Paralus wrote:
Xenophon wrote:What detail?
Indeed. There is no conversing with one who resolutely refuses to see the point or address the argument. I happily leave you to your upside-down world of preferring the silences of severely summarised epitomes over fuller sources on the same subject. Doubt that is well populated world!
More illogical reasoning! You may be having an “argument”, but I am not, rather trying to have a civilised discussion. And in case you hadn’t noticed, I don’t rely on the epitomes of source material at all for my view, other than to note they make no mention of Heracles, a rather odd omission if he really did exist and was the only living son of Alexander! I alluded to plenty of other evidence.
Let me summarise the evidence, since beyond referring to Curtius and Justin, Paralus makes not much of a case for the early existence of Heracles. In favour of Heracles early existence are the following :
• Curtius 100 words or so, briefly mentioning Nearchus’ proposal and its instant rejection.
• Ditto Justin’s 20 or so words, both of which have been quoted previously.
• An even briefer mention in Appian ‘Syrian Wars’: “[Alexander] died leaving one very young son [i.e. Heracles] and another unborn” [i.e. the future Alexander IV]
• The briefest mention in Strabo Geography XVII.1.8 of “the children” (which can only mean Heracles and Alexander IV) of Alexander the Great accompanying Perdiccas to Egypt in 321 BC, where Perdiccas met his end.
Against this we have:
• No mention whatsoever of the birth of Heracles in any source – rather astounding in itself, which if Diodorus is right that he was 17 when he was murdered in 310/309 puts it around 327/326 BC, when Alexander was campaigning in India, yet there is no mention whatever in our sources of Barsine accompanying the expedition East. In fact, after becoming Alexander’s mistress in 333, Barsine is never mentioned again until, as we have seen, Justin reports her and Heracles to be in Pergamum at Alexander’s death in 323.This itself sounds suspiciously as if Justin is simply placing him where he began the attempt at the throne- a dozen or so years later, nor is it consistent with Strabo reporting “the children” accompanying Perdiccas to Egypt, and presumably thereafter accompanying the Diadochi Generals to Triparadeisos on the Orontes in Lebanon.
Nor, in our sources does Alexander ever refer to such a son. It's as if he never existed........
• The so-called ‘Testament of Alexander’, which while not genuine displays an accurate knowledge of Alexander’s family, and probably written not too long after Antipater’s death. In this, Alexander makes provision for all those related to him by blood; the provisions are not historical, but the point is the list of relatives. Beside Olympias, the writer mentions the one surviving legitimate child of Philip II, Cleopatra; the three illegitimate ones, Philip Arrhidaeus, Cynane, and Thessalonice; and Cynane's daughter. He refers to Roxane's unborn child, and provides for either contingency, boy or girl. And he does not mention Heracles; he knows nothing of Heracles or Barsine, even though he knows all the members of the Royal house known to us from history. Note too that modern conceptions of illegitimacy are irrelevant, the thing that counts is a ‘blood relationship’.
• Without going into ‘quellenforschung’/study and critique of sources and their sources, much of our source material goes back to Hieronymous who wrote well after 309, and mainly comes down via Diodorus. As related in a previous post, at XVIII.2 Alexander dies “apais”/childless.At XVIII.9 and XIX.52 says he had no “diadochi”/heirs or successors, at XIX.11.2 there is but one “son of Alexander” At XIX.105 says “there was no one to inherit” after Alexander IV is murdered. Hieronymous/Diodorus clearly knows nothing of a son of Alexander called Heracles. For that matter, neither does Ptolemy.
• The fact that Cassander consistently acts as if Alexander IV, is the last of his line.
• The ease and ‘cheapness’ with which Cassander convinces Polyperchon to murder Heracles seems surprising and unlikely if he was genuine, and the fickle Macedonians about to go over to him as Cassander apparently feared, but not so if in reality both knew he was a ‘Pretender’.
• The fact that the shorter versions/epitomes make no mention of Heracles candidature.[previously referred to]
Let us consider Curtius, whose 100 words or so, though they tell us little, are the strongest evidence for Heracles being around in 323. A careful reading reveals that on at least three occasions, Curtius’ sources know nothing of Heracles. At VIII.4.23 ff, the courtship of Roxane, Alexander has apparently had no previous association with a Persian woman, for here occurs the first dissent at such a link. At X.7.2 – the very paragraph that refers to Heracles, in another speech Arrhidaeus is said to be “solus heres”/sole heir and again at X.7.6, he is the only one born to inherit/”hic solus est”, and at X.7.15 no-one but Arrhidaeus has a claim as a blood relation, and that no-one but he could assume Alexander’s name. All this denies the existence of Heracles, and strongly implies the speech attributed to Nearchus is an inserted interpolation.
The whole story of Barsine, supposedly captured after Issus, is possibly confused with that of Barsine/Stateira, daughter of Darius whom Alexander would marry, which would explain her total disappearance after Issus.
It would appear then that we cannot arrive at any firm conclusion from the Literary evidence, for we have Curtius and Justin referring to Heracles supposed candidature on the one hand, with some slight support from Appian and Strabo.
On the other hand we have no less than five references in Hieronymous/Diodorus to the fact that Alexander died childless, and without heirs. In Curtius too, despite the speech he gives Nearchus, there are several references to Arrhidaeus being the sole heir and blood relation (at least until the birth of Roxanne’s child), implying the Nearchus speech is an interpolation. There is also the list of Alexander’s blood relatives in the ‘Testament’.
