¹ C(urtius) x 7.8–9; cf. J(ustin) xiii 2.13–14. J. has Craterus and Antipater also as tutores, a quite unimportant variant in view of J.'s habitual carelessness: it has been taken seriously only by Miltner, , Klio xxvi (1933) 50.Google Scholar

² Exceptions are Schur, , RhM lxxxiii (1934) 133–4Google Scholar, and Fontana, , ‘Le lotte perla successione di Alessandro Magno’ (cited Lotte) in Atti della accademia di scienze, lettere e arti di Palermo, ser. 4, xviii 2 (1957–1958 [Palermo, 1960]) 116–17.Google Scholar

³ See Appendix 1.

⁴ For the date, see Appendix 2.

⁵ For refs. cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich, 1926) ii 315–16.Google Scholar Fontana, , Lotte 116 and 274–5Google Scholar, follows Tarn, , JHS xli (1921) 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in rejecting the ring story. The only reason is that it is from the ‘vulgate’, which—by definition!—must be wrong: see Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) 185, n. 12.Google Scholar

⁶ A(rrian) Anabasis vii 12.3–4.

⁷ D(iodorus) xviii 4.1; 12.1. Cf. Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961) 34 ff.Google Scholar (now in Griffith, (ed.), Alexander the Great, the main problems [Heffer, Cambridge, 1966] 205 ff.).Google Scholar

⁸ C. x 6.9; J. xiii 2.5; cf. Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 311.Google Scholar

⁹ C. x 6.1–4.

¹⁰ C. x 6.9 is vague as to what Perdiccas intended: interim a quibus regi velitis destinate. A priori we should expect to see Perdiccas striving for his own advancement, and the vagueness of the plural may be the fault of C.'s rhetoric. J. xiii 2.5 mentions only the proposal to await the child's birth.

¹¹ So Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 306 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Refs. in Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 102 f.Google Scholar; 271 f.; cf. Appendix 1.

¹³ C. x 6.10–12.

¹⁴ It is perhaps instructive to notice that Nearchus disappears until 316, when he was an officer of Antigonus: D. xix 19.5. Eumenes' career is a textbook example of how a Greek could benefit from discretion.

¹⁵ C. x 6.13–15; cf. Appendix 1.

¹⁶ He took this line also in his History of Alexander: cf. my article in CQ n.s. xix (1960).

¹⁷ C. x. 6.16–18.

¹⁸ His interpretation may have come from his own experience, as a senator, of Tiberius' accession: cf. Badian, , Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964) 262 f.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On Meleager's background, cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 249 f.Google Scholar

²⁰ C. x 6.20–4.

²¹ D. xviii 2 (a jumble chronologically, but Hieronymus' outline is there); C. x 7.1.

²² C. x 7.1–2: ignotus ex infima plebe. J. xiii 2.8 gives Meleager, which C. must have said had it been correct.

²³ Refs. in Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 385.Google Scholar Fontana, , Lotte 128 f.Google Scholar, disbelieves Arrhidaeus' mental deficiency; but Badian, 's arguments, Studies 264 Google Scholar, show her doubts to be groundless. C. does not mention the deficiency, but presents a diffident and unambitious youth thrust forward against his will. If we accept a Claudian date for C. (so, most recently, Sumner, , AUMLA xv [1961] 30 ff.Google Scholar), C. might have been embarrassed to seem to echo in his book—which the historian emperor might well read—contemporary rumours of Claudius' own incapacity (cf. Suet. Claudius 3–4), as well as the notoriously similar way in which he became emperor.

²⁴ For long after 323 it remained very difficult to persuade Macedonian troops to fight each other.

²⁵ C. x 74–7.

²⁶ Cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich i 27.Google Scholar

²⁷ A. succ. 2 (= Jacoby, , FGrH 156 Google Scholar F 1–11).

²⁸ C. x 7.8: ceterum haec vulgi erat vox, principum alia sententia. E quibus Pithon consilium Perdiccae exsequi coepit…

²⁹ As Bengtson, , Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit i (Munich, 1937) 77–8Google Scholar, argues unconvincingly from the fact that it was never put into practice.

³⁰ Cf. Schur, , RhM lxxxiii (1934) 133.Google Scholar

³¹ So Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 232 Google Scholar (Leonnatus); 313 (Perdiccas).

