Eumenes and the Royal Diaries

[dean]

Hello,

Thanx to the forum I only recently became aware of the diary in much detail. From what I have seen in Plutarch, there is an entry pretty much the day or so before Alexander dies.

I haven't looked yet at Arrian for more references. According to Michael Wood- he says that Eumenes included information such as there were "missed days, long sleeps" after extended sessions of drinking and Wood expresses his surprise at Eumenes having had the liberty to pen such info about the king.
It does seem more than his life would have been worth and perhaps would be a reason why the Ephemerides could be "fake"? Either way, why would Eumenes write such things- I mean who would this have been for? Eumenes wasn't writing a biography?
Alexander seems to have the impression that Eumenes was a bit of a scrooge and after burning his tent was proved right.

To be honest the information supposedly from the royal diaries is quite objective in the last few pages of Plutarch- that he suffered from fever etc. so I want to check out Arrian's use to see if Michael Wood is really "telling it like it is"-

Watch this space.

Best wishes,
Dean

[Chris Bennett]

According to Michael Wood- he says that Eumenes included information such as there were "missed days, long sleeps" after extended sessions of drinking and Wood expresses his surprise at Eumenes having had the liberty to pen such info about the king.
It does seem more than his life would have been worth and perhaps would be a reason why the Ephemerides could be "fake"? Either way, why would Eumenes write such things- I mean who would this have been for? Eumenes wasn't writing a biography?

This type of argument risks being anachronistic -- judging the Diarist according to our standards rather than his. Why do you think the Macedonians would have regarded the king's drinking as something shameful and not to be recorded as part of the regular activity of the court? Some of the most (in)famous incidents of Alexander's career happened at drinking parties.

Chris

[Paralus]

Chris Bennett Some of the most (in)famous incidents of Alexander's career happened at drinking parties.

Quite! In my opinion, there is no doubt that Eumenes kept Alexander's "journals". Just What form they took, well....

The fact that the Greek GÇô amongst Macedonian marshals GÇô had any say in matters after Alexander's death is instructive. This, the same fellow who struggled to convince his satrapal coalition to fight under his "lettered" authority, and who had to utilise Alexander's throne to cement it.

I GÇô for one GÇô would be fascinated to read Eumenes "files" as opposed to the "Royal Diaries". He had something on most I'd assume.

Personally, I find him one of the most interesting GÇô and underestimated GÇô of the Diadochoi.

[dean]

Hello,

This type of argument risks being anachronistic -- judging the Diarist according to our standards rather than his.

Aristotle had prescribed moderation in all things, and if I am not mistaken(which I could well be) said that excesses was a thing associated with the barbarians so this is my reason for thinking that Alexander wouldn't have wanted his excessive drinking on the front page of the daily express if you know what I mean. (That is not to say he didn't organize drinking comp's.)

Either way, these writings certainly are not in line with the kind Alexander would want sending to Greece courtesy of his propaganda department, nor with his image of "superhuman conqueror".

On the other hand, maybe my view of "heavy drinking" and "drinking parties" needs an update?
Yes- I can take on board that some of the most notorious things happened at drinking parties surely- but do you mean that Eumenes purpose was to simply write up what Alexander did and all things related to what happened to Alexander?

What practical purpose would have such a record served for Eumenes at the time?

My original view of the diary was more of log where details would have been kept regarding lengths of marches, Alexander's orders etc.etc certainly not the gossip at the drinking parties or whether Alexander drank himself silly or not.

In Plutarch there is a mention of the diaries just after Alexander's meeting with Queen Ada which suggests that they were not destroyed in Eumenes tent in India, if they did survive through to Plutarch's time.


Best regards,
Dean

[dean]

Hello,

This type of argument risks being anachronistic -- judging the Diarist according to our standards rather than his.

Aristotle had prescribed moderation in all things, and if I am not mistaken(which I could well be) said that excesses was a thing associated with the barbarians so this is my reason for thinking that Alexander wouldn't have wanted his excessive drinking on the front page of the daily express if you know what I mean. (That is not to say he didn't organize drinking comp's.)

Either way, these writings certainly are not in line with the kind Alexander would want sending to Greece courtesy of his propaganda department, nor with his image of "superhuman conqueror".

On the other hand, maybe my view of "heavy drinking" and "drinking parties" needs an update?
Yes- I can take on board that some of the most notorious things happened at drinking parties surely- but do you mean that Eumenes purpose was to simply write up what Alexander did and all things related to what happened to Alexander?

What practical purpose would have such a record served for Eumenes at the time?

My original view of the diary was more of log where details would have been kept regarding lengths of marches, Alexander's orders etc.etc certainly not the gossip at the drinking parties or whether Alexander drank himself silly or not.

In Plutarch there is a mention of the diaries just after Alexander's meeting with Queen Ada which suggests that they were not destroyed in Eumenes tent in India, if they did survive through to Plutarch's time.


Best regards,
Dean

[appietas]

Eumenes was in charge of the diaries as Secretary of the Companion Cavalry; they seem to have mainly been the work of Diodotos of Erythrai, working under Eumenes' charge.

