The Babylon Settlement
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:46 pm
The subject of this thread is the different versions of the debate at Babylon following Alexander’s death in 323. The longest is given by Curtius X 6ff (online at www.curtiuslacus.com ), Justin following Trogus is next XIII 2ff (available online at www.forumromanorum.org in English and French translations and the original Latin) and finally there is Diodoros’ account XVIII 2ff. I will try to summarise the accounts but it might help to read the originals.
The spur for consideration of these accounts came while reading R M Errington’s piece ‘Alexander in the Hellenistic World’ in Entretiens Hardt XXII, where, while discussing the value of Alexander’s relics he mentions Curtius’ account of Perdikkas putting them on the throne at the meeting to decide the succession. He then posits that Eumenes remembered the ploy and used it more successfully at Kyinda to placate the Argyraspids. He attributes the source of the story to Hieronymos of Kardia, the arguments for which are in ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos’ JHS 90(1970) 49-77 (which I know I have somewhere!). This seemed wrong to me so I turned to A B Bosworth in ‘The Legacy of Alexander’ 34-45, where he discusses these passages and comes to equally erroneous conclusions (IMHO). Since I haven’t Errington’s reasoning to hand it will have to be Bosworth’s that we consider.
Let me just say at the outset that Bosworth is far too good and honest a scholar not to point out possible objections to his line of reasoning but in his enthusiasm for his conclusions he seems to have let them slip to the back of his mind.
Central to his case is that Curtius and Justin represent different source traditions. This I cannot see. ‘Are they using different sources, or do they have different agendas? Justin is excerpting Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae in a notoriously capricious and slapdash manner, whereas Curtius is explicitly looking to the present, contrasting the dissolution produced by the division of powers at Babylon with the state of felicity achieved at Rome by the uncontested elevation of the current emperor. Justin may have mutilated the sense of his original beyond reconstruction, while Curtius, to put it crudely, may be indulging in historical fiction.’ Now this is the point from which all consideration of these passages must start. Curtius is moulding the material and Justin is carelessly epitomising.
The main difference comes right at the beginning in Curtius the meeting is meant to be among the officers alone but is infiltrated by the infantry who refuse to be excluded, whereas in Justin (and Diodoros it would seem) the meeting was behind closed doors; different sources or different agenda? There can be no denying that Curtius’ scenario is the more dramatic and clearly more relevant to the elevation of several Roman emperors (whence much debate about his date) this is part of his agenda.
The clincher is the shape of the debate that follows. In Justin there is no business with the relics on the throne but Perdikkas states his opinion that they should wait for Rhoxane’s child to be delivered (three months in Curtius, one in Justin). In Curtius Niarchos proposes Herakles and is countered by Ptolemy who argues that they should not elevate the offspring of subjects to the throne and proposes government by committee before the relics. Justin has Meleager propose both ‘the boy at Pergamos’ or if they want a man Aridaeus and then object to Rhoxane’s son on the grounds that he is of subject blood. Ptolemy points out that Aridaeus is of low birth and mentally deficient, and will be but a cipher and proposes they choose from among the marshals. Perdikkas’ opinion is then accepted ‘unanimously’. There is, as Bosworth says, both ‘confusion and conflation here’. In Curtius it is Meleager who objects that Perdikkas will rule through the son of Rhoxane and Niarchos has dropped out and his proposal been melded with Meleager’s objection. Aristonous asserts that Perdikkas was marked out as his successor by Alexander’s giving him his ring. Justin omits this and puts Peithon’s objections to Philip into Ptolemy’s mouth; it may seem crass but the fact that Ptolemy and Peithon both begin with P may be significant in aiding Justin’s confusion; contrariwise he may just have grafted the arguments of the lesser man onto the more famous.
