gloriae obtrectare voluisse). In the wake of Pridik and with similar arguments, Zumetikos 1894: 56–64, and Hamilton 1961: 16–18 consider the letters authentic. Levi 1977: 266–67 does not doubt the authenticity of Plutarch’s account, saying, however, that he did not draw directly from Alexander’s writing, which was “a letter-report”, but from a composite source who, shortly after the death of the king, had reworked Alexander’s authentic account. Scholars point to the difference between Arrian’s description and Plutarch’s, and, for this reason, consider the letters on which Plutarch’s account is based to be forgeries. However, they might be authentic because, from the parallel reading of the account of Plutarch and Arrian, it emerges that Plutarch’s account is shorter and puts the emphasis not so much on

192

Commentary

the battle as on the figure of Alexander – as he had famously stated in the preamble of Alex. 1.1–2, where he specified that his intent was to write lives and not histories, for which he would narrate the most celebrated episodes briefly, since a short episode highlights the character much better than battles with thousands of dead or very large arrays of armies. Arrian, on the other hand, dwells on and accurately describes the tactics and the method of fighting. Furthermore, Plutarch at one point interrupts the description of the battle and sums it up by saying that from then on the fight was confused and lasted eight hours, while Arrian continues with a precise description of the events. Above all, Plutarch highlights Alexander’s cunning when he tries to pass to the other side of the river where the enemy are stationed. He is a military commander who knows how to adapt to the situations in which he finds himself: while with Darius he had adopted a strategy that led him to a proper battle in the open field, such as the three battles of the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, with Porus he devised a ploy that is typical of guerrilla warfare, a way of fighting more suited to the territory in which the battle occurred (cf. Vidal-Naquet 1984: 355–65; for battle tactics, see Hamilton 1956: 26–31, and Fuller 1958: 193–97).

F19. To Olympias. The sources of the Nile (326 or beginning of 325) F19.1. writing to Olympias: The last letter written to Olympias as handed down by the sources dates to 326 (or early 325), when Alexander, sailing along the Hydaspes towards the Ocean, arrived at the Indus River. More precisely, Bearzot 2011: 43 believes that the letter was written in October 326. F19.3. discovered the sources of the Nile: The news of the supposed sources of the Nile was already known to Strabo (15.1.25), who did not know Alexander’s letter, but had taken it from Nearchus’ work. Nearchus was born around 360, was one of Alexander’s hetairoi, took part in the expedition to Asia, and in 334 was entrusted with the governorship of Lycia and Pamphylia. In the autumn of 326 he was appointed commander and trierarch of the fleet on the Hydaspes, and admiral in 325 at Patala. He described his exploratory trip of the Indian region in the Paraplous tes Indikes (Παράπλους τῆς Ἰνδικῆς). See Berve 1926: II.269–72 no. 544, and Heckel 2006: 171–73. Nearchus (FGrHist 133 F20) reported that Alexander, being near to the

Commentary

193

Acesines and Hydaspes rivers, had planned to set up a fleet for an expedition to Egypt, but later realized that he could not accomplish what he had hoped for, because all the Indian rivers flowed into the ocean: see also tables 3 and 4 in Schachermeyr 1949: 368 and 370. F19.3–5. judging by certain small and trivial things: The king described the Indian region and the sources of the Nile, convinced that he had found them in India, despite having inconsistent evidence for so important a problem: he had seen crocodiles on the Indus River, which he had seen only on the Nile; then, in the Acesines River, which flowed into the Indus, he had noticed beans similar to those that the Egyptian land produced. F19.5. But when he investigated more deeply: The letter to Olympias is fascinating because it underlines the curiosity and desire of Alexander to investigate the nature of the places he visited. From Plin. HN 8.16.44 we know that throughout Asia and Greece he solicited the commitment of a few thousand men who had experience of any animal species, hunting and fishing so as to be informed about every species wherever they lived. Pliny adds that the animal treatises of Aristotle originated from these investigations. Alexander, therefore, was most likely driven to do research on nature not only because of self-interest, but also because of the passion transmitted to him by Aristotle. Cf. Bosworth 1993: 412–14, who does not doubt Aristotle’s influence; contra Bodson 1991: 133, who argues that Pliny’s information cannot be confirmed and that the scientific collaboration between Aristotle and Alexander must be considered as idealized and legendary. Aristotle was a very versatile author and probably wrote a treatise on the floods of the Nile: in the catalogue of Aristotle’s works, in an appendix to the biography known as Vita Menagiana, a work entitled peri tes tou Neilou anabaseos (περὶ τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως, FGrHist 646 T1) is mentioned. Most modern scholars are in favour of its authenticity. See De Nardis 1992: 89–108, and Bosworth 1993: 419–20. Recently a papyrus, written in Greek and dealing with the same topic, was discovered (P.Oxy. 4458). Its column I is identified with the Aristotelian treatise. See Jacobi-Luppe 2000: 15–18, and Gärtner 2000: 31–33. By contrast, Fowler 2000: 133–42 speculates that the papyrus is by Posidonius who, in turn, had as his sources Eratosthenes and the Aristotelian work regarding the floods of the Nile. In the Latin epitome (FGrHist 646 F1) of the work, we read the hypothesis that the Nile originated from the Indus. Artaxerxes III (Ochus), who intended to make an expedition against Egypt, had first decided to divert the course of the Indian river, because he had heard that there were crocodiles like

194

Commentary

those in the Nile; but when it was told to him that the “the river flows into the Red Sea”, he renounced the project. Later, however, he learned from the Indians that there was another river, identified by Tarn 1923: 99 in presentday Sutlej (Eastern tributary of the Indus), in which there were crocodiles, and which flowed around the Red Sea, and was convinced that Asia and Egypt had a common water source, a river. Alexander, therefore, might have learned from Aristotle one of the hypotheses about the sources of the Nile and, upon arriving in India, was convinced that he had found them. Bosworth 1996: 71 explains that although Scylax had written about the periplus he made at the beginning of the 5th century on behalf of Darius, imaginary speculation about the IndoNile connection survived: one of the two branches of the Indus did not flow into the ocean, but flowed south of the Red Sea, considered an ‘inland sea’, and met the course of the Nile. At this point, the question arises why Alexander sent this letter to his mother and not to Aristotle. The explanation could perhaps be seen in the fact that it dates to 326, at a time, therefore, when the relations between Alexander and Aristotle had changed for the worse as a result of the conspiracy of the Pages (see supra F17). Most likely, even among ancient scholars there were those who asked themselves this question, since two non-authentic letters written from India to Aristotle are preserved. John Philoponus, Commentary on the first book of the Metereologica of Aristotle, vol. 14.1 page 17 line 33, commentator of Aristotle, who lived between AD 490 and 570, gives information of a letter in which Alexander wrote to Aristotle about the opinions of the Indians about heaven. Alexander’s second letter to Aristotle, handed down by several codices in a Latin translation, initially circulated independently, and was then included in the codices of the Alexander Romance, where one can read the corresponding Greek version: see Boer 1953: ii–xxxiv. F19.7–8. Hydaspes ... Acesines ... Indus: Hydaspes (modern Jhelum), Acesines (Chenab), Hydraotes (Ravi), Hyphasis (Beas), and the Indus flow through modern Punjab which literally means “country of the five rivers”. See Karttunen 1998: col. 773. F19.11–13. Then he deleted ... about the Nile: Regarding the hypothesis that Alexander wrote two letters and in the second corrected what he had written in the first, scholars are divided: Hammond 1993: 263; n. 5 thinks of two letters sent in succession; see contra Brunt 1983: 103 n. 3, who thinks of a bad copy, corrected later; cf. Sisti 2001: II.519. Arrian’s text appears clear: the historian uses the verb aphaireo (ἀφαιρέω), which has the meaning of

Commentary

195

‘remove, delete’ (see LSJ s.v.), and he says nothing of material added in a later letter. Cf. Bearzot 2011: 43–44, who hypothesises that the correction was “made in the chancellery copy to be preserved after the actual letter had already been sent” because Alexander “wished to remove such an error from the text destined to be collected in the royal archives”. F19. Source for the letter: As for the source of the letter, one might infer from Strabo that it had been handed down by Nearchus, Alexander’s admiral, especially since the king had entrusted him with the expedition by sea along the Indian coast: see Zumetikos 1894: 94, who claims that the letter is well integrated into the narrative, and was thus taken from the same source; cf. Brunt 1983: II.101 n. 2, Sisti 2001: 519, and Bearzot 2011: 43. The character of Nearchus’ work, however, perhaps left no room for excursuses like the inclusion of a letter in the narration, since it was a sort of “ship’s log” (for this definition, see Gadaleta 2000–2003: 94). Another possible source could be Aristobulus who wrote about India and, in particular, stated that the crocodiles in the Indus were the same as those seen in the Nile (FGrHist 139 F38). Fränkel 1883: 127–32; 281 thinks of Aristobulus because Arrian’s story is different from Strabo who preserves a fragment of Nearchus. Pridik 1893: 89 considers Aristobulus a source for the letter without giving any reason. Hammond 1993: 262–64 adds that, most likely, Aristobulus did not read the letter at the time when it was written by Alexander, but later, when Olympias kept it in Macedonia or after Alexander’s death, when Cassander and Thessalonike came into possession of the letters of Olympias. Hammond may be right in regarding Aristobulus as the source of the letter; as far as his other statements are concerned, it is difficult to explain how Aristobulus had access to the letters which were secret documents. Hammond also cites no source that mentions a transfer of Olympias’ letters into Cassander’s hands and says merely that Aristobulus wrote his historical work in Cassandrea. It might be objected that Strabo 15.1.45, who preserves the fragment of Aristobulus, does not mention the letter. On the contrary, Arrian, who mentions the letter, does not trace it back to Aristobulus. Another source, perhaps the most likely, may once again be Chares who wrote about India, as can be deduced from some of his fragments, and may have handed down a private letter from Alexander to his mother regarding the exploration of the Indian land. Of the 19 fragments of Chares’ work, 5 deal with or refer to India: fragment 3 reports the news of an oyster-like mollusc discovered in the Indian Sea, from which the Indians extracted “white bones”

196

Commentary

that they called pearls and used to make jewellery; fragment 15 touches upon the news of Alexander’s injury while he was near an Indian people, the MallianOxydracae; in fragment 16 Chares, speaking of Alexander’s siege of an Indian city called Petra (on this see Rollinger 2014: 597–635), explains how the king conserved snow: Alexander dug thirty cooling pits, filled them with snow and covered it with branches of an oak tree (see Müller 2014: 47–52 who analyses the ideological background and royal symbolism behind this piece of information); fragment 17 touches upon a deity honoured in India called Soroadeios; lastly, fragment 19 describes the games Alexander had organized to honour Kalanos’ death which emphasizes the Indians’ love of wine. See Cagnazzi 2009: 281–311 and Ead. 2015. In addition, we have Pliny’s testimony (FGrHist 125 T3 = HN 1.12c, 13c, and 37c) who lists Chares among the authors from whom he drew the information for Book 12, where he deals with the nature of plants and also plants in India (spina Indica, ficus Indica, Indicorum arborum formae sine nominibus); the information for Book 13, which deals with foreign plants, ointments, palms, plants and fruits of the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Indian Sea; and, finally, the information for Book 37, which deals with gems and precious stones. As for what Pliny used in talking about the seafood of India, one can trace back a possible confirmation in Chares’ fragment 3 reporting the news of an oyster-like mollusc. F19. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 288–89 believes that it is not possible to doubt the authenticity of the letter, since Arrian does not employ a terminology which might recall a collection – Hansen was probably referring to the absence of the expression “in the letters” – and the news is reported only from historical sources. Pridik 1893: 89 and Zumetikos 1894: 94–95 have no doubts about authenticity either, but they do not give any reason for their belief. As for the most recent scholars, it should be noted that Burstein 1976: 137, although speaking of the floods of the Nile, does not comment on Alexander’s letter to his mother, despite mentioning the passage in a footnote. Pédech 1977: 123, while dealing with the landscape of India as it appears in the fragments of Alexander’s contemporary historians, cites the passage of Arrian, and discusses Alexander’s mistake regarding the sources of the Nile, but does not mention Alexander’s letter. Further, Bodson 1991: 133, while dealing with scientific exploration in the Eastern part of Alexander’s empire, makes no mention of the letter to his mother or the hypothesis of ancient authors regarding the correspondence between the sources of the Nile and those of the Indus.

Commentary

197

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter: it highlights the good faith of Alexander who, naively, believed that he had found the sources of the Nile. If a forger had wanted to put the king in a bad light, he would have relied on the misinformation about the sources of the Nile and made them the main subject of the letter without mentioning the subsequent correction of the error. On the other hand, if a forger had wanted to put Alexander in a positive light, he would most likely have written a letter referring to Nearchus’ work and would not have reported the erroneous claim of which Alexander was initially convinced.

F20. To Hephaestion. About Craterus’ wound (326–325) F20.1–2. To Hephaestion: The friend with whom Alexander had the closest bond. F20.2. absent on some business: We do not have the date when the letter was sent, since Plutarch includes it among the examples of Alexander’s attention and benevolence towards friends. It is possible, however, to try to reconstruct the moment when Hephaestion was away from the court of Alexander, and Craterus and Perdiccas were present. The period may be isolated between 326 and 325, at a time when Alexander, after defeating the Indian king Porus, was preparing to attack the Mallians and the Oxydracae, the most belligerent tribes of India who had not voluntarily submitted. With the Hypaspists and the Agrianes Alexander advanced against the Mallians, while he ordered Craterus to take the command of the units of Polyperchon and of the mounted archers. He ordered Hephaestion to precede him by five days. Perdiccas, who was at first sent on a mission to another city of the Mallians, was with Alexander and participated in the decisive battle, leading a joint attack with him (Arr. Anab. 6.4.3, 6.5.5–7, 6.6.1–4, and 6.9.1–2). During the battle the king was wounded, according to Chares (FGrHist 125 F15). The fact that Craterus commanded Polyperchon’s men does not mean that he was not with Alexander, since at the time of the injury he was the spokesman for the hetairoi, advising Alexander not to resume the attacks, but to take care of his health and safety (Curt. 9.6.6–14). Hephaestion was still camped on the banks of the Hydraotes at the point of confluence with the river Acesines, and he was reached by Alexander only after Alexander had been wounded and the battle had been concluded (Arr. Anab. 6.13.1–2). F20.3. Egyptian mongoose: An animal belonging to the carnivore family

198

Commentary

Viverridae. It mainly lives in areas with low bushes and feeds on rats and reptiles. It is found in India as well as in Africa and China. The best known species is the so-called mongoose (Mangusta). See De Beaux 1933: 697. F20.4. Craterus: In the letter, Alexander gave news of the philobasileus Craterus to the philalexandros Hephaestion, expressing his attachment and concern for his friend to an even closer friend. Perhaps Alexander, writing about the accident to Hephaestion, was trying to heal the quarrels that broke out during this period of the Indian campaign between his two friends: jealous of each other, they clashed openly even going so far as to draw swords. Following this dispute, Alexander publicly rebuked Hephaestion, calling him foolish and mad, while he blamed Craterus in private. Afterwards he summoned them both, reconciled them, and added that they were the two men in the world he loved the most (Plut. Alex. 47.11–12, and De Alex. fort. aut virt. 337a). F20. Source for the letter: Kaerst 1892: 616 believes that the source may be a historian who dealt more precisely with the character and personal affairs of the king with reference to the letters, such as Chares. Pridik 1893: 94 writes that the letter dates back to Chares, but he does not explain his hypothesis. The source for this letter may indeed be Chares, not only because he wrote about India (a fragment of his, F15, mentioning the wound at the Oxydracae is preserved) but also because the letter treated an episode of daily life that occurred during the breaks between battles, such as the melomachia, the battle of the apples, FGrHist 125 F9 (on this fragment, see Cagnazzi 2009: 281–311, and Ead. 2015: 107). F20. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 298–99 believes that the content of the letter is not strong evidence against its authenticity; on the contrary, the fact that it speaks of trifles (Kleinigkeiten) could suggest its genuineness. Pridik 1893: 94 also does not doubt its authenticity and believes that a forger could not have invented a game with an animal that was sacred to the gods in Egypt. Zumetikos 1894: 32 mentions the letter but does not comment on it or express any view about its authenticity. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that it is not possible to take a position regarding the letter.

F21. To the physician Pausanias. About hellebore and Craterus (326–325) F21.1–2. doctor Pausanias: His provenance is unknown. See Berve 1926: II.309 no. 616, and Heckel 2006: 194, s.v. Pausanias [5].

Commentary

199

F21.2. to give Craterus: It is not easy to understand the disease which affected Craterus nor to trace back the letter to the period when Alexander wrote it. Hellebore was used as a laxative or haematic (see infra F21.2. hellebore), so one might think that Craterus had suffered some sort of indigestion or had eaten something that caused him discomfort. The herb was also used to heal coxalgia, tetanus, and access of fever. Topical use of this substance was mainly prescribed for the cauterization of wounds, or as emollient, or as aseptic medicine (see Girard 1990: 393–405). So, one hypothesis could be that Pausanias had recommended a hellebore-based treatment for the wounds that Craterus had received to his thighs while he was trying to capture the Egyptian mongoose (see supra F20). The wound should not have been of little consequence if Alexander wrote to Hephaestion, who was absent only briefly from his court. The letter, therefore, could be placed at the same time as the one written to Hephaestion, when the wounded Craterus had been entrusted to the care of the doctor. F21.2. hellebore: A perennial herbaceous plant, with leaves and flowers, which is used as cardiokinetic, containing among its active ingredients some cardioactive glucosides. It was also used as a drastic purgative. It is found in West Asia and South-Central Europe (see Benedicenti in Treccani 1932: 828, and Cortesi in Treccani 1932: 828). The herb was well known in antiquity for its heavily laxative and haematic properties, but it was also known as a very dangerous drug, to be used with great caution (see Dalby 2003: 174–75, s.v. Hellebore). F21.3. anxious: Alexander had such affection for Craterus that he was also concerned about the cure prescribed to him, to such an extent that he had a vision while sleeping, and for this reason, sacrificed to the gods so that Craterus would be healed, and he also ordered Craterus to do so (Plut. Alex. 41.6). F21.3. to advise ... drug: Alexander, educated by Aristotle – who was himself the son of a doctor and expert in the most disparate subjects of human knowledge (including botany) – could not fail to know the properties and contraindications of hellebore. Indeed, Aristotle had certainly passed on his love of medicine to Alexander, who in turn helped his friends when they became ill and even prescribed for them cures or diets, “as can be inferred from his letters” (ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν λαβεῖν ἔστιν: Plut. Alex. 8.1). F21. Source for the letter: Chares might have been the source, since he usually dealt with topics concerning everyday life: see supra, F20. F21. Discussion of authenticity: Pridik 1893: 94 considers the letter authentic but offers no reasons for this. Zumetikos 1894: 38 writes that it

200

Commentary

could be authentic, both because the sources attest that Alexander had skill in medicine, and because the king helped his friends, as when he healed Ptolemy from injury, and gave medical advice also by letter. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that no decision can be made about this letter.

