The occupant of Tomb III

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

"Trogus/Justin wrote:where Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was, who would be no small support to their party, while the good will of their countrymen would be with them, from respect to the names of Alexander and Philippus."


We note that Olympias is considered apart from the respect for Alexander and Philip. We also note that Olympias, herself, "would be no small support" for the Perdikkan cause.

Xenophon wrote:
Some confusion here, I think. Diodorus is reporting what the Perdikkans believed – that Olympias and her prestige would be useful support. In fact, as subsequent events demonstrated, having the support of Olympias was of no use at all. Just ask Polyperchon ( who presumably also believed, mistakenly, that her support would be useful.) We are here concerned with the facts and events as they transpired, not what various people may have believed beforehand.

Confusion indeed. It is Trogus/Justin who reports this, not Diodorus. Contra your view that we should not be concerned with "what various people may have believed beforehand", this passage shows quite clearly that the Macedonians saw Olympias as an advantage to their campaign. They were proven correct when Eurydike's troops deserted her just as the Macedonians will have flocked to Perdikkas with the kings and Olympias in tow. In the event he never got there.

OOps!....my bad!
Not "the Macedonians" who saw Olympias as a prospective advantage, just the leaders of the Perdikkan faction at that point. And apart from the one occasion at Euia, the 'support of Olympias' turned out to be a poisoned chalice. She would certainly have proved as troublesome to Perdikkas as she did to Polyperchon.

One thing we are not told is the full extent of support for the Antipatrids. After all, Antipater had been the 'de facto' ruler of Macedon for 3 years under Philip, then 11 years while Alexander was in Asia, and finally regent of the whole empire for a short time. For many, he was the only ruler they knew, and all they knew of Alexander was that he had headed East, never to return and taken tens of thousands of Makedones with him, almost all of whom also never returned. Antipatrid support might have been considerable, especially if the speed of Kassander's success is anything to go by.

It remains highly problematical to the ‘Hieronyman industry’ that a court historian of the Antigonids could actually write such material. As I’ve been at pains to point out, Hieronymus, working under Antigonid patronage, can hardly have produced such a denigratory portrait of the dynasty’s founder all the while producing such encomiastic descriptions of that founder’s great enemies.

Yes, a manifest contradiction and ‘contra’ Pausanias’ remarks.You seem to have tied yourself in knots of contradiction. Perhaps you have an explanation to this ‘unknowable unknown’ conundrum ? Yet the source’s bias against Kassander is clear.....which is what is relevant here, not his attitude to Antigonus.

And from that it appears you’ve failed to understand the argument in its entirety.

Which argument would that be of the several now running through the thread ? Are you claiming that if Pausanias is correct, then Diodorus' main source for Books XVIII-XX is NOT Hieronymous?

No. I here rely on the widely known ancient view - as clearly expressed by Pausanias - that Hieronymus could not write against his patrons.

Xenophon wrote:
What makes you think that Pausanias’ view was widely held ? Especially since his view is directly contradicted by the Diodorus that has come down to us? Pausanias is clearly incorrect for some reason. A frequent mistake you make is to take the opinion presented by a source as fact.....

The fact that Pausanias actually wrote that such was the case:

But this Hieronymus has a reputation generally of being biased against all the kings except Antigonus, and of being unfairly partial towards him.

Contra your allegation, I do not report a source’s “opinion” and present it as fact. Pausanias is plainly reporting that in his time Hieronymus had the reputation of being biased toward the Antigonids. Pausanias is not saying that “in my opinion Hieronymus was biased”. That is a poor reading of the passage.

Here, the 'opinion' is Pausanias' statement regarding Hieronymous' alleged reputation - which flies in the face of the view that he was the major source for Diodorus Books XVIII-XX. As Wheatley points out, in such cases we cannot prove which is correct, so the matter must remain an 'unknowable unknown', and in the absence of evidence it is futile to speculate.

[Paralus]

Not "the Macedonians" who saw Olympias as a prospective advantage, just the leaders of the Perdikkan faction at that point. And apart from the one occasion at Euia, the 'support of Olympias' turned out to be a poisoned chalice.

