pothos.org

Taphoi wrote:Again you need to look at the Latin in Curtius: Callisthenes quoque tortus interiit. This does not have to mean more than that "Callisthenes also died in torment". This is not inconsistent with the most credible of the various accounts of Callisthenes' end (Plutarch thought so and I agree with him, because Chares was uniquely in a position to know the truth):

Plutarch, Alexander 55 wrote:Chares says that after his arrest Callisthenes was kept in fetters seven months, that he might be tried before a full council when Aristotle was present, but that about the time when Alexander was wounded in India, he died from obesity and the disease of lice.

Thus in fact Alexander probably intended a trial should take place.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Have several other comments I'd like to make but with little time at hand I just want to quickly respond to the above. You note that "Chares was uniquely in a position to know the truth" (my italics). What then are we to make of Arrian?

Arrian IV.14.1-3
As for Callisthenes, Aristobulus says he was bound with fetters and carried round with the army, but at length died of sickness, Ptolemy son of Lagus that he was racked and put to death by hanging. Thus not even those whose narratives are entirely trustworthy and who actually accompanied Alexander at the time agree in their accounts of events which were public and in their own knowledge. [4] There are many other varying accounts of the same events in different histories, but I must be content with what I have recorded.

I'd say that both Aristobulus and Ptolemy were also in a position to know what actually happened to Callisthenes and that Chares' position was hardly "unique". Here Aristobulus agrees with Chares, but Ptolemy does not. And you didn't refer to the previous part of Plutarch which says:

Plutarch 55.5 As to the death of Callisthenes, some say that he was hanged by Alexander’s orders, others that he was bound hand and foot and died of sickness ...

Who these others were in Arrian's account must remain a mystery, and I'm a little curious as to why Plutarch doesn't credit Ptolemy with the story of the hanging. There's no reason, however, to suppose that these other individuals weren't in Alexander's entourage (or that they didn't garner their information from those who were). Personally I'm always a little suspicious when the seemingly least offensive version of someone's death finds its way into several of the sources, especially when these same sources admit there are many differing stories. Callisthenes' imprisonment, manner of death, and whether or not he was tortured can hardly have been a secret to any of those close enough to the king to render accounts. After all, it's not as if the court was based at home with some ancient version of a medieval dungeon. The army was constantly on the move and Callisthenes in his cage had to be carried around with them. As Arrian says, these events were public ...

I'm certainly not convinced that Alexander ever truly intended that Callisthenes should have a trial. He obviously didn't summon Aristotle to India for an assembly and I personally doubt that he ever would have done so. Reading through the sources, as a whole, it seems that most of them believe in Callisthenes' innocence. Arrian certainly does, and he chooses to believe that it was not Alexander but other members of his court who purposely dragged Callisthenes into the whole Pages' affair. Curtius, on the other hand, blames Alexander, accusing him of "persistent resentment" against Callisthenes. Either way, the trial of a (likely innocent) philosopher would not have (to use a modern term) been good publicity for Alexander, IMO. So ... what to do? Drag him around in fetters in a cage for seven months or more until the poor man dies of obesity and lice, if we are to believe that version! Am I the only person who thinks that this was a most appalling way to go? That must have been a terrible, drawn out and painful way to die - a death by hanging would have been kinder, if kindness can factor into this story in any manner. As an aside though, the alternative version of death by hanging is an appropriate form of execution for someone like Callisthenes who was not a soldier or warrior, it being a bloodless death. Makes me the teeny-tiniest bit inclined towards accepting that version, although in truth I think we can never reach a conclusion simply by being selective in which sources we choose to believe.

Sorry for going rather off topic for this thread. It’s the one time when I miss the old format of the forum where threads could be broken off into different subheadings. If anyone prefers I'll move this post to a new topic and quote more extensively from the previous post.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote: Either way, the trial of a (likely innocent) philosopher would not have (to use a modern term) been good publicity for Alexander, IMO. So ... what to do? Drag him around in fetters in a cage for seven months or more until the poor man dies of obesity and lice, if we are to believe that version! Am I the only person who thinks that this was a most appalling way to go? That must have been a terrible, drawn out and painful way to die - a death by hanging would have been kinder, if kindness can factor into this story in any manner. As an aside though, the alternative version of death by hanging is an appropriate form of execution for someone like Callisthenes who was not a soldier or warrior, it being a bloodless death. Makes me the teeny-tiniest bit inclined towards accepting that version...

The murder of Callisthenes was not well received by the Greeks. Alexander had plainly made up his mind (a la Parmemion) that Callisthenes was culpable and, without repeating the cogent argument above, there was no need to drag him about on the Indian campaign caged and in fetters. More especially so in that Alexander - if the mutiny on the Hyphasis is anything to go by - was not about to be repairing to an Athenian court any time in the near future.

Ptolemy - quoted by Arrian - is clear that he was tortured and hanged and this coheres with Curtius' narrative. Ptolemy, a somatophylax and "especially loyal to Alexander, because Alexander was his half-brother and Alexander had saved his life in India", clearly was not in any "unique" position to know.

amyntoros wrote:...although in truth I think we can never reach a conclusion simply by being selective in which sources we choose to believe.