FF22–23. To Phocion. About gifts (324–3) F22.1. Phocion: On him, see supra, Introduction, Section 3, pp. 28–29. F22.2–3. he would not ... accept his kindness: Alexander gave many gifts to friends and showed disappointment when they did not accept them. In this case, he had sent 100 talents as a gift to Phocion who refused them, because he did not want to discredit both himself and Alexander in front of Athens, since the money had been sent only to him and not to all Athenians: Plut. Phoc. 18.6; Ael. VH 1.25. The letter most likely accompanied the gift. F23.1. wrote back: After the rejection of the gift by Phocion, Alexander wrote again (πάλιν): cf. Zumetikos 1893: 92. From the use of the adverb palin (πάλιν), one could infer that there were two letters (see also Pridik 1893: 92), the first (F22: in the Life of Alexander) in which Alexander does not seem to be very angry and speaks of the risk that Phocion is running, the second (F23: in the Life of Phocion), where, instead, the king seems really upset to such an extent that he writes that he did not consider those who did not ask anything of him to be friends. Phocion, therefore, opted to ask for the release of the sophist Echecratides, Athenodorus from Imbros, and two inhabitants of Rhodes, Demaratus and Sparton, detained in Sardis. Alexander agreed and ordered Craterus to entrust a city to Phocion, whichever he preferred between Cius (in Bithynia), Gergitus (in Troas), Milasa (in Caria), and Elea (in Aeolis). Phocion, however, did not accept and the king died shortly thereafter. This information from Plutarch helps to date the letters to a period between 324 and 323. Information about Alexander’s gifts and the release of the prisoners of Sardis is also recorded by Ael. VH 1.25, who in place of Gergitus names Patara (in Lycia, near the mouth of the Xanthus River) and adds that the city was offered to Phocion so that he could benefit from its income. The gift of cities was not a Greek habit, but belonged to the customs of the Persian kings. Indeed, a fragment of Ctesias (FGrHist 688 F9.5) reports that Cyrus had given Barene, a large city near Ecbatana, to Croesus. Xen. Hell. 3.1.6, writes that Xerxes gave three cities of Asia Minor (Pergamon, Teuthrania, and Halisarna)

Commentary

201

to the Spartan king Demaratus, who was in exile at the Persian court. Hdt. 9.109 recounts that Xerxes, in love with her niece and daughter-in-law Artaÿnte, gave her a city, a great deal of gold, and an army that she alone would command as gifts. Thuc. 1.138.5 and Plut. Them. 29.11 write that Artaxerxes I gifted Themistocles with three cities, Magnesia, Lampsacus and Myus, “for bread, wine and meat” (see Cagnazzi 2001: 44–47). This is, therefore, another Eastern habit that Alexander adopts after the conquest of the Persian Empire. FF22–23. Source for the letters: The source for Alexander’s letters to Phocion could be Chares, both because these are personal and confidential matters, known only to the chamberlain, and because Chares is the one who reports the information about the greeting in the letters addressed to Phocion, information which makes one reflect upon the fact that, most likely, the historian had the letters written by Alexander to his friend at his disposal. Cf. Zumetikos 1894: 34; see also Hansen 1880: 302, who identifies the source of the letter as Duris or Chares, and argues that Plutarch clearly learned the information contained both in the Life of Phocion and in the Life of Alexander from a single historical source, and that in both biographies the two historians are used at least indirectly. Hansen makes this assumption on the basis of the beginning of chapter 18 of the Life of Phocion, but he does not explain why, and it thus remains obscure. Pridik 1893: 94, without giving any reason, speculates that Plutarch took the letter from Duris who in turn had drawn on Chares. Hamilton 1969: 103 argues that the hypothesis of Pridik and Zumetikos is probably correct. FF22–23. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 302 believes that any doubt about the genuineness of the exchange of letters is unfounded, because the sense of Alexander’s “intrusive gift” is political, and he intends to press Phocion to oppose the anti-Macedonian policy of Demosthenes. Pridik 1893: 92 considers the letters authentic, although he does not explain why. Zumetikos 1894: 34 considers the two letters to be different versions of the same letter and thinks they are authentic since they could not be in a late collection, but he too does not explain his opinion. Hamilton 1969: 103 believes that no decision is possible regarding the authenticity of F22.

F24. To Peucestas. About Craterus’ slave (324–323) F24.1. praises: Alexander showed gratitude not for something Peucestas had done for him, but for something Peucestas had done for a friend of his.

202

Commentary

The participle depends on the verb graphei (γράφει) referring to Alexander (Plut. Alex. 42.1) which Plutarch uses to introduce three different letters (F24, F27 and F28). F24.1. Peucestas: From Arr. Ind. 18.6, we know that he was Alexander’s agemate, attended the school of Aristotle together with Alexander and the royal pages, and was trierarch of Alexander’s fleet on the river Hydaspes (an office of great prestige that emphasizes his belonging to a higher class). He was the brother of Amyntas, one of Philip’s bodyguards. See Berve 1926: II.318–19 no. 634, Heckel 2006: 203–205, s.v. Peucestas [2], and especially Muccioli 2017: 75–91. From this letter we might infer Alexander’s attachment to Peucestas, who had saved the king’s life during the campaign against the Mallians, receiving himself a serious wound in an attempt to shield Alexander: Diod. 17.99.4; Arr. Anab. 6.9.3, 6.10.1–2, 6.11.7–8, 6.28.4, Ind. 19.8; Plut. Alex. 63.5; and Curt. 9.5.14–18. Alexander showed his gratitude by naming him somatophylax, conferring a golden crown on him at Susa, and awarding him, perhaps, also the satrapy of Persis (Arr. Anab. 6.28.3–4 and 30.2, 7.5.4). Peucestas was so close to the political and cultural conceptions of his king that he learned the Persian language and began to dress in the Persian way: Arr. Anab. 6.30.2. Diod. 19.14.5, on the other hand, writes that Alexander allowed him to adopt the Persian way of dressing by virtue of his act of heroism. The letter was most likely written at the time when Peucestas had moved away from India and from Alexander’s court, and was in Persis, thus between 324 and 323 (cf. Berve 1926: I.263; II.280, and Heckel 2006: 180, s.v. Nicon), since in 323 he was in Babylon when Alexander died: indeed, Arr. Anab. 7.26.2 writes that Peucestas spent the entire night in the temple of Serapis, with other friends of Alexander, praying for the king’s health. F24.1. Nicon: Nicon is mentioned only here. See Berve 1926: II.280 no. 571, and Heckel 2006: 180. F24.1. slave of Craterus: Alexander’s concerns for Craterus went beyond his health, and extended to his slaves. F24. Source for the letter: As for the source of the letter, it could be, once again, the historian Chares, since it deals with the king’s relations with friends and with personal events that occurred in the wake of the campaign against the Mallians. See also supra FF20–21. F24. Discussion of authenticity: Regarding authenticity, Hansen 1880: 298–99 argues that the ephemeral subject matter of the letter could suggest

Commentary

203

its genuineness. Pridik 1893: 94 considers the letter authentic. Zumetikos 1894: 32 mentions the letter but does not comment on it nor does express his own opinion regarding its authenticity. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that no decision can be made about this letter.

F25. To Peucestas. About the bite of a bear (324–323) F25.1. He wrote to Peucestas: The letter most likely dates to the same period as the previous one sent to Peucestas (F24) who was in Persis as a satrap, thus between 324 and 323; at this time also bears were widespread in Asia as well as in Africa and Northern Europe. On the bear in antiquity, see Handel 2003: col. 566. F25.3–4. But now ... write me at least about how you are: It is evident that the matter was the concern for the health of the friend rather than resentment towards him for not informing Alexander of the bite. F25.5. so that they may be punished: This letter seems to allude to the concept of Persian kingship whose heir is now Alexander. The Great King Alexander, concerned about the health of his friend, who was also his ‘subject’, did nothing but worry about his happiness and wellbeing, perhaps following one of the main duties of the Persian Great King, i.e. to guarantee the well-being and happiness of his subjects. See, for example, inscription E of Darius I at Persepolis (DPe Kent, paragraph 3), in which the king says that “if the Persians will be protected, from then on, for a very long time happiness will remain intact”; inscription H of Xerxes in Persepolis (XPh Kent, paragraph 4c) in which the king writes not only that he has done good, but also that he has done it with the favour of Ahura Mazda, who creates happiness for men (see DNa Kent paragraph 1, DNb Kent, paragraph 7, DSs Kent and the list of Kent inscriptions 1953: 211, s.v. šiyāta-), but who has the Great King as an intermediary between him and the men, who wants to make it clear that those who respect the law of Ahura Mazda, of which he is guarantor, will be happy (XPh Kent, paragraph 4d). See Ghirshman 1972: 119. See also Llewellyn-Jones 2013: 19–30. Rollinger and Degen 2021: 321–42, using Alexander’s journey to the Indian Ocean as a case study, have rightly highlighted that Alexander was perfectly aware of the Near Eastern context and culture, and carefully made reference to it, performing rituals that are only “explicable within an ancient Near Eastern framework”. Alexander also ensured the punishment (hina diken dosi, ἵνα δίκην δῶσι) of

204

Commentary

anyone who had culpably failed to protect and defend Peucestas: the new Great King had not only the duty to ensure justice, but above all to be the guarantor. See, for example, the inscription at Behistun (DB I Kent, paragraph 8 and DB IV Kent, paragraphs 63–64) or the inscription B at Naqš-i-Rustam by Darius I (DNb Kent, 8a and 8b). See Ghirshman 1972: 118, and Briant 1996: 227. The step which Alexander had taken in assuming the title of Great King, therefore, had not only formal implications (such as the introduction of new figures at court) or external (such as dressing in the Persian way), but also had above all ideological and cultural significance.

F26. To the physician Alexippus. About Peucestas’ illness (324–323) F26.2. from an illness: Most likely the indefinite disease of which Plutarch speaks was the bite of the bear that Peucestas had received while trying to capture it. Indeed, the term astheneia (ἀσθένεια) indicates not only a nonserious disease, but also a physical debilitation resulting, perhaps, from the blood loss caused by the bite of the bear: see LSJ, s.v. ἀσθένεια: “want of strength, weakness; Esp. feebleness, sickliness”. Cf. Berve 1926: II.21–22; contra Hamilton 1969: 108, who thinks that, in that case, Plutarch, most likely, would have expressed himself more precisely. F26.2–3. the doctor Alexippus: No other information is known about him. See Berve 1926: II.21–22 no. 43, and Heckel 2006: 21. FF25–26. Source for the letters: The source for the two letters could be Chares again. See supra FF20, 21, and 24. FF25–26. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 298–99 tends to believe in their authenticity since they talk about minor topics. Pridik 1893: 94 considers them authentic. Zumetikos 1894: 32 mentions the letters but does not comment on their authenticity. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that it is not possible to make a decision about these letters.

F27. Anonymous recipient. About Seleucus’ slave (326–324) F27.1. He writes, for example: The adjective hoia (οἷα) introduces an epexegetic proposition since it follows the proleptic demonstrative toiouton (τοιούτων). See supra, Introduction, Section 4, n. 130.

Commentary

205

F27.2. Seleucus: Son of Antiochus, he is not mentioned before 326 when he has the command of the Hypaspists in the battle against Porus. In Arr. Anab. 5.13.1–4 and 15.3 he is called hetairos (ἑταῖρος) of Alexander. At Susa he married Apame, daughter of Spitamenes, whom he did not repudiate after the death of the king (Arr. Anab. 7.4.6) as the other hetairoi had. Thus the letter could be placed between 326 and 324. Berve 1926: II.352 n. 2 dates it to 324/323. Seleucus was, of course, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty: see Berve 1926: II.351–52 no. 700, and Heckel 2006: 246–48. F27.2. fled to Cilicia: The recipient could be Philoxenus for the position he held in Cilicia. See supra F11a.1–2. F27. Source for the letter: As for the source of the letter, it could be, once again, the historian Chares, since it deals with the king’s relations with friends and with personal events that occurred in the wake of the campaign against the Mallians. Kaerst 1892: 616 believes that the source may be a historian who dealt more precisely with the character and personal affairs of the king with reference to the letters, such as Chares. Pridik 1893: 94 thinks of Chares too. See also supra FF20–21. F27. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 298–99 argues that the ephemeral subject matter of the letter could suggest its genuineness. Pridik 1893: 94 considers the letter authentic. Zumetikos 1894: 32 mentions the letter but does not comment on it nor does express his own opinion regarding its authenticity. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that it is not possible to make a decision about the letter.

F28. Megabyzus. About a slave (no date) F28.1. Megabyzus: The Megabyzus mentioned here is a native of Ephesus, who, upon Alexander’s arrival in Asia Minor, was neokoros (νεωκόρος) of the temple of Artemis, honoured by the citizens of Priene in 334/333 with a golden wreath, an iron statue, proxeny, and numerous economic privileges for his role in the reconstruction of the temple of Athena Polias: see Berve 1926: II.248 no. 491, and Heckel 2006: 158. Alexander, therefore, wrote to Megabyzus by virtue of his role as neokoros of the temple. Indeed, he wrote to those who had the power to act: to Megabyzus because the slave had taken refuge in a place under his jurisdiction, and to Philoxenus (F27) because he had the ability to search for slaves who had fled, since, as we have seen, he had already hunted down the killers of the tyrant

206

Commentary

of Ephesus and had had the opportunity to send to Athens his ambassadors to ask for the extradition of Harpalus, who had already fled. F28. Source for the letter: As for the source of the letter, it could be, once again, the historian Chares, since it deals with the king’s relations with friends and with personal events that occurred in the wake of the campaign against the Mallians. Kaerst 1892: 616 believes that the source may be a historian who dealt more precisely with the character and personal affairs of the king with reference to the letters, such as Chares. Pridik 1893: 94 thinks of Chares too. See also supra FF20–21. F28. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 298–99 argues that the ephemeral subject matter of the letter could suggest its genuineness. Pridik 1893: 94 considers the letter authentic. Zumetikos 1894: 32 mentions the letter but does not comment on it nor does express his own opinion regarding its authenticity. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that it is not possible to make a decision about the letter.

FF29–30. To Antipater. The change in the relationship with Antipater (324) F29.1. He wrote to Antipater: Alexander’s relations with Antipater began to deteriorate around 324, due to the frequent quarrels between the regent of Macedonia and the king’s mother, Olympias. It is Plut. Alex. 39.11–13 who reports on the exchange of letters between Alexander and Antipater, inserted within the description of one aspect of Alexander’s character, his generosity towards friends. The king, in fact, wrote to urge him to procure bodyguards since he was the target of a plot. At a different time, Antipater wrote a long letter against Olympias (about which Plutarch offers no details). Alexander, who did not allow his mother to interfere in political or military affairs, said only at that time (hapax, ἅπαξ), after reading it, that Antipater did not know that one tear of a mother erased ten thousand letters. Plutarch does not connect this incident to a particular moment in Alexander’s life, so it is not possible to know when the letters were written. If, however, one compares Plutarch’s passage with Arr. Anab. 7.12.3–7, who also describes the relationship between Antipater and Olympias, and deals with the letters and accusations that they moved against each other, it is possible to identify the date: after the rebellion at Opis, in 324, Alexander decided to send home the Macedonian veterans under the command of Craterus and Polyperchon; he

Commentary

207

ordered Craterus to assume the post of regent in place of Antipater who was to lead other young Macedonian soldiers to Asia. Diod. 17.118.1 also knows about the quarrels between Antipater and Olympias and provides a brief but full description of the evolution of the relationship between Antipater and Alexander: he reports a communis opinio according to which the regent, despite his conflicts with the king’s mother, did not at first care about her because Alexander gave no credit to his slander; later, when the enmity grew, Alexander wanted to gratify his mother. Tarn 1948: I.112, on the contrary, argues that the attempt to identify a bad relationship between Alexander and Antipater is only propaganda; there was, in fact, a complete and mutual loyalty between them, although Antipater annoyed Alexander when he complained about Olympias. The replacement of Antipater was only the result of a new policy in Greece, which required a new man, namely Craterus. F29.2. advising him: Alexander’s letter highlights that the king initially was well disposed towards Antipater, to such an extent that he advised him to procure bodyguards, most likely because he had already received some letters from Olympias: cf. Hamilton 1969: 105. The tradition followed by Arrian also assumed the same attitude on the part of Alexander who, in agreement with the regent of Macedonia, added that Olympias took advantage of his role as mother (Arr. Anab. 7.12.6). It was, however, only at a later time that Alexander began to be suspicious of Antipater, perhaps not just because of his mother’s hostility to the regent. Antipater, as Just. Epit. 12.14.1–5 recounts, was convinced that he had been called to Asia not to participate in military operations, but to be punished, as had happened to others before him. He feared Alexander because the king had killed Philotas and Parmenion, two of his closest friends (Plut. Alex. 49.14–15), and because his son-in-law, Alexander Lyncestes, had been murdered (cf. Curt. 7.1.9). On these topics, see Badian 1961: 36–37. The changed attitude of the young king is also witnessed by what Plutarch writes after recalling Alexander’s letter to Antipater: indubitably, Alexander appears very attached to Olympias, but one should not conclude from the sentence about his mother’s tears – a reaction undoubtedly vexed – that he conformed to her dictates. Alexander, on the other hand, appears very independent from her pressures, although it is still likely that at some point he no longer endured Antipater’s offences towards a woman who was in any case his mother. F29.2–3. to get bodyguards … plotting against him: Arr. Anab. 7.12.7 reports rumours circulating at court according to which Alexander wished to remove

