The Babylon Settlement

[agesilaos]

The subject of this thread is the different versions of the debate at Babylon following Alexander’s death in 323. The longest is given by Curtius X 6ff (online at www.curtiuslacus.com ), Justin following Trogus is next XIII 2ff (available online at www.forumromanorum.org in English and French translations and the original Latin) and finally there is Diodoros’ account XVIII 2ff. I will try to summarise the accounts but it might help to read the originals.

The spur for consideration of these accounts came while reading R M Errington’s piece ‘Alexander in the Hellenistic World’ in Entretiens Hardt XXII, where, while discussing the value of Alexander’s relics he mentions Curtius’ account of Perdikkas putting them on the throne at the meeting to decide the succession. He then posits that Eumenes remembered the ploy and used it more successfully at Kyinda to placate the Argyraspids. He attributes the source of the story to Hieronymos of Kardia, the arguments for which are in ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos’ JHS 90(1970) 49-77 (which I know I have somewhere!). This seemed wrong to me so I turned to A B Bosworth in ‘The Legacy of Alexander’ 34-45, where he discusses these passages and comes to equally erroneous conclusions (IMHO). Since I haven’t Errington’s reasoning to hand it will have to be Bosworth’s that we consider.

Let me just say at the outset that Bosworth is far too good and honest a scholar not to point out possible objections to his line of reasoning but in his enthusiasm for his conclusions he seems to have let them slip to the back of his mind.

Central to his case is that Curtius and Justin represent different source traditions. This I cannot see. ‘Are they using different sources, or do they have different agendas? Justin is excerpting Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae in a notoriously capricious and slapdash manner, whereas Curtius is explicitly looking to the present, contrasting the dissolution produced by the division of powers at Babylon with the state of felicity achieved at Rome by the uncontested elevation of the current emperor. Justin may have mutilated the sense of his original beyond reconstruction, while Curtius, to put it crudely, may be indulging in historical fiction.’ Now this is the point from which all consideration of these passages must start. Curtius is moulding the material and Justin is carelessly epitomising.

The main difference comes right at the beginning in Curtius the meeting is meant to be among the officers alone but is infiltrated by the infantry who refuse to be excluded, whereas in Justin (and Diodoros it would seem) the meeting was behind closed doors; different sources or different agenda? There can be no denying that Curtius’ scenario is the more dramatic and clearly more relevant to the elevation of several Roman emperors (whence much debate about his date) this is part of his agenda.
The clincher is the shape of the debate that follows. In Justin there is no business with the relics on the throne but Perdikkas states his opinion that they should wait for Rhoxane’s child to be delivered (three months in Curtius, one in Justin). In Curtius Niarchos proposes Herakles and is countered by Ptolemy who argues that they should not elevate the offspring of subjects to the throne and proposes government by committee before the relics. Justin has Meleager propose both ‘the boy at Pergamos’ or if they want a man Aridaeus and then object to Rhoxane’s son on the grounds that he is of subject blood. Ptolemy points out that Aridaeus is of low birth and mentally deficient, and will be but a cipher and proposes they choose from among the marshals. Perdikkas’ opinion is then accepted ‘unanimously’. There is, as Bosworth says, both ‘confusion and conflation here’. In Curtius it is Meleager who objects that Perdikkas will rule through the son of Rhoxane and Niarchos has dropped out and his proposal been melded with Meleager’s objection. Aristonous asserts that Perdikkas was marked out as his successor by Alexander’s giving him his ring. Justin omits this and puts Peithon’s objections to Philip into Ptolemy’s mouth; it may seem crass but the fact that Ptolemy and Peithon both begin with P may be significant in aiding Justin’s confusion; contrariwise he may just have grafted the arguments of the lesser man onto the more famous.

There seems nothing in these differences that cannot be explained in terms of Curtius’ shaping and Justin’s carelessness. We are asked to believe, however, that if these ‘differences’ can be explained in a Fourth Century context then the questions of authorial influence can be set aside. It is duly alleged that Ptolemy would want to omit his objection to Philip, as Philip had raised him twice to his satrapy, that the depiction of Aristonous was a sop to his ally Kassander and that the author of this version was Kleitarchos. I would see his version behind both traditions with Diodoros representing Hieronymos.