These leaders of the Perdikkan faction clearly saw that Olympias would be a strong asset to their campaign. This was clearly not simply moral support. Olympias, as she did at Euia, would bring the Macedonian soldiery over. And yes, she only did this on the one occasion, the one opportunity she had; Kassandros was not about to allow her a stage for a repeat at Pydna.

But this Hieronymus has a reputation generally of being biased against all the kings except Antigonus, and of being unfairly partial towards him.

Contra your allegation, I do not report a source’s “opinion” and present it as fact. Pausanias is plainly reporting that in his time Hieronymus had the reputation of being biased toward the Antigonids. Pausanias is not saying that “in my opinion Hieronymus was biased”. That is a poor reading of the passage.

Here, the 'opinion' is Pausanias' statement regarding Hieronymous' alleged reputation - which flies in the face of the view that he was the major source for Diodorus Books XVIII-XX. As Wheatley points out, in such cases we cannot prove which is correct, so the matter must remain an 'unknowable unknown', and in the absence of evidence it is futile to speculate.

But, of course, the evidence is there and plain: Pausanias reports that it was generally known that Hieronymus was biased. This is not Pausanias’ opinion; it is how Hieronymus was viewed in general. To use a current Australian example, it would be as if I were to say that Alan Jones “has a reputation generally of being biased against political parties except the LNP" (for those unfamiliar, Jones is an ultra-conservative commentator who eulogises the conservative party in Australia and excoriates Labor and others). P. Oxy. LXXI 4808, that uncomfortable papyrus for an early Kleitarchos, also contains the words πρός χάριν when speaking of Hieronymus (col. I, l.27). Lacunae exist prior to and after these words but they can only be addressing an issue of bias.

Source evidence has been set aside because it is propaganda and also because it purports to know what is in an actor’s mind. Now it is set aside because it is “opinion”. There will be little left shortly.

And from that it appears you’ve failed to understand the argument in its entirety.

Which argument would that be of the several now running through the thread ? Are you claiming that if Pausanias is correct, then Diodorus' main source for Books XVIII-XX is NOT Hieronymous?

The discussion about the source of Diodorus 18-20 and, more specifically, how this source was biased in favour of Antigonos Monophthalmos and against Kassandros. You position was that Hieronymos is this source as the summary below indicates:

It has been ‘communis opinio’ that Hieronymous is the most likely source of Diodorus for Books XVIII-XX inclusive, but not absolutely certain, for the best part of 100 years, hence my conservative ‘likely’. If thereafter I say ‘Hieronymous’, that is merely for convenience. Should I have continually written “Diodoros’-source-who-was-almost-certainly-Hieronymous” ?

Are you saying that Diodoros’-source-who-was-almost-certainly-Hieronymous is unbiased because he reports Kassander’s doings “without comment”? […] You forget to mention that ‘Hieronymous’ was in the service of Antigonus around this time, and that Antigonus was the enemy of Kassander from not long after these events (315 BC) [...] Unsurprisingly Kassander is denigrated by a writer in the service of Antigonus.

How can you, or Diodorus, or Hieronymous for that matter, know under what conditions Alexander lived, especially if it was behind closed doors in Amphipolis ?
.......in fact for each of these criticisms of Antigonus, one can find praise as well – he is described as a military genius for example. Diodorus' treatment of Antigonus is generally sympathetic, even if Antigonus is never presented as a hero as are both Eumenes and Demetrius whom Hieronymous also served.

I have attempted throughout the thread to demonstrate the fact that Hieronymus could hardly be the author of the consistent and strongly negative passages regarding Antigonos Monophthalmos (and the encomiastic passages about his enemies). Of course, I concede this can be difficult to see when evidence is cast aside as “opinion” or declared simply “wrong”. You have argued throughout that Hieronymus was “a mouthpiece for Antigonos” and thus was biased. This bias is against Kassandros (and in favour of Antigonos). When presented with Pausanias’ clear statement that Hieronymus was biased against the kings other than Antigonos to whom he was unfairly partial, we find that Pausanias is wrong because that does not cohere with the Diodorus which has come down to us! Those who argue that Diodorus used several sources for these books make a stronger case (though I disagree with it).

