1 Named here: F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon (Vienna, 1970); A.B. Bosworth, ‘The death of Alexander the Great: rumour and propaganda’, CQ 21 (1971), 112–36 (‘Death’); A.B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988: ‘From Arrian’), at 157–84; A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire (Cambridge, 1988: ‘Conquest’), at 171–3; W. Heckel, The Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great (Stuttgart, 1988).

Cited frequently below: J. Atkinson, E. Truter and E. Truter, ‘Alexander’s last days: malaria and mind games?’, AClass 52 (2009), 23–46; E.J. Baynham, ‘A baleful birth in Babylon’, in A.B. Bosworth, E.J. Baynham (edd.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford, 2000), 242–62; A.B. Bosworth, ‘Ptolemy and the will of Alexander’, in A.B. Bosworth, E.J. Baynham (edd.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford, 2000), 207–41 (‘Ptolemy’); P.A. Brunt, ‘Notes on Aristobulus of Cassandria’, CQ 24 (1974), 65–9; E.D. Carney, ‘Symposia and the Macedonian elite’, SyllClass 18 (2007), 129–80; J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch. Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1969); N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1983); F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker: Teil 2, Zeitgeschichte (Berlin, 1926–30), ‘Texte’ (FGrHist), ‘Kommentar’ (FGrHist 2D); L. O’Sullivan, ‘Court intrigue and the death of Callisthenes’, GRBS 59 (2019), 596–620; L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York, 1960); F. Pownall, ‘The symposia of Philip II and Alexander III of Macedon’, in E. Carney, D. Ogden (edd.), Philip II and Alexander the Great (New York, 2010), 55–65; W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great: Sources and Studies (Cambridge, 1948); I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby, online at Brill Scholarly Editions (BNJ: fragment numbering applies also to FGrHist).

2 Pearson (n. 1), 212–42; Bosworth, From Arrian (n. 1), 10–11.

3 ‘We can never be sure how true Arrian is to the wording of his original’, said Bosworth (A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander [Oxford, 1980], 1.19), citing Arrian’s rendering (3.30.8) in oratio obliqua of Herodotus (4.57); Arrian ‘is unlikely to have transcribed his sources without reshaping them and adding his own comments’ (Bosworth, From Arrian [n. 1], 14). D.W. Leon, Arrian the Historian (Austin, 2021), 90 wrote of Arrian ‘deliberately crafting’ his prose, to which C. Baron, ‘An historiographical study of Arrian’s Anabasis’, Histos 16 (2022), vii added the gloss ‘rather than simply lifting it from his sources’.

4 31 May/1 June 323 b.c. On Plutarch’s quotation cf. Bosworth, From Arrian (n. 1), 159. For parallel Greek texts of the Ephemerides as quoted by Arrian and Plutarch see FGrHist 117 F 3.

5 Diod. Sic. 19.23; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.8.3; E.M. Anson, Eumenes of Cardia (Boston, 2004), 172–4, cf. 142 n. 84.

6 The first known comment on these issues is by Aelian (early third century) whose conclusion is typically banal but faultless: ‘One thing or the other, therefore: either Alexander was punishing himself severely by taking wine so many days in the month, or those who compiled this are lying, including Eumenes of Cardia and the other man: it can be taken from this passage that they wrote the remainder similarly’ (VH 3.23 = BNJ 117 F 2a). Bosworth at first agreed (‘Either the testimonia are to be rejected out of hand or we must face the conclusion that the Ephemerides recorded a drinking marathon unique in history’: ‘Death’ [n. 1], 122).

7 Quaest. conv. 623E = BNJ 117 F 2c. Athenaeus remarked on the same detail and named two compilers: ‘Alexander … after the bout would sleep continuously for two days and two nights: this is made clear in his Ephemerides as written by Eumenes of Cardia and Diodotus of Erythrae’ (Deipn. 434b = BNJ 117 F 2b). Diodotus is unknown and plays varied roles in modern hypotheses of the origin of the Ephemerides.

8 N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The royal journal of Alexander’, Historia 37 (1988), 129–50, at 131–2 outlined what topics were included in the Ephemerides. See in general Bosworth, From Arrian (n. 1), 157–84, citing earlier work: he judged that ‘the facts as they stand are probably correct’ (183). Atkinson et al. (n. 1), 26–7 commented sensibly.

