The Campaigns of Alexander (Classics) (42 page)

The following articles are important:

E. Badian, ‘The Eunuch Bagoas’,
Classical Quarterly
, 1958, 144–57

G. W. Bowersock, ‘A New Inscription of Arrian’,
Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies
, 1967, 279–80.

P. A. Brunt, ‘Persian Accounts of Alexander’s Campaigns’,
Classical Quarterly
, 1962, 141–55. Brief but perceptive remarks on Arrian’s method.

P. A. Stadter, ‘Flavius Arrianus: The New Xenophon’,
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
, 1967,155–61.

G. Wirth, ‘Anmerkungen zur Arrianbiographie’,
Historia
, 1964, 209–45. Deals mainly with the chronology of Arrian’s works.

(A list of translations is given in the Introduction, p. 19, n. 6).

C. B. Welles’s edition of Books XVI. 66-XVII in the Loeb series (vol. 8) contains, apart from the fine translation, useful notes on the subject-matter and a discussion of Diodorus’ sources.

E. N. Borza, ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus’ Account of Alexander’,
Proceedings of The African Classical Associations
, 1968, 25–46, doubts whether Cleitarchus was a major source for Diodorus’ 17th Book.

E. I. McQueen provides a general account in
Latin Biography
(ed. T. A. Dorey, London 1967). Curtius’ date has been the subject of much discussion, little of it in English. See especially the following:

H. U. Instinsky, ‘Zur Kontroverse um the Datierung des Curtius Rufus’,
Hermes
, 1962, 379–83 (Vespasian).

D. Korzeniewski,
Dei Zeit des Q. Curtius Rufus
, Diss., (Cologne, 1959) (Augustus).

G. V. Sumner, ‘Curtius Rufus and the
Historiae Alexandri’, Australasian Universities Modern Language Association
, 1961, 30–39. (Claudius).

Konrat Zieglers’ excellent Teubner text of the
Alexander
is now available in a revised edition (vol. II.2 of the
Parallel Lives
, 1968).

J. R. Hamilton,
Plutarch Alexander: A Commentary
(Oxford University Press, 1969) discusses most of the historical problems. The introduction contains chapters on Plutarch’s life and background, the speeches
de Alexandri fortuna
, the
Parallel Lives
, and the sources and value of the
Alexander
.

R. H. Barrow,
Plutarch and his Times
(Chatto & Windus, 1967) is a good general introduction to Plutarch.

A. J. Gossage contributes a chapter on Plutarch to
Latin Biography
(ed. T. A. Dorey, Routledge, 1967).

P. A. Stadter,
Plutarch’s Historical Methods
(Cambridge, Mass., 1965) shows that Plutarch had read the authors he cites.

A. E. Wardman, ‘Plutarch and Alexander’,
Classical Quarterly
1955, 96–107, analyses the
Life
and the speeches
de Alexandri fortuna
.

C. A. Robinson translates the fragments of the Alexander historians in vol. I, Part II of his
History of Alexander the Great
(Providence, R. I. 1953). The texts are collected in F. Jacoby,
Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker
, IIB, Nos. 117–5 3, with commentary in IID (Berlin, 1927,1930).

Lionel Pearson,
The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great
(American Philological Association, 1960) is indispensable. It discusses the six major primary sources at length and is admirably documented. For some valid criticisms see E. Badian,
Gnomon
1961, 660ff.

T. S. Brown,
Onesicritus
(Berkeley, 1949) is the only full-scale study of any of these authors. It also treats Nearchus in some detail.

The veracity of
Ptolemy
has been the subject of articles by C. B. Welles, ‘The Reliability of Ptolemy as an Historian’,
Miscellanea
…
A. Rostagni
(Turin, 1963), 101–16, and ‘The discovery of Sarapis and the foundation of Alexandria’,
Historia
, 1962, 271–98.

R. M. Errington, ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’,
Classical Quarterly
, 1969, 233–42.

Aristobulus
is dealt with by G. Wirth in the course of his ‘Anmerkungen zur Arrianbiographie’,
Historia
, 1964, pp. 213ff.

*The career of
Callisthenes
and the circumstances of his death have been studied by T. S. Brown, ‘Callisthenes and Alexander’,
American Journal of Philology
, 1949, 225–48.

T. S. Brown has also discussed the fragments of
Cleitarchus
in ‘Clitarcbus’,
American Journal of Philology
, 1950, 134–55.

On the date of Cleitarchus see the following articles:

E. Badian, “The Date of Clitarchus’,
Proceedings of the AfricanClassical Associations
, 1965, 5–11.

J. R. Hamilton, ‘Cleitarchus and Aristobulus’,
Historia
, 1961, 448–59.

and the Appendix to:

F. Schachermeyr,
Alexander in Babylon
(Wien, 1970).

* Lionel Pearson, ‘The Diary and Letters of Alexander the Great’,
Historia
, 1954/5, 429–55, considers both diary and letters Hellenistic forgeries.

A. E. Samuel, ‘Alexander’s Royal Journals’,
Historia
, 1965, 1–12, argues that the diary (as quoted by Arrian and Plutarch) is a Babylonian chronicle.

A. B. Bosworth, ‘The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda’,
Classical Quarterly
, 1971, 112–36, suggests that the diary was ‘an original propaganda document’ perhaps composed by Eumenes.

J. R. Hamilton, ‘The Letters in Plutarch’s
Alexander’, Proceedings of the African Classical Associations
, 1961,9–20, finds a number of the letters probably genuine.

