Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
The relationship of the ancient historian to his sources has not infrequently been compared to detective work. When the problem in hand is to discover the circumstances surrounding a murder, it is little wonder that ancient historians delight in retreading the same ground, encouraged by the absence of a final solution. There are a number of such mysteries thrown up by the world of antiquity, some more mysterious than others. Often there is the problem that at least one major suspect in some sense succeeded the victim in power, a dual problem in fact, since if guilty, the successor could cover up his tracks, if innocent, but nonetheless beneficiary of the death, he would incur suspicion anyway. I use the masculine pronouns, but female involvement is frequent — think of Livia and Agrippina. The case in hand is such as to excite curiosity: there seems to be an amount of evidence sufficient for a solution and the involvement of Alexander III raises tantalizing questions. Nor do we lack modern parallels to add spice to our investigation. The attempt to explain the assassination of President John Kennedy continues. Was there one gunman or, as now seems likely, two at least? Does that point to a conspiracy? There are further and more remarkable suggestions which, whatever their validity or otherwise, show a similarity with our case.
* I should like to thank Paul Weaver and Jack Ellis for discussion on this paper. The latter has kindly allowed me to see his paper ‘The Assassination of Philip II, to appear in the forthcoming Festschrift in honour of Charles Edson.
That paper constitutes a thorough critical approach to the source material with conclusions as to the use of that material which do not coincide with my own. I will indicate my points of disagreement, but I recognise in his work an important assessment of the evidence. As I take his arguments into account — and they represent a point of view which supersedes his previous expressions — it may be hoped that our contributions taken together may provide a basis for future approaches to the problem. It may be said that my offering differs from his in adopting the method of criminal investigation.
The following works are cited by author’s name alone or abbreviated reference: Badian, E., ‘The Death of Philip IF, Phoenix 17 (1963), 244–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; review of Kraft, Gnomon 47 (1975), 48–58; Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage 2 (München 1926)Google Scholar; Bosworth, A.B., ‘Philip II and Upper Macedonia’, CQ 21 (1971), 93–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cawkwell, G., Philip of Macedon (London 1978)Google Scholar; Ellis, J.R., ‘Amyntas Perdikka, Philip II and Alexander the Great. A study in Conspiracy’, JHS 91 (1971), 15–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London 1976); ‘The Assassination of Philip IF, (see above); Fears, J.R., ‘Pausanias, the Assassin of Philip IF, Athenaeum 53 (1975), 111–35Google Scholar; Green, P., Alexander of Macedon (Pelican 1974)Google Scholar; Griffiths, G.T. (and Hammond, N.G.L.), A History of Macedonia 2 (Oxford 1979)Google Scholar; Hamilton, J.R., ‘Alexander’s Early Life’, G & R 12 (1965), 117–24Google Scholar; Alexander the Great (London 1973); Kraft, K., Der ‘rationale’ Alexander (Kallmiinz 1971)Google Scholar; Lane Fox, R., Alexander the Great (London 1973)Google Scholar; Milns, R.D., Alexander the Great (London 1968)Google Scholar; Schachermeyer, F., Alexander der Grosse (Graz, Salzburg, Wien 1949).Google Scholar
1 Brief, extreme perhaps, but effective is Justin 9.8.11–21 as a character delineation; see especially 9.8.14; ‘hie ubi exarsisset, nec dilatio ultionis nec modus erat’. On specifics see below.
2 Bosworth 97; contra Fears 117 n.19; see also Griffith 690. Ellis, ‘Assassination’ more or less comes down in favour of the simple version of Aristotle (essentially the same in Diodorus). One may see Aristotle as unaffected by the propaganda, which, on Ellis’ view, distorted later tradition, but I believe one cannot disregard other clues.
3 Ellis, ‘Assassination’ follows Hammond in seeing the source as Diyllos, which cannot be regarded as proven. This may appear to be an uncontaminated tradition, but the absence of extra detail on the murder and subsequent suspicions would be explained by the overriding emphasis on Philip’s excessive desire for honour with which such detailwould interfere.
4 Ellis, ‘Assassination’ sees a distinct difference between Diodorus and Justin: in Diodorus Philip is sympathetic to Pausanias, but Pausanias does not gain redress and so extends his anger from Attalos to Philip’ in Justin Philip is un sympathetic to Pausanias who therefore is angry with Philip. So in Diodorus the real villain is Attalos, in Justin Philip is also a villain. I take the point that the treatment of Philip is different, but I cannot extend this to a critical view of the sources as evidence for the background to the murder.
5 Diod. 16.93.3–94.4; Justin 9.6.4–8; Plut Afex. 10.4; also Aristotle Pol. 1311 b 1–3.
6 If all the details are accepted, Fears 120–3 is clearly correct in saying that the sources indicate that the ϋβρις took place between 338/7 and spring 336; so too Ellis, ‘Assassination’. I see no reason whatever, in the state of our sources, why there should not have been an Illyrian campaign at this time; seeGriffith 473,684.