³² Refs. in Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 46.Google Scholar The title of his ‘Office’ is not clear—nor does it much matter. Cf. Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961) 34 ff.Google Scholar; for a different view of Antipater's disposition, cf. Griffith, , PACA viii (1965) 12 ff.Google Scholar

³³ Refs. in Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 46 f.Google Scholar (Antipater); 225 f. (Craterus).

³⁴ Noted by Schur, , RhM lxxxiii (1934) 133 Google Scholar, but not explained.

³⁵ So Badian, , Studies 266.Google Scholar

³⁶ C. x 7.10–15.

³⁷ C. X 7.16–21.

³⁸ C. x 7.21.

³⁹ C. x 8.6. The allegation is so common in ancient politics that it could equally well be true or an invention.

⁴⁰ C. x 8.4–23; Plut. Eumenes 3.1. Perhaps Meleager's embassy, over which Perdiccas felt cheated, was at this time: D. xviii 2.3.

⁴¹ A. succ. 2–3.

⁴² A. succ. 3–5; C. x 8.23–10.4; J. xiii 4.5–9. The variants are quite unimportant against this testimony (despite an almost unanimous modern tendency to treat them as of equal value, and hence to fail to distinguish the compromise from the later definitive settlement): neither Photius' summary of Dexippus (FGrH 100 F 8), nor the Heidelberg Epitome (FGrH 155 F 1), give a sufficiently circumstantial version of events to shake this conclusion. Only Dexippus and Diodorus (xviii 2.4–3.1) have certainly confused the two settlements, and both were quite capable of doing this themselves; the version of the Heidelberg Epitome is compatible with the main tradition.

⁴³ Cf. C. x 8.15; 20–3.

⁴⁴ A. succ. 3.

⁴⁵ All details are in A. succ. 3.

⁴⁶ No one has ever doubted this, though his power-relationship with the others has been widely discussed: cf. Bengtson, , Die Strategie i 63 ff.Google Scholar; Schwahn, 's version, Klio xxiv (1931) 326 ff.Google Scholar, is the most realistic: that Antipater's position in the new arrangement was effectively no different from what it had been under Alexander.

⁴⁷ Cf. J. xiii 4.5: regiae pecuniae custodia Cratero traditur, which has occasionally been taken seriously (by, e.g. Bengtson, , Die Strategie, i 75–6Google Scholar; Rosen, , AClass x [1967] 101 ff.Google Scholar) though more usually (as the political context of the Babylon negotiations seems to make necessary) it is summarily dismissed. A mistranslation by Trogus, mistaking βασιλείας for βασιλείου, seems the likeliest explanation: cf. Ensslin, , RhM lxxiv (1925) 296 ffGoogle Scholar, who prefers to posit a variation in Trogus' text of Hieronymus. Fontana, , Lotte, 145 n. 40Google Scholar, gives a useful summary of what the prostasia has at various times been understood by modern scholars to mean, to which add Rosen, , AClass x (1967) 101 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Dexippus, , FGrH 100 F 8, 4.Google Scholar It is worth quoting Dexippus' phrase, which he (wrongly) makes part of the general definitive settlement, for it has proved a stumbling-block for a generation of scholars: Dexippus' explanation of prostasia as the highest Macedonian honour we can say at once is quite simply wrong. No scholar has ever been able to discover a high office called prostasia in Macedon before this (see Fontana, , Lotte 134 ff.Google Scholar, for the most recent search), and prostasia elsewhere is irrelevant. Either Dexippus or Photius must therefore have invented this explanation as an attempt to elucidate what he did not really understand (so Badian, Studies 266). If we reject Dexippus' explanation as evidence (as we must) we are left with the substance of Arrian's statement. As we have already noticed (n. 42 above) there is no reason for preferring Dexippus' time for the appointment to Arrian's.

⁴⁹ Cf. Vitucci, , Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin, 1963) 65 Google Scholar: ‘ad opera degli antiperdicchiani’.

⁵⁰ A. Anabasis vi 17.3.

⁵¹ A. succ. 7.

⁵² Cf. C. x 8.22; 9.7 ff.

⁵³ Fontana, , Lotte 140 ff.Google Scholar Badian, , Studies 266 Google Scholar, inclines to the drastic solution of altogether disbelieving in the prostasia: this seems unnecessary.