There seems nothing in these differences that cannot be explained in terms of Curtius’ shaping and Justin’s carelessness. We are asked to believe, however, that if these ‘differences’ can be explained in a Fourth Century context then the questions of authorial influence can be set aside. It is duly alleged that Ptolemy would want to omit his objection to Philip, as Philip had raised him twice to his satrapy, that the depiction of Aristonous was a sop to his ally Kassander and that the author of this version was Kleitarchos. I would see his version behind both traditions with Diodoros representing Hieronymos.
The arguments about Kassander are bogus since a common codicil to the ‘vulgate’ is the Antipatrid poison plot and the statement that Kassander destroyed the relatives of Alexander. This must have been in the common source i.e. Kleitarchos. Which in turn shows he wrote after Kassander’s death.
Curtius had been using Kleitarchos for his History in tandem with Ptolemy who had nothing beyond Alexander’s death (viz Arrian) it would seem perverse if he chose to append an appendix from an obscure and unpopular source like Hieronymos, whom he seems nit to have used elsewhere. More likely Kleitarchos took his story down to the reconciliation before the corpse of Alexander and the arrangements for his funeral. Trogus too seems to have made use of Kleitarchos and could easily have continued with his version of events at Babylon, the fact that Herakles is mentioned in both is at once telling and suspicious; there is no evidence that he figured in anyone’s calculations before 310 and he may well have been a stooge, along the lines of Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel. Both he and the throne ruse would seem to be retrojections not the originals of future ideas.
Diodoros, it is true used Kleitarchos too but he is changing books and topic we might expect him to change source. The lack of the initial debate is unfortunate, as we cannot really say how close the two versions were but the fact that there are retrospective notes either at Eumenes’ use of Perdikkas’ scenario at Kyinda nor when Herakles is introduced (XX 20) might mean that they did not figure in his account of the succession debate though we can be sure that Herakles at least was mentioned in that context by Kleitarchos.
It would seem that the two congruent accounts are those of Curtius and Justin and that Diodoros represents a different tradition, although it is more in the drama of the presentation that the differences lie. Both Justin and Curtius retain good portions of their source tradition and can be used to correct each other; for instance in sorting out the right speakers (Curtius) and the right setting (Justin), but that only brings us to their source almost certainly Kleitarchos but we should lend more weight to Diodoros whose account is by far the most sober.
The spur for consideration of these accounts came while reading R M Errington’s piece ‘Alexander in the Hellenistic World’ in Entretiens Hardt XXII, where, while discussing the value of Alexander’s relics he mentions Curtius’ account of Perdikkas putting them on the throne at the meeting to decide the succession. He then posits that Eumenes remembered the ploy and used it more successfully at Kyinda to placate the Argyraspids. He attributes the source of the story to Hieronymos of Kardia, the arguments for which are in ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos’ JHS 90(1970) 49-77 (which I know I have somewhere!). This seemed wrong to me so I turned to A B Bosworth in ‘The Legacy of Alexander’ 34-45, where he discusses these passages and comes to equally erroneous conclusions (IMHO). Since I haven’t Errington’s reasoning to hand it will have to be Bosworth’s that we consider.
Let me just say at the outset that Bosworth is far too good and honest a scholar not to point out possible objections to his line of reasoning but in his enthusiasm for his conclusions he seems to have let them slip to the back of his mind.
Central to his case is that Curtius and Justin represent different source traditions. This I cannot see. ‘Are they using different sources, or do they have different agendas? Justin is excerpting Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae in a notoriously capricious and slapdash manner, whereas Curtius is explicitly looking to the present, contrasting the dissolution produced by the division of powers at Babylon with the state of felicity achieved at Rome by the uncontested elevation of the current emperor. Justin may have mutilated the sense of his original beyond reconstruction, while Curtius, to put it crudely, may be indulging in historical fiction.’ Now this is the point from which all consideration of these passages must start. Curtius is moulding the material and Justin is carelessly epitomising.
