¹ See Badian, E., ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81 (1961), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., especially 16–25, together with the chart in Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 1 (Munich 1926), facing p. 276.Google Scholar

² Harrison, A.R.W., The Law of Athens — Procedure (Oxford 1971), 105Google Scholar and n. 3 outlines the judicial procedures employed at Athens in special circumstances, such as the trials which resulted from Harpalus’ visit.

³ The extensive bibliography for the Harpalus Affair is set out in Glotz, G., Roussel, P., and Cohen, R., Histoire grecque, IV —Alexandre et l’hellénisation du monde antique, I: Alexandre et le démembrement de son empire (Paris 1938), 186Google Scholar and supplemented by Goldstein, J.A., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York and London 1968), 37Google Scholar and Seibert, J., Alexander der Grosse (Darmstadt 1972), 167–9:Google Scholar 294–5.

⁴ Instance the observation of Mathieu, G., Rev. Phil. 55 (1929) 159,Google Scholar who in commenting on the lack of precise knowledge of events in Athens at this period, states: ‘Même les documents contemporains ne nous donnent pas toujours des indications claires: on en a un exemple frappant pour l’affaire d’Harpale, où l’historien moderne doit critiquer des affirmations incomplètes, contradictoires et partiales.’

⁵ By way of illustration Arrian almost ignores the war of Agis III in Greece in 331/0 B.C.. On the virtual absence of reportage of Greek affairs in Arrian after Book 2, note the comments of Bosworth, A.B., Entretiens Hardt 22 (1976), 41.Google Scholar

⁶ Arrian 7. 12. 7.

⁷ Photius, Bibliotheca 91 (Arrian), 68b.

⁸ Curtius 10. 1. 45.

⁹ That the history of Curtius and Diodorus’ Book 17 derive ultimately from a common source was demonstrated clearly by E. Schwartz, RE IV ‘Curtius’ nr.31,1871 ff. — in particular the tabulation of parallel passages at 1873–4. The major attempt to discredit this belief was made by Sir William Tarn. His theory of a ‘mercenaries’ source’ on whom Diodorus relied heavily up to the battle of Issus, and on whom Curtius depended to a lesser extent (Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great, II — Sources and Studies [Cambridge 1948],Google Scholar esp. 71–5; 105–6; 128–30) has been laid to rest by P.A. Brunt, CQ n.s. 12 (1962), 141 ff. It is widely accepted that Cleitarchus of Alexandria was the common source, directly or indirectly, although some would claim that this is not yet satisfactorily established — for example (Borza, E.N., P.A C.A. 11 (1968), 25Google Scholar ff. and his introduction to Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great (translated by Richards, G.C., New York1967), 27Google Scholar n.25. Borza’s objections appear to have been answered in a thorough re-examination of the evidence by Hamilton, J.R., ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17’, in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory (Festschrift Schachermeyr: Berlin 1977), 126–46.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Over-reliance on Arrian’s testimony has been a feature of Alexander scholarship — at its most extreme resulting in a rejection of the ‘vulgate’ tradition wherever it and Arrian are at variance. For a realization that the ‘vulgate’ has more than that to offer see Bosworth, A.B., ‘Arrian and the Alexander Vulgate’, Entretiens Hardt 22 (1976), 1–33Google Scholar and the ensuing discussion, 34–46.

¹¹ Diodorus 17. 108. 4–8.

¹² Plutarch, Dent. 25 and 26; Phoc. 21. 3–22. 3. The Alex 41. 8 reference to a flight of Harpalus is more likely to refer to the earlier one undertaken prior to Issus. On this passage see Hamilton, J.R., Plutarch, Alexander. A Commentary (Oxford 1969), 109Google Scholar and on the earlier flight of Harpalus, Badian, E., ‘The First Flight of Harpalus’, Historia 9 (1960), 245–6Google Scholar and Heckel, W., ‘The Flight of Harpalos and Tauriskos’, C. Ph. 72 (1977), 133–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Further references to Harpalus at Athens occur at Plut. Comp. Dem. Cic. 3. 5 and Moralia 531a.

¹³ Athen. 12. 538b; 13. 586b-d, 594d-596a.

¹⁴ Paus. 1. 37.5; 2. 33.3–5; Justin 13.5.9; the Suda s.v. [Plut.], X or. vit. 846a-d, 848 f, 850d.

¹⁵ In speeches delivered by Dinarchus against two others of the accused there are useful references at in Aristogitonem 4 and 5; in Philoclem 1 and 2.

¹⁶ E.g. columns 18 and 19 — see below nn. 20, 28 and 61.