⁵⁴ Cf. Vitucci, , Miscellanea Rostagni 65–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ A. succ. 3: D. xviii 2.4 calls him ἐπιμελητής.

⁵⁶ Cf. e.g. Schur, , RhM lxxxiii (1934) 130 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ So Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 320 ff.Google Scholar; restricted to Asia (unconvincingly) by Bengtson, , Die Strategie i, 65 f.Google Scholar; followed by Rosen, , AClass x (1967) 106 f.Google Scholar; Wehrli, , Antigone et Démétrios (Geneva, 1969) 32.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ So Sanctis, De, SIFC ix (1931–1932) 8.Google Scholar Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 310 Google Scholar, adds unnecessary and undocumented precision by regarding Meleager as commander of the phalanx.

⁵⁹ The order of events is that of A. succ. 4–5 and of C. x 9.7–21. Schachermeyr, , JOAI xli (1954) 325 Google Scholar (= Griffith, (ed.), Alexander the Great 121 Google Scholar), followed by Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) esp. 202 n. 62Google Scholar prefers D. xviii 4.7–8, who places Meleager's death (and the ‘purification’ of the army) after the distribution of the satrapies and the rejection of the plans. He explains the variants of A. and C. by supposing Hieronymus to have mentioned the events twice, once in connexion with the ‘purification’ (before the distribution, as A. and C), once where, according to Schachermeyr, it actually happened, after the distribution (as D.—but D. puts the ‘purification’ here also). D. is a mess chronologically, even though his information is from Hieronymus, and it seems unnecessary to see more than his own inaccuracy in the variation. Badian (ibid.) also argues that Alexander's plans were rejected before the distribution of the satrapies (contrary to D.'s order of events) and that a settlement of the plans— whichever way—was a necessary preliminary to the distribution of the satrapies. But if we agree with Badian that the plans were negated to spike Craterus' guns, and add that nobody at Babylon seems to have had any enthusiasm for them, we may also think that nobody at Babylon wanted to risk losing a satrapal command by discussing the plans first. D.'s order of events therefore seems preferable here.

⁶⁰ A. succ. 5.

⁶¹ A. succ. 7; cf. Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 328 ff.Google Scholar; on Antipater, see below, pp. 58–9.

⁶² A. succ. 5–7; D. xviii 3; C. x 10.1–4; Dexippus, , FGrH 100 F 8Google Scholar; cf. Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte iv 2, 307 ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ C. x 9.1.

⁶⁴ See below, p. 60.

⁶⁵ Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 255.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 397.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 231 Google Scholar (Laomedon); 156 (Eumenes); cf. Plut. Eumenes 3.2.

⁶⁸ D. xviii 23.2: Prostasia here is clearly not a technical term (despite the modern tradition which accepts and embroiders Beloch's interpretation of this as a ‘usurpation’ of Craterus' office: GG iv 1, 85). See conclusively, Fontana, , Lotte 163 and n. 54Google Scholar; Badian, , Studies 264 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ It is often alleged that only Hieronymus, and he always, spoke of Philip and Roxane's child Alexander as ‘the kings’ (cf. e.g. Fontana, , Lotte 127 Google Scholar). The state of our sources makes this quite uncertain: cf. Badian, , Studies 264.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ C. x 6.9 (sixth); J. xiii 2.5 (eighth). It is impossible to know which is correct.

⁷¹ A. succ. 9. What this meant legally is obscure; but it is clear that in practice Perdiccas set out to monopolise royalty, however obscure its claim. It would therefore be unwise (with Fontana, , Lotte 124 ff.Google Scholar) to deny Roxane's son all royal title while Philip was alive (cf. Badian, , Studies 264 Google Scholar). Yet it is clear that documents from Egypt, Babylon, and the Greek world (except OGIS 4, init., which is an unofficial and undated later compilation) officially regarded Philip as king (evidence in Fontana, loc. cit.). We may therefore tentatively prefer Schwahn's, solution (Klio xxiv [1931] 313)Google Scholar—if a legal solution was ever thought out—that Philip was probably intended to rule until Alexander's majority. So, explicitly, the Heidelberg Epitome (FGrH 155 F 1); but cf. Jacoby's commentary, ad loc.; also, Bauer, , Die Heidelberger Epitome (Diss. Leipzig, 1914) 20–2.Google Scholar

⁷² So Fontana, , Lotte 151 ff.Google Scholar

⁷³ Antipater might also be expected to provide troops (J. xiii 6.6—for what it is worth!) and money (cf. D. xviii 12.2.).

