Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great by Waldemar Heckel

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
Alexias
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great by Waldemar Heckel

Post by Alexias »

'The Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great: A prosopographic study' (1988) by Waldemar Heckel

It seems to have been long-accepted that embedded in the tales of Alexander's death and poisoning are the details from a pamphlet that appeared in the years immediately following Alexander's death. This pamphlet appears to have been dated originally to 321/20 BC by Merkelbach and others (I believe), but Heckel's paper seeks to redate the pamphlet to about 317 BC.

The view that the pamphlet was produced in 321/20 BC proposes it was a piece of propaganda by Perdiccas' supporters against Antipater and his faction. This isn't covered by Heckel, but Eumenes, the royal secretary, was allied with Perdiccas, so he may have had a hand in the pamphlet. Perdiccas died in 321 BC after a mutiny by his army in Egypt and the army defected to Ptolemy. If the pamphlet was not already in circulation, Ptolemy may therefore also be suspect as the regency of the Kings Philip Arrhidaus and Alexander IV at the settlement of Triparadisus in 321 BC went, not to his nominees, but to Antipater, although he himself had refused the regency.

Antipater had allied with Craterus and his army of veterans after news of Alexander's death. Polyperchon had been appointed by Alexander as Craterus's deputy for their return to Macedon and following Craterus's death also in 321 BC in battle against Eumenes, he remained in alliance with Antipater.

On Antipater's death in autumn 319 BC, Polyperchon inherited Antipater's role as ruler as Macedon, and the guardianship of the Kings, with Cassander appointed as his deputy. Cassander, miffed at not getting his father's role, went to Antigonus in about 318 BC to seek his aid in recovering his inheritance. His sister Phila, Craterus's widow, was married to Antigonus's son Demetrius, and it seems that at this point the theory of Alexander's death by poisoning began to be prominent.

According to Plutarch, the poisoning theory did not surface until about 5 years after Alexander's death ie about 318 BC and he seems to imply that it originated in the court of Antigonus. Nothing more seems to be known about this Hagnothemis.

"According to some writers it was Aristotle who advised Antipater to arrange the murder and it was entirely through his efforts that the poison was provided. They cite a man named Hagnothemis as their authority: he claimed to have heard their detail from Antigonus" Life of Alexander, section 77.

Heckel argues for a date of publication for this pamphlet of 317 BC, a piece of propaganda from Polyperchon's court against Cassander and his family and allies. Heckel states that rumours of Alexander being poisoned had begun to circulate soon after his death, perhaps understandable in a tense and uncertain period when a comparatively young man in his prime with a strong constitution had apparently succumbed to illness. Heckel also says that Antipater and Cassander had managed to supress publication of these rumours but unfortunately he gives no evidence for this as it is outside the scope of his study.

Heckel also proposes that Holkias, mentioned in the poisoning stories as a guest at Medius's party but not part of the conspiracy, may have been the author of the pamphlet. Holkias was an infantry commander and although not mentioned in the primary sources was a supporter of Perdiccas and Eumenes. He was assigned to Antigonus at Triparadisus and in 319 BC he rebelled against Antigonus with 3,000 men. He was soon captured and pardoned on condition that he returned to Macedon and remained inactive. If he had indeed been an intimate of Alexander and had been in Babylon at the time of his death and a guest at Medius's party, he would have been in a position to provide details of verisimilitude. He appears to be the Olkias in the Armenian list of guests. However, if Holkias was the author, he surely would have risked incurring Antigonus's wrath by not remaining 'inactive'. Yet Antigonus is not implicated in the plot, and his support for Cassander was more about causing trouble for Polyperchon than helping Cassander. Holkias therefore may have been the source and the Hagnothemis mentioned by Plutarch the actual author of the pamphlet, but that is just my conjecture.

The purpose of the pamphlet was thus for Polyperchon to paint Cassander as the villain of the piece and to undermine his attempts to gain control of the Kings and the rule of Macedon. Antipater was safely dead so he could be impugned without fear of reprisal. Olympias appears to have believed the pamphlet for in 317 BC she killed a son of Antipater called Nicanor and desecrated his brother Iolas's grave. This was at the time of her ascendancy in the war against Cassander.

None of this however says whether or not the poisoning theory is true.

In 2000 Bosworth published a paper arguing for a date of 309/8 BC for the pamphlet, revising his earlier views, and believes Ptolemy's camp was the source.
Post Reply