Your distinction is a little too black-and-white for my taste. I would hardly call the ‘paides basilikoi’ slaves, and I very much doubt they would see themselves in such a light! ( even if Curtius [VIII.6.2], likely repeating Greek slander, makes this comparison). They were also table companions of the King, trusted with intimate duties, companions in the hunt etc. It was they who did the ‘growing up’ rather than the King, seemingly. Still, as I pointed out earlier teenagers were hardly appropriate companions for a 7 yr old boy, and I accept your and Agesilaos’ views that it was likely ‘syntrophi’ who are meant. A pity Diodorus did not use this term rather than the ambiguous ‘paides’.

The word slaves was in inverted commas – not to be taken literally. They were servants to the king regardless of being entrusted with intimate duties. You seem also to have misunderstood the ‘growing up’. This refers to the syntrophoi who did indeed grow up with the heir as did the heir grow up with them. This is exactly how Diodorus describes them: the children (boys) who grew up with Alexander IV. The Sicilian did not ask to be mistranslated.

[Paralus]

Those matters I have referred to as 'supposed' or 'alleged' are just that, and in each case inherently unlikely in themselves. e.g. if your relative had been brutally murdered, would you need "urging" to come forward and accuse them in court? How could our source know of Kassander's private thoughts and fears, other than his own speculation ? […]

As to opinion, it is surely clear from the language of my post that I am simply throwing doubt upon those matters by use of 'alleged' and 'supposed' - I don't make any categorical claims, and propaganda can be made of true incidents as well as imaginary ones.

Keeping context, the above was in response to Amyntoros' questioning of a list of proposed anti-Kassandros ‘propaganda’ as included below:

Which sort of brings me to the following (because of the defense of Cassander in this matter): Italics are mine.

There are plenty of examples of “anti-Kassander”propaganda and I have alluded to a number of them where Kassander is painted in a poor light. The way in which Aristonous was disposed of, the alleged need to‘urge’ the relatives to accuse Olympias, his supposed plan to murder her at sea [ again, how could anyone know of such a supposed secret plan?, his supposed fear of Olympias when she was hopelessly without support and helplessly within his power, his treatment of her corpse, his supposed early ambitions to be King, and early plans to kill little Alexander IV and his mother, his supposed removal of the non-existent ‘paides’ and royal privileges of Alexander [something of a giveaway of an intent which still lay far in the future, one might imagine] – the list goes on.

Is there any authority we can look to which will confirm that all of the above events are rightfully "supposed", or is this simply about perceived anti-Cassander propaganda?

We have five of eight matters that are related by the source(s) sidelined as either “alleged” or “supposed”. According to Xenophon this is to “throw doubt” upon these events narrated by the sources. Xenophon then goes on to note that “propaganda can be made of true incidents as well as imaginary ones”. Given these are all doubted, the reader is left to assume these are of the imaginary variety (although the reasons for doubting of the removal of the non-existent syntrophoi has been demonstrated to be incorrect). On this rationale, a great part of our source(s) are just as easily relegated to "alleged" or "supposed" and thus to be doubted. Diodorus 19.51-52, for example, is quickly becoming several short summary sentences.

[agesilaos]

Generally the way to discern propaganda is to consider the facts. On Olympias who has received her share of cries of 'blackening' we have to consider :
a) Were Kleopatra/Eurydike and Europe killed? Answer Yes
b) Was it in the lurid style related by some sources? We cannot say but the variants point to propagandist embellishment.
c) Is the murder of a mother and baby not monstrous enough?
d) Did she continually interfere with Antipatros' regency? The wealth of source material and her own withdrawal to Epeiros would suggest yes.
e) Is there any doubt that she mistreated and the killed Philip III and Eurydike/Adea? (A murder which occasioned no backlash)
f) Ought we to doubt the killing of Nikanor and the despoilation of Ioallas' tomb? As public acts it would seem not
g) The witch hunt against Kassandros' supporters was similarly public and it was this that began to turn opinion against her; this is not uncommon, shannanigans are tolerated within elites until they impinge on the lives of the majority stake holders, the Macedonian nobility here.