⁷⁴ D. xviii 4.1–6.

⁷⁵ Tarn, 's arguments (JHS xli [1921] 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander the Great ii 378 ff.) and those of others, against the authenticity of the plans have now been satisfactorily disposed of by Schachermeyr, , JOAI xli (1954) 118 ff.Google Scholar (= Griffith, , Alexander the Great 322 ff.Google Scholar) and Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) 183 ff.Google Scholar, whose general interpretation I follow here.

⁷⁶ D. xviii 9.1 f.; 12.1; cf. Badian, JHS lxxxi (1961)Google Scholar (= Griffith, , Alexander the Great 206 ff.Google Scholar) 36 ff.

⁷⁷ D. xviii 12.1.

⁷⁸ D.'s chronology is doubtful. He presents Antipater's requests to Craterus and Leonnatus after discussing the origins of the Lamian War. He continues that, after learning (πυθόμενος δὲ …) of the Greek rising Antipater took certain military measures. D. does not intend this to be a chronological indication, for he makes Antipater's request simply for aid—βοηθῆσαι—which he clearly thought of in the context of the Lamian War—though it could have wider implications. Leonnatus could easily have reached Phrygia (cf. Plut. Eumenes 3.3) by early autumn 323 to receive Antipater's first request before he was shut up in Lamia. After the Babylon settlement there was no good reason for him, or for Eumenes, to remain at Babylon.

⁷⁹ D. xviii 12. 1 calls him Philotas by mistake. Cf. Seibert, , Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften x, Wiesbaden, 1967) 12.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ D. xviii 14.2.

⁸¹ Plut. Eumenes 3.2.

⁸² Plut. Eumenes 3.2–5; D. xviii 14.4–15.3. Olympias is not explicitly mentioned; but her similar action in 321 (A. succ. 21; see below, p. 62f.) makes it likely. On Leonnatus' background, cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 232.Google Scholar

⁸³ D. xviii 14.5–15.5; A. succ. 9.

⁸⁴ Plut. Eumenes 3.6.

⁸⁵ Cf. Badian, , Studies 265.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ 6,000 of them had crossed with Alexander: D. xviii 16.4.

⁸⁷ D. xviii 16.4. The connection is made by Schwahn, , Klio xxiv (1931) 331–2Google Scholar, who, however, believes in (more or less) friendly negotiations: Perdiccas wanted Craterus to help Antipater in the war. Cf. Badian, , JHS lxxxi (1961) 41.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ D. xviii 16.1–3; A. succ. 11; Plut. Eumenes 3.6–7 (Perdiccas). D. xviii 16.4–18.3 (Lamian War).

⁸⁹ J. xii 12.8. Cf. Schoch, PW s.v. ‘Kleitos’ no. 10.

⁹⁰ D. xviii 15.7–9.

⁹¹ D. xviii 12.2. So Walek, , RPh xlviii (1924) 23 ff.Google Scholar

⁹² Cf. Beloch, , GG iv 1, 73, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹³ Plut. Phocion 28.

⁹⁴ D. xviii 18.4–6; 8. On the chronology, see Appendix 2.

⁹⁵ D. xviii 18.7; cf. Seibert, , Historische Beiträge 12.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ D. xviii 18.7:

⁹⁷ A. succ. 21; D. xviii 23.1. She arrived at Sardis in spring or early summer 321: cf. Appendix 2.

⁹⁸ D. xviii 18.6; 9.

⁹⁹ D. xviii 48.2. On the time cf. Schubert, , Quellen zur Geschichte der Diadochenzeit (Leipzig, 1914; repr. Aalen, 1964) 253.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ D. xviii 38.

¹⁰¹ D. xviii 23.1–3; A. succ. 21.

¹⁰² Plut. Eumenes 3.5–6 (Leonnatus); A. succ. 21.

¹⁰³ A. succ. 26; 40.

¹⁰⁴ Plut. Eumenes 3.4.