7 97; contra Fears 123 n.33.
8 Diod. 16.94.4. Justin (9.7.10) tells us he was subsequently (one may believe) hung on a cross. What P. Oxy. 1798 (Jacoby, FGrH 148 F 1) tells us is by no means clear. Bosworth 93–4 thinks otherwise: it is clearly after the murder, clearly refers to Pausanias, clearly is irreconcilable with Diodorus. Our ideas of clarity may differ; but we must agree that the reliability of this anonymous fragment must be held in doubt. Granted that Diodorus’ finale is open to suspicion, with its story-like detail,we cannot refuse to accept it in this respect.
9 The following details argue against Ellis’ conclusion in ‘Assassination’ that ’this deed was hatched alone, in the solitary mind of a lunatic’. At least, Pausanias’ actions were rationally planned.
10 Diod. 16.94.3; on Justin 9.7.9 see the section on Olympias below.
11 An indication that he had more information than was appropriate to his method of portraying the murder. See above n.3.
12 ‘Fratri’, I suspect, is not corrupt, but may appear as a result of the abridgement.
13 Against this see Griffith 688–90. Ellis,‘Assassination’ also puts paid to the notion of the antipathy between Upper and Lower Macedonia,a factor which is literally not in evidence.
14 The only source for this, but credible: Bosworth 103 n.5. It is no real argument against it that it is not in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, so Griffith 686. On the other hand, we can allow for exaggeration in Plutarch; so Ellis, ‘Assassination’.
15 Ellis,JHS 1971, 21; the contrary arguments of Errington, R.M., ‘Macedonian “Royal Style” and its Historical Significance’, JHS 94 (1974), 25–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, do not constitute a refutation of Plutarch.
16 Diod. 17.2 does not necessarily tell against this, as Diodorus would simply want to complete this item.
17 Cf. Fears 129–31; Ellis,JHS 1971, 23.
18 Badian, , Phoenix 1963, 248–9Google Scholar, against a plot, but supposing Alexander of Lyncestis was ready for the murder, i.e. he knew; contra Ellis, ‘Assassination’.
19 Diod. 17.32; 17.80 2; Justin 11.7.1; 12.14.1; Arrian 1.25.
20 See Griffith 690.
21 Cf. Green 111–13; Ellis, JHS 1971, 21.
22 Ellis, JHS 1971, 23. In ‘Assassination’ hedevotes a section to the Lyncestians, which discusses other evidence also.
23 Even so, the circumstances surrounding his arrest are sufficient to excite suspicion. Fullest detail is at Arrian 1.25: Amyntas deserted to Darius with a letter from Alexander of Lyncestis; Darius sent Sisines to meet the latter with an offer of the Macedonian kingship and 1000 talents in gold if he killed the King; Parmenio intercepted Sisines and discovered this, then sent Sisines to Alexander; the Lyncestian was arrested, but not until Alexander had consulted his friends and received an omen. The means by which Alexander came to arrest the Lyncestian allow suspicion, but at this stage I do not wish to go further.
24 Plut. Alex. 10.4; Cawkwell 180.
25 Ellis, Philip 225–6 and now forcefully in ‘Assassination’: Justin’s violent tendency against Olympias forfeits all credibility; such actions by her in public are impossible; the plausible loses credit by association with the incredible. The distortion is traced to the propaganda inventions of Cassander in 318/7. Our views on this evidence are, therefore, diametrically opposed and each reader must make his or her own judgment.
26 By this name I refer to Philip’s new wife; the alternative is Eurydice, which Berve, no.434, suggests may have been her name before marriage (it is found at Arrian 3.6.5).
27 Divorce is unlikely, as being unnecessary; Fears 126; Ellis J’hilip 303 n.20; ‘Assassination’ — Justin’s expression simplyinvolves misapprehension.
28 Now Ellis, ‘Assassination’ wants to dismiss all the tradition on this as included in the anti-Olympias propaganda. The insult by Attalos and the clash between Philip and Alexander are seen as possibly originating in 335/4 when Alexander had Attalos killed on shaky grounds; Attalos had no reason to be afraid on Alexander’s succession — he did not flee then. While one can allow for exaggeration of the story, Philip’s part in the proceedings is not easily explained under the hypothesis of such an invention and there may have been other reasons not to take immediate action against a prominent Macedonian; if Alexander’s reasons for eliminating Attalos were weak, perhaps he was inspired by hatred. Ellis also avowedly has difficulty in explaining Alexander’s departure from Macedón which is shown as a consequence of the quarrel. I do not see how it can easily be rejected at least that Philip and Alexander fell out.
He argues also that Olympias would not have been offended at a marriage surely aimedat providing long-term heirs as insurance in the event of Alexander’s demise. The evidence leadsme in another direction. He has to suppose that Cleopatra was more likely killed in late 335, at the juncture indicated by Justin 11.5.1, where Alexander puts to death all his stepmother’s relations advanced by Philip to positions of dignity or military command. All his stepmother’s relations — not his stepmother.