The most important recent article on Arrian is A. B. Bosworth, ‘Arrian’s Literary Development’,
Classical Quarterly
, 1972, 163–85. He argues that Arrian wrote
The Campaigns of Alexander
before beginning his civil and military career, perhaps soon after 115
A.D.

1
. Philip A. Stadter (
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
8, 1967, 155ff) has shown that Xenophon was not merely a nickname, but part of the historian’s name.

2
. Arrian was suffect consul in 129 or 130
A.D.
, and in his day it was usual for a man to hold the consulship at about the age of 42; see
JRS
55 (1965), p. 142 n. 30.

3
. We do not know why Arrian chose to study under Epictetus rather than, as we should have expected, at Athens. In an important article on Arrian’s governorship in the
English Historical Review
1896 (reprinted in his
Essays
, ed. F. Haverfield, Oxford, 1906), Professor H. F. Pelham has suggested that Arrian was probably influenced by the traditions of his mother’s family, the ‘gens’ Arria, famous in the history of Roman Stoicism. He conjectures that the
cognomen
Arrianus indicates the family of the historian’s mother, as
cognomina
often did in the first and second centuries
A.D
.

4
. In a letter to a Lucius Gellius Arrian gives his reasons for publishing them. We now know that this Gellius was an eminent citizen of Corinth, L. Gellius Menander, who with his son, L. Gellius Iustus, set up an inscription in honour of Arrian at Corinth; see G. W. Bowersock in
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
8 (1967), 279–80.

5
. The quotation is taken from page 218 of Pelham’s article mentioned in n. 3.

6
. Diodorus’ 17th Book is translated (with useful notes) by C. Bradford Welles in the Loeb Classical Library, Curtius by J. C. Rolfe in the same series, and Justin (with Cornelius Nepos and Eutropius) in Bohn’s Library. Plutarch’s
Alexander
has been frequently translated (usually with a number of other Lives), most recently by Ian Scott-Kilvert in
The Age of Alexander
(Penguin Books).

7
. These authors are the subject of detailed study by Lionel Pearson,
The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great
(New York, 1960).

8
. On these see my
Plutarch
Alexander:
A Commentary
(Oxford, 1969), lx–lxii.

9
. See the convincing analysis by C. B. Welles, ‘The reliability of Ptolemy as an historian’, in
Miscellanea… A. Rostagni
(Turin 1963) 101gff. Curtius, who had the advantage of reading Ptolemy’s book, presumably refers to this aspect of Ptolemy’s writing when he describes him (9.5.21) as a man ‘who was certainly not inclined to depreciate his own glory’.

10
. R. M. Errington, ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’, in
CQ
1969, 233ff., gives several instances of misrepresentation by Ptolemy. He considers that Aristonous was deprived of the credit for helping to save Alexander’s life, but he contests the usual view that Antigonus’ hard-fought victories over the survivors of Issus were ignored by Ptolemy, because of his rivalry with Antigonus in the years following 314.

11
. See his ‘Persian Accounts of Alexander’s Campaigns’ in
CQ
1962, 141ff. The quotation which follows is taken from p. 141.

12
. For details of Alexander’s troops see especially Major-General J. F. C. Fuller,
The Generalship of Alexander the Great
(London, 1958); E. W. Marsden,
The Campaign of Gaugamela
(Liverpool, 1964), Appendices I and II; A. R. Burn, ‘The Generalship of Alexander’, in
Greece and Rome
1965, 140–54.

13
. See G. T. Griffith,
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association
, 4 (1956/7), pp. 3ff.

14
. P. A. Brunt, ‘Alexander’s Macedonian Cavalry’, in
JHS
83 (1963), 27–46 discusses the many problems concerning Alexander’s cavalry.

15
. As R. D. Milns has demonstrated in
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
7 (1966), 159–166.

16
. On the Hipparchies see Appendix A.

17
. E. Badian in
JHS
85 (1965), 161.

18
.
JHS
83 (1963), 39.

1
. On Ptolemy and Aristobulus see the Introduction, pp. 21ff.

2
. Philip was stabbed to death in the summer of 336. His assassin was a young nobleman named Pausanias, who some years before had been grossly outraged by Attalus, whose daughter Philip had recently married. He is said to have resented Philip’s failure to take action against Attalus. Alexander and his mother, Olympias, now estranged from Philip, were suspected of being implicated, although the brothers of Alexander of Lyncestis were executed for alleged complicity (p. 92 below), and later King Alexander accused the Persian King of boasting that he had bribed Pausanias (p. 127 below). For the circumstances see Diodorus 16.93–4; Aristotle
Politics
1311b2. E. Badian,
Phoenix
17 (1963) 244ff., provides the best recent discussion. See, however, A. B. Bosworth,
CQ
1971, 93ff.

3
. Plutarch
Alexander
(3.5) dates Alexander’s birth to about 20 July 356.

4
. Arrian’s summary is so brief as to be misleading. From Diodorus’ account (17.3–4) it appears that Alexander, faced with widespread unrest in Greece, secured recognition of his position as ‘Leader’ of the League of Corinth from the Thessalian League and the Amphictyonic League at Delphi, as well from the individual states both inside and outside the Peloponnese. Finally, he summoned a meeting of representatives to Corinth and was appointed ‘Captain-General’ of the League.

5
. For an account of this campaign see Fuller 219ff. The Triballians lived south of the Danube in the modern province of Pleven.