9 Jacoby (FGrHist 2D, 440) insisted that ‘the author hid his identity behind a woman’s name’. We cannot know this. The doubt expressed by Athenaeus’s speaker ‘Democritus’ at 434c was not repeated by Athenaeus himself at 537d: B. Sheridan, ‘Finding the narrative in a lost historian: the case of the Alexander historian Nicobule’ (2011 conference paper) noted the discrepancy but not the dialogue context. Speakers in the Deipnosophists often disagree on bibliographical details. I.M. Plant, Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome (Norman, OK, 2004), 67 and Sheridan (BNJ 127 [2012]) accept Nicobule as author. The speech of ‘Democritus’ begins at Athenaeus 426c; he pauses for a drink at 429f and continues to 443c. In Book 12 (510a–554f), an essay on luxury, the speaker throughout is Athenaeus.

10 ‘Go to sleep’ is a common meaning of ἀναπαύομαι. The word occasionally means ‘die’, which is why Hammond classed Nicobule with Ephippus as having ‘attributed A[lexander]’s death to excessive drinking’ (Three Historians [n. 1], 78). With Pearson (n. 1), 67 n. 26, against Jacoby, FGrHist 2D (440), I reject the translation ‘die’, and for additional reasons: Alexander died not at once but about eleven days later; and the Alexander Romance uses ἀναπαύομαι in the sense ‘go to sleep’ in this very context. Sheridan (BNJ 127 F 1), while agreeing with Pearson, reasonably followed Plant (n. 9) in choosing the translation ‘passed out’: ‘that would be the expected result following such a drinking session’.

11 Pliny listed her among sources for his survey of trees (HN 1.12.13 = BNJ 127 T 2). Most names in the prefatory lists do not recur in the main text of the Natural History and it is hard to know what Pliny got from each; in this case, possibly, Nicobule said that ‘Alexander and his troops returned from India garlanded with ivy’ (HN 16.144).

12 G. Weber, ‘Alexander’s court as social system’, in W. Heckel, L.A. Tritle (edd.), Alexander the Great: a New History (Chichester, 2009), 95; likewise Sheridan, neatly observing that ‘she did not seek to dilute the excessive nature of Alexander’s drinking’ (BNJ 127 ‘Biographical essay’). By contrast: ‘Scheint ein zeitgenössisches pamphlet von der art des Ephippos gewesen zu sein’: Jacoby, FGrHist 2D, 440, followed by Bosworth, ‘Death’ (n. 1), 114 and From Arrian (n. 1), 174–5; F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse: das Problem seiner Persönlichkeit und seines Wirkens (Vienna, 1973), 557; Pownall (n. 1), 60.

13 Plant (n. 9).

14 Ephippus is named several times by Athenaeus, once by Pliny. He must have been born before 348 (when Philip destroyed Olynthus) and must have remarked the Olynthian Callisthenes’ fate, as observed by A.J.S. Spawforth (‘The pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian royal hunt’, Histos 6 [2012], 169–213, at 176) and Pearson. The latter’s discussion ([n. 1], 64–7) of a ceremony narrated by Ephippus (BNJ 126 F 5, see L. Prandi’s commentary) suggests that Ephippus was selecting incidents to suit an agenda: his perspective on Alexander would have been appreciated in Athens. Spawforth argues that Ephippus’ preceding description of Alexander’s divine costumes is deliberately slanted, a ‘controlled misreading’; yet Prandi finds ‘no real negative judgments’ on Alexander in the fragments (BNJ 126 ‘Biographical essay’).

15 Ath. Deipn. 434a–b; BNJ 126 F 3. To take the last sentence as meaning that Alexander sickened and died immediately after the reciprocal pledging of Proteas is to use Ephippus and Athenaeus unguardedly. Hard though it is to know when Athenaeus was quoting and when he was introducing or epitomizing, we cannot assume that his text mirrors his sources end to end. See L. Romeri, Philosophes entre mots et mets (Grenoble, 2002), 268–76; D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les historiens (Paris, 2007); J. König, Saints and Symposiasts (Cambridge, 2012), 112–19; L.I. Hau, ‘The fragments of Polybius compared with those of the “tragic” historians Duris and Phylarchus’, Histos 15 (2021), 238–82. On Athenaeus’ use of Ephippus see J.-C. Carrière, ‘Athénée dans son temps’, in S. Rougier-Blanc (ed.), Athénée de Naucratis: Le banquet des savants, livre XIV (Bordeaux, 2018), 449–605, at 500–8.