¹⁷ As an appendix (41–3) to his article on Harpalus in JHS 81 (1961) E. Badian illustrates to what extent solutions to the chronological problems are possible. For the bibliography on the chronology of the Harpalus Affair see J. A. Goldstein, op. cit. 37 n. 1., and for the range of scholarly opinions J. Seibert, op. cit. 167–9.

¹⁸ Fundamental to each of these three possibilities is the alleged revolt. If it can be shown that Harpalus was not the instigator of an attempted rebellion, the two remaining proposals would have little further basis for acceptance. The view that Harpalus was attempting to persuade the Athenians to embark on a war has a lengthy history. In the nineteenth century it is first known to me in Grote, G., History of Greece, 12 (London 1856), 400–1Google Scholar and restated towards the end of that century by Holm, A., Griechische Geschichte, 3 (Berlin 1891), 415–6.Google Scholar Early in this century the theory was reiterated in a form to suggest that the matter was beyond doubt. To C.D. Adams Harpalus’ stay at Athens was the ‘deliberate attempt of a man who controlled men and money, and who had strong connexions with the disaffected satraps in Asia, to organise a general revolt’ (‘The Harpalos Case’, TAPA 32 [1901], 133). The proposal continues to have its adherents; for example J.A. Goldstein, op. cit. 38; Hamilton, J.R., Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford 1969), 21;Google Scholar and in the newly revised Bury, J.B. and Meiggs, R., A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great⁴ (London and Basingstoke 1975), 496Google Scholar it is claimed that ‘he (Harpalus) had come to excite a revolt against his master’. Yet the only direct source evidence to justify this theory is the anonymous and completely undatable statement in Bekker, I., Anecdota Graeca, 1 (Berlin 1814), 145Google Scholar s.v. On the likely value of this reference, see the comment by the editors of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana edition of Arrian’s Alexandri Anabasis (Leipzig 1967), 359 n. to 1. 15.

¹⁹ For the apparently verbatim text of the proclamation see Diodorus 18.8.4. References to the pronouncement, its causes and effects are to be found at Diod. 17.109.1; 18.8.27; Justin 13. 5. 2–7; Curtius 10. 2. 4–7; Hyperides, Dem. col. 18; Dinarch. Dem. 82; Oros. 3. 23. 14; Plut. Moralia 221a. The proclamation would have been made at Olympia between 31 July and 4 August 324 B.C. — so Sealey, R., ‘The Olympic Festival of 324 B.C.’, CR 10 (1960), 185–6.Google ScholarBadian, E. has argued convincingly that Alexander’s motives for the restoration of the exiles resulted from the military and social problems created by his demand that all satraps disband their mercenary forces (JHS 81 [1961], esp. 25–31).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Hyperides, Dem. col. 18. The restoration at the commencement of this passage, proposed by Blass, F., Hyperidis Orationes Sex cum Ceterarum Fragmentis³ (Leipzig 1894),Google Scholar has not been challenged. Column 19, in which appear both and provides any confirmation required.

²¹ Diodor. 18. 8. 5.

²² Dinarch. Dem. 82.

²³ SIG³ 312, esp. 11. 11–14 and n. 3. On the date of Alexander’s return to Susa see Beloch, K.J., Griechische Geschichte, 3 ² (Berlin and Leipzig 1923), 321Google Scholar with Badian, op. cit. 23 n. 46; and of the events in 11.11 ft. of this decree Wilcken, U., ‘Alexander der Grosse und der Korinthische Bund’, SB Berlin 16 (1922), 97Google Scholar ff., esp. 115–6. The significance of the announcement at Susa is cogently demonstrated by Bikerman, E., ‘La lettre d’Alexandre le Grand aux bannis grecs’, REA 42 (1940), 25Google Scholar ff., esp. 29–30 and 34; also Heuss, A. ‘Antigonos Monophthalmos und die griechischen Städie’, Hermes 73 (1938), 133Google Scholar ff. For further discussion of SIG³ 312 see the Addendum below.

²⁴ Well illustrated in Tod, M.N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 (Oxford 1948), 289–301,Google Scholar where selections 201 and 202 contain texts (with commentaries) of inscriptions relating to the returns of exiles at Mytilene and Tegea.