208

Commentary

Antipater from Macedonia because he was persuaded by Olympias’ slander against him: “And it seemed that the arguments that were intended to discredit Antipater gripped Alexander’s mind more greatly because they were more fearsome within a monarchy”. Arrian, however, does not give credit to these rumours and speculates that the king wanted rather to prevent an unpleasant incident between Antipater and his mother, as both did not cease to send him letters of indictment: “Antipater denounced Olympias’ arrogance, grumpy character, and continuous interference, conduct that was completely unseemly for Alexander’s mother”. Such behaviour was well known to Alexander himself who had once meditated on his mother’s manners and said that Olympias made him pay dearly for the ‘hospitality’ she had given him for ten months (referring, of course, to her pregnancy). Olympias, in turn, accused Antipater of behaving with haughtiness and of demanding additional respect: Antipater had no gratitude for the person (i.e. Alexander) who had allowed him to perform the role of regent, and, what was even worse, felt he was the right person to occupy the first place among other Macedonians and among the Greeks. F29. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 272 writes that in Alexander’s letter to Antipater there are no elements that contradict other authors, and this is thus indicative of the genuineness of the letter. Pridik 1893: 59 considers the letter authentic without providing any reason. Hamilton 1961: 14 writes that it is not possible to make a decision about the letter. F30.1. and writing to Antipater: The tone of this letter makes it clear that Alexander no longer trusted him, to such an extent that, in 324, after the army rebellion in Opis, he wrote to him only to give indications of what honours to reserve to the Macedonians whom he sent home. The tone and content of Alexander’s letter are by no means those of the previous epistles: the king, in fact, writes coldly and only to indicate provisions; he no longer speaks of what happened in Asia. Previously, when he was still befriending Antipater, he would probably have written to him why he was sending the veterans back home. Reasons for the ruined relationship – Coenus’ letter: In 324 Alexander received a letter from a certain Coenus about what had happened in Asia and Europe while Alexander was conquering India. We have no information about this Coenus, who has the same name as Coenus, son of Polyperchon, who died long before in India (see Curt. 9.3.20). See Berve 1926: II.218 no. 440, and Heckel 2006: 93, s.v. Coenus [2]. Curt. 10.1.43–45 provides a firm piece of evidence to date the letter: “almost around the same days”

Commentary

209

as when the Persian nobleman Orsines was sentenced to death, unjustly accused by the eunuch Bagoas, Alexander’s lover (Berve 1926: II.98; 195 dates the episode of Orsines to 324; on this and on Bagoas, see Badian 1958: 144–57), Coenus sent a letter to Alexander informing him that the governor of Thrace, Zopyrion, during an expedition against the Thracian tribe of the Getae (who were stationed along the lower course of the Danube), had died with the whole army because of the sudden onset of storms and blizzards; Seuthes, having heard of this disaster, had driven his people, the Odrysians, who were settled in Thrace as well, along the valley of the Tonzos and Hebrus rivers, to revolt. The text of the letter continues with a hint towards Greece, followed by a gap in which, most likely, Coenus described not only the story of Harpalus, but also the conduct of Antipater, who, as regent, surely would have had to face these situations, just as when he had faced the Spartans, defeating Agis, and the revolt that was led by Memnon in Thrace in 331 (on the revolt of Agis, see Arr. Anab. 2.13.4–6; Diod. 17.62–63; Just. Epit. 12.1.4–11; Curt. 6.1.1–21; as for Memnon’s revolt, see Diod. 17.62.4–6 and 63.1; on Memnon, see Berve 1926: II.254 no. 499, Badian 1999: col. 1205, s.v. Memnon (4), and Heckel 2006: 162, s.v. Memnon [3]). It is conceivable that Coenus accused Antipater of incapacity or pride in the management of power and that these attitudes irritated Alexander. The letter of Coenus reported by Curtius is not the same as the one reported by Just. Epit. 12.1.4, in which it is Antipater who writes: not only are the senders different, but in addition, while Coenus speaks of the death of Zopyrion, which occurred about 325, Antipater describes only the revolt (see supra F14.11–12) and does not speak of either Seuthes’ death or the escape of Harpalus, but only of Zopyrion, Sparta and Alexander, King of Epirus. It is clear, therefore, that the two letters date to different periods. See contra Pridik 1893: 116, who argues that the letter known by Curtius is the same as Justin’s, deeming the dating provided by Curtius (falso Alexandrum post expeditionem Indicam epistulam accepisse dicit) to be incorrect. However, I would like to point out that Justin speaks of the letter of Antipater to Alexander only at paragraph 4, while the later ones seem to be descriptions of the historian and anticipations of subsequent events, such as the death of Zopyrion. Letter regarding Harpalus: Harpalus was a Macedonian, a close friend of Alexander (Plut. Alex. 10.4 calls him one of the hetairoi, τῶν ἑταίρων) from his early youth: we know, in fact, from Arr. Anab. 3.6.5 that Harpalus had been exiled by Philip in 337 because he was loyal to Alexander. He accompanied Alexander

210

Commentary

as treasurer (Arr. Anab. 3.6.6: Ἅρπαλον ... ἐπὶ τῶν χρημάτων). See Berve 1926: II.75–80 no. 143, Badian 1998: coll. 161–62, and Heckel 2006: 129–31. Around 324–323, while in Pasargadae (Curt. 10.1.22), Alexander had his mind occupied by the story of Harpalus who had fled with the money of the treasury that had been entrusted to him and was secretly considering whether he should attack Athens, where the treasurer was, with or without the fleet. Meanwhile, Alexander was handed a letter saying that Harpalus had entered the city and had bribed the most influential citizens, but that, after a meeting of the assembly, he had been ordered to leave the city; he had, therefore, joined those Greek soldiers with whom he had gone to Crete and had been killed in a trap (Curt. 10.2.1–3). No modern scholar has dealt with this letter. The sender is not known. As we have seen, Alexander did not allow his mother to interfere in political affairs (Plut. Alex. 39.12), so the letter cannot have been sent by Olympias; and Coenus had already described such events to the king. The only one who could write about this situation, therefore, was the regent of Macedonia, Antipater. Cf. Pridik 1893: 117, who inserts the letter among those written to Alexander by Antipater, but does not explain his reasons. One might assume that Antipater was still unaware of Alexander’s growing suspicion against him or that he sought to please the king, continuing to inform him of what was happening while he was away from Greece. It is Plutarch who confirms Alexander’s suspicions towards Antipater when, shortly after recalling the letter, he describes the fear that the king had towards the regent and his children, among them Iolaus and Cassander (Alex. 74.2–5). Iolaus was the youngest of Antipater’s children; Cassander was the eldest: see Berve 1926: II.184; 201–202 nos 386 and 414; Heckel 2006: 143, s.v. Iolaus [1], and 79–81 (regarding Cassander’s vengeful behaviour following Alexander’s death, see Bosworth 1986: 11). When Cassander laughed loudly as he saw the Persians prostrating themselves before the king, Alexander became angry, grabbed him by the hair, and slammed his head against the wall (Alex. 74.2–5): the treatment that the king reserved for him underlines the loss of his esteem and friendship towards Antipater. F30.3–4. He established ... should be salaried: i.e., they should receive the salary of their fathers. FF29–30. Source for the letters: As for the source of the letters, most likely not only Plutarch but also Arrian drew on Chares. Regarding the letters that Plutarch reports in Chapter 39, the one in which Alexander advises Antipater to keep bodyguards and the one in which Antipater denigrates

Commentary

211

Olympias, Kaerst 1892: 616 asserts that the source could be a historian who dealt more precisely with the character and personal affairs of the king, such as Chares. Pridik 1893: 59; 117 speculates that the letters may date back to Chares, since, at Chapter 39, Plutarch also mentions a letter to Phocion, for which Chares claimed that Alexander had preserved the greeting chairein. Zumetikos 1894: 32, while claiming that the narrative in which the letters are inserted shows that Plutarch drew on a contemporary historian (prioris aetatis) of Alexander, does not specify anyone in particular. As for Alexander’s last letter to Antipater, Hansen 1880: 271 writes that Plutarch had drawn on a historian, but does not say which one. Cf. Pridik 1893: 72. Ptolemy and Aristobulus, in fact, were not interested in this kind of history which was far from political and military events. By contrast, Chares as a person very close to the king could have learnt about these episodes. Chares’ interest in episodes of daily life is reflected in the fragments of his historical work: for example, the account of the wedding at Susa (F4), the description of the “battle of the apples” (F9) or the information about Alexander’s greeting used in the letters (F10). Meister 2001: 125 states that Chares’ history was centred on Alexander’s person and life, while there was little interest in political and military actions. F30. Discussion of authenticity: Hansen 1880: 271 considers the letter to Antipater authentic, handed down to Plutarch through a historical source. Pridik 1893: 70–72 also considers it authentic: Arrian and Justin did not pass it on because they did not think it was likely that Alexander wrote to Antipater a letter in which he gave political provisions after recalling him from Macedonia. Pridik then compares the terms used by Plutarch in summarizing the letter and those used by Arr. Anab. 7.8.1 and concludes that the way the two historians express themselves is almost the same, so both may have drawn the news from Alexander’s letter. Zumetikos 1894: 46 considers the letter authentic with similar arguments: from Arr. Anab. 7.8.1 it is possible to deduce that the letter was written in the city of Opis; the words of the letter agree (congruuunt) with those that Alexander utters before the assembly, reported by Arr. Anab. 7.10.5; finally, the fact that Arr. Anab. 7.12.4 (Alexander is said to have ordered Antipater to lead young Macedonians to Asia to replace the dismissed ones) writes ekeleuse (ἐκέλευσε) and not egraphse (ἔγραψε) does not affect the authenticity of the letter. On the contrary, Pearson 1954/1955: 446 n. 73 thinks that it contradicts the news of Arr. Anab. 7.12.4 according to which Craterus was sent to Macedonia to replace Antipater who was supposed to lead other

212

Commentary

young soldiers to Asia. Hamilton 1961: 18, however, rightly argues that the letter does not necessarily contradict Arrian’s information: it is possible that Antipater had to proceed with the accommodation of the veterans before leaving for Asia, and also because Arrian does not write that this task had been assigned to Craterus instead of Antipater. F31. To Hagnon. A reproach (no date) F31.1. He also vehemently rebuked: Alexander replied to Hagnon with the same reprehensible tone that he had used with Philoxenus about Theodorus of Tarentum (F11). F31.1. Hagnon: About Hagnon we know that he was originally from Teos and was one of the hetairoi of Alexander: Phylarchus, FGrHist 81 F41; Agatharchides of Cnidus, FGrHist 86 F3; and Ath. Deipn. 12.539b– d. See Berve 1926: II.9–10 no. 17, and Heckel 2006: 128. Together with Lysimachus, he was one of the flatterers of the king (Plut. Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 65d) and one of the detractors of Callisthenes in the episode of the rejection of proskynesis (FGrHist 124 T7 apud Plut. Alex. 55.2). He was also reproached by Alexander, together with Leonnatus and Philotas, because he was completely devoted to tryphe and had become so interested in the way of living and spending to the point of wearing shoes with silver buckles. When seeing his friends so devoted to luxury and softness, Alexander was astonished that despite having fought so many battles, they did not remember that those who were tired rested better, and did not realize that it was extremely servile to live in such frivolity (Plut. Alex. 40.1–2). We have some information regarding the luxury of Alexander’s companions from Phylarchus, FGrHist 81 F41, and from Agatharchides of Cnidus, FGrHist 86 F3, quoted by Ath. Deipn. 12.539b–d, who speaks of gold buckles rather than silver; Ael. VH 9.3, however, writes that it was Alexander himself who pushed his companions towards luxury. Eustathius also knew of Hagnon’s custom of wearing gold buckles, and mentions it in the commentary on Il. 11.633 (ἑταῖρος [...] τις Ἀλεξάνδου, Ἄγνων καλούμενος, χρυσοῦς ἥλους ἐν ταῖς κρηπῖσι καὶ τοῖς ὑποδήμασιν ἐφόρει). Jacoby 1926: Kommentar, II A, 138–39, writes that Phylarchus perhaps took the news about the luxury of Alexander’s friends from Chares through Duris. F31.2. Crobylus: The young man’s name was a guarantee since it resembled that of so many hetairai and courtesans. Crobyle (Χρωβύλη), for example, together with Corinna, is one of the protagonists of a work by Lucian with

Commentary

213

the eloquent title of Dialogi Meretricii. She is also a character found in the fragments of Menander. F31.3. Corinth: The availability of Crobylus could also be guaranteed by the city of the young man as the verb κορινθιάζω/κορινθιάζομαι (korinthiazo/korinthiazomai) suggests (Ar. fr. 354; I owe this reference to Alan Sommerstein). GE translates it as “to live in a Corinthian fashion, i.e. live as a prostitute or pimp; mid. to visit whores”. Hesychius (κ3626) gives it the meaning of “be a pimp, or a prostitute”, and Stephanus of Byzantium (Ethnica 10.161) specifies that the verb carries the aforementioned meaning because of the hetairai in Corinth (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἑταιρῶν). Hence, Corinth, like all seaside towns, had a reputation for being inhabited mainly by lascivious people. Indeed, ports did not enjoy good reputation: one thinks of Naevius’ Tarentilla who used to give herself to everyone, like a ball that passes from hand to hand (F63 Traglia); or of Petronius who set in Ephesus the famous story of the matron considered by all to be extremely modest, but who instead did not hesitate to crucify her husband already dead to save the young soldier to whom she had given herself. See Fedeli 2000: 184. F31. Source for the letter: It is likely that the letter to Hagnon had been preserved by Chares, from whom we have detailed information regarding the rejection of proskynesis by Callisthenes. Thus, he could have inserted Alexander’s exchange of letters with Hagnon directly into the account of these events. Hansen 1880: 294–95 believes that Plutarch did not draw the letters from a collection, but from a historical source. Fränkel 1883: 327 and Pridik 1893: 76 think of Chares but do not explain their reasons. F31. Discussion of authenticity: Kaerst 1892: 616 considers it a forgery suitable for demonstrating Alexander’s restraint and temperance. Pridik 1893: 76–77 is cautious about its authenticity. Zumetikos 1894: 36 considers the letter authentic because a forger could not have included the name of a man who was not widely known. Hamilton 1961: 13 writes that we cannot say whether the letter is genuine or not.

F32. To Olympias. The Spoon (no date) F32.1. And further: The mention of Alexander’s letter is inserted in a discussion about different types of spoons. F32.1–2. in Alexander’s letter to his mother: That Alexander was very generous can be deduced from what Plutarch says at Alex. 39. Already after the Battle of

214

Commentary

Issus, he had given orders to take from Damascus what the Persians had left in order to enrich the Thessalian horsemen (who had fought with particular bravery) and the rest of the army (Plut. Alex. 24.1). Arrian (Anab. 2.11.9–10 and 15.1) writes that Darius, before the Battle of Issus, had sent to Damascus most of his wealth which, afterwards, was seized by Parmenion (Curt. 3.12.23– 13.17, and Polyaenus, Strat. 4.5.1): see also Diod. 17.32.3; Curt. 3.8.12; Plut. Alex. 20.11. The king was most likely informed of the size of the treasure by the letters sent to him by Parmenion, recorded by Ath. Deipn. 11.781f–782a, who describes the booty stolen from the Persians: “Golden glasses weighing 73 Babylonian talents, 52 minae. Glasses adorned with precious stones weighing 56 Babylonian talents, 34 minae”. Ath. Deipn. 13.87, 607f–608a, also reports another letter of the general from Damascus, listing the civilians that Darius had sent to the city along with his treasures: “329 concubines of the king, skilled in music, 46 male wreath-packers, 277 cooks, 29 pot-boilers, 13 milk-dish makers, 17 beverage preparers, 70 wine strainers, and 40 perfume makers”. After the conquest of Asia, Alexander did not keep the spoils for himself, but divided them among the people closest to him. He also sent many gifts to his mother (Plut. Alex. 39.12), accompanying them, most likely, with letters in which he listed the objects (cf. Pridik 1893: 89, and Zumetikos 1894: 99) and, perhaps, also describing from which city or which particular booty they came, as he did, for example, in the letter to Leonidas (Plut. Alex. 25.8), when he wrote that he had sent him a great deal of incense and myrrh so that he would cease to be stingy towards the gods (F5). F32.2. the spoon: The tool looked strange to Pollux, most likely because the Greeks used a type of spoon, mystile (μυστίλη), which was made from a piece of hollowed bread: cf. LSJ, s.v. F33. To the Satraps. A list of kitchen utensils (no date) F33.1–2. Among the letters of king Alexander to the satraps of Asia: This is one of the few letters that might suggest the presence of a collection. But if so, the collection would just cover king Alexander’s “letters to the satraps of Asia”, so it could rightly fall within the official letters, and not among the private letters probably handed down by Chares. It should not be forgotten that it was common to keep archives of official and administrative letters (see Introduction, Section 2). Although this letter was sent to the satraps in Asia, it may be the same as the one recalled by Pollux, written to Olympias, and which, therefore, accidentally ended up in the corpus of letters to the satraps:

Commentary

215

cf. Hansen 1880: 289; Zumetikos 1894: 98–100; contra Pridik 1893: 89–90. F33.3. Persian cups: It is Athenaeus himself (Deipn. 11.27, 784a) who, before reporting the letter, explains that the batiake was a Persian cup (περσικὴ δὲ φιάλη ἡ βατιάκη). FF32–33. Source for the letters: Chares might have been the source, since he usually dealt with topics concerning everyday life: see supra, F20. FF32–33. Discussion of authenticity: As for Alexander’s letter on the utensils found in Asia, in the two versions of Pollux and Athenaeus, Hansen 1880: 290 believes that the dryness of the style seems to confirm its authenticity: a forger could have made a list of looted objects, using Persian terms to give the idea that they were indeed Eastern; however, he would not have written the letter in the way that we have, since it was a topic where he could show off his rhetorical ability. Pridik 1893: 83–84; 89–90 seems to be inclined towards accepting the authenticity of the letter in Pollux, although this is somewhat unclear, while for the letter to the satraps in Athenaeus, he agrees with Hansen and considers it authentic because its content does not arouse suspicion. Zumetikos 1894: 99 considers the letters authentic, since a forger would not have drawn up a simple list of Persian objects of various kinds; he recalls that it was also Alexander’s custom to list the objects he sent, as he also did with Leonidas. I argue that the letters can hardly be considered the work of a forger: the cold listing of objects makes one reflect on the fact that it cannot be a matter of rhetorical display, because it was known that Persia was very rich in such objects. Moreover, as we have seen, Plutarch recalls that Alexander sent gifts taken from the Persian booty to Olympias: it was, therefore, more than natural that he sent them accompanied by a letter.

