Questions on Callisthenes' History of Alexander

[amyntoros]

I've read more than once that Callisthenes' History of Alexander was sent back to Greece/Macedonia to be published in intervals, Callisthenes writing his reports as the conquest continued and his work being used to lend credence to Alexander's campaign of "revenge" against the Persians. Does anyone know of any source that supports this? Perhaps there's some mention in a Greek oration at the time that states that they had read Callisthenes' work?. It makes sense to me that it was done this way as I can't quite see the point in all Callisthenes' writings being held for later publication. I mean, if Callisthenes had not been killed, at what point would it have been decided that the history was complete? After the death of Alexander? Somehow I can't see Alexander agreeing to that. I think he wanted his accomplishments to be acclaimed while he was still living, hence Callisthenes being described by some modern authors as the world's first "press agent." If Callisthenes was acting as a publicist, however, I can not under any circumstances see his work being sent back to Greece without first having had Alexander's approval! Alexander surely would have wanted to know exactly what was contained in each chapter and most probably acted as an editor, telling Callisthenes what to remove and what to add. This makes sense when one looks at Strabo's (17.1.43) description of Alexander's visit to Siwa, as reported by Callisthenes: "the prophet imitating Jupiter . . . told the king, in express terms, that he was the son of Jupiter. Callisthenes adds, (after the exaggerating style of tragedy,) that when Apollo had deserted the oracle among the Branchidae, on the temple being plundered by the Branchidae (who espoused the party of the Persians in the time of Xerxes,) and the spring had failed, it then re-appeared (on the arrival of Alexander); that the ambassadors also of the Milesians carried back to Memphis numerous answers of the oracle respecting the descent of Alexander from Jupiter, and the future victory which he should obtain at Arbela, the death of Darius, and the political changes at Lacedaemon. He says also that the Erythraean Athenais, who resembled the ancient Erythraean Sibyl, had declared the highest descent of Alexander. Such are the accounts of historians.". . . continued

[amyntoros]

Does this sound like the totally original work of the same man who gave the speech against proskynesis to Anaxarchus as reported by Arrian, (IV.10-12) and Curtius (8.5.13-20)? Something isn't quite right here and I'm thinking that either Alexander had a direct hand in what was written by Callisthenes, or the history was tweaked at some later time by his order. Of course there's always the possibility that Callisthenes began as a flatterer and then became disillusioned by Alexander later on. When he is not being condemned as a sycophant (Timaeus as reported by Polybius, 12.4.12b) he is described as somber and plain-speaking man who "talked with too much freedom" to the king, eventually costing him his life. (Diogenes Laertius 5.1.3-5) However, there are other problems if I do accept that Alexander was supervising Callisthenes' writing. Polybius (12.5.17-22) gives a long criticism of Callisthenes' report of the battle of Issus, saying that Callisthenes was himself present. First of all, I doubt that Callisthenes was in the thick of the fighting so he surely had to base his work on the reports of others. And secondly, as Polybius finds so many things wrong with his work from a militaristic and strategic point of view, it doesn't seem at all likely that this part of his book was reviewed by Alexander who would surely have corrected it! Polybius himself could be wrong, I suppose, but is it likely? I really don't have enough knowledge of military matters to judge for myself, but this chapter can be found at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html if anyone wants to help me out and add their own opinion on this. And then there's Plutarch's Life of Alexander 33.6 where he says, "For there is a general complaint that in that battle Parmenio was sluggish and inefficient, either because old age was now impairing somewhat his courage, or because he was made envious and resentful by the arrogance and pomp, to use the words of Callisthenes, of Alexander's power." Now if Callisthenes really did use the words "arrogance and pomp" to describe Alexander's power, even in the context of denigrating Parmenio, it doesn't seem at all likely that Alexander had approved the work, now does it, because somehow I feel Alexander might have objected to the use of such an expression. So what was it? Did Alexander oversee the writings of Callisthenes or not? I welcome anyone's thoughts on this subject. Amynt

[marcus]

Only a reply to one question at the moment (having something to eat is a priority at this moment in time). There's not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence to support the hypothesis that Callisthenes sent his history back in installments. For a long time it was assumed that he did - it would have made sense, considering the pan-hellenic propaganda it was meant to be; and I assume that, after a year or so, when the campaign showed no sign of ending, it has always been considered a fair assumption that he *would* have sent back installments.However, if I recall correctly, there have been at least a couple of people who have speculated that he probably *didn't*. I can't think who said this, off the top of my head; but I shall rack my brain and see if I can't stimulate some recall!Will attend to your other points when I'm less faint with hunger!ATBMarcus

[jan]

Hi Linda, I thought that Callisthenes thought himself to be the person upon whom all of Alexander's travels and battles would rest. He is the court reporter of the times, and I am convinced that Alexander probably asked him for readbacks.