The notorious Aelian passage, VH 3.23 (from our 324 BC), is also good evidence for the shape of Alexander's royal year and therefore accession date, i.e. 1 Dios 336 BC.
If, e.g. like Grzybek, we take Alexander's succession as 24 Dios 336, then Aelian's information extracted from across the whole month Dios is taken from the end of year 12 and the beginning of year 13. More likely Aelian's (more or less) randomly chosen month was the first full month of year 13, and it caught his eye because it opened the new year; the incompleted year of Alexander's death.

In 317 BC Olympias and Polyperchon seem to have deliberately murdered Philip III on the same day (1 Dios, the festival day of Zeus Olympios) as the earlier murder of Philip II and succession of Alexander III, thus creating a 1 Dios year for Alexander IV which was later copied by Seleukos Nikator and Ptolemy I (in spring and summer 311 BC).
But Philip III's accession date was 30 Daisios (perhaps 1 Panemos) and hence his reign calculated at 6 years 4 months (Diodorus, and the Heidelberg eptiome); i.e. 30 Daisios 323 to 1 Dios 317 BC.

[agesilaos]

The trouble with the Ephemerides or Diaries is that they are quoted, by Arrian (modified and confused with material from Aristoboulos -see Bosworth 'From Arrian to Alexander' for an acute analysis), Plutarch and Aelian. None of the quoted passages contain any of the detailed information claimed for them by Hammond and his followers ie. appointments, length of marchs or battle details, nor does any ancient source refer to them on such matters. Instead, they supply a run down of the final illness and if Aelian has confused the month, which is altogether possible, refer only to the final month. It has been suggested that they were produced to counter the poisoning theory supported by the Liber de Morte, positing death by drinking. The problem there is that LdM is almost certainly Ptolemaic in origin and anti-Antipatrid in intent, so the natural rebuttal should come from Kassander's court but it is thence that Aristoboulos exonerates Alexander of heavy drinking; although he may have written after Kassander's death and represent a different tack, I have suggested a date under Demetrios and countering further Ptolemaic agit-prop in another thread.

The common theory about the history of the Ephemerides, however is that it was Ptolemy who gained possession of them and used them in his history, which would mean that he published the original propaganda and its re-buttal! Possible for a Caligula but surely not the wily Egyptian Tortoise. If someone merely invented the entries then we would expect the owner of the originals to publish in refutation, no such confusion is extant the tradition of the diaries is consistent and no contradictions are mentioned. It may be that the Ephemerides ended up at Pella not Alexandria, there seems no reason why Alexander's papers would travel in the slow moving funeral cortege rather than being sent on ahead. This would have them in Kassander's keeping who could then release whatever he liked with no fear of exposure. Since Aristoboulos does not seem to have had access to them, writing instead from memory, Kassander may have destroyed the originals leaving only the slanted pamphlet concerning the final days in circulation, which at least explains their lack of use for the rest of the reign. One of the alleged author's, Diodotos of Erythrae, may be the Diodotos that Isocrates writes to Antipater recomending, though there are doubts concerning the authenticity of the letter.

[appietas]

The Journals/Diaries are cited/summarized for the details of Alexander's death (Arrian, Plutarch), and to illustrate his habitual heavy drinking from a context which can only be dated to Dios 324 BC (Aelian), and certainly is not a confusion with Daisios 323, despite bogus modern theorizing.
One is free to speculate about their contents, but it seems that logically and from the evidence their main purpose was to provide a brief day-by-day record of the whereabouts and activities of an unusually active and mobile monarch.

There is no such thing as a death by drinking "story"; the binge drinking at Medeios' table which immediately preceded Alexander's fatal illness is historical, and various "stories" arose out of that. The earliest, immediately contemporary (but probably bogus) tale was that Alexander was poisoned (during the drinking bouts) by Iolaos the son of Antipater and brother of Kassander (and Alexander's royal "cup bearer" by 323), which arose from the historically authentic context of Antipater's formal "treason" in refusing to come to Asia to be judicially murdered, and high tension in the high command over Antipater's fate and position (which even his designated successor Krateros refused to challenge, preferring to remain stationary by the ports in Kilikia until the issue was decided by Alexander's death).
Antipater had Hypereides' tongue cut out in 322 for propagating this story in Athens (no doubt in the same year as death), while Olympias believed it and later exhumed Iolaos' ashes in order to scatter them.

While I agree that the Journals were authentic I don't agree with your ideas about their whereabouts or pamphlet style excerpting and deformation. Certainly Aelian's passage summarizes quite different events and circumstances to the Plutarch and Arrian summaries of Alexander's fatal illness and death.
In my view the original text (along with most of the reign's official correspondence and Alexander's private papers) ended up at the Library in Alexandreia and was consulted (and copied) by scholars there, while the route from Babylon to Alexandreia has no direct relationship with the elaborate funeral car; the Journals would remain in the (mobile) court archives and thus accompanied Perdikkas, the kings and the Royal Army to Egypt, where Ptolemy helped himself to them (as much else besides) after the Illyrian Peithon et al. assassinated Perdikkas in summer 320.

So this is why I think that the Aelian summary of Dios 324 is good evidence for the shape of Alexander's royal year. But it's only supportive of other and more important material which pins down the exact date of Philip II's assassination and Alexander's accession to 1 Dios (also the date of the Zeus Olympios festival) in 336 BC.