If we turn to the circumstantial evidence, we have no reference for Barsine accompanying Alexander East, or being with him as late as 326 or so when Heracles is allegedly born, we have no mention of his birth, in fact nothing of either of them until supposedly his candidature in 323. Thereafter he ‘disappears’ for the next dozen years or more, until around 310, ignored by everyone – and as Alexias pointed out, that in itself is suspicious.
There are also the circumstances surrounding the ease with which he was ‘sold out’ and murdered, implying a ‘pretender’, not to mention the ‘co-incidence’ of his emergence just after the death of Alexander IV.
All of these factors convince me that, on balance of probability Heracles was not really Alexander’s son, who did not actually exist until 310, when he suddenly emerges, very suspiciously and conveniently, as the ‘last Argead’ following the death of Alexander IV.
Apologies. The Penguin translation again. You've a penchant for typing these out rather than a copy and paste from Perseus and one might wonder why?
That’s easy. In my boyhood, I was given all the Penguin Greek and Latin classics. I still have them, over 50 years later, the pages held together with repeated gluing and Sellotape. Every page has all the margins filled with handwritten notes and cross-references, key passages underlined, and practically every page ‘tagged’, so that I can go instantly to any given section far more quickly than working my way through on-line sources.
Firstly, Plutarch is not dealing with the Babylonian Settlement here at all, he is dealing with the rumours of Alexander's supposed murder - something he makes quite plain in then dismissing them. He only mentions that the king's body laying unattended for many days during the dissension in Babylon is no proof of murder. To claim this is thus dealing with the Babylonian Settlement is extremely desperate.
I’ll let readers decide for themselves, but I’ll point out that not only are the seven days or so of the conclave referred to, but also the outcome, with Perdiccas Regent, and effectively having ‘custody’ of the impaired King Philip Arrhidaeus. To suggest he is dealing solely with the rumoured poisoning is quite wrong.
As far as the translation goes, such a free rendition certainly seems to underline your view but free it remains. It goes far beyond what is actually written. There is no "at this time" and Bernadotte Perrin's "now" is much better. As for "who after Alexander’s death at once succeeded in concentrating the greatest power in his hands, using Arrhidaeus as a figurehead for the authority of the Royal house", there is nothing in the text concerning "succeeded in concentrating" or "using Arrhidaios as a figurehead". Nor is there anything remotely concerning "after Alexander's death". This is all free composition.
Perhaps, but here is another translation, similar to Scott-Kilvert’s:
“
The majority of historians consider this story about the poison to be completely made up; strong support for their view is given by the fact that during the strong disagreements between the commanders over many days after Alexander’s death his body lay unattended in a stifling hot place, and showed no sign of such a drug, but remained pure and undefiled.
Roxana happened to be pregnant at this time and was honoured by the Macedonians because of this. She was jealous of Stateira and deceived her through a letter she forged; when Stateira came to where Roxana was waiting for her, she killed both her and her sister and threw the dead bodies into a well; Perdiccas knew what she was doing and helped her. Perdiccas held the greatest authority in the immediate aftermath of Alexander’s death, and took Arrhidaeus around with him as a token of the royal power; he was Alexander’s brother, though his mother was a common woman of no reputation, and he was lacking in intelligence because of a disease which afflicted him;”
What Plutarch does say is that Roxanne was pregnant and, out of jealousy, connived with Perdikkas in having her killed. Plutarch then says that it was Perdikkas who straightaway held the greatest power (ἦν γὰρ ἐκεῖνος εὐθὺς ἐν δυνάμει μεγίστῃ) and dragged Arrhidaios about as a bodyguard of that power (τὸν Ἀρριδαῖον ὥσπερ δορυφόρημα τῆς βασιλείας ἐφελκόμενος). Nothing about "after Alexander's death" nor is he relating that Perdikkas rose to power by using Arrhidaios. He quite clearly states that Perdikkas was in power and safeguarded that power by taking Arrhidaios about to guard that power.
I’ll only point out that ‘literal’ translations don’t always convey the meaning and feel of the original, but it doesn’t matter anywaybecause even in the ‘literal’ all these events are happening in the seven days or more of the Babylon conference......
Quite plainly, Perdikkas had no time for machinations leading to, and the carrying out of, Stateira's murder during the crisis in Babylon - he was quite preoccupied with his own survival. But one would need to show an interest in the detail of the Babylonian Settlement for that to be apparent. It is clear such a murder happened after Perdikkas had assumed the regency and was carrying Arrhidaios about with him as some sort of "safeguard" (δορυφόρημα) of that power. He was not doing this during the crisis.
I disagree. ( and there's no need for snide remarks). The chaos of the conference would be the perfect cover for Roxane to carry out her murderous plans. Nor is it to be supposed that Perdiccas took a personal hand in matters. He certainly had plenty of time to read a letter from Roxane, or speak to a messenger, then summon a ‘minion’ with orders to go and assist Roxanne carry out the murders, and report back when it was done. Nothing easier. Nor was he pre-occupied that whole time with survival, for it all occurred on a single day. “
On the following day it seemed to the Macedonians shameful that Perdiccas had been exposed to danger of death....et seq” Q.C.X.8.5 and then followed fairly quickly the death of Meleager. Your attempt to 'explain away' the fact that Perdiccas had ample time to deal with many things, including this minor one, does not in fact stand up. And Arrhidaeus was present during the conference before and after Perdiccas was made Regent......