16 On the Passing of Hephaestion and Alexander (the title varies). Alexander and Hephaestion were intimate friends; Alexander was prostrated by grief at Hephaestion’s death; excessive drinking was adduced in both cases; the deaths come together in a book title because (to judge by the quoted text) the anger of Dionysus caused both. P. McKechnie, ‘Diodorus Siculus and Hephaestion’s pyre’, CQ 45 (1995), 418–32, at 429–31, argues that ‘Alexander’s friendship with Hephaestion as the key to his ultimate downfall’ was Ephippus’ theme.

17 Pearson (n. 1), 62.

18 E.g. Bosworth, Conquest (n. 1), ch. 21; J.M. O’Brien, Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy (London, 1992), 225–6; Atkinson et al. (n. 1), 25; likewise in the clinicopathological conference reported by E.N. Borza, J. Reames-Zimmerman, ‘Some new thoughts on the death of Alexander the Great’, AncW 21 (2000), 22–30, at 26–7. Prandi (BNJ 126 F 3 ‘Commentary’) observes that the juxtaposition in Athenaeus ‘leads to think’ that the Proteas anecdote belongs to the ‘banquet organized by Medios’, but it is wiser not to follow Athenaeus’ lead: here as elsewhere he was not constructing a historical narrative.

19 On the anecdote genre or subgenre see A. Dalby, ‘Lynceus and the anecdotists’, in D. Braund, J. Wilkins (edd.), Athenaeus and His World (Exeter, 2000), 372–94; on the vagueness with which anecdotes were linked to real events and names, Carney (n. 1), 136 n. 17; on the difficulty in dating the anecdote of Callisthenes refusing Alexander’s cup, O’Sullivan (n. 1), 608; on the merging of the present Alexander anecdote with the narrative of his last days, A. Dalby, ‘De Philippe II à Ptolémée II’, in A. Heller, C. Grandjean, J. Peigney (edd.), À la table des rois (Rennes, 2013), 129–47, at 136–7.

20 This feature of Athenaeus’ work, allowing neighbouring quotations to illustrate one another without comment, was highlighted by C. Jacob, ‘Ateneo, o il dedalo delle parole’, in L. Canfora et al. (edd.), Ateneo: I deipnosofisti, vol. 1 (Rome, 2001), xi–cxvi, now revised in C. Jacob, Faut-il prendre les Deipnosophistes au sérieux? (Paris, 2020); cf. J. Paulas, ‘How to read Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists’, AJPh 133 (2012), 403–39.

21 Diod. Sic. 19.52.2, 19.61.2.

22 Jacoby, FGrHist 2D, 508; Pearson (n. 1), 151 with further references.

23 A. Zambrini, ‘The historians of Alexander the Great’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Malden, MA, 2011), 210–20, at 218.

24 J.R. Hamilton, ‘The letters in Plutarch’s Alexander’, Proceedings of the African Classical Associations 4 (1961), 9–20; Hamilton (n. 1), liv–lvi; Brunt (n. 1), 65–9; Bosworth, From Arrian (n. 1), 46–60.

25 BNJ 139 F 33; cf. 125 F 15 (Chares), 138 F 17 (Ptolemy); Plut. Alex. 55.

26 BNJ 139 F 8, cf. Curt. 3.4–5, Arr. 2.4.5–11. D. Engels, ‘A note on Alexander’s death’, CPh 73 (1978), 224–8 interpreted this as the first attack of the malaria from which Alexander was to die.

27 BNJ 139 F 7, cf. Plut. Alex. 18, Arr. 2.3; Tarn (n. 1), 262–5.

28 Hamilton (n. 1), lv.

29 Nearchus is implied by Plutarch [9] to have been present at the dinner that Alexander had just left: this would add a complication to any reconstructed narrative, but does not invalidate either source.

30 Greek text and apparatus: W. Kroll, Historia Alexandri Magni: recensio vetusta (Berlin, 1926), 134–5.

31 P.H. Thomas, Incerti auctoris Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni cum Libro de morte eius (Leipzig, 1960), 34–5.