[marcus]

There's not complete agreement about when Call's history had reached when he stopped writing - it's possible that it ended with the death of Darius. This means that it's *possible* (but not by any means certain) that Call had basically finished his job - the point where Darius dies is, to all intents and purposes, when the pan-hellenic crusade finishes (remember that Alexander dimisses the Thessalians at Hecatompylos - or Zadracata, can't remember - re-enrolling them as mercenaries).After that Alexander starts Medising, so Callisthenes, who is now part of the court but without his press job (employed only as tutor to the pages) starts getting disillusioned ... blah blah blah proskynesis ... blah blah blah he's now a bit of an embarrassment, but he's done what he was employed to do so it doesn't matter if he's removed from the scene.This is all speculation, of course, but it seems to fit.All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hello,I understood that Callisthenes was called on to send back a regular report to Greece to let 'em know how well Alexander was doing.From the outset Alexander was looking for a contemporary Homer- unfortunately he got Callisthenes.
As mentioned Callisthenes attitude changed radically from major flatterer to its antithesis.He was also a very good speaker- as can be seen in plutarch- I suspect that Alexander didn't like this too much- lacking in common sense Callisthenes went onto criticise the Macedonians- not such a wise move. Even giving Alexander good reason to come down on him( me and my big mouth).I also am of the opinion that Alexander,(conscious of the importance of image) would have editted the panegyric, leaving only his favorite parts-namely those that spoke of him in the most heroic terms.Best regards,
Dean.

[smittysmitty]

Hi Linda,The publicity over Alexander,s association with divinities and divine occurrences should not be confused with the issue of proskynesis. It was more than acceptable (by Hellenic standards) for individuals to be associated with the gods, whether protected by them or descended from them. The act of proskynesis was reserved by Hellenes for the gods and gods alone. Heracles and Dionysus, amongst others shared a dual paternity, as Alexander was made out to have had. They all had mortal/immortal parentage - a theme quite common and acceptable in the ancient world. Callisthenes' belief that in all cases 'Divinity' was not achieved until 'after death' and it is here that the distinction lies. Alexander's reported desire to achieve divine status in his life time is a far cry from what Callisthenes was presenting. Never-the-less, Alexander would have been more than happy with the way which Callisthenes represented him., after all that was his job and what he was paid to do. Regarding Callisthenes' treatment of the battle of Issus, I don't think Alexander would have found it essential that military tactics, strategies, etc. were reported accurately. The main focus would be the success of the army and in particular Alexander's individual efforts against the barbarian army. Polybius is being a little unkind to Callisthenes and his position as court reporter.With the quote from Plutarch, I doubt it was a direct quotation from Callisthenes. You are right to assume Alexander would not have taken kindly to being called arrogant and pompous. My belief (and nothing more than logic to support what IGÇÖm saying) is that Callisthenes has said nothing more than Parmenio was considered to have been sluggish and inefficient during the battle, the rest is Plutarch's own attempt to explain why.Another point that should be considered, is the likelihood of Callisthenes, work coming down to our*sources* in its original form. In most cases centuries had past and I doubt that additions and variations to the written word did not manifest over a period of time.
Cheers!
Smitty.

[amyntoros]

Hi everybody and thanks for your contributions. I will take the time to consider them properly, but right now I have even more questions to ask! I went Googling and came up with one of Jona's Livius pages - a place I probably should have looked at before asking my first questions. Jona says this about the publication of Callisthenes' history. http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_z1b.html "Be this as it may, it is certain that the work was not published in yearly installments to inform those remaining at home (as Julius Caesar was to publish his Commentaries on the war in Gaul). It was published as a unity, which can be shown from the fact that it consistently portrayed Alexander's right hand man Parmenion as overprudent. Before 330, there was no reason to describe Alexander's most trusted and capable general like this; however, in November, he had been executed because his son Philotas was suspected of a coup." This makes absolute sense if one accepts that the execution of Parmenion was unavoidable due to the conviction of his son. It also implies that all the passages describing Alexander's differences of opinion with Parmenion were "faked" after the fact by Callisthenes/Alexander. However, there's another view, common amongst some historians, that Parmenion had become a thorn in Alexander's side and was feared because of his potential ambition, making it fortuitous that Alexander found good reason to eliminate him after the conviction of his son. Additionally (and somewhat outrageously, IMO) - from the hostile camp - it is said that Alexander may even have planned the death of Parmenion and the trial of Philotas was the means to the end! I know that I could start a whole other debate here, but my real point for bringing this up is that either of the above would mean that the differences between Alexander and Parmenio were genuine and could have been recorded by Callisthenes even if his history *was* sent to Greece in installments. Also, who's to say that Alexander didn't want those stories published regardless of what was to happen later, in order to show that his decisions and actions were superior to those of Philip's oldest and most trusted general? (Unavoidably, all of the above alternatives presume that Alexander *did* have a hand in Callisthenes' histo