Indeed. In "source material poker" I'd think a Ptolemy and a Curtius beats a Plutarch and Chares.... at least for me.

amyntoros wrote:You note that "Chares was uniquely in a position to know the truth" (my italics). What then are we to make of Arrian?

Arrian IV.14.1-3
As for Callisthenes, Aristobulus says he was bound with fetters and carried round with the army, but at length died of sickness, Ptolemy son of Lagus that he was racked and put to death by hanging. Thus not even those whose narratives are entirely trustworthy and who actually accompanied Alexander at the time agree in their accounts of events which were public and in their own knowledge. [4] There are many other varying accounts of the same events in different histories, but I must be content with what I have recorded.

Chares seems to have been the manager of Alexander's court. This and the fact that we find him making authoritative and detailed statements on Callisthenes' disagreement with Alexander and his ultimate fate would suggest that he was probably responsible for royal prisoners, in which case he would have had special knowledge on the matter.

My own view is that Ptolemy's history bore the hallmarks of having been sanitised prior to publication (blandness and omission of scandalous anecdotes etc). Where possible it simply omitted embarrassing details. In some cases the event was too prominent to gloss over and we see signs of whitewash. I think Ptolemy or his editor (Philadelphus?) has substituted a clean death for Callisthenes, because the truth was embarrassing.

Best regards,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:You note that "Chares was uniquely in a position to know the truth" (my italics). What then are we to make of Arrian?

Arrian IV.14.1-3
As for Callisthenes, Aristobulus says he was bound with fetters and carried round with the army, but at length died of sickness, Ptolemy son of Lagus that he was racked and put to death by hanging. Thus not even those whose narratives are entirely trustworthy and who actually accompanied Alexander at the time agree in their accounts of events which were public and in their own knowledge. [4] There are many other varying accounts of the same events in different histories, but I must be content with what I have recorded.

Chares seems to have been the manager of Alexander's court. This and the fact that we find him making authoritative and detailed statements on Callisthenes' disagreement with Alexander and his ultimate fate would suggest that he was probably responsible for royal prisoners, in which case he would have had special knowledge on the matter.

My own view is that Ptolemy's history bore the hallmarks of having been sanitised prior to publication (blandness and omission of scandalous anecdotes etc). Where possible it simply omitted embarrassing details. In some cases the event was too prominent to gloss over and we see signs of whitewash. I think Ptolemy or his editor (Philadelphus?) has substituted a clean death for Callisthenes, because the truth was embarrassing.

Best regards,

Andrew

Or - and this should be a consideration knowing what we know about politics - Chares version is the official version. I don't know if I would go so far as to surmise that Chares had the responsibility of the royal prisoners, but he was certainly close enough to Alexander to be the man (or one of the men) to put a spin on events if instructed to do so. It's equally possible that the real, "embarrassing details" were that Callisthenes was racked and put to death with no public trial, no public confession, and, to put a fine point on it, no corroborating evidence. Not only that, he was a philosopher! He wasn't a soldier in Alexander's army, and although technically in the employ of Alexander he was still, in a manner of speaking, a "guest" at Alexander's court. Taking all this into consideration, such an execution would not have sat well with the rest of the Greek world. If such reports were to have found their way back west it could certainly have become an embarrassment to Alexander (imagine the word "despot" being bandied around), so it's quite possible that Callisthenes' death by obesity and lice became the official version, especially as it seems to have also been put out that Alexander had intended to give Callisthenes an eventual trial. This would also explain the many varying accounts. There would have been those who touted the official version; those who knew and spoke the truth, after Alexander's death presumably; and those "not directly in the know" who would have doubted the official version if they'd never actually seen or heard reports of Callisthenes in his cage, thus leading to various rumors and the like.

All the above is hypothesis, of course, but it stands up to scrutiny, IMO. So, as I said before, this is one instance where the sources can't be cherry-picked for the truth. It remains six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Oh, and a pre-signature P.S. I don't think we can say with any certainty that it was always Ptolemy's history that was sanitized and not Arrian's. Although I must add that if we view Arrian's history as sanitized then Plutarch's is positively disinfected!

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:Or - and this should be a consideration knowing what we know about politics - Chares version is the official version. I don't know if I would go so far as to surmise that Chares had the responsibility of the royal prisoners, but he was certainly close enough to Alexander to be the man (or one of the men) to put a spin on events if instructed to do so. It's equally possible that the real, "embarrassing details" were that Callisthenes was racked and put to death with no public trial, no public confession, and, to put a fine point on it, no corroborating evidence. Not only that, he was a philosopher! He wasn't a soldier in Alexander's army, and although technically in the employ of Alexander he was still, in a manner of speaking, a "guest" at Alexander's court. Taking all this into consideration, such an execution would not have sat well with the rest of the Greek world. If such reports were to have found their way back west it could certainly have become an embarrassment to Alexander (imagine the word "despot" being bandied around), so it's quite possible that Callisthenes' death by obesity and lice became the official version, especially as it seems to have also been put out that Alexander had intended to give Callisthenes an eventual trial. This would also explain the many varying accounts. There would have been those who touted the official version; those who knew and spoke the truth, after Alexander's death presumably; and those "not directly in the know" who would have doubted the official version if they'd never actually seen or heard reports of Callisthenes in his cage, thus leading to various rumors and the like.