¹⁰⁵ Alcetas continued to favour this course: he refused to serve under Eumenes in 320, no doubt partly for personal reasons, but explicitly because ‘his Macedonians’ (clearly including himself) ‘were ashamed to fight against Antipater and Craterus’: Plut. Eumenes 5.2.

¹⁰⁶ D. xviii 23.4; A. succ. 20; cf. Fontana, , Lotte 160 f.Google Scholar (though there is no evidence that Antigonus— or anyone else, for that matter—had been ordered and had refused to help in the Lamian War).

¹⁰⁷ D. xviii 25.3; A. succ. 26; on Menander, cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 255.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ The resurgence of Eumenes' influence against that of Alcetas is reflected in Eumenes' being chosen by Perdiccas to lead the opposition in Asia Minor to Antipater and Craterus. Alcetas was in less favour and perhaps in pique at Eumenes' success in persuading Perdiccas to adopt an actively hostile policy towards the Europeans: he refused to serve under Eumenes against them (Plut. Eumenes 5.2; cf. 8.4 for further personal hostility). Alcetas' counsel was perhaps abo discredited over the murder of Cynnane (A. succ. 22; see Section V) which he had encompassed and presumably recommended, and which produced a violently hostile reaction amongst Perdiccas' troops.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Sanctis, De, SIFC ix (1931–1932) 10–11 Google Scholar, who points out that Perdiccas did not in fact marry Cleopatra, though after the break with Antipater there was nothing to stop him.

¹¹⁰ D. xviii 25.4–5. On the chronology, see Appendix 2. At some stage Ptolemy married a third daughter of Antipater, Eurydice (Paus. i 6.8). The date is uncertain, but a connection with this alliance is attractive: so Niese, , Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea (Gotha, 1893–1903) i 218.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ A. succ. 22–3; cf. Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 229.Google Scholar

¹¹² A. succ. 22–3; D. xix 52.5; cf. Fontana, , Lotte 160.Google Scholar

¹¹³ D. xviii 28.2.

¹¹⁴ On this and what follows, see Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) 185 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Paus. i 6.3.

¹¹⁶ D. xviii 19–21; A. succ. 16–19.

¹¹⁷ D. xviii 14.2; cf. 25.4.

¹¹⁸ Detailed discussion in Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) 185 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ A. succ. fr. 10, 1.

¹²⁰ D. xviii 29–33; A. succ. 26–7; Plut. Eumenes 5–7.

¹²¹ D. xviii 33–36.5; A. succ. 28.

¹²² D. xviii 33.2 f.; A. succ. 28.

¹²³ D. xviii 36.1–2; A. succ. 29.

¹²⁴ D. xviii 36.6; cf. Schubert, , Quellen zur Geschichte der Diadochenzeit 194.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ D. xviii 7.

¹²⁶ D. xviii 36.6–7; A. succ. 30.

¹²⁷ D. xviii 33.1 mentions Perdiccas' getting news of ‘Eumenes' victory’ before he reached the Nile; but in 37.1 he puts the news of Eumenes' victory against Craterus and Neoptolemus after Perdiccas' death, and he related it after the settlement. Schubert, , Quellen 196 Google Scholar, attributes the variations to different sources, but this is not Diodorus' method (cf. Fontana, , Lotte 259 ff.Google Scholar). We are therefore driven to accepting Droysen's suggestion (Gesch. d. Hell. ii 127) that 33.1 must refer to Eumenes' earlier success against Neoptolemus (D. xviii 29.4 f., cf. Plut. Eumenes 5). About ten days elapsed between the two battles (Plut. Eumenes 8.1).

¹²⁸ D. xviii 37–1–2.

¹²⁹ D. xviii 39.1.

¹³⁰ D. xviii 39.2; cf. A. succ. 31–2.

¹³¹ A. succ. 32–3 (agitation); D. xviii 37.3–4 (Attalus and Tyre). Kaerst, PW s.v. ‘Attalos’ nos. 5 and 7, denies the identification of the Attalus of Triparadeisos with Perdiccas' brother-in-law. He is followed by Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 95.Google Scholar But A. succ. 39 with D. xviii 41.7 makes the identification clear: so Tarn, , CAH vi 469.Google Scholar

¹³² A. succ. 32. The text reads: As it stands this must be wrong. Alexander had been dead for three years, and ‘the expedition’ in question at Triparadeisos can only be Perdiccas' Egyptian expedition. Photius may have accidentally substituted ‘Alexander’ for ‘Perdiccas’; but it is perhaps best to assume that Arrian had something about recovering Alexander's body (cf. A. succ.fr. 10, 1) or preserving Alexander's empire, which Photius has garbled in abbreviating. D. does not mention this issue.