There are some propaganda charges, the honouring of Pausanias, for example and the alleged connection to Philip's assassination, but in general she is an A1 bitch, more Elizabeth Bathory than Liz Hurley.

Similarly with Kassandros his public acts have to be accepted, so the trial in absentia, the treatment of the corpse, the baulking of the first execution squad, can be accepted; Aristonous' killing by the relatives of Kratevas is similarly a fact, but whether Kassandros was behind it is a matter for discussion, on the principal of 'cui bono?' (who stands to gain? Cicero) Kassandros is in the dock and his use of similar ploys, the relatives at Olympias' trial and possibly execution, the trapping of Nikanor in Mounichyia. All circumstantial but there seems no propaganda purpose behind the story, since we have Antigonos' charges and there is no mention of Aristonous. Similarly with the offer of escape. The charge of poisoning Alexander we can put down to propaganda the story even comes with a fake reason for it not coming out sooner!

Uncritically accepting a source attribution and foisting charges of bias upon them to allow the dismissal of the evidence we have is clearly not a sound analytical approach.

[Paralus]

One thing we are not told is the full extent of support for the Antipatrids. After all, Antipater had been the 'de facto' ruler of Macedon for 3 years under Philip, then 11 years while Alexander was in Asia, and finally regent of the whole empire for a short time. For many, he was the only ruler they knew, and all they knew of Alexander was that he had headed East, never to return and taken tens of thousands of Makedones with him, almost all of whom also never returned. Antipatrid support might have been considerable, especially if the speed of Kassander's success is anything to go by.

This is true to an extent and it is something Kassandros would call on in asking Greek cities to preserve their loyalty to Antipatros and his regimes. Almost all the poleis threw off their loyalty to the Antipatrids however. In Macedonia the Macedonians stayed loyal to the kings and their guardian Polyperchon until Plod began to make a right royal mess of his position.

Some argue that Kassandros had no great interest in hanging his hat on Alexander III, preferring to align himself with with Philip's "branch" of the Argeads - more popular in Macedonia for that is what the Macedonians remembered. Proof of this is seemingly found in the fact that he killed Olympias (and eventually her grandson, the heir) and chose Thessalonike as his bride thus drawing his legitimacy from Philip III (not being a daughter of Olympias). Further, as the Macedonians only really remembered Philip as their king (because Alexander had been on campaign for a decade), Alexander's memory was neither strong nor important.

The illogicality of that argument is readily apparent in that Alexander is no separate branch of the Argeads: he is Philip's son. The distinction hardly holds up. It also ignores Diodorus' explicit statement that Kassandros (and the other Successors) sought the hand of Olympias and Philip's daughter Kleopatra (Diod.20.37.3-4). Such a direct blood relationship would bring over the support of "the Macedonians" (Diod.18.23.3).In the event, Kassandros could not make good that wish and chose Stephen Stills' advice to "love the one you're with".

The notion that Alexander's memory was somehow far less relevant in Macedonia also fails to stand up to examination. As has been stressed on this thread, Alexander III is mentioned in no lesser light than his father every time the benefactions conferred upon the Macedonians by their kings is noted. Indeed, it has been argued on this thread that Olympias only drew respect from the Macedonians because, in part, she was Alexander's mother. The Macedonians also respected service under that king. It is for this reason that Kassandros has to have Aristonous murdered as part of a 'blood feud' thus relieving himself of any responsibility. As late as 290 the Macedonians still revered the memory and exploits of Alexander III when they went over to Pyrrhos ("of all the kings, it was in Pyrrhos only that they saw a lively image of Alexander's valour ; whereas the other princes, especially Demetrius, imitated him only in a theatrical manner, by affecting a lofty bearing and majestic air" Plut. Dem. 45.1)