The arguments about Kassander are bogus since a common codicil to the ‘vulgate’ is the Antipatrid poison plot and the statement that Kassander destroyed the relatives of Alexander. This must have been in the common source i.e. Kleitarchos. Which in turn shows he wrote after Kassander’s death.
Curtius had been using Kleitarchos for his History in tandem with Ptolemy who had nothing beyond Alexander’s death (viz Arrian) it would seem perverse if he chose to append an appendix from an obscure and unpopular source like Hieronymos, whom he seems nit to have used elsewhere. More likely Kleitarchos took his story down to the reconciliation before the corpse of Alexander and the arrangements for his funeral. Trogus too seems to have made use of Kleitarchos and could easily have continued with his version of events at Babylon, the fact that Herakles is mentioned in both is at once telling and suspicious; there is no evidence that he figured in anyone’s calculations before 310 and he may well have been a stooge, along the lines of Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel. Both he and the throne ruse would seem to be retrojections not the originals of future ideas.

Diodoros, it is true used Kleitarchos too but he is changing books and topic we might expect him to change source. The lack of the initial debate is unfortunate, as we cannot really say how close the two versions were but the fact that there are retrospective notes either at Eumenes’ use of Perdikkas’ scenario at Kyinda nor when Herakles is introduced (XX 20) might mean that they did not figure in his account of the succession debate though we can be sure that Herakles at least was mentioned in that context by Kleitarchos.

It would seem that the two congruent accounts are those of Curtius and Justin and that Diodoros represents a different tradition, although it is more in the drama of the presentation that the differences lie. Both Justin and Curtius retain good portions of their source tradition and can be used to correct each other; for instance in sorting out the right speakers (Curtius) and the right setting (Justin), but that only brings us to their source almost certainly Kleitarchos but we should lend more weight to Diodoros whose account is by far the most sober.

[abm]

I'm afraid I mostly have questions, no real answers (and note that I'm still in the "war on Quellenforschung" mood).

There seems nothing in these differences that cannot be explained in terms of Curtius’ shaping and Justin’s carelessness. We are asked to believe, however, that if these ‘differences’ can be explained in a Fourth Century context then the questions of authorial influence can be set aside. It is duly alleged that Ptolemy would want to omit his objection to Philip, as Philip had raised him twice to his satrapy, that the depiction of Aristonous was a sop to his ally Kassander and that the author of this version was Kleitarchos.

Here I agree, but the main difference is that in Curtius Meleager is not the envoy sent to the infantry, for the main problem in Justin's version is precisely that while Meleager first opposes Perdikkas and the other nobles and is the only one among them to champion Arrhidaeus, after that, he of all people is chosen as envoy to convince the infantry to obey to the decision of the nobles and to stop supporting Arrhidaeus. This is highly unlikely, which suggests it might be the inconsistent or even contradictory element of a fabricated version of events. On the other hand, this might actually be an episode not mentioned by Curtius and there is no certain contradiction between both events on the matter. But in that case all sources would have an unlikely version concerning the choice of envoys. Unlikely things did happen, of course, and the might seem less unlikely if we would know more of the context.

I do not see anything in Curtius version that has to originate from his own agenda. Only the actions and the speech of Arrhidaeus at (X 8.15-22) are unlikely, but this need not have affected the rest of the narrative. Where are the other elements in his story that could not have happened in Babylon at the time? The only place where he does refer to Roman affairs is clearly marked out as a digression (Curt. X 9.3-6; at 9.7 he writes:“But let me return to the narrative from which my reflections on our national prosperity diverted me”, Yardley's translation). There is a certain circularity in the search for reminiscences to Roman events as a criterion for dating Curtius. First a list is made of everything that might refer to a Roman emperor, then the conclusion follows that Curtius must be talking about the most recent emperor for whom arguments are found or the one for whom there is the largest number of parallels, and that consequently he must be dated to the period of that emperor. If Curtius could be shown to have written before any one of these emperors, such parallels would become meaningless coincidences. And it really is not that hard to find historical events resembling each other. The method seems sound because for all we know there is a possibility of Curtius living at the time of any these emperors. However, if we did not know that Diodorus wrote before the First World War, one could argue that his claim that Kassandros went to the countryside and pretended to be on a normal hunt when he was preparing his revolution (XVIII 49), was actually an invention of Diodorus who was inspired by the similar act of Wilhelm II. The German Emperor went on a trip to Norway in 1914 shortly before the outbreak of the war, in order to create the impression that nothing serious was going on. This might then mean that Diodorus wrote after 1914 and was talking about WWI. I realize that this is an absurd example, but it is essentially the same thing scholars do when looking for Roman reminscences in Curtius narrative of the events in Babylon.