[F34]. To Aristotle. About the acroatic discourses [F34a.1]. Alexander sends greetings to Aristotle: Plutarch and Aulus Gellius preserve a letter from Alexander to Aristotle: cf. Simplicius, In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria 9.8. Alexander’s letter is the only one Plutarch reports completely in direct discourse together with the greeting, Alexandros Aristotelei eu prattein (Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀριστοτέλει εὖ πράττειν), and the formula of farewell, erroso (ἔρρωσο). The words with which Plutarch introduces the letter appear problematic: indeed, the biographer specifies that what follows is “a copy” (ἀντίγραφον)

216

Commentary

of the letter. It is a strange expression, which appears in Plutarch only in this passage, although he reports the greatest number of Alexander’s letters, and which seems to guarantee the existence and circulation of the letter in question. Moreover, the expression appears only once in the Alexander Romance, in the letter sent to Darius by Hydaspes and Spinther (Recensio ɐ in Book 1, chapter 39.7); only once in Justin (Apol. 68.5) as well as in Diodorus (40.4.1) and in Philo (Leg. 315); four attestations are in the Septuagint, two in Esther (3.13a and 8.12a), two in Maccabees (I.8.22 and 11.31), one in the introduction to the Epistle of Jeremiah; and four in Joseph. AJ (11.104, 12.225, 13.126, and 13.167). Other occurrences are found in Christian authors: Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus haereses), Holl III.417; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 1.13.5; 9.9a.1; 10.5.18; 5.21; 6.1; 7.1; Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem 22.16; Costantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De sententiis 405. A small side note, but perhaps appropriate, about the words “of which it is a copy”: they often appear in Ezra when mentioning letters from Persian kings kept in the archives. The words could therefore be part of the Persian customs introduced in 330 by Alexander at his court. But it should be noted that by the time Alexander wrote the alleged letter to Aristotle, he had not yet become the heir of the Persian Great Kings. On this, see supra, Introduction, Sections 1, 3, and 4. In addition, Alexander’s greeting raises a question. Plutarch writes that Alexander wrote the letter after arriving in Asia, and Aulus Gellius more precisely specifies that Alexander sent it when he was pressing Darius with battles and victories, so surely before the Battle of Gaugamela. According to the sole contemporary testimony on Alexander’s letters, Chares’ fragment regarding the elimination of chairein after Gaugamela, Alexander should have used this greeting (chairein) in the letter to Aristotle. The greeting eu prattein (εὖ πράττειν) does not even appear in the letters of the Alexander Romance, where, by the way, we find neither Alexander’s letter to Aristotle nor the answer of the tutor. This formula is also very rare and, as far as Aristotle is concerned, appears only in the letter replying to the one which Alexander wrote to him. On the other hand, from the Suda (ε3664), we learn that it was typical of Plato. The piece of information is also known to an anonymous scholiast of Aristophanes, who in the scholium on Nub. 609 comments that eu prattein (εὖ πράττειν) was used by Plato at the beginning of his letters, while the Pythagoreans used hygiainein (ὑγιαίνειν). It appears that the greeting of Alexander and Aristotle was typical of philosophers or doctors: indeed, one finds it in some letters of Hippocrates, in a letter of the

Commentary

217

doctor Menecrates to Philip (Ael. VH 12.51), in a letter of the philosopher Strato and of Democritus to Hippocrates. Both the way in which the letter is introduced by Plutarch and the formula of salutation used by Alexander lead one to think that the letter is a forgery. [F34a.1–2]. You have not acted rightly: Aristotle, in an effort to defend himself, replied that he did and did not publish his doctrines, because, in reality, the books about physics (i.e. Metaphysics) were not useful for either teaching or learning: they, in fact, were written as a aide-mémoire for those who were already versed in the subject. [F34b.1]. Alexander sends greetings to Aristotle: Gell. NA 20.5.7–12 is more precise about the dating of the letter (cum [...] ea tempestate armis exercitum omnem prope Asiam teneret regemque ipsum Darium proeliis et victoriis urgeret) and also reports Aristotle’s reply in direct quotation. Gellius adds that he drew them from Andronicus of Rhodes, a philosopher of the time of Cicero. [F34]. Discussion of authenticity: Scholars agree on its non-authenticity. Hansen 1880: 300–301 states that a serious hint of falsehood is the term “acroatic discourses” since Aristotle himself did not define them as such, but hoi kata philosophian logoi (οἱ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν λόγοι). Kaerst 1892: 614–15 assumes that it is part of a spurious collection of Aristotle’s letters, since there are other dubious letters, such as one written by Philip to Aristotle, composed to enhance the figure of Alexander as a scholar of philosophy. Pridik 1893: 90–91 says simply that it does not matter whether Andronicus found the forged letter in another author or whether the letter is his invention. Zumetikos 1894: 69–70 thinks that the letter is a forgery for two reasons: because it uses the definition “acroatic discourses” which is not Aristotelian and because it is not credible that Alexander criticized their distribution since, on the contrary, he appreciated men well-versed in art and letters. Düring 1957: 433–34 considers Alexander’s letter and Aristotle’s response to be an invention of Andronicus, who handed them down to explain the difference between the terms “exoteric” and “acroatic” and to give his account more attractiveness and credibility. Hamilton 1961: 12 writes that he sees no reason to contradict the opinions of previous scholars. As far as I am concerned, there are more arguments against its authenticity than in favour of it, as I have explained.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Critical Editions Adler, A. 1928–. Lexicographi Graeci. Suidae Lexicon, ed. Ada Adler, 5 parts. Stuttgart. Alberti, G. B. 1972–. Thucydidis Historiae. Rome. Alfieri Tonini, T. 1985. Biblioteca storica 3.3. Milan. Alton, E. H. 1997. P. Ovidi Nasonis Fastorum libri sex, rec. Ernst H. Alton (4th edn). Stuttgart. Auberger, J. 2001. Historiens d’Alexandre, trans. and notes by J. Auberger, Vol. 1: Fragments. Paris. Bekker, I. 1824. Photii Bibliotheca, Tomus Prior. Berlin. Bekker, I. 1825. Photii Bibliotheca, Tomus Alter. Berlin. Bekker, I. 1855. Heliodori Aethiopicorum libri decem. Leipzig. Bethe, E. 1931. Pollucis Onomasticon, I–II. Leipzig. Bethe, E. 1967. Lexicographi graeci, Vol. 9: Pollucis onomasticon e codicibus ab ipso collatis denuo edidit et adnotavit Ericus Bethe, Fasc. 1. Lib. 1–5. continens. Stuttgart. Bianco, E. 1997. Gli stratagemmi di Polieno: introduzione, traduzione e note critiche, Vol. 3: Fonti e Studi di Storia Antica. Alessandria. Boissevain, U. P., Th. Buttner-Wobst and A. G. Roos. 1906. Excerpta historica iussu imp. [imperatoris] Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, 2: Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis. Berlin. Boissevain, U. P., Th. Buttner-Wobst and A. G. Roos. 1906. Excerpta historica iussu imp. [imperatoris] Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, 4: Excerpta de sententiis. Berlin. Brennecke, H. C., U. Heil and A. von. Stockhausen. 2006. Athanasius Werke, vol. II: Die Apologien. Berlin–New York. Gemoll, W. 1968. Xenophontis Institutio Cyri. Leipzig. Hercher, R. 1864. Claudii Aeliani De natura animalium libri XVII. Leipzig. Holl, K. 1933. Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, III: Panarion. Leipzig. Hude, K. 1934. Xenophontos Ellenika: Xenophontis Historia Graeca. Stuttgart. Hude, K. 1972. Xenophontis Expeditio Cyri. Anabasis, edidit C. Hude, editionem correctiorem curavit J. Peters. (2. verbesserte Auflage.). Leipzig.

220

Bibliography

Jacoby, F. 1923. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, I: Genealogie und Mythographie. Berlin. Jacoby, F. 1926. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, II: Zeitgeschichte. Berlin. Jacoby, F. 1927. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, II.1–2: Theopompos und die Alexanderhistoriker; Kommentar zu Nr. 106–53. Berlin. Jacoby, F. 1929. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, II B.3–4: Historiker des Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit: Kommentar. Berlin. Jacoby, F. 1940. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, III A. Leiden. Jacoby, F. 1950. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, III B: Geschichte von Städten und Völkern (Horographie und Ethnographie), Autoren über einzelne Städte (Länder), Nʳ 297–607. Leiden. Jeep, J. W. L. 1885. Trogi Pompei historiarum Philippicarum epitoma. Leipzig. Kaibel, G. 1960–1962. Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, ed. stereotypa ed. 1. (1890), rec. Kaibel Georg. Stuttgart. Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven. Kenyon, F. G. 1984. Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica. Oxford. Koster, W. J. W. 1974. Scholia in Aristophanem, I: Prolegomena de comoedia, Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, 3.2: Scholia recentiora in Nubes. Groningen. Koster, W. J. W. and D. Holwerda. 1977. Scholia in Aristophanem, Pars I: Prolegomena de comoedia, scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes, 3.1: Scholia vetera in Nubes. Groningen. Krohn, F. 1912. Vitruvii De architectura libri decem. Leipzig. Latte, K. 1953–1966. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Copenhagen. Latte, K. and P. A. Hansen. 2005. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, 3, Π–Σ: ed. post Kurt Latte continuans recensuit et emendavit Peter Allan Hansen. Berlin–New York. Latte, K., P. A. Hansen and I. C. Cunningham. 2009. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, 4, T–Ω: ed. post Kurt Latte continuantes recensuerunt et emendaverunt Peter Allan Hansen, Ian C. Cunningham. Berlin–New York. Latte, K., P. A. Hansen and I. C. Cunningham. 2018. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, ed. post Kurt Latte continuans recensuit et emendavit Peter Allan Hansen, 1, A–Δ: recensuit et emendavit Kurt Latte; ed. alteram curavit Ian C. Cunningham. Berlin–Boston. Lenfant, D. 2004. Ctésias de Cnide. La Perse, L’Inde, Autres fragments. Paris.

Bibliography

221

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler. 1973. Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, recogn. Lindskog C. and Ziegler K., 3.2: iterum rec. Ziegler K. Leipzig. Marshall, P. K. 1977. Cornelii Nepotis Vitae cum fragmentis. Leipzig. Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis. 1969. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions: To the end of the fifth century BC. Oxford. Meineke, A. 1849. Stephani Byzantii, Ethnicorum quae supersunt. Berlin. Meineke, A. 1860. Aristophanis comoediae. Leipzig. Meineke, A. 1877. Strabonis Geographica. Leipzig. Müller, K. 1846. Fragmenta scriptorum de rebus Alexandri Magni, PseudoCallisthenes, Itinerarium Alexandri. Paris. Nenci, G. 1994. Erodoto. Le storie. Libro V: La rivolta della Ionia. Milan. Nenci, G. 1998. Erodoto. Le Storie. Libro VI: La battaglia di Maratona. Milan. Reynolds, L. D. 1965. L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium Epistulae morales. Oxford. Rossano, P., A. Penna and E. R. Galbiati. 1963. La Sacra Bibbia tradotta dai testi originali e commentata, Antico Testamento, I: Libri storici. Turin. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1988. M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae ad familiares, libri I–XVI. Stuttgart. Smallwood, E. M. 1961. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden. Sordi, M. 1969. Diodori Siculi Bibliothecae liber sextus decimus. Florence. Stählin, O. and L. Fruechtel. 1960. Clemens Alexandrinus, Vol. II: Stromata Buch I–VI. Berlin. Stallbaum, G. 1970. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, voll. I–II. Hildesheim (= Leipzig 1825–1826). Stoneman, R. and T. Gargiulo. 2007–2012. Il romanzo di Alessandro. Milano. Tod, M. N. 1946. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions: To the end of the fifth century BC, ed. M. N. Tod (2nd edn). Oxford. Tod, M. N. 1948. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Vol. II: From 403 to 323 BC. Oxford. Valk, M. van der. 1971. Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, ad fidem cod. Laurentiani editi. I: Praefatio et Commentarii ad libros A–Δ. Leiden. Valk, M. van der. 1976. Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, II: praefationem et commentarios ad libros E–I complectens. Leiden. Valk, M. van der. 1979. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, 3.3. Leiden.

222

Bibliography

Valk, M. van der. 1987. Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes, IV: Praefationem et commentarios ad libros Ρ–Ω complectens. Leiden. Vannicelli, P. and A. Corcella. 2017. Erodoto. Le Storie. Libro VII: Serse e Leonida. Rome. Viansino, G. 1963. L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libri III–IV–V. De ira. Turin. Wilson, N. G. and C. Bevegni. 1996. Eliano. Storie varie. Milan. Ziegler, K. and C. Lindskog. 1994. Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, recogn. Claes Lindskog et Konrat Ziegler, 2.2: iterum rec. Konrat Ziegler (Ed. correctiorem cum addendis, cur. Konrat Ziegler). Stuttgart.

Studies Abe, T. 2017–2018. ‘Proskynesis: From a Persian Court Protocol to a Greek Religious Practice’, Τεκμήρια 14: 1–45. Abramenko, A. 1992. ‘Die zwei Seeschlachten von Tyros: zu den militärischen Voraussetzungen für die makedonische Eroberung der Inselfestung (332 V. Chr.)’, Klio 74: 166–78. Adler, M. 1891. De Alexandri Magni Epistularum commercio. Leipzig. Almagor, E. 2020. ‘The Royal Road from Herodotus to Xenophon (via Ctesias)’, in C. J. Tuplin and J. Ma (eds), Aršāma and his World: The Bodleian Letters in Context, Volume III: Aršāma’s World. Oxford: 147–85. Andreotti, R. 1956. ‘Per una critica dell’ideologia di Alessandro Magno’, Historia 5: 257–302. Anson, E. M. 2015. Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek among Macedonians. Leiden. Anson, E. M. 2021. ‘Alexander the Great: A life lived as legend’, in J. Walsh and E. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great and propaganda. Oxford– New York: 14–32. Asheri, D. 1988. Erodoto: Le Storie. Libro I: La Lidia e la Persia. Milan. Asheri, D. 1990. Erodoto: Le Storie. Libro III: la Persia. Milan. Asheri, D. 2006. Erodoto: Le Storie. Libro IX: la battaglia di Platea. Rome. Asheri, D. 2006. O estado persa. Ideologias e instituições no império aquemênida (= The Persian State), translated by Paulo Butti de Lima. São Paulo. Asheri, D., A. Lloyd and A. Corcella. 2007. A Commentary on Herodotus. Books I–IV, eds Oswyn Murray and Alfonso Moreno, with a contribution by Maria Brosius, trans. Barbara Graziosi, Matteo Rossetti, Carlotta Dus and Vanessa Cazzato. Oxford. Asirvatham, S. 2018. ‘Plutarch’s Alexander’, in K. R. Moore (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great. Leiden: 355–76.

Bibliography

223

Atkinson, J. E. 1980. A commentary of Q. Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books 3 and 4. Amsterdam. Atkinson, J. E. 1994. A commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni, Books 5 to 7.2. Amsterdam. Atkinson, J. E. 1998. Q. Curzio Rufo. Storie di Alessandro Magno, Vol. 1: libri III–V. Milan. Atkinson, J. E. 2000. Q. Curzio Rufo. Storie di Alessandro Magno 2.2. Milan. Atkinson, J. E. and J. C. Yardley (eds) 2009. Curtius Rufus. Histories of Alexander the Great, Book 10. Oxford. Badian, E. 1958. ‘The eunuch Bagoas. A study in method’, CQ 8: 144–57. Badian, E. 1961. ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81: 16–43. Badian, E. 1966. ‘Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia’, in E. Badian (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions. Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday. Oxford: 37–69. Badian, E. 1967. ‘Agis III’, Hermes 95: 170–92. Badian, E. 1976. ‘Some recent interpretations of Alexander’, in E. Badian, D. Van Berchem and B. Grange (eds), Alexandre le Grand. Image et réalité. Vandœuvres–Geneva: 279–311. Badian, E. 1985. ‘Alexander in Iran’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Cambridge: 420–501. Badian, E. 1987. ‘The peace of Callias’, JHS 107: 1–39. Badian, E. 1989. ‘Plataea between Athens and Sparta. In search of lost history’, in H. Beister (ed.), Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer, Institut für Alte Geschichte, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, 13.–17. Juni 1986. Munich: 95–111. Badian, E. 2000. ‘Conspiracies’, in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in fact and fiction. Oxford: 50–95. Battistoni, F. 2006. ‘The ancient pinakes from Tauromenion: some new readings’, ZPE 157: 169–80. Baynham, E. 2003. ‘The Ancient Evidence for Alexander the Great’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great. Leiden: 3–29. Bean, G. E. 1978. Lycian Turkey: An Archaeological Guide. London. Bearzot, C. 1984. ‘Focione φίλος τοῦ βασιλέως. Il tema dell’amicizia con Alessandro nella tradizione biografica focioniana’, in M. Sordi (ed.), Alessandro Magno tra storia e mito. Milan: 75–90. Bearzot, C. 2011. ‘Royal Autobiography in the Hellenistic Age’, in G.