The fact that such disparate contemporaneous accounts of Callisthenes' death exist means that it must have happened in private. If he had been publicly executed, then there could not be room for doubt. But hanging is only likely to have been used as a public means of execution in Alexander's era. Private killings are dominated by stabbings, but also include poisonings and strangulations in cases that I am aware of. Does anyone know of examples of secret hangings in Alexander's world? It would seem unnecessarily elaborate. If you believe that secret hanging is unlikely, then it is similarly improbable that Ptolemy's account told the truth on this matter.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:
The fact that such disparate contemporaneous accounts of Callisthenes' death exist means that it must have happened in private. If he had been publicly executed, then there could not be room for doubt. But hanging is only likely to have been used as a public means of execution in Alexander's era. Private killings are dominated by stabbings, but also include poisonings and strangulations in cases that I am aware of. Does anyone know of examples of secret hangings in Alexander's world? It would seem unnecessarily elaborate. If you believe that secret hanging is unlikely, then it is similarly improbable that Ptolemy's account told the truth on this matter.

Sorry, don't agree on this. There's no reason the hanging couldn't have been private and/or limited to those close to Alexander rather than the whole army, Callisthenes being neither military nor Macedonian. Plus non-military public executions rarely, if ever, took place without a trial (enemies excluded). If it took place it was definitely an execution, ordered by Alexander, rather than a murder or "private killing", to use your words, Callisthenes first being taken openly into custody and then disposed of accordingly. And, as I said before, the fact that Callisthenes was not a military man means a hanging would have been considered "suitable" (rather than "unnecessarily elaborate") as opposed to a bloody death, which means that it's doubtful there would be any other examples recorded in Alexander's world unless you know of any other Greek civilians at Alexander's court who were first openly accused of crimes and then mysteriously killed in some manner.

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote:Chares seems to have been the manager of Alexander's court. This and the fact that we find him making authoritative and detailed statements on Callisthenes' disagreement with Alexander and his ultimate fate would suggest that he was probably responsible for royal prisoners, in which case he would have had special knowledge on the matter.

When speculation is tacitly accepted as given, that which follows presents as near enough to fact. As Ernst Badian once observed: "Once the conjuror has palmed the card, it is bound to appear when wanted. But this is no way to argue in serious scholarship" (Alexander and Philippi, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 95, (1993), pp. 131-139)

The claim that Chares, a royal chamberlain or "usher", was probably responsible for "royal prisoners" is little more than speculation. We do not know that Chares was responsible for royal prisoners. Given that this speculation is then used as the basis for claiming that Chares then "had special knowledge on the matter", thus eliminating other testimony such as Ptolemy's, I would be interested in the source attestations that would substantiate that speculation.

What we can say is that, in camp, the hypaspists were the "police force" of the king. This is attested by Curtius at 6.8.19-22 where the hypaspist officer Atarrhias, along with his detachment of 300 men (logically "guards" or hypaspists), is ordered to arrest Philotas . We also have Arrian's clear description of the hypaspists being directed to arrest the leaders of the "revolt" at Opis (7.9.3). I'm unaware of any such attestations of Chares' responsibility for royal prisoners.

Taphoi wrote:I think Ptolemy or his editor (Philadelphus?) has substituted a clean death for Callisthenes, because the truth was embarrassing.

Ptolemy, with no obvious agenda, claims Callisthenes' guilt and then relates that he was tortured and hanged. The "apologetic" tradition is clearly that which you presented in earlier argument.

Your earlier comment that the Macedonian Assembly was not the correct body to try Callisthenes, since he was not Macedonian is clearly designed to explain Alexander's refusal to "try" Callisthenes because he needed another non-Macedonian forum for said trial. Indeed you state this: in fact Alexander probably intended a trial should take place. Therefore, according to this tradition and your argument, Callisthenes is imprisoned ostensibly to be put on trial in a proper forum when the occasion arises.

It is more likely that the torture and execution of Callisthenes, as related by Curtius and Ptolemy, is the truth and that the carrying about of the imprisoned Callisthenes, who unfortunately died awaiting a trial, is the apologetic tradition designed to counter his judicial murder.
.

When I was first researching and beginning work on Shadow of the Lion, I had an interview with the secretary of Macedonian Studies in Thessaloniki. the first question I asked was "do you believe he was poisoned?" and she said, emphatically "Yes!"
There is good reason to believe that his death was aided and abetted by those who wanted to be rid of him (namely Kassandros whose brother was alexander's cup-bearer) So, although he was certainly ill and suffering serious affects from war wounds, I chose to go along with the theory that his death was 'caused by malice' leaving it open as to whether he would have died of the illnesses anyway or if they made sure he wouldn't recover by giving him tainted water in his wine.