The arguments about Kassander are bogus since a common codicil to the ‘vulgate’ is the Antipatrid poison plot and the statement that Kassander destroyed the relatives of Alexander. This must have been in the common source i.e. Kleitarchos. Which in turn shows he wrote after Kassander’s death.

Why does it show that he wrote after Alexander's death? I do agree that there is no reason why Ptolemy and thus Kleitarchos could not mention his protest againt Arrhidaeus.

Diodoros, it is true used Kleitarchos too but he is changing books and topic

So was Torgus.

(...)the fact that Herakles is mentioned in both is at once telling and suspicious; there is no evidence that he figured in anyone’s calculations before 310 and he may well have been a stooge, along the lines of Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel. Both he and the throne ruse would seem to be retrojections not the originals of future ideas.
(...)the fact that there are retrospective notes either at Eumenes’ use of Perdikkas’ scenario at Kyinda nor when Herakles is introduced (XX 20) might mean that they did not figure in his account of the succession debate though we can be sure that Herakles at least was mentioned in that context by Kleitarchos.

That is If Justin and Curtius used the same source and if either or both was indeed following Kleitarchos here. Why should Diodorus necessarily have retrospective notes for every character he had mentioned before (or even for every important character)? You seem to be asking too much of his historical method.
As I have already said in other topics concerning Herakles on this forum, Brunt has shown that there is no reason to doubt that there was a son of Alexander and Barsine named Herakles. And even for those who still want to doubt it, Brunt has certainly shown that there is no reason to doubt that Nearchos championed the cause of such a child. After all, he was related to Barsine by marriage, thus it would not have been unattractive to him if she would be the queen-mother.

It would seem that the two congruent accounts are those of Curtius and Justin and that Diodoros represents a different tradition, although it is more in the drama of the presentation that the differences lie. Both Justin and Curtius retain good portions of their source tradition and can be used to correct each other; for instance in sorting out the right speakers (Curtius) and the right setting (Justin), but that only brings us to their source almost certainly Kleitarchos but we should lend more weight to Diodoros whose account is by far the most sober.

There are no contradictions between Justin and Diodorus, and it is striking that Diodorus too has Meleager as the enyoy. It is true, however, that the fact that Curtius does not mention this embassy does not constitute a contradiction. The question of the separate meetings might indeed be merely an impression caused by the summary Justin made, rather than a difference of sources. I had noticed this in Diodorus just a few days ago (he in fact says nothing to contradict Curtius; he simply summarized), but you are right that there need not be a difference between Curtius and Justin in this respect either. However, since there certainly are no contradictions between Justin and Diodorus, you will have to accept that there is only one tradition if you assume that Curtius and Justin used the same source.
Furthermore, one of the few things that seems certain in the Diadochoi Quellenforschung is that Justin and Diodorus at least sometimes certainly did use the same source (e.g. Diod. XVIII 23.1 and Justin XIII 6.4; Diod. XIX 11.2 and Just. XIV 5.10).

[agesilaos]

I do not see anything in Curtius version that has to originate from his own agenda. Only the actions and the speech of Arrhidaeus at (X 8.15-22) are unlikely, but this need not have affected the rest of the narrative. Where are the other elements in his story that could not have happened in Babylon at the time?

Of all the sources Curtius alone has the infantry infiltrate the initial discussions, this can only be because he has chosen to conflate the initial decision to await Roxane's baby and the separate elevation of Philip by the infantry; this could be for dramatic reasons alone but given that there are Roman successional reminiscences one must allow that that consideration may have informed his shaping of the material.

The point about Meleager being a strange choice is well made; the simplest solution would be that the author who developed the fully realised initial debate retrojected his subsequent role as a supporter of Philip. This meeting is only reported by Curtius and Justin and as I have suggested they seem to be broadly congruent. Neither Diodorus nor Arrian 'Ta Meta Alexandron' even mention this meeting. It may be that their epitomators have dropped the story but is it not equally likely that there was no story there and that their source (Hieronymus?) began with a notice of the dissension following Alexander's death and perhaps Perdikkas' decision to await the child but only took up his detailed narrative with the mission of Meleager and his defection. One could argue that if Curtius' source was Kleitarchos, as I believe, that Diodoros may have remembered reading the beginning of the story and thinking it covered failed to write it down. However, that excuse cannot stand for Arrian and since he wrote ten books on the first five years after Alexander he had no need to be brief; Photius could have dropped it out but I think we have fragments from the actual work's opening, which starts in the same way.