32 R. Jasnow, ‘The Greek Alexander Romance and Demotic Egyptian literature’, JNES 56 (1997), 95–103.

33 Heckel (n. 1); Bosworth, ‘Ptolemy’ (n. 1); Baynham, ‘Baleful birth’ (n. 1).

34 It is not clear to me whether ἐπὶ τϵλϵυτῆς ῾Ηρακλέους is to be read with the preceding or the following clause.

35 This use of stringo has parallels elsewhere in the Itinerarium and in the Latin Alexander Romance: Julius Valerius may well be the author of both. See R. Tabacco (ed.), Itinerarium Alexandri (Florence, 2000), 66–7, 247–8.

36 E.g. Plut. Dem. 20.3. On the dissonant sources see Dalby (n. 19), 138–9.

37 E.g. Diod. Sic. 17.72. C.B. Welles (ed.), Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 8 (London, 1963), 325, 473; H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ‘Alexander and Persepolis’, ARID Suppl. 20 (1993), 177–88.

38 Weber (n. 12), 95. Sheridan may not agree (BNJ 127 F 2 ‘Commentary’), but with the admittedly pliable support of the Romance I can only take this ‘last dinner’ as the one that immediately preceded Medius’ invitation.

39 Sheridan (FGrHist 127 F 2 ‘Translation’) rightly insisted on the sense of ἠγωνίσατο, ‘recited it as if he were contending for a prize’. For analogous scenes at Macedonian symposia see Carney (n. 1), 146, 152.

40 H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich, 1926), 2.261 (no. 521).

41 See O’Sullivan (n. 1).

42 R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, rev. ed. (London, 2004), ch. 32 notes the agreement between Nicobule and the Romance.

43 Carney (n. 1), 150–1, n. 86.

44 Pledging of this kind is illustrated in the letter of Hippolochus (Ath. Deipn. 129a); A. Dalby, ‘Hippolochus: The wedding feast of Caranus the Macedonian’, Petits propos culinaires 29 (1988), 37–45; B. Tripodi, ‘Il banchetto di nozze del Macedone Karanos (Athen., 4, 128a–130d)’, in Ancient Macedonia 6.2 (1999), 1219–26.

45 E. Badian, ‘Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven’, in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler (JRA, Suppl. 17, 1996), 11–26; reprinted in his Collected Papers (Abingdon and New York, 2012), 365–85, at 370. On the culture of the Macedonian symposium, discussed by E.N. Borza, ‘The symposium at Alexander’s court’, Ancient Macedonia 3 (1983), 45–55 and K. Vössing, Mensa regia (Munich, 2004), see now Carney (n. 1); Pownall (n. 1); A. Kottaridi, ‘The royal banquet: a capital institution’, in A. Kottaridi, S. Walker (edd.), Heracles to Alexander the Great (Oxford, 2011), 167–80. Cf. F. Pownall, BNJ 139 F 62 ‘Commentary’.

46 Brunt (n. 1), 67 thought Athenaeus mistaken in citing Aristobulus here because the anecdote ‘shows Alexander encouraging unmixed potations’, contradicting Aristobulus elsewhere. Brunt was mistaken: Aristobulus is never quoted as saying that Alexander discouraged others from drinking. Since Aristobulus borrowed from Chares he might have borrowed this. The plain anecdote is not a criticism of Alexander’s drinking but of excessive drinking at his symposia: yet all depends on implications, and if the remark was reported to Alexander, as Plutarch says, it did Callisthenes no good (Plut. Quaest. conv. 623F; O’Sullivan [n. 1], 606–8).

47 J. Zacher, Pseudocallisthenes (Halle, 1867), 78–9; R. Lane Fox, ‘The Itinerary of Alexander: Constantius to Julian’, CQ 47 (1997), 239–52, at 248 n. 65; Tabacco (n. 35), 248, who rightly concludes not that the Itinerarium necessarily drew on Seneca, but that the σκύϕος of Heracles belonged to Graeco-Roman Alexander tradition.

48 For the σκύϕος in general and that of Heracles in particular see Ath. Deipn. 498a–500c.

49 Pownall (n. 1), 64.

50 On variants in the text (quoted twice by Athenaeus, once by Plutarch) see R. Kassel and S. Schröder, Poetae Comici Graeci, vol. VI 1 (Berlin and Boston, 2022), 257 with references. Two χόϵς equal twelve kotylai.