²⁵ Athens had first established cleruchies on Samos in 365 B.C. The relevant bibliography is set out by Kebric, R.B., In the Shadow of Macedón: Duris of Samos (Historia Einzelschr. 29, Wiesbaden 1977), 3Google Scholar n. 16 — to which should be added Sealey, R., ‘I.G. II² 1609 and the Transformation of the Second Athenian Sea-League’, Phoenix 11 (1957), 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., esp. 95–9 and Davies, J.K., ‘The Date of I.G. ii² 1609’, Historia 18 (1969), 309Google Scholar ff., esp. 327 ad fin. The strength of Athens’ opposition to the Exiles’ Decree is well attested — by Hyperides, Dem. cols. 18-19: Curtius 10.2.6–7: Justin 13. 5.1–6. That the core of the opposition was unwillingness to surrender Samos is recorded both by Diodorus (18. 8. 7) and epigraphically Habicht, C., ‘Samische Volksbeschlüsse der hellenistischen Zeit’, Ath. Mitt. 72 [1957], 152Google Scholar ff. esp. 156–64). Lepore, E., ‘Leostene e le origini della guerra lamiaca’, La Parola del Passato 10 (1955), 161Google Scholar ff., esp. 175 sees the emphasis placed on the Samian question by Diodorus at 18.8 as evidence for the use of Duris of Samos as a primary source for the origins of the Lamian War. However, note the comments of Kebric, op. cit. 61-2, rightly claiming that there is ‘hardly cause for arguing Diodorus’ reliance upon Duris at all’.

²⁶ The 320’s B.C. had already proven difficult for the Athenians. Severe grain shortages, first attested for 331/0 B.C. were still in evidence during 323/2 B.C., as instanced by E. Schweigert, ‘Greek Inscriptions (1–13)’, Hesperia 8 (1939), 1 ff., esp. 27–30, nr. 7 11. 14-15 = ‘Greek Inscriptions (27–50)’, Hesperia 9 (1940), 309 ff., esp. 335–9, nr. 42 11. 14–15. For the most recently published Attic inscription concerning this famine, see IICamp, J.M., ‘Greek Inscriptions’, Hesperia 43 (1974), 314Google Scholar ff., esp. 3224. nr. 3, with the full available epigraphical evidence listed at 323 n. 45. Literary references are noted by Schweigert, op. cit. (1939), 30 n. 1, and a bibliography for the famine is in Pečírka, J., The Formula for the Grant ofEnktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966), 71Google Scholar with n. 2. Added to this prolonged economic crisis, Alexander’s disregard for the terms of the League of Corinth and his increasingly autocratic treatment of the Greek allied states since the return from India must have been particularly galling to the Athenians. On the general discontent at the time note Cary, M., A History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C.² (London 1959), 4–5Google Scholar and Hamilton, J.R., Alexander the Great (London 1973), 136Google Scholar ff. Alexander-inspired innovations in religious practices at Athens were further causes of irritations—certainly in the matter of hero-cults (see Bickerman, E.J., ‘Sur un passage d’Hyperide (Epitaphios, col. VIII)’, Athenaeum 41 [1963], 70Google Scholar ff.), and probably also in regard to proposed divine honours for the king (e.g. Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte² [Munich 1970], 246Google Scholar ff.).

²⁷ Hyperides, Dem. col. 19.

²⁸ Diodor. 17. 111. 1–2. It is hardly credible that ‘Persian’ satraps were taking refuge at Taenarum in 324 B.C. Goukowsky, P., in his Budé edition of Diodorus 17 (Paris 1976), 269–70Google Scholar believes that Diodorus has confused two episodes which resulted in mercenaries fleeing from Asia to Taenarum. The term ‘Persian’ satraps is then a mistaken reference to the post-Issus mercenary flights of 332 B.C. — citing Curtius Rufus 4.2. 34 in support. Such a proposal, given the chronological gap of eight years, is difficult to uphold. More likely in my view is that Diodorus has carelessly reproduced a reference to ‘satraps of the Persians’. It is worth noting that at 7.6.1 Arrian mentions and at Curt. 9. 7. 1–11 we do have evidence of Greek commanders and mercenaries leaving Alexander's city foundations in the East and returning to their native land. Note also the disaffected mercenaries and their leaders at Diodor. 17. 106. 2. For the reading see below n. 61.

²⁹ Plut. Mor. 531a.

³⁰ Instance the misleading translation on p. 59 of vol. 7 of the Loeb Classical Library edition of the Moralia, where the first of the two genitive absolutes is rendered as: ‘The Athenians were set on joining Harpalus …’ (my italics).

³¹ At the time of leaving Babylon, Harpalus took with him five thousand talents (Diodor. 17. 108. 6), some of which had doubtless been expended before his arrival in Greece.