[amyntoros]

My final question (this time around!) is: Do we *know* that all the issues between Parmenion and Alexander came from Callisthenes' history and not from Ptolemy or Aristobulus? Just because Plutarch records Callisthenes' comments about Parmenion at Gaugamela, it doesn't necessarily follow that he was the source for *all* the stories. Or does it? Best regards,Amyntoros

[marcus]

Very briefly ... no, we don't *know* that all the anti-Parmenion stuff comes from Callisthenes. Or, it might all have come from him but it might have come from other sources, too. Jona's point in his Livius article is valid, and it's certainly one of the arguments put forward by others for it not going back in installments. However, I'm not 100% convinced, purely because 4 years is a *long* time for Greece to wait for a report (although, to be fair, it wasn't really until after Gaugamela that they wouldn't have heard most things quite quickly, anyway). Another possibility, of course, is that Call. sent back his installments initially, and then, after the death of Parm. and Phil. he did a "collected works" job and issued them as a second edition, complete with anti-Parmenion comments.ATBMarcus

[agesilaos]

It seems more likely to me that the work was left incomplete and unpublished; the later authors who used it found it either at the Great Library or in a transcript therefrom.
Ptolemy more than likely merely copied great chunks of it, hence the references to 'hoplites' in Arrian's first two books; Greek term, Greek author; and we know Arrian is following Ptolemy as he cites him for casualty figures at I 2 vii. Such plagiarism would only be likely if the work had remained unpublished. It probably was reworked after the fall of Parmenion, Alexander could not have afforded to offend such a powerful noble, which is half the reason he had to die. Kallisthenes is not a widely quoted source Arrian mentions no reference to his book, which must be considered salient; it was an incomplete unpopular work attractive only to self appointed experts like Polybios, whose criticisms are quite lame and polymaths like Plutarch who would read everything in case there was a good story in there somewhere. IMHO

[marcus]

The only thing I'd take issue with in your post is the idea that anyone in the ancient world cared about 'plagiarism'. The whole approach to literature was very different from our modern ideas of copyright - not least because there was by no means the commercial force behind the 'publication' of books. Hence all the epitomes, reworkings, etc. that went on, which were done often to show the writer's skill at taking another author's work and reworking it. It made no difference whether the work was 'published' or not.All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

Whist I agree with your point, it just seems to me that a King passing off someone elses, well known work as his own (and the use of 'hoplite' suggests straight copying not a revision) would make himself almost as ridiculous as our own plagiarising royals.

[smittysmitty]

It should be noted that not all anecdotes relating to Parmenio are of a negative nature. Those that are, are often attributed to Callisthenes by modern scholars due to the apologetic nature and heroic placement of Alexander in these anecdotes which suit CalisthenesGÇÖ style. Ultimately there is no way in knowing whether Callisthenes alone or other writers at the time or a later period are behind them. It would seem a given, that the truly negative anecdotes relating to Parmenio, make there way to the fore after his and his son PhilotasGÇÖ death. It is doubtful however, that what has come down to us regarding Parmenio is accurate, truthful or for that matter historical. To quote Elizabeth Carney from her essay titled 'Artifice and Alexander History ' ' most of what is written on Parmenio as unhistorical and what little information has its origin in history has been so far stretched from the truth so as to render most anecdotes on Parmenio as unusable historical information.'Very briefly, Ms Carney is of the opinion, that most of what has come down to us re. Parmenio comes from a period after his and possibly Alexander's death - at an unascertainable period of time - and Parmenio's advice themes are essentially literary embellishments to which various writers have used to explain their Alexander. Essentially he is the straight man, the canvas from which Alexander is painted. She states GǪincidents in which Parmenio offers advice may have been entirely or largely invented, simply to advance or clarify the narrative of various writers.I don't think sheGÇÖs far wrong concerning this matter.
Cheers!

[marcus]

If Ptolemy were writing late in his life, it's quite possible that he did copy bits of other histories, if he had forgotten some details, or whatever. It's unlikely that he would have just copied another writer wholesale and passed it off as his own, though. However, even if he did, although I agree with the *modern* sentiment about plagiarism, it just didn't work that way.On the other hand, I'm not sure I understand your comment about the Royal Family. What have they plagiarised that makes them look ridiculous?All the bestMarcus