The main difference comes right at the beginning in Curtius the meeting is meant to be among the officers alone but is infiltrated by the infantry who refuse to be excluded, whereas in Justin (and Diodoros it would seem) the meeting was behind closed doors; different sources or different agenda? There can be no denying that Curtius’ scenario is the more dramatic and clearly more relevant to the elevation of several Roman emperors (whence much debate about his date) this is part of his agenda.
The clincher is the shape of the debate that follows. In Justin there is no business with the relics on the throne but Perdikkas states his opinion that they should wait for Rhoxane’s child to be delivered (three months in Curtius, one in Justin). In Curtius Niarchos proposes Herakles and is countered by Ptolemy who argues that they should not elevate the offspring of subjects to the throne and proposes government by committee before the relics. Justin has Meleager propose both ‘the boy at Pergamos’ or if they want a man Aridaeus and then object to Rhoxane’s son on the grounds that he is of subject blood. Ptolemy points out that Aridaeus is of low birth and mentally deficient, and will be but a cipher and proposes they choose from among the marshals. Perdikkas’ opinion is then accepted ‘unanimously’. There is, as Bosworth says, both ‘confusion and conflation here’. In Curtius it is Meleager who objects that Perdikkas will rule through the son of Rhoxane and Niarchos has dropped out and his proposal been melded with Meleager’s objection. Aristonous asserts that Perdikkas was marked out as his successor by Alexander’s giving him his ring. Justin omits this and puts Peithon’s objections to Philip into Ptolemy’s mouth; it may seem crass but the fact that Ptolemy and Peithon both begin with P may be significant in aiding Justin’s confusion; contrariwise he may just have grafted the arguments of the lesser man onto the more famous.
There seems nothing in these differences that cannot be explained in terms of Curtius’ shaping and Justin’s carelessness. We are asked to believe, however, that if these ‘differences’ can be explained in a Fourth Century context then the questions of authorial influence can be set aside. It is duly alleged that Ptolemy would want to omit his objection to Philip, as Philip had raised him twice to his satrapy, that the depiction of Aristonous was a sop to his ally Kassander and that the author of this version was Kleitarchos. I would see his version behind both traditions with Diodoros representing Hieronymos.
The arguments about Kassander are bogus since a common codicil to the ‘vulgate’ is the Antipatrid poison plot and the statement that Kassander destroyed the relatives of Alexander. This must have been in the common source i.e. Kleitarchos. Which in turn shows he wrote after Kassander’s death.
Curtius had been using Kleitarchos for his History in tandem with Ptolemy who had nothing beyond Alexander’s death (viz Arrian) it would seem perverse if he chose to append an appendix from an obscure and unpopular source like Hieronymos, whom he seems nit to have used elsewhere. More likely Kleitarchos took his story down to the reconciliation before the corpse of Alexander and the arrangements for his funeral. Trogus too seems to have made use of Kleitarchos and could easily have continued with his version of events at Babylon, the fact that Herakles is mentioned in both is at once telling and suspicious; there is no evidence that he figured in anyone’s calculations before 310 and he may well have been a stooge, along the lines of Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel. Both he and the throne ruse would seem to be retrojections not the originals of future ideas.
Diodoros, it is true used Kleitarchos too but he is changing books and topic we might expect him to change source. The lack of the initial debate is unfortunate, as we cannot really say how close the two versions were but the fact that there are retrospective notes either at Eumenes’ use of Perdikkas’ scenario at Kyinda nor when Herakles is introduced (XX 20) might mean that they did not figure in his account of the succession debate though we can be sure that Herakles at least was mentioned in that context by Kleitarchos.
It would seem that the two congruent accounts are those of Curtius and Justin and that Diodoros represents a different tradition, although it is more in the drama of the presentation that the differences lie. Both Justin and Curtius retain good portions of their source tradition and can be used to correct each other; for instance in sorting out the right speakers (Curtius) and the right setting (Justin), but that only brings us to their source almost certainly Kleitarchos but we should lend more weight to Diodoros whose account is by far the most sober.