³² Diodorus states (17. 108. 7) that after the initial refusal of entry at Athens, Harpalus kept part of his money only with him. On landing he is said to have had seven hundred talents in his possession (Hyperid. Dem. cols. 9 and 10; [Plut], X or. vit. 846b; perhaps also the reference to that amount at Plut. Phoc. 21). Following his arrest however, at most half of that sum was found to be in the possession of the State. (Both Hyperid. Dem. col. 10 and [Plut.], X or. vit. 846b record three hundred and fifty talents, while Phot. Bibl. 265 (Demosthenes), 494 gives a figure of three hundred and eight talents.)

³³ Curt. 10. 2. 2. Note also Justin 13. 5. 7 where Alexander is said to have begun preparations for a major expedition against Athens, as a consequence of the Exiles’ Decree.

³⁴ At 10. 2. 1–3 Curtius recounts the affair of Harpalus, including the tail-piece of his escape to Crete and subsequent death. Next follows the report of the Exiles’ Decree (10. 2. 4–7) with Curtius indicating that Alexander’s orders to restore the exiles were issued only after, and as a result of, the news of the fate of Harpalus (10. 2.4). Fortunately it is possible to trace the origin of Curtius’ chronological blunder here. The parallels with Diodorus’ account (17.108.6–8) confirm that both authors derived their information on Harpalus from a common source. However, Diodorus, after recounting the Harpalus Affair and its ramifications, inserts the correct chronological reference that the return of the exiles was announced at the Olympic festival (17. 109. 1). As Harpalus arrived in Greece prior to the proclamation of the Exiles’ Decree, both Curtius and Diodorus (no doubt following the practice of the original source) relate the entire Harpalus matter before returning to the Exiles’ Decree. Curtius’ error is in mistakedly supposing a chronological and a causal link of the one with the other. Nonetheless, Curtius does provide positive corroboration (10. 2. 6–7) that the Athenians were resolved ab initio not to obey the terms of the Exiles’ Decree, and refused to permit exiles to re-enter their territories, regardless of the consequences.

³⁵ Athen. 538b.

³⁶ SIG³ 312 with supra n. 23. Bosworth, A.B., ‘Alexander and Ammon’, in the Festschrift Schachermeyr (Berlin 1977), 65–6Google Scholar and n. 85, has suggested the possibility that the SIG³ 312 notice of a crown offered by Gorgus should be equated with that referred to in the Ephippus fragment. There is no need to conflate the two notices. At the time of the first crowning (Susa, spring 324) Athens’ unwillingness to comply with the terms of the forthcoming decree was not foreseen. By the second occasion (Ecbatana, autumn 324) Athens’ opposition was known, as the offer of arms and armour indicates. It is tempting to suppose that the attempted return to Samos of Samians from Anaea (Badian, E., ‘A Comma in the History of Samos’, ZPE 23 [1976], 289–94)Google Scholar had taken place in the interim.

³⁷ Plut. Phoc. 21–22.

³⁸ Plut. Phoc. 22; Paus. 1. 37. 5; Athen. 586c–d and 594d–596b.

³⁹ Paus. ibid. : Athen. 594e–595f.

⁴⁰ Athen. 586d and 596a–b. On the shortage of grain at Athens in this period see supra n. 26.

⁴¹ Dinarch. Arist. 4.

⁴² For the ship numbers and Sunium, Curt. 10.2. 1 and for the mercenaries, Diodor. 17. 108. 6.

⁴³ As an example of the degree to which conjecture surrounded the appearance of unscheduled fleets off the coast, note the confusion which abounded in 307 B.C., when Demetrius Poliorcetes’ squadron was mistaken for one from Ptolemy (Plut. Demetr. 8.5).

⁴⁴ Dinarch. Phil. 1.

⁴⁵ 45 See Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 25–8;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Goldstein, op. cit. (above, n. 3) 229–30 and Parke, H.W.Greek Mercenary Soldiers from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus (Oxford 1933), 200 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The number of ships is based on evidence found in the Tabulae Curatorum Navalium for 323/2 B.C. IG ii² 1631 records two triremes (11. 170–1) and one quadrireme (1. 174) originally belonging to Harpalus, then in Athens’ possession. (One of the triremes is again referred to in IG ii² 1632, 11. 122–3). It should not be taken as certain that Harpalus returned to Athens with just these three vessels. On fleeing the polis late in 324 B.C. the ex-treasurer did return to Taenarum (Diodor. 17.108.7; Curt. 10.2. 3) and it must be held as a possibility that he did so in one of his own ships.