If we accept that the source for Curtius was Kleitarchos and that he was writing at the Court of Ptolemy Soter then since Kassander was Ptolemy's ally from 308 until his death it must be bad policy to even mention the Antipatrid Poison Plot let alone stigmatise Kassander as the exterminator of the Argead line. After his death Ptolemy is actively opposed to Alexander V in the person of his satellite, Pyrrhos.

Trogus too was changing books but his books seem much less self-contained than Diodoros'; Book XII starts with an assessment of Philip which he surely found at end of a Philippic source rather than the beginning of an Alexander one.

I find the whole Eumenid colouring in Curtius bogus and perhaps due to CR himself; Ptolemy's proposals are significantly different in Justin ,pace Bosworth. The position of Herakles is somewhat moot since just about everyone agrees that any source post dates 310 when he was done to death. That Nearchos was the natural choice to support him is no strong evidence for veracity and we may ask why Nearchos, the Greek, is included in the deliberations but Eumenes, the Greek, is seemingly excluded not least when the latter was a scion of Perdikkas the organiser of the alleged conference?

Thanks for the statement that most agree that Diodoros and Justin use the same source at times for the Diadochoi - now I'll have to plough through them both to see what opinion I hold! No need for war on quellenforschnungen, just hit us with comments like that and we'll have to scuttle off to check our books;

O to be a tert
iary author now that
Quellen is here!

apologies to e e cummings (Quellen can mean 'spring' apologies to german)

Best Wishes for the New Year (must dash lest I see it in sober) chaire

[Paralus]

Happy New Year to all. My head is alarmingly unsound today: the neighbour across the cul-de-sac drinks scotch. He invited me over for “a drink” to the New Year. A bottle and a half later…

Of all the sources Curtius alone has the infantry infiltrate the initial discussions...

The point about Meleager being a strange choice is well made; the simplest solution would be that the author who developed the fully realised initial debate retrojected his subsequent role as a supporter of Philip. This meeting is only reported by Curtius and Justin and as I have suggested they seem to be broadly congruent. Neither Diodorus nor Arrian 'Ta Meta Alexandron' even mention this meeting.

I think it logical that the initial meeting took place. We have conflicting interests amongst the somatophylakes and marshals present in Babylon and, as Bosworth suggests, the “settlement” was rather more the beginning of negotiation and power posturing that would continue. I’d see this process beginning with a meeting of the king’s “adjutants” as being quite expected. Whether or not it was gate-crashed by the “infantry” is not something that we are ever really going to know. It is not out of the question for, as the Curtius account (and Justin’s) make plain, the infantry was in no mood for any protracted delay in a decision. This comes through, to me, clearly.

The failure of a mention in Diodorus and Arrian is, in my opinion, due to the process of summarisation. If Diodorus is, as Bosworth observes, at “his most laconic” here then Photius is taking shorthand on a square of toilet tissue and is terribly uninformative. Photius’ main objective seems to be as quick a summation of “the disturbance” so as to rush to a neat solution and the distribution of the satrapies. As we know, there are ten books covering the period from Babylon down to Antipater gifting Antigonus some 8,500 Macedonian troops (the only troops likely to grapple with those of Eumenes who campaigned with Alexander) and the title of “Strategos of Asia”. The leaving aside of the initial meeting – which Photius may have thought incidental to the rest of the crisis – is readily accepted if we consider just what might the same epitomiser have chosen to exclude from a summary of Anabasis book one. Indeed one can almost visualise it:

How Alexander dealt with the Thracians and how he put down Glaucius the Illyrian. How the Thebans rebelled and Alexander, at the head of his army, surprised them with a forced march and destroyed the city with a great slaughter. How Alexander crossed into Asia with 30,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry and how, at the Granicus, he defeated the Persians in a great battle where Cleitus The Black saved him with a timely stroke of his sword…

As to the source(s) of Curtius for this episode, debate continues as, I suspect, it always will. It is obvious that Curtius has utilised more than simply Clietatrchus. Curtius, himself, as much as states this at 10.10.5:

Some have believed that the distribution of the provinces was prescribed by Alexander's will, but I have ascertained that this report, though transmitted by our sources, is without foundation.