224

Bibliography

Marasco (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity. A Brill Companion. Leiden: 37–85. Bearzot, C. 2020. ‘Le Ephemerides di Alessandro. Un documento autentico, tra stile di vita e autorappresentazione’, Ricerche Ellenistiche 1: 21–40. Beloch, K. J. 1922. Griechische Geschichte. Berlin. Beloch, K. J. 1925. Griechische Geschichte, IV: Die griechische Weltherrschaft. Berlin. Beloch, K. J. 1927. Griechische Geschichte, IV: Die griechische Weltherrschaft, 2. Abt. (2. neubearb. Aufl.). Berlin. Bengtson, H. 1930. Griechische Geschichte. Munich. Bengtson, H. 1937. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, I–III. Vols 26, 32 and 36, Municher Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte. Munich. Bengtson, H. 1985. Philipp und Alexander der Große. Die Begründer der hellenistischen Welt. Munich. Bentley, R. 1699. A dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, Socrates, Euripides, and others, and the Fables of Aesop by Richard Bentley. London. Benveniste, E. 1966. Titres et Noms Propres en Iranien Ancien. Paris. Bernard, P. 1982. ‘Alexandre et Aï Khanoum’, JS: 125–38. Berve, H. 1926. Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, I–II: Darstellung: Prosopographie. Munich. Bickerman, E. J. 1946. ‘The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1’, JBL 65: 249–75. Bloedow, E. F. 1998. ‘The siege of Tyre in 332 BC: Alexander at the crossroads in his career’, PP 53: 255–93. Bloedow, E. F. 2004. ‘Egypt in Alexander’s scheme of things’, QUCC 77: 75–99. Bodson, L. 1991. ‘Alexander the Great and the scientific exploration of the oriental part of his empire: an overview of the background, trends and results’, AncSoc 22: 127–38. Boer, W. W. 1953. Epistola Alexandri ad Aristotelem ad codicum fidem edita et commentario critico instructa. Leiden (dissertatio inauguralis). Borger, R. and W. Hinz. 1982–1985. Die Behistun-Inschrift Dareios’ des Großen, in O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, I: 419–50. Bosman, P. 2022. ‘Two Conceptions of Court at Persepolis’, in F. Pownall, S. R. Asirvatham, and S. Müller (eds), The Courts of Philip II and Alexander the Great: Monarchy and Power in Ancient Macedonia, Berlin–Boston: 169–87.

Bibliography

225

Bosworth, A. B. 1970. ‘Aristotle and Callisthenes’, Historia 19: 407–13. Bosworth, A. B. 1975. ‘The mission of Amphoterus and the outbreak of Agis’ war’, Phoenix 29: 27–43. Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A historical commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, I: Commentary on Books I–III. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. 1986. ‘Alexander the Great and the decline of Macedon’, JHS 106: 1–12. Bosworth, A. B. 1993. ‘Aristotle, India and the Alexander historians’, Topoi(Lyon) 3: 407–24. Bosworth, A. B. 1995. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander. II: Commentary on Books IV–V. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. 1996. Alexander and the East: The tragedy of triumph. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. 2004. Alessandro Magno: l’uomo e il suo impero. Milan. Bowden, H. 2014. ‘Alexander in Egypt: Considering the Egyptian Evidence’, in P. Bosman (ed.), Alexander in Africa. Pretoria: 38–55. Bowden, H. 2021. ‘The man who would be king: Alexander between Gaugamela and Persepolis’, in J. Walsh and E. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great and Propaganda. Oxford: 129–49. Bowie, A. 2013. ‘“Baleful Signs”: Letters and Deceit in Herodotus’, in O. Hodkinson, P. Rosenmeyer and E. Bracke (eds), Epistolary Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, Mnemosyne Supplements. Monographs on Greek and Latin language and Literature 359. Leiden: 71–83. Braccesi, L. 1978. ‘Alessandro all’oasi di Siwah. Divagazioni in tema d’opinione pubblica’, in M. Sordi (ed.), Aspetti dell’opinione pubblica nel mondo antico, Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia Antica 5. Milan: 68–73. Bremmer, J. N. 2008. ‘Appendix Iiithe. Spelling and meaning of the name Megabyxos’, in J. N. Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Leiden: 353–56. Bresciani, E. 1990. Letteratura e poesia dell’antico Egitto, Turin. Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris. Briant, P. 2003. Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre, Paris. Brosius, M. 1996. Women in Ancient Persia, Oxford. Brosius, M. (ed.) 2003. Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of record-keeping in the ancient world. Oxford. Brosius, M. 2006. The Persians: An introduction. London. Brunt, P. A. 1976. Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, Books 1–4, Vol. 1. Cambridge (MA). Brunt, P. A. 1980. ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, CQ 30: 477–94.

226

Bibliography

Brunt, P. A. 1983. Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, Books 5–7; Indica, Vol. 2. Cambridge (MA). Buck, R. J. 1979. A History of Boeotia. Edmonton. Burstein, S. M. 1976. ‘Alexander, Callisthenes and the sources of the Nile’, GRBS 17: 135–46. Burstein, S. M. 1991. ‘Pharaoh Alexander: a scholarly myth’, AncSoc 22: 139–45. Cagnazzi, S. 1996. ‘Un atleta di Crotone a Salamina’, Miscellanea greca e romana 20: 11–19. Cagnazzi, S. 1997. Nicobule e Panfila: frammenti di storiche greche. Bari. Cagnazzi, S. 2001. Gli esìli in Persia. Bari. Cagnazzi, S. 2005. ‘Il Grande Alessandro’, Historia 54: 132–43. Cagnazzi, S. 2009. ‘La vita e l’opera di Carete di Mitilene storico di Alessandro’, in E. Lanzillotta, G. Ottone and V. Costa (eds), Tradizione e trasmissione degli storici greci frammentari. Atti del II Workshop Internazionale, Roma, 16–18 febbraio 2006, in ricordo di Silvio Accame. Tivoli: 281–311. Cagnazzi, S. 2010. ‘I dolci fichi dell’Attica’, Athenaeum 98: 543–49. Cagnazzi, S. 2015. Carete di Mitilene. Testimonianze e frammenti. Tivoli. Calandra, E. 2014. ‘Alessandro o la regalità persiana da antimodello a modello’, in A. Gonzales and M. T. Schettino (eds), L’idéalisation de l’autre. Faire un modèle d’un anti-modèle. Actes du 2e colloque SoPHiA – Société Politique, Histoire de l’Antiquité tenu à Besançon les 26–28 novembre 2012. Besançon: 79–95. Caneva, S. 2011. ‘D’Hérodote à Alexandre. L’appropriation grécomacédonienne d’Ammon de Siwa, entre pratique oraculaire et légitimation du pouvoir’, in C. Bonnet, A. Declercq and I. Slobodzianek (eds), Les représentations des dieux des autres, Mythos: Rivista di Storia delle Religioni 2 (Supplement): 193–219. Canfora, L. 1979. ‘Dalla logografia ionica alla storiografia attica’, in R. Bianchi Bandinelli (ed.), Storia e civiltà dei Greci, II: La Grecia nell’età di Pericle, 3: Storia, letteratura, filosofia. Milan: 351–419. Canfora, L. 1989. Storia della letteratura greca. Bari. Canfora, L. 1996. Tucidide. La guerra del Peloponneso. Turin. Carena, C. 1974. Plutarco. Vite parallele. Milan. Carney, E. D. 2006. Olympias: mother of Alexander the Great. London– New York. Cartledge, P. and A. Spawforth. 2002. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: a tale of two cities. London–New York.

Bibliography

227

Cartledge, P. 2003. The Spartans: the world of the warrior-heroes of ancient Greece, from utopia to crisis and collapse. Woodstock (NY). Carty, A. 2015. Polycrates, tyrant of Samos: new light on Archaic Greece, Historia Einzelschriften 236. Stuttgart. Castiglioni, L. 1909. ‘Collectaneorum graecorum particula tertia’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 17: 289–348. Castiglioni, L. 1937. ‘Review of Plutarchi Vitae parallelae. Vol. II 2, by K. Ziegler’, Gnomon 13: 136–42. Cawkwell, G. C. 1969. ‘The crowning of Demosthenes’, CQ 19: 163–80. Ceccarelli, P. 2013. Ancient Greek Letter Writing: A Cultural History (600 BC–150 BC). Oxford. Centanni, M. 1991. Il romanzo di Alessandro. Turin. Chadwick, J. 1973. ‘The Berezan lead letter’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 19: 35–37. Chantraine, P. 2009.  Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris. Ciancaglini, C. A. 1998. ‘Alessandro e l’incendio di Persepoli nelle tradizioni greca e iranica’, in R. B. Finazzi and A. Valvo (eds), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Il Romanzo di Alessandro e altri scritti: atti del seminario internazionale di studio, Roma–Napoli, 25–27 settembre 1997. Alessandria: 59–81. Colburn, H. P. 2020. ‘Udjahorresnet the Persian: Being an Essay on the Archaeology of Identity’, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 26: 59–74. Collins, A. W. 2001. ‘The Office of Chiliarch under Alexander and the Successors’, Phoenix 55: 259–83. Collins, A. W. 2012a. ‘Alexander and the Persian Court Chiliarchy’, Historia 61: 159–67. Collins, A. W. 2012b. ‘Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander’s Divine Birth’, AHB 26: 1–14. Collins, A. W. 2012c. ‘The Royal Costume and Insignia of Alexander the Great’, AJP 133: 371–402. Collins, A. W. 2014. ‘Alexander’s visit to Siwah: a new analysis’, Phoenix 68: 62–77. Cook, J. M. 1983. The Persian empire. London. Corcella, A. 1996. ‘“Ecateo di Mileto così dice”’, QS 22: 295–301. Corsaro, M. 1997. ‘I Greci D’Asia’, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia cultura arte società. Una storia greca. Definizione.Turin, II. 2: 27–59.

228

Bibliography

Costa, Ch. D. N. 2001. Greek Fictional Letters. A selection with introduction, translation, and commentary by Charles Desmond Nuttall Costa. Oxford. Curnow, T. 2004. The Oracles of the Ancient World. London. Dalby, A. 2003. Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. London. De Nardis, M. 1992. ‘Aristotelismo e doxografia: (ancora sul περι τῆς τοῦ Νείλου ἀναβάσεως)’, GeogrAnt 1: 89–108. Demand, N. H. 1982. Thebes in the Fifth Century. London. Droysen, J. G. 1940. Alessandro il Grande. Milan. Droysen, J. G. 2005. Histoire de l’hellénisme. Grenoble. Düring, I. 1957. Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. Göteborg. d’Ernout, A. and A. Meillet. 1959. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (4ᵉ éd. rev., corr. & augm. d’un index). Paris. Fabricius, J. A. H. A. G. Ch. 1790. Joh. Alberti Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca sive notitia scriptorum veterum Graecorum ... 1 1. Hamburg. Faraguna, M. 2008. ‘Alessandro Magno tra Grecia ed Asia: l’inizio dell’età ellenistica’, in M. Giangiulio (ed.), Storia d’Europa e del Mediterraneo, IV. Rome: 463–506. Fedeli, P. and R. Dimundo. 2000. Petronio Arbitro. I racconti del Satyricon. Rome. Flower, M. A. 2000. ‘Alexander the Great and panhellenism’, in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in fact and fiction. Oxford: 96–135. Fowler, R. L. 2000. ‘P.Oxy. 4458: Poseidonios’, ZPE 132: 133–42. Fraenkel, A. 1883. Die Quellen der Alexanderhistoriker: ein Beitrag zur griechischen Litteraturgeschichte und Quellenkunde. Breslau. Fredericksmeyer, E. A. 1966. ‘The ancestral rites of Alexander the Great’, CP 61: 179–82. Fredericksmeyer, E. A. 2003. ‘Alexander’s religion and divinity’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s companion to Alexander the Great. Leiden: 253–78. Fronzaroli, P. 1976. ‘La trasmissione della cultura’, in P. Fronzaroli, S. Moscati, G. Garbini and M. Liverani (eds), L’alba della civiltà. Società, Economia e Pensiero nel vicino Oriente antico, vol. III. Turin: 79–86. Fronzaroli, P. 2003. Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi XIII: Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (Archivio L.2769). Rome. Fuller, J. F. C. 1958. The Generalship of Alexander the Great. London. Gadaleta, A. P. 2001. ‘Efippo storico di Alessandro: testimonianze e frammenti’, AFLB 44: 97–144. Gadaleta, A. P. 2000–2003. Nearco di Creta. L’amicizia con Alessandro,

Bibliography

229

Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Storia Antica, Università degli Studi di Bari, a.a. 2000–2003, tutor S. Cagnazzi. Garrison, M. B. 2011. ‘By the Favor of Auramazdā: Kingship and the Divine in the Early Achaemenid Period’, in P. P. Iossif, A. S. Chankowski and C. C. Lorber (eds), More than Men, less than Gods. Studies on royal Cult and imperial Worship. Proceedings of the international Colloquium organized by the Belgian School at Athens (November 1–2, 2007), Studia Hellenistica 51. Leuven: 15–104. Gärtner, T. 2000. ‘Zur mittellateinischen Übersetzung des neuen Fragments aus Aristoteles (?), De inundatione Nili’, ZPE 133: 31–33. Gehrke, H.-J. 1996. Alexander der Grosse. Munich. Gehrke, H.-J. 2002. Alessandro Magno. Bologna. Gerhard, G. A. 1903. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes, Inaug.-diss. Tübingen. Ghirshman, R. 1972. La civiltà persiana antica. Turin (= Iran, Paris 1951). Girard, M.-C. 1990. ‘L’hellébore: panacée ou placébo’, in P. Potter, G. Maloney, and J. Desautels (eds), La maladie et les maladies dans la Collection hippocratique: actes du VIᵉ colloque international hippocratique (Québec, du 28 septembre au 3 octobre 1987). Québec: 393–405. Gitti, A. 1951. Alessandro Magno all’oasi di Siwah. Il problema delle fonti. Bari. Goldsmith, O. 1774. The Grecian History from the Earliest State to the Death of Alexander the Great, Vol. 2. London. Gomme, A. W. 1945. A historical commentary on Thucydides, Vol. I: Introduction and commentary on Book I. Oxford. Goukowsky, P. 1981. Essai sur les origines du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 avant J.-C.), II: Alexandre et Dionysos. Nancy. Grant, M. 1986. A guide to the ancient world. A dictionary of classical place-names. New York. Griffith, G. T. 1968. ‘The letter of Darius at Arrian 2.14’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 14: 33–48. Grimal, N. 1990. Storia dell’antico Egitto. Rome–Bari. Grimm, G. 1978. ‘Die Vergöttlichung Alexanders des Grossen in Ägypten und ihre Bedeutung für den ptolemäischen Königskult’, in H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka (eds), Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz: 103–12. Grossato, A. 2008. ‘Alessandro Magno e l’India. Storico intreccio di miti e di simboli’, Quaderni di Studi Indo-Mediterranei 1: 275–312.

230

Bibliography

Grote, G. 1857. History of Greece, Vol. 12. London–New York. Guillaumont, F. and P. Laurence (eds). 2012. La présence de l’histoire dans l’épistolaire, Epistulae Antiquae 7. Tours. Hagen, F. and D. Soliman. 2018. ‘Archives in Ancient Egypt, 2500–1000 BCE’, in A. Bausi, C. Brockmann, M. Friedrich, and S. Kienitz (eds), Manuscripts and Archives. Berlin–Boston: 71–170. Hamilton, J. R. 1956. ‘The cavalry battle at the Hydaspes’, JHS 76: 26–31. Hamilton, J. R. 1961. ‘The letters in Plutarch’s Alexander’, Proceedings of the African Classical Association 4: 9–20. Hamilton, J. R. 1969. Plutarch: Alexander, a commentary. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L. 1980. ‘The battle of the Granicus river’, JHS 100: 73–88. Hammond, N. G. L. 1981. Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman. London. Hammond, N. G. L. 1983. Three historians of Alexander the Great, the socalled vulgate authors. Diodorus, Justin, Curtius. Cambridge. Hammond, N. G. L. 1988. ‘The Royal Journal of Alexander’, Historia 37: 129–50. Hammond, N. G. L. 1993. Sources for Alexander the Great: an analysis of Plutarch’s Life and Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandrou. Cambridge. Hanfmann, G. M. A. 1983. Sardis from prehistoric to Roman times. Results of the archaeological exploration of Sardis, 1958–1975. Cambridge (MA). Hansen, R. 1880. ‘Über die Echtheit der Briefe Alexanders des Grossen’, Philologus 39: 258–304. Harris, W. V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge (MA). Hatzilambrou, R. G., P. J. Parsons, J. Chapa and A. Benaissa. 2007. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 71, Vol. 91: Graeco-Roman Memoirs. London. Haug, M. 1854. Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Griechen. Tübingen. Haziza, T. 2021. ‘Amasis king of Egypt’, in C. Baron (ed.), The Herodotus Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Hoboken: 57–58. Heckel, W. 1992. The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire. London. Heckel, W. 2002. ‘The case of the missing phrourarch: Arrian 3.16.6–9’, AHB 16: 57–60. Heckel, W. 2006. Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s empire. Oxford. Heeren, A. H. L. 1820. De fontibus et auctoritate Vitarum parallelarum Plutarchi commentationes quatuor. Göttingen. Helmbold, W. C. and E. N. O’Neil (eds). 1959. Plutarch’s Quotations, Monographs of the American Philological Association, vol. XIX. Baltimore.