⁴⁷ On his earlier flight before the battle of Issus (supra n. 12) Harpalus took refuge in the Megarid (Arrian 3. 6. 7) for reasons unknown. That he chose Athens as a haven on this occasion is perfectly understandable in the light of his previous relations with that polis (supra nn. 37–9) and especially in view of his honorary citizenship (supra n. 40). When Harpalus left Babylon early in 324 B.C. Alexander’s proposals concerning the exiles had not yet been publicized (see Badian, op. cit. [above, n. 45] 24 n. 51). Although it is likely that Harpalus would have heard the news during the march from Babylon to the Mediterranean coast, there is little (if any) possibility of his having heard of Athenian reaction at that time. In fact, had he known of the situation in Athens he would not have appeared unheralded off her shores with such a large force! Once at Taenarum, however, news of Athens– determination to oppose Alexander’s plans would have been commonplace (Hyperid. Dem. cols. 18–19: Diodor. 17. 111. 1–3).

⁴⁸ E.g. Dinarch. Dem. 112 where those later named by the Areopagus as having accepted Harpalus’ money were charged with

⁴⁹ Demands for the surrender of Harpalus are said to have come from Philoxenus (Hyperid. Dem. col. 8; Paus. 2. 33. 4; Plut. Mor. 531a), Antipater and Olympias (Diodor. 17. 108. 7), with Diodorus stating explicitly (ibid.) that Athenian orators who spoke against surrendering the fugitive Macedonian were in receipt of his money.

⁵⁰ Hyperid. Dem. cols. 9, 11 and 19; Dinarch. Dew. 68 and 89; [Plut.], X or. vit. 846b.

⁵⁰ For the bibliography see supra n. 3. Both the actions and the motives of Demosthenes in this affair remain obscure. On the one hand, the disclosures made at the time were extremely limited. The Areopagus produced a list merely of names with amounts allegedly received from Harpalus — no further details (Hyperid. Dem. col. 6). Demosthenes appears to have admitted initially to having had some of Harpalus’ funds (ibid, cols 12–13) but under what circumstances and to what end he did not reveal. On the other hand, post eventum attempts to lionize Demosthenes and to portray him as a victim of (at best) injustice or (at worst) a calculated political intrigue have so clouded the issue as to make certainty impossible.

⁵² Demosthenes was considered responsible, to some degree, for the failure of the guard to maintain adequate watch over Harpalus (Hyperid. Dem. col. 12; [Plut] X or. vit. 846c).

⁵³ Plut. Dem. 25. 3.

⁵⁴ Supra n. 27.

⁵⁵ For instance, Alexander’s abandonment of his projected punitive mission to the mainland (Curt. 10. 2. 2 and 4; Justin 13. 5. 7).

⁵⁶ Dinarch, . Dem. 68;Google Scholar Diodor. 18. 9. 4.

⁵⁷ Supra n. 46.

⁵⁸ Plut. Dem. 27; [Plut.] X or. vit. 846c-d; Justin 13. 5. 10; Oros. 3. 23. 15.

⁵⁹ Supra pp. 53–4 with Hyperid. Dem. col. 19.

⁶⁰ Hyperides, ibid. Envoys from the Greek poleis presented petitions to Alexander at Babylon (Arr. 7. 19. 1 and 23. 2; Diodor. 17. 113. 2–4) with Diodorus recording that some petitions were related to the return of the exiles. Arrian does not say from which poleis the envoys came, and the Athenians are not named in Diodorus’ abbreviated list. Arr. 7.19.2 cannot be used as evidence for the presence of an Athenian embassy, given the diverse source evidence for the return of the statues of the tyrannicides, cf. Arr. 3.16. 7;Paus. 1.8.5: Val. Max. 2. 10. ext. 1. See also Seltman, C.JHS 67 (1947),26 withn. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ The supplement [] was first proposed by Sauppe, H. ‘Die neuen bruchstücke des Hyperides’, Philol. 3 (1848), 610 ff. at 625,CrossRefGoogle Scholar supported by the following n. 10: gibt den sinn, das zeigt das folgende mit sicherheit, natürlich aber kann auch etwa oder noch andres wortgestanden haben. Among subsequent editors of the extant works of Hyperides, F. Blass in the Teubner edition of 1894 accepted Sauppe’s reading, which has since been reproduced with minor emendations by F.G. Kenyon in the OCT edition of 1906 () and Ch. Jensen in the Teubner edition of 1963 ( ). Other proposals, not taken up by later editors, have been [] by A.Boeckh (1848) and [] by C. Babington (1850).

⁶² Badian, op. cit. (above, n. 45) 16, 21 and 36. For the satrapal changes see the chart of Alexander’s satrapies in Berve, H.Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 1 (Munich 1926), facing p. 276,Google Scholar together with the list in Badian, 17.

⁶³ Diodor. 17. 111. 1.

⁶⁴ Supra n. 19 for the reasons behind the dismissal of the satrapal mercenary contingents.