¹ Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, vol. ii, München, 1926.Google Scholar

² Alexander the Great, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1948.Google Scholar (All references to Tarn are, unless the contrary is stated, to this work.) Many of his views had been known and influential for years, having appeared in the Cambridge Ancient History and in periodicals.

³ Vol. ii, part i.

⁴ e.g. Hamilton, J.R., C.Q.., N.S. iii (1953), 151 f.; v (1955), 219 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Abroad reaction has at times been more vigorous (e.g. Wüst, , Historia, ii (1954), 418 f.Google Scholar; and Hampl, , Robinson Studies, ii. 816 f.).Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Ov., am. ii. 2. 1Google Scholar; and-an incredible farrago-PI. n.h. xiii. 41.Google Scholar

⁶ R.E. s.v. ‘Bagoas’, no.1

⁷ Op. cit. ii. 319–22.Google Scholar

⁸ Thus Tarn's statement that ‘the only one of our extant writers who features Bagoas is Curtius’ (p. 320) must be called misleading. We shall see the importance of that later.

⁹ Curt. vi. 5. 23.Google Scholar

¹ Op.cit. ii. 96.Google Scholar

² vi. 4. 8 f.

³ vi. 4. 14.

⁴ vi. 5. 22 (inaccurate).

⁵ Which, incidentally, does not mean ‘soon’ (thus Tarn), but ‘in due course', ‘later’.

⁶ Op. cit. 269.

¹ This, implied by Arrian (see next note), is stated by Diodorus (xvii. 73. 2) and Curtius (v. 13. 13 f.). Cf. also Plut., Al. 43. 2.Google Scholar

² The passage (Arr. iii. 30. 4 f. [references to Arrian are, unless otherwise marked, to the Anabasis]) is so important that it must be quoted in full (only Bessus' unsatisfactory excuse is omitted, as the details are not relevant to this question): . But cf. Tarn (i. 70): ‘He was condemned, not for the murder of Darius, but for assuming the tiara.’

³ , as Arrian informs us in the next sentence, before passing on to an unimportant variant in Aristobulus.

⁴ , says Arrian (iii. 25. 8), ‘who is wrong in saying that he was executed for Darius’ murder' (Tarn, ii. 321, n. 3— without argument).

⁵ These are reported by all the sources; see the standard works.

⁶ Arr., I.c.

¹ That Satibarzanes, also pardoned, was deemed innocent of the murder (as he probably was) must be shown elsewhere: it is, in any case, not an uncommon view. The fate of Bessus and Barsaentes is clear.

² ii. 321.

¹ Tyriaspes, (Arr. vi. 15.3).Google Scholar

² Arr. vi. 22. 3; 27. 1.

³ Ind. 23. 5.

⁴ vii.5.5.

⁵ Thus Berve, (op. cit. 57, with references).Google Scholar

⁶ This is generally recognized: e.g. Tarn, who reports Apollophanes' death as fact (i.107-ignoring the deposition!). Cf. last note.

⁷ Alexander's responsibility is rightly stressed by Schachermeyr, (Alex. 382 f.)Google Scholar.Cf. Nearchus, ' apologia (Arr. vi. 24. 2).Google Scholar

⁸ Curt. ix. 10. 19. On the chronology cf.Diod. xvii. 105. 8.

⁹ Arr. vii. 4. 1; Plut. Al. 68.3.

¹ ii. 137.

² In the case of Aristonous (ii. 109): ‘Either then our sole, and very circumstan tial, account of the reason for Aristonous’ honours is untrue, or else Ptolemy doctored the official record, which is almost incredible. I cannot resolve the dilemma.′ The better-known case of Cleomenes might also be cited. On the credibility of Ptolemy cf. also n. 4 (below). Tarn has no such doubts and hesitations in one case, where his own main theories are concerned. In his discussion of the Opis banquet (ii. 443 f.) a dubious secondary source is preferred to Ptolemy on the grounds that the latter would disapprove of Alexder's policy (as constructed by Tarn).

³ Tarn, i. 62–63.Google Scholar

⁴ The overrating of Aristobulus-whose prejudices, recognized even in antiquity, are congenial to his own-is one of the serious faults of Tarn's source criticism. (Cf. ii. 42.) But we cannot discuss that here. However, in the well-known account of the journey to Siwah his ravens compare favourably with Ptolemy's talking snakes (Arr. ii. 3).

¹ Plut. Al. 48–49; Curt. vi. 7 f.; Arr. iv. 12.

² Curt. vi. 9. 30.

³ Curt. vii. 2. 19.

⁴ Curt., 11. cc. Oddly enough Arrian's picture-or lack of one-has so imposed itself that even in works like Berve's and Schachermeyr's the turncoat Coenus appears as the ‘biedere Haudegen’.

⁵ Tarn, ii. 178 and 305; ibid. 165.

⁶ His feud with Eumenes does appear (vii. 13. 1; 14. 9), whether from Ptolemy (Eumenes′ enemy) or not. But his feud with Craterus, and his part in the proskynesis affair and in that of Philotas are not mentioned, and we get practically no characterization.

⁷ Tarn notes and reproduces the account of Orxines (Arr. vi. 30. 2). Compare.(Arr. iii. 26. 2-with a very dubious specimen quoted as the most important of them).

⁸ Arr. vi. 29, fin. shows that Aristobulus, at least, knew that the culprits were never found. But Aristobulus knew more than most people about Cyrus′ tomb.

¹ Plut. Al. 67. 3; Ath. xiii. 603 b.Google Scholar

² ii. 322.

