pothos.org

Karl Soundy has kindly sent me an article on Holkias, which I have posted on http://www.alexander-sources.orgSusan

Thanks, Susan & Karl.Another important reference on Holkias is:"The Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great, A Prosopographic Study" by Waldemar Heckel (Stuttgart, 1988)This argues that Holkias wrote this propaganda pamphlet on Alexander's death in the interests of Polyperchon in about 317BC after his enforced return to Macedonia.Best wishes,Andrew

Unfortunately I have not got that book but A B Bosworth addresses the theory in his article in 'ATG in Fact and Fiction'. Basically the Polyperchon line cannot account for the prominence of either the Rhodians or Ptolemy, who is singled out for special treatment, his idea is that a context in 309 fits better and I, humbly agree. I don't know what Heckel says in 'Marshals' and Bosworth's 'Legacy'is only just in paperback, so I haven't read that yet either (although I did have a sneaky skim through the hardback in Foyles). I would love to read Heckel's thoughts though if you could forward them somehow, my pocket wont stretch to another academic tome just yet.

Hi Karl,The partiality towards Ptolemy is explained by Polyperchon wishing to gain Ptolemy's support against Antigonus.The Letter to the Rhodians is explicable as a later insertion. The Will essentially begins twice (firstly with this Letter), which is an indication of a later insertion. Given that the document looks like separate bits stuck together, it is questionable whether an explanation which shows how it could all have been compiled at once by Ptolemy is what is required.I do not believe that there is any strong reason to favour Heckel over Bosworth or vice versa, but various slight reasons cause me mildly to prefer Heckel. Bosworth himself questions why Ptolemy would have exculpated Perdiccas from having poisoned Alexander and he doesn't really provide a satisfactory answer. By 309/8BC most of the key figures in the Will were dead and the main provisions were hardly of more than historical interest. Conversely, they still had great topicality in 317BC. I find it weird that Ptolemy should have claimed to be Philip's son in this document, when it is clear that he scrupulously avoided doing so officially. I find Bosworth's argument about Ptolemy "unofficially" becoming king in 309/8BC rather tendentious. The evidence he cites is not really inconsistent with conventional history, which holds that Ptolemy only declared himself king in 305BC and only in response to Antigonus having done so (the truth of this at the "official" level is fairly undeniable, being backed up by firm numismatic evidence, for example).For these reasons, I think it would be better, if you cited Heckel's version as well as Bosworth's.Best wishes,Andrew

If I had it I would naturally have cited it, but my library is sadly lacking, although I have some of his articles hais books have remained elusive; when I ordered 'Marshals' from Amazon they said it was unobtainable. I will have a good think about the points you make and get back to you. This is so much better than worrying about films, don't you think?

Well done Karl, and thanks Susan for posting it on your site. cheers!