The antipathy between Upper and Lower Macedonia is indeed not a persuasive factor. Attalos’ jibe could not be ethnic; Philip after all had Illyrian blood. All this I grant. Whatever Attalos said, however — and this may not be accurately reported — it could have been an unguarded, drunken pronouncement with no rational basis. Olympias’ annoyance at the marriage might be connected with some such remark, but it might be the culmination of the growing separation between her and Philip. The marriage may have provided an excuse.
29 Justin 9.7.12; Plut. Alex. 10.4; Pausanias 8.7.5 differsin calling Cleopatra’s child a son, but a daughter should be accepted; see now Griffith 681; Ellis, ‘Assassination’.
30 Ellis, ‘Assassination’ disbelieves it, pointing to the stock characters involved, but again he admits difficulty in rejecting it.
31 Ellis, ‘Assassination’ naturally doubts this.
32 Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great (trans. G.C. Richards, New York 1967), 59;Google Scholar Badian, , Phoenix 1963, 244 n.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Against Badian’s identification of the King of the Agrianians as Alexander’s host see Griffith 678 n.2.
33 Fears 127 n.49.
34 See above n.6.
35 Diod. 17.8; Plut. Alex 11; Arrian 1.1.4–6, 11.
36 Badian, , Phoenix 1963, 244–6;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schachermeyr 79–80; Hamilton, , G & R 1965, 120;Google ScholarAlexander 40.
37 Ellis, , JHS 1971, 24 Google Scholar — not his latest position.
38 See Hamilton, , G & R 1965, 120;Google Scholar and especially Milns 26–31.
39 Fears 125–30 and now Ellis, ‘Assassination’.
40 Satyros F 5; Plut. Alex. 9.4.
41 Ellis, ‘Assassination’ stresses that Philip married Cleopatra because his wives were unproductive and as Alexander would go with him to Asia and both would be at risk, alternative arrangements were necessary; so Amyntas married Philip’s eldest daughter Kynna. In the longer term Cleopatra was to produce more sons. But it would be a long time before any such offspring would be old enough to function as heirs and the departure to Asia wasimminent. Amyntas might be the insurance and might have thus been in danger when Philip died. Can we be sure Alexander was to go to Asia?
42 So most recently Griffith 687, noting the ease of Alexander’s accession.
43 Kraft 26.
44 Ellis, , Philip 216;Google Scholar 303 n.20; ‘Assassination’.
45 Contra Ellis, above n.28.
46 Ellis, ‘Assassination’, on the other hand,supposes Alexander would not be the gainer from Philip’s death. If sane, Olympias too could anticipate problems. The tendency of my argument should make clear my disagreement.
47 Cawkwell 178–9; Griffith 678, 682, 685–6; cf. Badian, , Gnomon 1975, 53.Google Scholar
48 Green 524 n.63.
49 Cawkwell 178.
50 Badian, , Gnomon 1975, 53,Google Scholar who points out that in the Moralia the tale has to be complete in itself, so reconciliation with son and mother is necessary, whereas in the Life of Alexander, where Olympias is not included, Plutarch is concerned with facts. This has no force. In the biography Plutarch is concerned with Alexander and certainly not very much with the ins and outs of the murder story; Olympias’ return is hardly important enough, given Plutarch’s focus, to be specially mentioned.
51 Ellis, , Philip 217.Google Scholar
52 Green 524 n.63.The games were to be held on the day after the wedding (Diod. 16.92.5), so that it is possible that Olympias was at the wedding, but not the games. On the whole, I think a total absence is better. Absence on only the second day would seem suspicious, but she perhaps did not care.Our sources in combination indicate that Philip was killed earlyin the day and Olympias, having received the news, arrived late on some day, it seems the same. This seems to point to her being such a distance away as to cast doubt on her having left on the day of the marriage.
53 Kraft 18.
54 Cf. Lane Fox 18.
55 As he was by Ellis, , JHS 1971, 24;Google Scholar for different considerations on Antipater see Fears 129–31.
56 The suggestion of Welles in the Loeb volume, taken up by Hamilton, , G & R 1965, 122;Google Scholar contra Fears 134–5.
57 Cawkwell 180.
58 Green 525 n.75; 109 — the three who killed Pausanias were double-crossing him.
59 Milns 30.
60 Curtius Rufus 4.1.12; Arrian 2.14.5.
61 See Lane Fox 22.
62 The conclusions of Badian, , Phoenix 1963, 244–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, were enthusiastically greeted by Hamilton, , G & R , 1965, 120 n.6.Google Scholar
63 Schachermeyr 87: Alexander would not have used such a cowardly method, but would have faced Philip in open fight. Griffith 689: Alexander would not have chosen that occasion.