51 Welles (n. 37), 466 n. 1: ‘There was an annual festival of the death of Heracles on Mt. Oeta, with which Medius, as a Thessalian, was familiar.’ On this festival see M. Finkelberg, ‘The second stasimon of the Trachiniae and Heracles’ festival on Mount Oeta’, Mnemosyne 49 (1996), 129–43 with references to work by Nilsson, Burkert and others.

52 The suggestion may recall Olson’s, though he decided that the ascription to Nicobule is false: she was ‘presumably a famous courtesan known to have associated with Alexander, and who could therefore be presented as an eye-witness of his final hours’ (S.D. Olson, Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters, vol. V [Cambridge, MA, 2009], 75 n. 97). Sheridan (BNJ 127 ‘Biographical essay’) comments that, if Nicobule was indeed a courtesan, she would count as a reliable witness.

53 On the afternoon of 28^th Daesius according to the Ephemerides; on the last day of that month according to Aristobulus, both sources quoted by Plutarch (Alex. 75.6 = FGrHist 117 F 3b; 76.9 = FGrHist 139 F 59). See L. Depuydt, ‘The time of death of Alexander the Great’, WO 28 (1997), 117–35.

54 B. Bartlett, ‘Justin’s Epitome’, Histos 8 (2014), 246–83, at 258–63. Other witnesses to the text of Trogus exist at this point (O. Seel, Pompei Trogi fragmenta [Leipzig, 1956], fr. 101). All but one agree with Justin’s general assertion that poison was the cause. The exception, Ampelius, reports uncertainty whether Alexander died ‘from heavy drinking or by poison’ (Liber memorialis 16): this could be taken to agree with the specific sentence quoted above. Overall Justin is justified.

55 Nicobule perhaps chimed with the narrative that heavy drinking caused Alexander’s death (Sheridan, BNJ 127 F 1 ‘Commentary’); the Ephemerides ‘may have been produced at Babylon in the months before [Eumenes] moved to Asia Minor to assume his satrapy’ (Bosworth, From Arrian [n. 1], 182).

56 ‘If the King’s Journal was forged, as some have held, it is worth noting en passant that it was forged by those who wished to represent Alexander as a drunkard’, yet ‘On the matter of forgery is it likely that a forger, aiming to prove Alexander a drunkard, would have produced such a feeble case as the two citations from the King’s Journal provide?’ Thus N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman (Bristol, 1989³), 279, 280.

57 Bosworth nonetheless thought that details were ‘carefully selected to exclude suspicions of foul play’ (Conquest [n. 1], ch. 21); cf. From Arrian (n. 1), 182–3.

58 Thus Hamilton (n. 1), 213; an alternative translation is ‘There was no suspicion of poison at the time’.

59 Bosworth (‘Death’ [n. 1]; ‘Ptolemy’ [n. 1], 208; From Arrian [n. 1], 175) took this seriously; so did Badian, for good reasons (‘The ring and the book’, in W. Will, J. Heinrichs [edd.], Zu Alexander d. Gr.: Festschrift G. Wirth 1 [Amsterdam, 1987], 605–25; reprinted in his Collected papers [Abingdon and New York, 2012], 325–37, at 333 and n. 9). Hamilton (n. 1), 214 and Hammond, Three Historians (n. 1), 187–8 n. 55 dismissed the story.

60 See J. Walsh (‘Antipater and early Hellenistic literature’, AHB 26 [2012], 149–62, at 154–8) on Antipater at this period.

61 See, however, the comments of G.T. Griffith, ‘Alexander and Antipater in 323 b.c.’, Proceedings of the African Classical Associations 8 (1965), 12–17, at 16–17.

62 FGrHist 134 F 37. Onesicritus ‘appears to have condemned the guests at Medios’ dinner-party without naming them’ (Heckel [n. 1], 2).

63 Such a collaboration might easily have arisen if Alexander’s letter to Antipater, quoted by Plutarch (Alex. 55), were genuine (which is possible: Hamilton, ‘Letters’ [n. 24], 16; Hamilton [n. 1], 214) and if Antipater had transmitted its contents to Aristotle. The letter accused Callisthenes (‘the sophist’) of participating in the Pages’ Conspiracy and continued: ‘I shall punish the sophist and those who sent him.’ That meant Callisthenes and Aristotle. On the relations between Aristotle and Antipater see Walsh (n. 60), 150–1.