Bibliography

231

Helmreich, F. 1927. Die Reden bei Curtius. Paderborn. Hercher, R. 1873. Epistolographi Graeci. Paris. Hirzel, R. 1895. Der dialog. Leipzig. Hornblower, S. and A. J. S. Spawforth. 1996. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford. Howe, T. 2013. ‘The Diadochi, invented tradition, and Alexander’s expedition to Siwah’, in V. A. Troncoso and E. M. Anson (eds),  After Alexander: The time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC). Oxford: 57–70. Jacoby, F. 1927. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Vol. II BD: Theopompos und die Alexanderhistoriker; Kommentar zu Nr. 106–153. Berlin. Jajlenko, V. P. 1974. ‘The Berezan letter of Achillodoros. Date and text’, VDI 127: 133–52. Jakobi, R. and W. Luppe. 2000. ‘P.Oxy. 4458 col. I: Aristoteles redivivus’, ZPE 131: 15–18. Jamzadeh, P. 2012. Alexander Histories and Iranian Reflections. Remnants of Propaganda and Resistance. Leiden–Boston. Jenkins, T. E. 2006. Intercepted Letters: Epistolarity and narrative in Greek and Roman literature. Lanham. Jouguet, P. 1943. ‘Alexandre à l’Oasis d’Ammon et le témoignage de Callisthène’, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte 26: 91–107. Jursa, M. 2020. ‘Wooing the Victor with Words: Babylonian Priestly Literature as a Response to the Macedonian Conquest’, in K. Trampedach and A. Meeus (eds), The Legitimation of Conquest: Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great. Stuttgart: 165–77. Kaerst, J. 1892. ‘Der Briefwechsel Alexanders des Großen’, Philologus 51: 602–22. Kaerst, J. 1917. Geschichte des Hellenismus2. Leipzig–Berlin, Vol. I. Kaerst, J. 1927. Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters3. Leipzig–Berlin. Kaerst, J. 1968. Geschichte des Hellenismus, I: die Grundlegung des Hellenismus3. Stuttgart. Kaiser, W. B. 1956. Der Brief Alexanders des Grossen an Dareios nach der Schlacht bei Issos. Diss. Mainz. Kanatsoulis, D. 1958. ‘Antipatros als Feldherr und Staatsmann in der Zeit Philipps und Alexanders des Grossen’, Ελληνικά: Φιλολογικό, Ιστορικό και Λαογραφικό Περιοδικό Σύγγραμμα 16: 14–64. Karttunen, K. 1998. ‘Hydaspes’, in DNP : col. 773. Karttunen, K. 2002a. ‘Taxila’, in DNP : col. 62.

232

Bibliography

Karttunen, K. 2002b. ‘Taxiles’, in DNP : coll. 62–63. Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian. Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven. Kornemann, E. 1935. Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I. von Aegypten. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Leipzig. Koskenniemi, H. 1956. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki. Kraft, K. 1971. Der‘rationale’ Alexander. Kallmünz. Kuhrt, A. 2014. ‘State Communications in the Persian Empire’, in K. Radner (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Oxford: 112–40. Ladynin, I. 2020. ‘Udjahorresnet and the Royal Name of Cambyses: The “Derivative Sacrality” of Achaemenids in Egypt’, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 26: 88–99. Landucci, F. 1984. ‘La morte di Alessandro e la tradizione su Antipatro’, in M. Sordi (ed.), Alessandro Magno tra storia e mito. Milan: 91–111. Landucci, F. 1992. Lisimaco di Tracia: un sovrano nella prospettiva del primo ellenismo. Milan. Landucci, F. 1993. ‘L’indovino Aristandro e l’eredità dei Telmessii’, in M. Sordi (ed.), La profezia nel mondo antico. Milan: 123–38. Landucci, F. 1997. Duride di Samo. Rome. Landucci, F. 2010. ‘Il Cortigiano’, in G. Zecchini (ed.), Lo Storico Antico: Mestieri e figure sociali. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Roma, 8–10 Novembre 2007). Bari: 97–114. Landucci, F. 2013. ‘Gli Spartani e la Macedonia in età classica e protoellenistica’, in F. Berlinzani (ed.), La cultura a Sparta in età classica. Atti del seminario di studi: Università Statale di Milano (5–6 maggio 2010). Trento: 265–85. Landucci, F. 2021. ‘Antipater and His Family: A Case Study’, in M. D’Agostini, E. M. Anson and F. Pownall (eds), Affective Relations and Personal Bonds in Hellenistic Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Elizabeth D. Carney. Oxford: 97–109. Lane Fox, R. 1973. Alexander the Great. London. Lane Fox, R. 2018. ‘P.OXY. 4808 and Historians’, in K. Nawotka, R. Rollinger, J. Wiesehöfer and A. Wojciechowska (eds), The Historiography of Alexander the Great. Wiesbaden: 91–104. Langer, P. N. 1981. ‘Alexander the Great at Siwah’, AncW 4: 109–27. Laurenti, R. 1972. Aristotele. Politica. Costituzione degli ateniesi. Bari. Le Moigne, P. 2008. ‘Les avatars de la proskynèse: la première apparition de

Bibliography

233

Darius dans la recension ε du Roman d’Alexandre’, in P. Laurence and F. Guillaumont (eds), Epistulae antiquae. 5: Actes du Ve colloque international L’épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens (Université FrançoisRabelais, Tours, 6–7–8 septembre 2006). Leuven: 49–65. Lenfant, D. 2013. ‘The study of intermediate authors and its role in the interpretation of historical fragments’, AncSoc 43: 289–305. Lenfant, D. 2015. ‘Le satrape et l’Œil du Roi: les hommes du pouvoir perse passés au filtre grec’, in F. Colin, O. Huck, and S. Vanséveren (eds), Interpretatio: traduire l’altérité culturelle dans les civilisations de l’Antiquité. Paris: 95–122. Levi, M. A. 1977. Introduzione ad Alessandro Magno. Milan. Levi, M. A. 1984. ‘Theòs aníketos. Aspetti cultuali della legitimità di Alessandro’, in M. Sordi (ed.), Alessandro Magno tra storia e mito. Milan: 53–57. Lewis, D. M. 1989. ‘Persian gold in Greek international relations’, REA 91: 227–34. de Libero, L. 1996. Die archaische Tyrannis. Stuttgart. Llewellyn-Jones, L. 2013. King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE. Edinburgh. Lloyd, A. B. and A. Fraschetti (eds). 1989. Erodoto. Le Storie, vol. II: Libro II. L’Egitto. Milan. Lombardo, M. 1989. ‘Oro lidio e oro persiano nelle Storie di Erodoto’, REA 91: 197–208. Magnino, D., A. La Penna, B. Scardigli, and M. Manfredini (eds). 1987. Vite parallele: Alessandro; Cesare. Milan. Magnino, D. (ed.). 1996. Vite di Plutarco. 4: Filopemene e Tito Quinzio Flaminino; Pelopida e Marcello; Alessandro e Cesare. Turin. Manganaro Perrone, G. 1974. ‘Una biblioteca storica nel Ginnasio di Tauromenion e il P.Oxy. 1241’, PP 29: 389–409. Mangia, C. 2000–2003. Callistene di Olinto. L’uomo e lo storico di corte, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Storia Antica, Università degli Studi di Bari, a.a. 2000–2003, tutor S. Cagnazzi. Mangia, C. 2009. ‘La preparazione letteraria e scientifica di Callistene’, in E. Lanzillotta, G. Ottone and V. Costa (eds), Tradizione e trasmissione degli storici greci frammentari. Atti del II Workshop Internazionale, Roma, 16–18 febbraio 2006, in ricordo di Silvio Accame. Tivoli: 313–41. Marincola, J. 2016. ‘Plutarch’s Source for Aristides 11.3–8’, Mnemosyne 69: 853–60.

234

Bibliography

Matarese, C. 2013. ‘Proskynesis and the gesture of the kiss at Alexander’s court: the creation of a new élite’, Palamedes 8: 75–85. Matthiae, P. 2008. Gli Archivi Reali di Ebla: la scoperta, i testi, il significato. Milan. Mederer, E. 1936. Die Alexanderlegenden bei den ältesten Alexanderhistorikern. Stuttgart. Meeus, A. 2009. ‘Some Institutional Problems Concerning the Succession to Alexander the Great: Prostasia and Chiliarchy’, Historia 58: 287–310. Meister, K. 1992. La storiografia greca: dalle origini alla fine dell’Ellenismo. Bari. Merkelbach, R. and J. Trumpf. 1977. Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans, Zweite, neubearbeite Auflage unter Mitwirkung von Jürgen Trumpf. Munich. Michel, C. 2018. ‘Constitution, Contents, Filing and Use of Private Archives: The Case of Old Assyrian Archives (nineteenth century BCE)’, in A. Bausi, C. Brockmann, M. Friedrich and S. Kienitz (eds), Manuscripts and Archives. Berlin–Boston: 43–70. Millard, A. R. 2003. ‘Aramaic documents of the Assyrian and Achaemenid periods’, in M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of record-keeping in the ancient world. Oxford: 230–40. Moggi, M. 1973. ‘I furti di statue attribuiti a Serse e le relative restituzioni’, ASNP 3: 1–42. Moggi, M. et alii. 2013. ‘Un nuovo catalogo di storici ellenistici (POxy. LXXI 4808). Tavola rotonda. Roma, Istituto italiano per la storia antica. 10 giugno 2011’, RFIC 141: 61–122. Momigliano, A. D. 1934. Filippo il Macedone. Saggio sulla storia greca del IV secolo a.C. Florence. Monti, G. 2009. ‘Alessandro, Sparta e la guerra di vendetta contro i Persiani’, AncSoc 39: 35–53. Monti, G. 2012. ‘Alessandro e il giuramento di Platea’, IncidAntico 10: 195–207. Monti, G. 2016. ‘Le lettere di Alessandro: storia degli studi’, Histos 10: 17–33. Monti, G. 2021. ‘Thermodon in Cappadocia’, in C. Baron (ed.), The Herodotus Encyclopedia, Vol. 3. Hoboken: 1441. Morello, R. and A. D. Morrison (eds). 2007. Ancient Letters: Classical and late antique epistolography. Oxford. Morrison, A. D. 2014. ‘Authorship and authority in Greek fictional letters’,

Bibliography

235

in A. Marmodoro and J. Hill (eds), The author’s voice in classical and late antiquity. Oxford: 287–312. Moscati, S. 1976. L’alba della civiltà. Società, economia e pensiero nel vicino Oriente antico. Turin. Muccioli, F. 2017. ‘Peucesta, tra lealismo macedone e modello persiano’, Electrum 24: 75–91. Muir, J. 2009. Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World. New York. Müller, K. 1846. Fragmenta scriptorum de rebus Alexandri Magni, PseudoCallisthenes, Itinerarium Alexandri. Paris. Müller, S. 2014. ‘Alexanders indischer Schnee, achaimenidische Wassersouvenirs und mental mind mapping’, Anabasis 5: 47–52. Müller, S. 2016. ‘Kambyses II., Alexander und Siwa: die ökonomischgeopolitische Dimension’, in C. Binder, H. Börm, A. Luther (eds), Diwan. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Ostens und des östlichen Mittelmeerraums im Altertum. Festschrift für Josef Wiesehöfer zum 65. Geburtstag. Duisburg: 223–46. Müller, S. 2017. ‘Chares of Mytilene (125)’, in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby. Published online. Müller, S. 2018. ‘The Miracles of Water and Oil in the Historiography on Alexander’, in K. Nawotka, R. Rollinger, J. Wiesehöfer andA. Wojciechowska (eds), The Historiography of Alexander the Great. Wiesbaden: 131–47. Müller, S. 2019. Alexander der Grosse: Eroberung, Politik, Rezeption. Kohlhammer-Urban-Taschenbücher. Stuttgart. Müller, S. 2021. ‘Alexander at Naqsh-e Rostam? Persia and the Macedonians’, in J. Walsh and E. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great and Propaganda. Oxford: 107–28. Mynářová, J. 2014. ‘Egyptian State Correspondence of the New Kingdom: The Letters of the Levantine Client Kings in the Amarna Correspondence and Contemporary Evidence’, in K. Radner (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Oxford: 10–31. Nenci, G. 1979. ‘Significato etico-politico ed economico delle guerre persiane’, in R. Bianchi Bandinelli (ed.), Storia e civiltà dei Greci, II: La Grecia nell’età di Pericle, 3: Storia, letteratura, filosofia. Milan: 33–35. Nikolitsis, N. T. 1974. The Battle of the Granicus. Stockholm. Ogden, D. 2014. ‘Alexander and Africa (332–331 BC and beyond): The Facts, the Traditions and the Problems’, in P. Bosman (ed.), Alexander in Africa. Pretoria: 1–37.

236

Bibliography

Olbrycht, M. J. 2014. ‘‘An Admirer of Persian Ways’: Alexander the Great’s Reforms in Parthia-Hyrcania and the Iranian Heritage’, in T. Daryaee, A. Mousavi and K. Rezakhani (eds), Excavating an Empire: Achaemenid Persia in Longue Durée. Costa Mesa (CA): 37–62. Oncken, W. 1875. Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles in historisch-politischen Umrissen. Leipzig. Orsi, D. P. 1979. ‘Tracce di tendenza anticirea (Plutarco, Vita di Artaserse, capp. 1–19)’, Sileno 5–6: 113–46. Paladini, M. L. 1958. ‘Considerazioni sulle fonti della storia di Cleone’, Historia 7: 48–73. Parmeggiani, G. 2020. ‘Notes on the Tradition of the Peace of Callias’, Erga-Logoi 8: 7–23. Pearson, L. 1955. ‘The diary and the letters of Alexander the Great’, Historia 3: 429–55. Pearson, L. 1960. The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great. New York. Pédech, P. 1977. ‘Le paysage chez les historiens d’Alexandre, II’, QS 3: 119–33. Pédech, P. 1984. Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre. Callisthène, Onésicrite, Néarque, Ptolémée, Aristobule. Paris. Pelling, C. B. R. 1973. ‘Review of Plutarch. Life of Alexander, transl. by K. J. Maidment’, JHS 93: 231–32. Pelling, C. B. R. forthcoming. ‘A man for all genres: Alexander in Plutarch’. Petrucci, A. 2008. Scrivere lettere: una storia plurimillenaria. Rome. Piras, A. 2009. ‘Del buon uso delle lettere. Note sull’epistolografia nei documenti iranici’, LittCael 3: 49–70. Piras, A. 2012. ‘Ethnography of Communication in Achaemenid Iran: The Royal Correspondence’, in G. P. Basello and A. V. Rossi (eds), Dariosh Studies II. Persepolis and its Settlements: Territorial System and Ideology in the Achaemenid State. Naples: 431–43. Plezia, M. and J. Bielawski. 1970. Lettre d’Aristote à Alexandre sur la Politique envers les cites. Wrocław. Polito, M. 2020. ‘Historical Fragments Preserved by the Indirect Tradition: Some Evaluations from Theory to Practice’, Mantua Humanistic Studies 12: 299–316. Posner, E. 1972. Archives in the Ancient World. Cambridge. Powell, J. E. 1938. A Lexicon to Herodotus. Cambridge. Powell, J. E. 1939. ‘The sources of Plutarch’s Alexander’, JHS 59: 229–40. Pownall, F. 2014. ‘Callisthenes in Africa: The Historian’s Role at Siwah and

Bibliography

237

in the Proskynesis Controversy’, in P. Bosman (ed.), Alexander in Africa. Pretoria: 56–71. Pownall, F. 2021. ‘Ptolemaic Propaganda in Alexander’s Visit to Ammon’, in J. Walsh and E. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great and Propaganda. London–New York: 33–53. Prandi, L. 1985. Callistene, uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni. Milan. Prandi, L. 1988. Platea, momenti e problemi della storia di una polis. Padua. Prandi, L. (ed.). 2010. Corpus dei papiri storici greci e latini. Storici greci. 2: Testi storici anepigrafi, 9: I papiri e le storie di Alessandro Magno. Pisa. Pridik, E. 1893. De Alexandri Magni epistularum commercio. Berlin. Radner, K. 2014. ‘An Imperial Communication Network: The State Correspondence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire’, in K. Radner (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Oxford: 64–93. Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne. 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford. Robinson Jr., Ch. A. 1953. The history of Alexander the Great, I.1,2: An index to the extant historians; The fragments. Providence. Rollinger, R. 2014. ‘Aornos and the Mountains of the East: The Assyrian Kings and Alexander the Great’, in S. Gaspa (ed.), From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Münster: 597–635. Rollinger, R. 2021. ‘Atossa’, in C. Baron (ed.), The Herodotus Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Hoboken: 197–98. Rollinger, R. and J. Degen. 2021. ‘Alexander the Great, the Indian Ocean, and the Borders of the World’, in D. Agut-Labordère, R. Boucharlat, F. Joannès, A. Kuhrt and M. W. Stolper (eds), Achemenet. Vingt ans après. Études offertes à Pierre Briant à l’occasion des vingt ans du Programme Achemenet. Leuven–Paris–Bristol, CT: 321–42. Romane, J. P. 1987. ‘Alexander’s siege of Tyre’, AncW 16: 79–90. Romane, J. P. 1988. ‘Alexander’s siege of Gaza, 332 BC’, AncW 18: 21–30. Rose, V. 1854. De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate commentatio. Berlin. Rosenmeyer, P. A. 2001. Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature. Cambridge. Rosenmeyer, P. A (ed.). 2006. Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation. London.

238

Bibliography

de Sainte-Croix, Clermont-Lodève, G.-E.-J. G. 1775 (18042). Examen critique des anciens historiens d’Alexandre le Grand. Paris. Samuel, A. E. 1965. ‘Alexander’s “Royal Journals”’, Historia 14: 1–12. Sansone, D. 1989. Plutarch: Aristeides and Cato, Warminster. Sarri, A. 2018. Material Aspects of Letter Writing in the Graeco-Roman World: 500 BC–AD 300. Berlin–Boston. Savinel, P. and P. Vidal-Naquet (eds). 1984. Histoire d’Alexandre. L’Anabase d’Alexandre le Grand et l’Inde. Paris. Schachermeyr, F. 1949. Alexander der Grosse. Ingenium und Macht. Graz. Schäfer, D. 2014. ‘Pharao Alexander I.: ein Makedonier in Ägypten’, AW 3: 71–76. Schepens, G. 1997. ‘Jacoby’s FGrHist: problems, methods, prospects’, in G. W. Most (ed.), Collecting fragments =Fragmente sammeln. Göttingen: 144–72. Schmitt, R. 1991. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian text. London. Schmitt, R. 1992. ‛Chares of Mytilene’, EncIr 5: 377. Schmitt, R. 2007. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Belegformen des Titels iran. *hazahrapati-’, in M. Macuch, M. Maggi and W. Sundermann (eds), Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan, Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume. Wiesbaden: 355–64. Schoene, A. 1870. ‘Analecta Philologica Historica’, I: De rerum Alexandri Magni scriptorum in primis Arriani et Plutarchi fontibus. Leipzig: 1–59. Schrader, C. 1976. La paz de Calias. Testimonios e interpretación, introd. de C. L. Murison; epílogo de A. E. Raubitschek. Barcelona. Schwartz, M. 1985. ‘The religion of Achaemenian Iran’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Cambridge: 664–97. Seibert, J. 1969. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios’ I. Munich. Seibert, J. 2001. ‘Der Streit um die Kriegsschuld zwischen Alexander d.Gr. und Dareios III. – ein überflüssiger Disput?’, in K. Geus and K. Zimmermann (eds), Studia Phoenicia, XVI: Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica (Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen). Leuven: 121–40. Sickinger, J. 2013. ‘Greek Letters on Stone’, in U. Yiftach-Firanko (ed.), The Letter: Law, State, Society and the Epistolary Format in the Ancient World. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the American Academy in Rome 28–30.9.2008, Legal Documents in Ancient Societies (LDAS) 1. Wiesbaden: 125–40.