³ Tarn assumes (without question or argument) that Dicaearchus is Plutarch's source. But the differences are such that no common source is indicated. Without going into details of analysis, we may note that in Plutarch drunkenness is the main motiv: Alexander's Bacchic revels have just been described, and he acts in Athenaeus homosexuality is what matters and is stressed: Alexander is so much the slave of die eunuch-the word is, almost certainly,—that he kisses him in public not once, but twice. In fact, only a few inevitable words are the same in the two accounts—if the same incident were described by two independent observers, the difference could not be greater.

⁴ (Dic. ap. Ath., I.c.).

⁵ See n. 3 (above). The quotation comes from his treatise On the Sacrifice (i.e. Alexander's) at IIium—from and about which nothing else is known. But it clearly did not have to deal with Iranian geography: the localization might have been there; but if, in the quotation we have, it is not, that need not surpriseus. Plutarch probably has it from some Life or History.

⁶ Life or History

⁷ ‘The meaningless substitution of one known name for another known name in late writers is common enough’ (Tarn, ii. 315, with examples).

⁸ 66fin.–67 init.

¹ Arr. vi. 28. 3Google Scholar:(quoting Aristobulus).Tarn, incidentally, mentions only ‘athletic sports’ (i.109)-an interesting unconscious reluctance to admit the hated ‘theatre’. Diodorus xvii. 106. 4 makes Alexander (apparently on this same occasion) give which lets in the Bagoas story by the back door!

² Plut., Diod., Arr., 11. cc; Curt. ix. 10, 24 f. (a carefully dramatized book-ending); x.1.Google Scholar

³ Yet some known facts tend to be misrepresented. Thus the reunion with Nearchus came during or after the games (Arr. vi. 28. 3 and 5: the reasons for the and do not include his arrival; Curt. x. 1. 10: ‘haud multo post’; Diod. xvii. 106.4f.: picturesque description, genuine or dramatized, of his arrival during the games). Yet Tarn makes it precede the games, to help justify the extravagant feasting: ‘The reunited army and fleet forgot their hardships in a round of feasting and athletic sports’ (i. 109). Even such details can be unconsciously distorted by prejudice!

¹ Cf. his moral comment on the second Bagoas story (x.1.39 f.).

² ii. 320.

³ Cic., Att. vi. 2. 3.Google Scholar

⁴ RE, s.v. ‘Dikaiarchos’, col. 547. The crucial facts are that he was a pupil of Aristotle, apparently after Theophrastus (Cic. leg. iii. 14-incidentally putting him quite clearly outside the main ‘apostolic succession’ of the School); and that he was a ‘contemporary’ of Aristoxenus, himself a contemporary of Alexander and the immediate Successors and a pupil of Aristotle (and son of a man who had known Socrates). See Vogel, De,Greek Philosophy, ii, frr. 699 and 700 c.Google Scholar

⁵ See p. 151, n. 3 (above).

⁶ Tarn, ii. 320 and 321 respectively.

¹ See, most conveniently, RE, s.v. ‘Kas-sandros‘, coll. 2312–13.

⁴ Cic. Att. ii. 16. 3 et at.; cf. p. 153, n. 4 (above).

³ Themist, orat. xxiii. 285 c. We have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the attacks which Themistius had read.Google Scholar

⁴ Tarn, ii. 69 (with n. 1) and passim: Stroux, , Philol. lxxxviii (1933), 229 f. Cf.Google Scholar

⁵ Tarn, , A.J.P. Ix (1939), 55, n. 81: ‘Google ScholarBut it is common ground.’ Nothing is added to the discussion in his British Academy lecture (P.B.A. xix (1933), 123 f.Google Scholar), to which he sometimes refers.

⁵ Tarn, passim; especially ii. 69 and 96f.

⁶ Tusc. iii. 21; v. 25.

⁷ Diog. Laert. v. 44.

¹ A philosophical fragment in Vogel, De, op. cit. ii, fr. 680.Google Scholar

² Even the remark that Theophrastus was grieved by Alexander's good fortune is not Theophrastus', but Cicero's. In Tusc. iii. 21 he is presenting (only to demolish it soon) the case that ‘qui dolet rebus alicuius aduersis, idem alicuius etiam secundis dolet′, so that misericordia is necessarily connected with inuidia and both ought to be shunned. It is as an example of this that he cites Theophrastus, saying that his grief over Callisthenes’ death necessarily implies grief over Alexander's good fortune.

³ Att. xiii. 28. 3.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Att. xii. 40. 2.

⁵ Tarn, ii. 96–97 (with n. 1): ‘The Peripatetic view has long been known, as Cicero gives it.’ This is based on Stroux, who says (I.c.) that this passage necessarily reproduces Theophrastus. He does not extend this to the judgement on Caesar.Google Scholar

⁶ See Allen, , T.A.P.A. lxxxiv (1953), 1761f.Google Scholar

⁷ Att. xiii. 37. 2.

⁸ Alt. xii. 45. 3.

¹ Cic. Ac. post. 1. 33; n. 134; fin. v. 77; and especially Tusc. v. 24.

² Tarn, i. 82, where Demetrius of Phalerum is also assigned a part in this sinister conspiracy, because he illustrates the mutability of fortune by the quick downfall-still in everybody‘s mind—of the Achaemenid Empire (ap. Pol. xxix. 21)! This needs no comment, but must be mentioned, as the assertion tends to be repeated without scrutiny of the evidence.Google Scholar

³ Ael. v.h. ii. 23—‘highly suspect’ to Tarn, no doubt because unfavourable to Alexander. Cf. Berve, , op. cit. 99.Google Scholar

⁴ Tarn, ii. 131 and passim.

¹ ii. 270f.