64 Thus Hammond (n. 8), 144 and others. An alternative translation is ‘The accounts of both Aristobulus and Ptolemy end at this point’ (Pearson [n. 1], 260; Bosworth [n. 3], 1.23–4). J. Roisman (‘Ptolemy and his rivals in his history of Alexander’, CQ 34 [1984], 373–85, at 379) concluded that Arrian in Book 7 (covering Alexander’s last months in Babylon) used Ptolemy very little; K. Nawotka, ‘Arrian on the last days and the death of Alexander’, in R. Rollinger, J. Degen (edd.), The World of Alexander in Perspective (Wiesbaden, 2022), 13–24, at 18, likewise stated that ‘in the account of [Alexander’s] last days [Arrian’s] principal source is Aristobulus’, who is much more frequently named in Arrian’s Book 7 than in preceding books.

65 Hammond (n. 8), following predecessors, wished to show from Arrian that Ptolemy based his work on the Ephemerides. This is ‘impossible to sustain’, Bosworth (n. 3), 23 rightly concluded. It is unknown whether Ptolemy ever read or cited the Ephemerides (L. Pearson, ‘The diary and the letters of Alexander the Great’, Historia 3 [1955], 429–55; id. [n. 1], 194–6), still less whether he cited them at this point. If Ptolemy had been present during the last days, and chose, as he sometimes did, not to tell his story, why, in this solitary case, would he borrow another’s? On the other hand, if Ptolemy habitually fell back on the Ephemerides and did so here, why would Arrian cite them and not Ptolemy here, citing Ptolemy without mention of the Ephemerides elsewhere?

Bosworth later returned to the old theory (From Arrian [n. 1], 159–67), additionally proposing that Arrian took the Ephemerides extract from Ptolemy while silently intercalating three passages from Aristobulus; reviewers were unconvinced (notably F.W. Walbank in JHS 110 [1990], 255–6). Why would Arrian, in this solitary case, thus mislead the reader? If the Ephemerides were available to Plutarch and Aelian, why would Arrian go to Ptolemy for them?

66 Pearson (n. 1), 210–11; R.M. Errington, ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s history of Alexander’, CQ 19 (1969), 233–42; Roisman (n. 64).

67 ‘c. 310’: J.R. Hamilton, ‘Cleitarchus and Aristobulus’, Historia 10 (1961), 448–58, at 450–1; similarly E. Baynham, ‘The ancient evidence for Alexander the Great’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden, 2003), 3–29, at 10–11. L. Prandi, Fortuna e realtà dell’opera di Clitarco (Stuttgart, 1996) likewise favoured an early date, and continued to do so in later work. R. Lane Fox (‘P.Oxy. 4808 and historians’, in K. Nawotka et al. [edd.], The Historiography of Alexander the Great [Wiesbaden, 2018], 91–104) considered the mention of Ptolemy IV an error: indeed, if Pliny can be accused of error on the date of Cleitarchus, so can the author of P.Oxy. 4808.

68 T.S. Brown, ‘Clitarchus’, AJPh 71 (1950), 134–55, at 135–7.

69 ‘After 280, perhaps as late as 260’: this is Hamilton’s (n. 67), 448 summary of Tarn (n. 1), 5–43 and it would agree with Brown’s conclusions (n. 68), but Hamilton himself was not persuaded. ‘In or after 273’: R.A. Hazzard, Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto, 2000), 7–17, for good reasons.

70 C.S. Chrysanthou, ‘P. Oxy. LXXI 4808: bios, character, and literary criticism’, ZPE 193 (2015), 25–38, nn. 8–13 for earlier views on the date of Cleitarchus.

71 Hamilton (n. 1), 208–9.

72 Cf. Hammond (n. 1), 108–9.

73 The two most eclectic authors must be noticed separately. Plutarch indeed named Iollas, but only in the context of Olympias’ revenge (Alex. 77.2). Arrian (7.27.1–2) mentioned him more fully, noting that he was, or was said to be, Medius’ lover and had recently been injured by Alexander, an incident recounted less vaguely in the Romance (3.31.5). Parallels between Arrian and the Romance are seldom discussed, but see Nawotka (n. 64), 18–20.