Bibliography

239

Sisti, F. 1974. ‘I diari e le lettere’, in P. Citati, Alessandro. Milan: 65–122. Sisti, F. 1982. ‘Alessandro e il medico Filippo: analisi e fortuna di un aneddoto’, BollClass 3: 139–51. Sisti, F. 2001–2004. Arriano. Anabasi di Alessandro. Milan. Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012. ‘The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt’, Histos 6: 169–213. Squillace, G. 1992–1994. ‘Alessandro e l’offerta ad Atena di trecento panoplie’, MStudStor 9: 9–20. Squillace, G. 2004. Βασιλεῖς ἠ τύραννοι: Filippo II e Alessandro Magno tra opposizione e consenso. Soveria Mannelli. Squillace, G. 2006. ‘La voce del vinto? La lettera di Dario III ad Alessandro Magno a Marato nel 332 a.C.: nota a Diodoro XVII 39, 1–2’, MediterrAnt 9: 355–65. Squillace, G. 2012. ‘La “costruzione” di un casus belli per Filippo II e Alessandro Magno’, Athenaeum 100: 111–25. Stanyan, T. 1707–1739. The Grecian History from the Origin of Greece to the Death of Philip of Macedon. London. Stark, Fr. 1958. ‘Alexander’s march from Miletus to Phrygia’, JHS 78: 102– 20. Stein, A. 1929. On Alexander’s track to the Indus. London. Steiner, D. T. 1994. The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and images of writing in ancient Greece. Princeton (NJ). Steiner, R. C. 2006. ‘Bishlam’s archival search report in Nehemiah’s Archive: multiple introductions and reverse chronological order as clues to the origin of the Aramaic letters in Ezra 4–6’, JBL 125: 641–85. Stirewalt, M. L. 1993. Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography. Atlanta (GA). Stoneman, R. 2007. Il Romanzo di Alessandro, Vol. I, traduzione di T. Gargiulo, Milan. Strootman, R. 2010–2011. ‘Alexander’s Thessalian Cavalry’, Talanta 42– 43: 51–67. Swain, S. 2013. Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works. Cambridge. Sykutris, J. 1931. ‘Epistolographie’, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband 7: 185–220. Taietti, G. D. M. 2016. ‘Alexander the Great as a Herodotean Persian King’, in K. Nawotka and A. Wojciechowska (eds), Alexander the Great and the East: History, Art, Tradition. Wiesbaden: 159–78.

240

Bibliography

Tarn, W. W. 1923. ‘Alexander and the Ganges’, JHS 43: 93–101. Tarn, W. W. 1927. ‘Alexander: The Conquest of Persia’, in The Cambridge Ancient History. Macedon 401–301 BC, Vol. VI. Cambridge: 352–86. Tarn, W. W. 1948. Alexander the Great, I–II: The narrative; Sources and Studies. Cambridge. Tarn, W. W. 1948a. ‘Alexander’s deification’, in W. W. Tarn (ed.), Alexander the Great. Sources and Studies, Vol. II. Cambridge: 347–74. Tarn, W. W. 1948b. ‘Plutarch’s Life of Alexander’, in W. W. Tarn (ed.), Alexander the Great. Sources and Studies, Vol. II. Cambridge: 296–309. Tarn, W. W. 1948c. ‘The battle of the Hydaspes’, in W. W. Tarn (ed.), Alexander the Great. Sources and Studies, Vol. II. Cambridge: 190–98. Thirlwall, C. 1839–1855. A History of Greece, Vols 6–7. London. Trampedach, K. 2020. ‘Staging Charisma: Alexander and Divination’, in K. Trampedach and A. Meeus (eds), The Legitimation of Conquest: Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great. Stuttgart: 45–60. Tucci, G. 1977. ‘On Swat. The Dards and Connected Problems’, East and West 27: 1–103. Tuplin, C. 2017. ‘The Great King, his god(s) and intimations of divinity. The Achaemenid hinterland of ruler cult?’, AHB 31: 92–111. Van den Hout, M. P. J. 1949. ‘Studies in early Greek letter-writing’, Mnemosyne 2: 19–41. Van der Spek, R. J. 2003. ‘Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian Scholarship’, in W. Henkelman and A. Kuhrt (eds), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Leiden: 289–346. Vandenberg, P. 1982. Oracoli, Milan (= Das Geheimnis der Orakel. Archäologen entschlüsseln das bestgehütete Mysterium der Antike. Munich 1979). Veenhof, K. R. 2003. ‘Archives of Old Assyrian Traders’, in M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient archives and archival traditions. Concepts of recordkeeping in the ancient world. Oxford: 78–123. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1984. ‘Flavius Arrien entre deux mondes’, in P. VidalNaquet (ed.), Arrien, Histoire d’Alexandre. L’Anabase d’Alexandre le Grand e l’Inde. Paris: 311–93. Vinogradov, J. G. 1971. ‘A Greek letter from Berezan’, VDI 118: 74–100. Virgilio, B. 1975. Commento storico al quinto libro delle Storie di Erodoto: introduzione, commento storico, note complementari, testo, traduzione e indici. Pisa.

Bibliography

241

Virgilio, B. 1998. ‘Basileus. Il re e la regalità ellenistica’, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Società. Una storia greca: definizione, 2 II. Turin: 107–76. Vogel, A. 1877. Ueber die Quellen Plutarchs in der Biographie Alexanders des Grossen. Colmar. Wallace, S. 2020. ‘Communication and Legitimation: Knowledge of Alexander’s Asian Conquests in the Greek World’, in K. Trampedach and A. Meeus (eds), The Legitimation of Conquest: Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great. Stuttgart: 123–44. Weeden, M. 2014. ‘State Correspondence in the Hittite World’, in K. Radner (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire. Oxford: 32–63. Welles, C. B. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. A study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven. Westermann, A. 1852. De epistolarum scriptoribus graecis commentationis. Leipzig. White, J. 2021. ‘Oroetes’, in C. Baron (ed.), The Herodotus Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Hoboken: 1023. Whitmarsh, T. 2013. Beyond the Second Sophistic. Adventures in Greek Postclassicism. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London. Wiesehöfer, J. 1994. Das antike Persien: von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. Munich–Zurich. Wilcken, U. 1933. Alexandre le Grand. Paris. Will, W. 1983. Athen und Alexander. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Stadt von 338 bis 322 v. Chr. Munich. Will, W. 1986. Geschichte Makedoniens, II: Alexander der Grosse. Stuttgart. Will, W. 2009. Alexander der Grosse: Geschichte und Legende. Darmstadt. Yates, D. C. 2019. States of Memory. The Polis, Panhellenism, and the Persian War. Oxford. Zahrnt, M. 2016. ‘Von Siwa bis Babylon: Alexanders Weg vom Gottessohn zum Gott’, in C. Binder, H. Börm and A. Luther (eds), Diwan. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Ostens und des östlichen Mittelmeerraums im Altertum. Festschrift für Josef Wiesehöfer zum 65. Geburtstag. Duisburg: 303–24. Ziegler, K. 1965. Plutarco. Brescia. Zumetikos, A. M. 1894. De Alexandri Olympiadisque Epistularum fontibus et reliquis. Berlin.

INDEX LOCORUM Ael.

VH



1.25: 28 n.123; n.126; 29; 200–201 2.19: 153 3.38: 148 9.3: 212 11.9: 28 n.126 12.26: 182 12.51: 217

Aesch. PV 723–725: 170 Aeschin. In Ctes. 170: 26 n.118 3.72: 142 Agatharchides of Cnidus (FGrHist 86) F3: 212 Anaximenes of Lampsacus (FGrHist 72) F29: 132 Anticleides (FGrHist 140) F12: 98 Antigenes (FGrHist 141) T1: 171 F1: 98 Ar. Ach. 660–664: 22 n.99 Av. 716: 150

Eq.

137: 22 n.99 218: 22 n.99 256: 22 n.99 274–275: 22 n.99 285–287: 22 n.99 304: 22 n.99 487: 22 n.99 626: 22 n.99 863: 22 n.99 1018: 22 n.99 fr. 354: 213 Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 18: 163 28.3: 22 n.99 peri tes tou Neilou anabaseos (FGrHist 646) T1: 193 F1: 193 Aristobulus (FGrHist 139) F4: 132 F8: 45 F9b: 140 F12: 157 F21: 98 F28: 180 F33: 184 F38: 195 F43: 190 F47: 153

Index Locorum Arr.

Anab. 1.1–2: 26 n.118 1.8.2: 39 n.159 1.10.1–4: 6 n.16; 26 n.118 1.11.3: 132 1.11.7–8: 135 1.12.1: 189 1.14.1–3: 39 n.159; 132 1.16.7: 76–77; 136–37 1.25.1–2: 38 n.155; 38 n.156 1.26.1–2: 139 1.29.3: 6 n.16 2.4.3–10: 45 n.169; n.170; n.171; n.173; 46 n.174; 47 and n.179 2.12.1: 142–43 2.11.9–10: 214 2.12.3–5: 146 2.13.1: 149 2.13.4–6: 209 2.14.1–9: 49; 55 n.208; 64; 90–93; 157; 159–62 2.15.1: 214 2.18–24: 157 2.25.1–3: 94–95; 157; 159; 161–62 3.3.1–2: 150 3.6.5: 42; 209 3.6.6: 210 3.16.6: 13 n.60; 166 3.16.7–8: 163–64; 167 3.19.5: 174 3.19.6: 6 n.16

243 3.19.8: 6 n.16 3.23.4: 174 3.26.3: 6 n.16; 39 n.158 3.27.1: 182 3.27.5: 25 n.114 3.28.2: 174 4.1–4: 170 4.5.1: 6 n.16 4.14.3: 140; 184 4.15.3: 174 4.15.7–8: 177–78 4.16.1: 182 4.21.4: 182 4.22.1–2: 181 4.26.4: 153 4.29.4: 6 n.16 5.8.4: 187 5.11.1–4: 188 5.13.1–4: 182; 188; 205 5.14.2–6: 188–89 5.15.3–4: 189; 205 5.18.5: 187 5.20.7: 174 5.27.7: 42 6.1.2–5: 12 n.49; 42; 112–13; 190; 192–97 6.4.3: 197 6.5.5–7: 197 6.6.1–4: 197 6.9.1–2: 197 6.9.3: 202 6.10.1–2: 202 6.11.1: 182 6.11.7–8: 202 6.12.3: 6 n.16 6.13.1–2: 197 6.27.2: 6 n.16

244

Index Locorum

Arr. Anab. contd. 6.28.3–4: 202 6.30.2: 202 7.4.6: 205 7.5.4: 202 7.8.1: 211 7.10.5: 211 7.12.3–7: 11 n.35; 37 n.152; 42; 206–207; 211 7.13.2–4: 170–71 7.19.2: 164 7.20.2: 148 7.23.1: 167 7.23.6: 6 n.16 7.24.1: 167 7.26.2: 202 7.27.1: 37 n.152; 185 Ind. 1.8: 153 18.6: 202 19.8: 202 ta meta Alexandron (FGrHist 156) F9.34: 166 Ath. 1.22d: 13 n.60; 98–99; 169– 70 10.435d: 141 1.781f–782a: 214 11.784a–b: 126–27; 131; 214–15 12.539b–d: 212 13.576d–e: 3 n.9 13.87, 607f–608a: 214 14.659f–660a: 12 n.50

Callisthenes (FGrHist 124) T7: 212 F14: 138; 152 F31: 138 F35: 132; 143 Chares (FGrHist 125) T2: 25 n.112 T3: 196 F1: 25 n.113 F6: 141 F7: 149 F8: 156 F9: 198 F10: 20–30; 10 n.31; 21; 36 F12: 98 F14: 184 F15: 184; 197 Cic. Fam. 2.10.3: 142 Off. 2.48: 1; 7 n.20; 59 Cleitarchus (FGrHist 137) F8: 142 F15: 98 Clem. Al. Strom. 1.16.76.10–77.1: 32 n.136 Conon (FGrHist 26) F1.9: 32 n.138 Cornelius Nepos Phoc. 1.3–4: 28 n.126

Index Locorum Ctesias FGrHist 688 F9.5: 200 F32: 169 FHG F47: 169 Curt. 3.4.4–15: 47 n.179 3.5.1: 45 n.170 3.6.1: 45 n.172 3.6.4–17: 45 n.169; n.173; 46 and n.174 3.8.12: 214 3.11.7–12: 142–43 3.11.24–26: 146 3.12.23–13.17: 214 4.1.3: 149 4.1.7–14: 157 4.2–4: 157 4.6.17: 44 n.168 4.7.5: 150 4.7.27: 150 4.10.16: 49 5.1–9: 157 5.2.2: 167 5.2.11: 163 5.2.16: 168 6.1.1–21: 175; 209 6.2.1–15: 25 n.111; 174 6.3.1–4.1: 175 6.3.8: 100 6.5.24–32: 170 6.6.6: 18 n.88; 27 6.6.1–10: 25 n.115 6.7–11: 39 n.158 6.9.12: 175 6.9.24: 175

7.1.6: 12 n.46; 39 7.1.9: 174; 207 7.1.10: 12 n.46; 39 7.1.12: 39; 42 7.1.36–38: 40 7.5.41–43: 181 7.6–9: 170 7.6.14–15: 181 7.10.13–14: 177–78 8.3.17: 174 8.5.2: 181; 183 8.5.11: 154 8.5.21: 25 n.116 8.10.28: 153 8.13.21: 182 8.13.5–14.33: 187–89 9.3.20: 208 9.5.14–18: 202 9.6.6–14: 197 10.1.22: 210 10.1.43–45: 11 n.41; 208 10.2–3: 11 n.41; 210 10.5.4: 182 10.5.30: 42 10.10.14–20: 37 n.152 Dinon of Colophon (FGrHist 690) F12a: 148 Diod. 2.32.4: 18 n.87 2.49.3: 148 3.46.2: 148 11.28.1–2: 49 n.182; 160 11.33.2: 133 12.4.5: 139 14.110.3: 163

245

246

Index Locorum

Diod. contd. 16.47.3: 25 n.112 16.75.1–2: 160 16.89.2–3: 133; 136 16.91.2: 135 16.94.4: 182 17.14.3: 26 n.118 17.15: 6 n.16; 26 n.118; 28 n.125 17.17–18: 135 17.17.1: 131 17.17.4: 132 17.31.5–6: 46 n.174 17.32.1: 12 n.44; 38; 42 17.32.3: 214 17.34.5: 142 17.36–38: 146; 149 17.39.1: 6 n.17; 157–58 17.39.2: 35; 161 17.40.2–46: 157 17.45.7: 39 n.159 17.49.2: 149 17.51.2–3: 150 17.54.1–2: 6 n.17; 157–58 17.62–63: 209 17.65.2: 167 17.66.12: 163 17.74.3: 174 17.77.1–3: 170 17.79–80: 39 n.158 17.87–88: 187; 189 17.99.4: 202 17.106.3: 6 n.17 17.114.3: 12 n.47; 40–42 17.117.3: 182 17.118.1–4: 37 n.152; 42; 207

18.2.2: 182 18.2.4: 182 18.8.4: 6 n.17; 20 n.97; 55 n.208 18.29.2: 182 18.39.6: 166 19.14.5: 202 19.18.1: 168 40.4.1: 216 Duris of Samos (FGrHist 76) F46: 98 F51: 20 n.96; 57 Ephemerides (FGrHist 117) F1: 179 F3: 38 n.154 Ephippus of Olynthus (FGrHist 126) F5: 25 n.115 Eratosthenes (FGrHist 241) F28: 155 Esther 3.13a: 216 6.1: 18 n.87 8.12a: 216 Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Il. 2.755: 104–105; 178–80 11.633: 212 Commentarii ad Homeri Od. 8.383: 169 Ezra 1.1–4: 23 n.105 1.6.20–23: 17

Index Locorum Gell. NA

13.4: 20 n.97; 153 20.5.7–12: 128–29; 217

Hdt. 1.123.4: 33 n.144 1.124.1: 33 n.144 1.125.2: 33 n.144 1.193: 148 2.28.1: 15 n.69 2.28.5: 15 n.69 3.17.1: 151 3.34: 14 n.67 3.40.1: 22 n.101; 33 n.144 3.42.4: 33 n.144 3.43.1: 33 n.144 3.84: 14 n.67; 25 n.112 3.86: 25 n.116 3.107.1: 148 3.110–113: 148 3.122: 22 n.101 3.123.1: 15 n.69 3.128.2–5: 14; 15 n.69; 33 n.144 5.14.2: 33 n.144 5.24: 22 n.101 5.35: 34 5.49: 135 5.55–56: 163 5.58.2: 15 n.71 6.4.1: 33 n.144 6.43–44: 160 6.106.3: 136 6.120: 136 6.123.2: 163 7.3: 33 n.142 7.100.1: 15 and n.69

7.128.1–3: 34 n.144 7.136: 25 n.116 7.139.5: 134 7.150: 22 n.101 7.239: 34 8.52–55: 4 n.12; 136 8.85.2: 25 n.114 8.90.4: 15 n.69; n.70 8.98: 31 8.118: 25 n.116 8.140a: 22 n.101 9.2.3: 48; 160 9.27.5: 136 9.41: 49; 161 9.81: 133 9.109: 201 Hecataeus of Miletus (FGrHist 1) F291: 174 Hellanicus of Lesbos (FGrHist 4) F178: 32 n.137 Hesychius α1441: 14 n.65; 25 n.112 α6240: 144 α7369: 1 γ539: 1 ε413: 25 n.113 κ3626: 213 ο1323: 25 n.114 σ1051: 1 Homer Iliad 2.702: 135 5.340: 153 6.118: 31 n.131 13.26–30: 138 18.477–481: 135

247

248

Index Locorum

Homer contd. Odyssey 8.383: 169 Joseph. AJ

Just.