Unlike the occasionally helpful Diodorus, Curtius does not see fit to tell us just whose manuscripts “some” and “our sources” represent. It would be logical to assume that Hieronymus was among those sources and unlikely that such a source will have provided such misleading information given that his kinsman(?), Eumenes, was involved. Perhaps it was Hieronymus who provided the information that Alexander did not disburse the provinces in his will and that these were the result of the negotiations in Babylon.

One of the things that has fascinated me about this affair is the notion of the alleged “constitutionality” of the “Macedones under arms”. It has been argued that the army assembly was an official organ of government that the king could not ignore its decisions: these were binding. This most fervently by Hammond and Hatzopoulos. Some (Fonatana and Seibert) even go so far as to suggest that assembly played a significant role in the distribution of the satrapies.

Bosworth correctly points out that there were, in effect, three courts: Babylon, Cilicia and Macedon. There is no reason to assume that the Macedonians outside of Babylon will necessarily have approved. Craterus, in fact, will have had a number (over 10,000) of Macedonians not dissimilar to that with Perdiccas in Babylon. Whereas in times past – prior to the conquest of Persia – an assembly of the army at Pella might have proved manageable it now, demonstrably, was not. Even given that the “assembly of the Macedones” was consulted on such matters it is a near certainty that the king, in consultation with his hetairoi and somatophylakes, will have decided the matters put to same. Hence the probability of the “private” meeting of the “principes”.

In the course of the anabasis Alexander rarely addresses this “constitutional entity”. When he does so it is to coerce and to cajole an increasingly uninterested host into further conquest. The exceptions are, of course, the contentious judicial murders of Philotas, Parmenion and Lynkestas. These, naturally, required political massaging of the most delicate kind: the king could ill afford not to convince the army of their "guilt".

It is seemingly odd that this “court” or organ of government, in the instances that we see it operating, so often ignores its own "binding" decisions. At the Nile this entity declares the Perdiccans to be criminals and all are to be executed yet, by the time we arrive at Triparadeisos, it seemingly has no problem with Perdiccas’ brother in law Attalus being in camp even though they had summarily executed his wife. Similarly the architects of Perdiccas’ downfall and surely the most vocal of those at Triparadeisos, the argyraspids, take service under the condemned – by their own assembly – Eumenes. Admittedly this is at the request of “the kings” and Olympias but it is a salutary point that once word of Eumenes’ conviction and sentenced reached the Macedonians in his army they, in open disobedience to this “organ of government”, were highly incensed and made a decree that a thousand of the leading soldiers should serve him continually as a body-guard, watching over him when he went abroad and spending the night at his door. Plut. Eum. 8.6.

With respect to this decision of the “Assembly of the Macedones”, none of our extant sources make any mention of the kings proclaiming this condemnation; more importantly no source has the kings or Polyperchon pardon Eumenes so as to facillitate this service. Ptolemy, in point of fact, baldy reminds the argyraspids of this extant condemnation when he attempts to detach them from Eumenes’ service. The same is true of Pithon and Seleucus prior to Antigonus’ disaster at the Coprates. Evidently these decisions were not constitutionally binding or, perhaps, the said assembly was much like the anecdotal “woman”: inclined to constantly change its collective mind – often.

[agesilaos]

Read the History of the Reign of Alexander by Arrian in seven books. It relates how he made a treaty with the Athenians and the rest of the Greeks with the exception of the Lacedaemonians; how he crossed over into Asia and defeated the Persians in three battles

Photius is worse than you thought

I agree that there must have been an initial meeting, almost certainly of the big-wigs alone who accepted Perdikkas' proposal - the details of this meeting are what I doubt and it is odd that despite the alleged dissenters according to Justin 'Perdikkas' suggestion was adopted unanimously.' Curtius retrojects the dissension of the phalanx so obscuring the initial decision.

The sources that place the distribution of the satrapies in Alexander's Will will be those based on the Romance, presumably Kleitarchos did not follow this line; if Curtius and Trogus follow him.

The case for Macedonian 'constitutionalism' is shakey to say the least; certainly the so-called assembly can only have had an affirming function, they had no deliberative powers. The situation at Babylon was anomalous because the infantry, who would usually have followed the lead of their barons among the Companions had been estranged from their traditional lords by Alexander's policy of gathering all the power into his own hands and breaking down the traditional regional loyalties. This rivalry is already apparent during Alexander's incapacity after the taking of Kyropolis when the infantry and the cavalry fought for the honour of carrying his litter. I think it was Anson who wrote an article 'Macedonia's Alleged Constitutionalism' Classical Journal 80, 1985.