74 Employed by Tarn in a different context (The Greeks in Bactria and India [Cambridge, 1938], 45).

75 Lane Fox (n. 42), ch. 32 (and already in the 1973 edition); A.E. Samuel, ‘The earliest elements in the Alexander Romance’, Historia 35 (1986), 427–37.

76 Heckel (n. 1), 31 noted that in the testament ‘the greatest care was taken to create verisimilitude by including only known, historical figures’.

77 Authorities for this brief survey, apart from Heckel (n. 1), 35–47, are: Bosworth, The Legacy of Alexander (Oxford, 2002), 1–28; Berve (n. 40); R.A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley, 1990), 361–444. Philip the doctor could have been present, but he ‘had form’ (having previously been accused of poisoning) and might be listed for that reason. Some recensions list Cassander, a copyist’s error for Asander.

78 Heckel (n. 1), 79–81; he suggested that the document was created by Olcias, following R. Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans (Munich, 1977²), 171–3. Olcias is said in the Romance (3.33.1) and Liber de morte (106) to have guarded Alexander’s testament: after an adventure in 319 (Polyaenus 4.6.6) no more is heard of him (Billows [n. 77], 412–13). On Polyperchon see W. Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (London, 1992), 173–89.

79 Cf. Diod. Sic. 17.118; Pausanias 1.11.4, 8.7.7; Hamilton (n. 1), 214. For discussion see Bosworth, ‘Death’ (n. 1); E.D. Carney, Olympias, Mother of Alexander the Great (London, 2006), 62–4, 74–9.

80 Bosworth, ‘Ptolemy’ (n. 1); Baynham, ‘Baleful birth’ (n. 1).

81 Samuel (n. 75), 435–7.

82 Bosworth in 1971 (‘Death’ [n. 1]) took Ephippus, Nicobule and the Ephemerides to be propaganda in opposition to the poison story, which he thought likely to be true. If the thesis of its truth were admitted, the next step would be to identify the poison. Among those who have proceeded on this basis, see L.J. Schep et al., ‘Was the death of Alexander the Great due to poisoning? Was it Veratrum album?’, Clinical Toxicology 52 (2013), 72–7, giving reasons for their choice of white hellebore.

83 Tarn (n. 1), 272; Pearson (n. 1), 54; E. Badian, ‘Conspiracies’, in A.B. Bosworth, E.J. Baynham (edd.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford, 2000), 50–95, at 72; reprinted in his Collected Papers (Abingdon and New York, 2012), 420–56.

84 Zambrini (n. 23), 219.

85 For example, Hippocratic corpus, Epidemics 7.1.11. A ‘raging thirst’ is described at 7.1.20. It is easy to overlook the use of μανικῶς in a medical context by non-medical authors. I missed it here at first, being slow to realize that K. Ziegler emended the text in Plutarch to νϵανικῶς (Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, vol. II, fasc. 2 [Leipzig, 1968], 251).

86 Engels (n. 26) named Plasmodium falciparum malaria as the underlying cause of Alexander’s death, tracing the suggestion to E. Littré, Médecine et médecins (Paris, 1872), 406–15.

87 Salmonella typhi enteritis, complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis, was the diagnosis of D.W. Oldach and colleagues, reported by Borza and Reames-Zimmerman (n. 18) at 24–6; the latter proposed bereavement (Hephaestion’s death) and alcohol abuse as contributing factors (27–9). Atkinson et al. (n. 1) consider several alternatives, including malaria, noting counter-indications in each case.

Oldach’s team was, I think, unaware of the Aristobulus fragment, which is often dismissed as an attempt to ‘absolve Alexander of the charge of excessive drinking’: thus Pownall (BNJ 139 F 59 ‘Commentary’) following Brunt ([n. 1], 65), Bosworth (From Arrian [n. 1], 183) and others.

88 J.R. Hamilton, ‘Alexander and his “so-called” father’, CQ 3 (1953), 151–7, at 156. Hamilton, dating Alexander’s letter to the Athenians (Plut. Alex. 28) to the last months of his life, found him ‘in a very queer state of mind’ concerning his divine filiation.