3.348: 139 11.104: 216 12.225: 216 13.126: 216 13.167: 216

Epit. 9.5.9: 42 11.3–6: 6 n.16; 42 11.6.2: 132 11.8.1–9: 13 n.59; 45 n.169; 46 11.9.9: 142 11.9.12: 146 11.11.1–2: 150 11.11.6: 150 11.11.9: 150 11.12.1–4: 149; 157–58 11.12.7: 146 11.12.9–16: 157–58 11.14.9: 163 12.1.4–11: 11 n.40; 175; 209 12.3.5–7: 170 12.4.1: 25 n.111 12.5.1–3: 39 n.158 12.7.1: 25 n.116 12.8.1–4: 187 12.13.10: 37 n.152 12.14.1–5: 207 12.15.12: 182

12.16.2: 42 13.6.15: 182 Kings 1.20.2–3: 23 n.104 Nearchus (FGrHist 133) F20: 192 Onesicritus (FGrHist 134) F1: 98 F19: 108; 188 F38: 190 Pherec. (FGrHist 3) F15: 170 Philo Leg. 315: 216 Phot. Bibl. cod. 245, 396a: 177 Phylarchus (FGrHist 81) F41: 212 Pl. Pol. 290d: 151 Plin. HN 1.5: 171 1.12c: 149; 196 1.13c: 196 1.37c: 196 6.62–63: 1 8.16.44: 193 12.62: 86–87; 149

Index Locorum 12.64: 147 34.17: 163 34.69–70: 164 35.179: 178 37.33: 156

Plut. Alex. 1.1–2: 192 2: 42 3: 42; 155 5.7: 147 7.4: 21 n.97 7.6–7: 55 n.208; 128– 29; 215–17 8.1–2: 7 n.18; 190; 199 8.4: 185 9: 42 10: 42; 209 13.1: 26 n.118 14.1: 165 15: 135; 182; 189 16.17–18: 76–77; 131–37 17.6–8: 11 n.36 17.8–9: 78–79; 137–41 18.5: 48 n.181 19: 45 19.4–10: 13 n.59; 45 n.169; n.173; 46 n.174 20.8–9: 10 n.32; 36; 80–81; 141–45 20.11: 214 21: 146 22: 43; 57 22.1–2: 13 n.60; 96–97; 165–68; 170

249 22.3: 12 n.58; 124–25; 212–13 22.4–7: 12 n.57; 82–83; 145–47 23.4: 179 24.1: 214 24.5–25.3: 157 25: 12 n.52; 131; 147– 48; 214 25.8: 84–85; 149 27.4: 152 27.5–7: 150; 152 27.8: 12 n.48; 88–89; 149–56 27.9: 152 27.11: 152 28.2: 28 n.118 28.3: 153 28.6: 154 29.7–9: 88–89; 157–59; 161–62 34.1: 163 34.2: 94–97; 163–65 34.3: 165 36.1–2: 163 38: 3 n.8; 3 n.10; 4 n.12; 138 39: 42; 213 39.1: 39 n.157; 57 39.4: 12 n.51; 28 n.123; 116–17; 200–201 39.7–8: 12 n.45; 38; 41 n.165 39.11–13: 11 n.35; 12 n.50; 39–41; 122–23; 206–208; 210–11; 214 40.1–2: 212

250

Index Locorum

Plut. Alex. contd. 41.4: 12 n.55; 118–19; 203–204 41.5: 12 n.53; 114–15; 181; 197–98 41.6: 12 n.56; 118–19; 181; 199; 204 41.7: 12 n.54; 114–15; 181; 198–200 42.1: 1 n.1; 12 n.55; 13 n.60; n.61; 30–35; 116–17; 120–21; 179; 201–206 45.1–4: 25 n.111 46: 11 n.33; 13; 36; 98–99; 170–74 47.1–4: 11 n.39; 100–1; 174–77 47.10: 181 47.11–12: 198 48.6: 181 49.3–13: 39 n.158 49.14–15: 207 54: 25 n.116 55.2: 184; 212 55.6–7: 11 n.34; 106– 107; 181–87 55.9: 184 57.4: 177 57.8: 11 n.37 57.5–9: 102–103; 177–80 60.1–12: 11 n.38; 108– 11; 187–92 62.1: 189 63.5: 202 68: 42

71.8–9: 11 n.42; 122–23; 208–12 74.2–5: 37 n.152; 185; 210 77.1–3: 37 n.152; 185 Arist. 11.3–9: 165 Cim. 18: 150 De Alex. fort. aut virt. 332f–333a: 13 n.60; 41 n.165; 96–97; 166; 168–70 337a: 198 340a: 41 n.165 341b: 153 341c: 10 n.32; 80–81; 143–45 De vitioso pudore 531a: 165 Eum. 1.4: 8 2.4–5: 9 n.24 2.6–7: 9 Nic. 8.5–6: 22 n.99 13.1–2: 150 Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 1099d: 169 Phoc. 9.6: 6 n.16 17: 6 n.16; 10 n.31; 20 n.96; 26–28 18: 28 n.126; 201 18.6: 12 n.51; 28 n.123; 116–17; 200–201

251

Index Locorum

Poll.

Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 65d: 212 Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 173c: 148 179b: 141 179e–f: 12 n.52; 84–85; 147–49 180d: 41 n.164; n.165; 152 180e: 153 Them. 29.11: 201

Onom. 6.87: 12 n.50; 124–25; 131; 213–15 Polyaenus Strat. 4.5.1: 214 5.44.4: 160 6.49: 166 Polycleitus (FGrHist 128) F3a: 163 F8: 98 Ptolemy (FGrHist 138) F4: 132 F17: 184 F20: 190 F28a: 98 Sen. De Ira 2.23.2: 45 n.169; 46 n.174



Ep.

59.12: 153 Strabo 11.5.4: 170 11.11.5: 178; 180 12.2.9: 48 14.3.9: 138–39 15.1.25: 192 15.1.27: 153 15.1.45: 195 17.1.43: 152 Suda α2703: 29 α2704: 26 α3239: 144 ε199: 25 n.113 ε3664: 216 ει219: 25 n.112 θ138: 140 θ139: 140 λ249: 182 χ162: 21 χ164: 22 Theophr. Hist. pl. 4.4.14: 148 9.7.2: 148 Fragments (Wimmer) F159: 104–105; 177–80 Thuc. 1.20.2: 163 1.128: 34 1.129: 22 n.101 1.136–137: 34 1.138.5: 201 3.36.6: 22 n.99

252

Index Locorum

Thuc. contd. 5.7.2: 22 n.99 6.54–59: 163 8.50–51: 34 Vitruvius 8.3.8: 178 Xen. Anab. 1.2.20: 15 1.2.21: 47 n.176 3.1.5: 34 n.148 7.2.8: 34 n.148 Cyr. 2.2.9–10: 34 n.148 4.5.26: 34 n.148 4.5.31: 34 n.148 Inscriptions and Papyri Kent DB: 24 n.108; 204 DNa: 24 n.109; 203 DNb: 24 n.109; 203–204 DPe: 24 n.109; 203 DSs: 203 DSt: 24 n.109 XPh: 24 n.109; 203 IG XII 2, 96: 15 n.71 XII 2, 97: 15 n.71 ML 12: 23 n.106 27: 132



4.5.34: 34 n.148 5.3.10: 23 n.106 5.5.1: 34 n.148 5.5.4: 34 n.148 6.2.1: 34 n.148 7.2.16–17: 34 n.148 8.3.14: 25 n.116 8.6.17–18: 31 n.135 Hell. 1.1.23: 34 n.147 1.4.3: 34 n.147 1.7.4: 34 n.147 3.1.3: 163 3.1.6: 200 3.4.11: 34 n.147 4.4.3: 34 n.147 5.1.31: 163

OGIS 1.4: 159 P.Oxy. I.12: 133 1798: 46 n.175 4458: 193 LXXI.4808: 19 n.92 RO 67: 133 SEG 27.631: 15 n.71 Tod 172A: 133

GENERAL INDEX Acesines, river 112–13; 187; 193– 94; 197 Achilles 135; 172; 189 Agis 36; 160; 175; 209 Ahura Mazda 5; 24 n.107; 154; 179; 203 Alcetas 68; 106–7; 181–82; 186 Alexander Romance ix–x; 29; 30; 44 n.168; 46; 53; 62–63; 194; 216 Alexander the Molossian 36; 175 Alexippus, physician 12; 44; 68; 118–19; 204 Amazons 11; 36; 67; 98–99; 141; 144; 170–74; 186; 188; 190 Ammon 12; 139; 141; 149–56; 179 announcer see eisangeleus Anticleides 98–99; 172 Antigenes 98–99; 171 Antipater vii; 4; 6 n.17; 7–8; 10–11; 20–21; 27–29; 36–38; 41–42; 53; 56–57; 62; 65; 67–68; 80–81; 98–107; 122–23; 139–45; 159; 166; 170; 172–86; 190; 206–12 Arabia 86–87; 147–49 Aristotle ix–x; 7 n.20; 21 n.97; 22 n.99; 29; 43; 54; 55 n.208; 62; 67; 78–79; 128–29; 140; 183–86; 190; 193–94; 199; 202; 215–17 Arses 90–91 Assacenians 153 Athenians 3–4; 6 n.16; 22 and n.101; 26–28; 35; 52; 67; 76–77; 109; 131–37; 139; 142; 148;

159–60; 163–67; 171–72; 175; 184; 200; 206; 210 Athens see Athenians Atossa 32–33 Attalus 68; 106–107; 135; 160; 181–88 Bagoas 67; 90–91; 209 bear 44; 68; 118–19; 203–204 Callisthenes 3 n.11; 9–11; 19; 26 n.118; 53; 59; 106–107; 132; 135; 137–38; 140; 143; 149; 152; 159; 161–62; 164–65; 176; 181–87; 212–13 Cambyses 22 n.100; 33 n.142; 151; 155 Cassander 27 n.118; 185; 195; 210 cassia 84–85; 147–49 chairein vii; 10; 13 n.64; 20–30; 33; 36; 59; 145; 179; 211; 216 chakravartin 155 chamberlain see eisangeleus Chares of Mytilene vii–viii; 2; 10– 21; 26–28; 36; 47 and n.178; 51; 56–61; 66; 98–99; 141–46; 149; 156; 162; 170; 172–73; 176; 180; 184; 186–87; 195–202; 204–206; 210–16 Chrysippus 98–99; 169 Cicero 1; 7 n.20; 59; 142; 217 Cilicia 30; 43; 45; 47–48; 120–21; 137; 166; 205

254

General Index

cinnamon 148 Cleitarchus 11 n.43; 55; 98–99; 142; 171; 176 Clement of Alexandria 32–33 Cleon 21–22 Climax (Ladder) 78–79; 138 Coenus 11; 110–11; 132; 188–89; 208–10 Corinth 44; 124–25; 132–36; 154– 55; 161; 184; 213 Corinthian/Corinthians see Corinth Craterus 30; 44; 68; 106–107; 114–17; 132; 181–88; 197–202; 206–207; 211–12 Crobylus 44; 124–25; 212–13 Ctesias 5; 32 n.138; 169; 200 Cydnus, river 45 Cyrus, camp of 47–48 Damon 12; 43; 67; 82–83; 145–47 Democritus 217 Demosthenes 26 n.118; 201 Dinon of Colophon 142; 148; 171 Diodorus ix; 1; 6; 29; 38; 41–42; 55 n.208; 133; 150; 153; 157–58; 174; 177; 216 Duris of Samos 11 n.43; 20–21; 57; 59; 98–99; 145; 149; 176; 201; 212 Egyptian mongoose see ichneumon edeatros 25; 38; 49; 172 eisangeleus vii; 10–11; 13–14; 18– 21; 25; 36; 47; 51; 56; 98–99; 145; 162; 172; 180; 186; 201 Ephemerides 8 and n.23; 18; 37 and n.153; 51; 55–59; 61; 63; 176; 179; 180

epistolagraphos 9; 137; 162 Eumenes of Cardia 8–9; 18; 54–55; 57–58; 63; 65; 162 figs 148 frankincense see incense Gaugamela 26 n.117; 49; 68; 158; 163; 166–68; 175; 192; 216 grammatistes vii; 6–20; 162 Granicus 4; 35; 49; 67; 76–77; 131–37; 140; 164; 192 Great King vii; 2–3; 5; 14; 20; 25–26; 31 n.135; 35; 49; 66; 134; 138; 146; 148–49; 154–55; 157–61; 163–64; 168; 179; 190; 203–204; 216 Greeks 2–4; 15; 19; 21–22 and n.100; 24–27; 30; 32–35; 48; 52; 55 n.208; 67; 76–77; 90–91; 94– 97; 131–37; 148; 150; 153–54; 160–65; 175; 179; 187; 189; 190; 208; 214 Hagnon 12; 44; 124–25; 184; 212–13 Harpalus 11; 132; 166–67; 206; 209–10 Hatshepsut 151 hazarapatiš 13–14 Hecataeus of Eretria 98–99; 172 hegemon 90–91; 133; 155; 165 Hegesias, tyrant of Ephesus 166–67 hellebore 44; 114–15; 181; 198–99 Hephaestion 12; 29; 40–41; 44; 68; 114–15; 181–84; 197–99 Hippocrates 216–17

General Index Homer 189–90 Hydaspes, river 108–109; 112–13; 171; 181; 187; 192–94; 202; 216 Hyrcania 11; 67; 100–101; 170; 174; 177 ichneumon 44; 114–15; 181; 197; 199 incense 84–87; 131; 147–49; 214 India 1 and n.2; 6 n.16; 20 n.97; 41; 140; 148; 153; 155; 181; 184; 187; 190; 193–98; 202; 208 Indus, river 41; 112–13; 171; 187; 192–96 Issus 10; 36; 45; 64; 67; 80–81; 141–47; 149; 157–58; 172–73; 175; 186; 190; 192; 214 Ister the Callimachean 98–99; 171; 176 labdanum 148 Lacedaemonians see Spartans Leonidas, pedagogue 12; 43; 67; 84–87; 131; 147–49; 214–15 Lycia 126–27; 138; 192; 200 Megabyzus 13; 30; 43; 120–21; 205–206 myrrh 84–85; 131; 147–49; 214 Nicon 30; 44; 116–17; 202 Nile 12; 41–42; 68; 112–13; 140; 192–97 Ochus 90–91; 159–60; 193 oil, crude 11; 37; 68; 102–105; 177–80; 190

255

oil, olive 135; 148 oil, sesame 148 Olympias ix; 6; 11–12; 20 n.97; 37– 42; 46 n.174; 56–57; 59 n.221; 67–68; 88–89; 112–13; 124–25; 131; 147; 149–56; 190; 192–96; 206–208; 210–11; 213–15 Onesicritus of Astypalaia 98–99; 109; 171; 173; 176; 188; 190–91 Oxus, river 37; 102–103; 177–78; 180; 190 Pages’ conspiracy 11; 106–107; 177; 181–87 Pamphylia 7 n.18; 11; 36; 67; 78– 79; 137–41; 190; 192 Pausanias, physician 12; 44; 68; 114–15; 181; 198–99 Perdiccas 44; 114–15; 132; 181–82; 197 Perinthus 34 n.148; 90–91; 160 Persepolis, burning 3–4; 67; 138 Persis 202–203 Peucestas 5; 12; 30; 44; 68; 116–19; 146; 201–204 pharaoh 22; 151–55; 179 Phaselis 78–79; 138–41 Philip II, father of Alexander 1; 8; 27; 29; 38 n.155; 42; 52; 63–64; 67; 76–77; 133–36; 141–42; 154–55; 159–61; 182; 202; 209; 217 Philip of Acarnania, physician 13; 19 n.93; 44–48 Philip of Theangela 98–99; 172 Philip the Chalcidian 98–99; 172 Philon the Theban 98–99; 172

256

General Index

Philoxenus 6; 13; 43; 67; 96–99; 165–70; 205; 212 Phocion vii; 5; 10; 12; 21; 27–29; 36; 39; 68; 116–17; 179; 200– 201; 211 Plataea see Plataeans Plataeans 4; 35; 48; 67; 96–97; 136; 160; 164–65 Plato vii; 140; 216 Polycleitus of Larissa 98–99; 163; 171 Porus 7 n.18; 11; 37; 57; 68; 108– 11; 187–92; 197; 205 proskynesis 25; 78–79; 137–38; 184; 212–13 Proxenus 102–103; 177; 180 Ptolemy 3; 11 n.43; 37 n.153; 54; 60–61; 98–99; 132; 137; 161–62; 170; 172; 176; 178; 180; 183–84; 188–91; 200; 211 Ramses 151 Red Sea 139; 194; 196 Scylax 194 Scythia 36; 98–99; 170; 175 Seleucus 30; 43; 68; 120–21; 204–205 Siwah 12; 41; 59; 67; 88–89; 138– 39; 149–56

somatophylax 25; 172; 182; 202 Sparta see Spartans Spartans 34; 76–77; 90–91; 132– 36; 138; 150; 160–61; 163–64; 209 spoils 35; 76–77; 131–37; 164–65; 214 Susa 3 n.7; 68; 163; 166–68; 202; 205; 211 Syria 47 n.179; 141; 147–48; 150; 171 Tarsus 45 n.170; 47–48 Taxila 171; 187 Taxiles 187 Theodectes 78–79; 140 Theodorus 43; 96–99; 168–70; 212 Thersippus 90–91; 159 Thrace 38 n.155; 90–91; 160; 209 Thutmose II 151 Timotheus 12; 43; 67; 82–83; 145–46 Udjahorresnet 155 usher see eisangeleus xenikoteron 19; 20 Zopyrion 36; 175; 209