¹³³ A. succ. 32–3; 39; cf. D. xviii 39.4.

¹³⁴ A. succ. 33: This cannot be correct in any legally binding sense. If the rioting troops had deposed Antipater—which is not attested—a vote of the officers would not be sufficient in the prevailing delicate circumstances to reverse their decision. I have therefore interpreted the phrase as a vote of confidence. However, the trouble may be more deep-seated. For instance, if Arrian had something like ‘the hipparchs met and (discussed matters; they then put their decision to the troops who) chose Antipater as before’, the bracketed portion represents what Photius would have had to omit to produce our text. Photius had no abiding interest in Macedonian Staatsrecht, and since our hypothetical second meeting (of troops) will simply have confirmed the decision of the earlier one of the hipparchs, it might seem quite unimportant to him: fortunately—as we would expect—he has the end result accurate enough. If Photius has done something like this—whether deliberately or accidentally—we may assume that Antipater had been deposed by the rioters.

¹³⁵ A. succ. 30. Cyprus was an important sector of the war against Perdiccas, and Antigonus' contribution to the allied war effort was correspondingly great. In spring 320, while Perdiccas was in Cilicia en route for Egypt (A. succ.fr. 10.2), he heard that four of the Cypriot kings—of Salamis, Soli, Paphos and Amathus—had allied with Ptolemy (A. succ. fr. 10.6), and were besieging Marion. Moser, , Untersuchungen über die Politik Ptolemaeos I in Griechenland (323–285 a.Chr.n.) (Diss. Leipzig, 1914) 13 ff.Google Scholar, argues that a less formal friendship between Ptolemy and the Cypriots had existed since 323, and that the Cypriots are the reges finitimos of J. xiii 6.19. This is possible, though if so Perdiccas did not consider it hostile to him. Perdiccas now sent Aristonous with a fleet and a force of mercenaries and cavalry to defend Marion. We do not know the result. On the allied side, as well as Antigonus, Clitus, with the allied fleet, may have been involved (OGIS 4, line 15, but see the arguments of Lenschau [ap. Dittenberger's n. 5] for a time after Triparadeisos). Ptolemy's formal alliance with the Cypriot kings was clearly made after it became clear that Perdiccas intended to attack him, and it fits into the same context as his alliance with Antipater and Craterus, therefore in winter 321/0. Antigonus (and Clitus) cannot have had anything to do with this; but Antigonus' work in the island was clearly important and an integral part of the allied war effort against Perdiccas.

¹³⁶ A. succ. 33.

¹³⁷ A. succ. 37; 38; D. xviii 39.6–7.

¹³⁸ A. succ. 38: The court is not mentioned by D., but this may easily be his own omission. I can find no indication in the sources that Antigonus was given any formal command in addition to his satrapy beyond what was necessary for the war with Eumenes. Both D. and A. explicitly connect his army command with this war: neither say that he was ‘the general of the royal army in Asia’ (so Tarn, , CAH vi 470 Google Scholar; cf. Bengtson, , Die Strategie i 96 ff.Google Scholar). Only D. mentions the ‘royal army’: A. calls it Perdiccas'. What D.'s phrase must mean is ‘the army to which the court was attached’ (he does not otherwise mention Antigonus' connexion with the court), and parallels with Assyrian and Persian formations are out of place here: there was no official Macedonian ‘royal army of Asia’, except by the accident of there being Macedonian troops and the Macedonian king in Asia. Bengtson's explanation, op. cit., 100, of Philip's presence with Antigonus must therefore be incorrect, that Philip was attached to Antigonus' (and earlier to Perdiccas') army because, even if fictitiously, he commanded ‘the royal army’. Rather, the army was made royal by his presence. Fontana, , Lotte 175 ff.Google Scholar, following Schachermeyr, , Klio xviii (1925) 451 ff.Google Scholar, thinks Antipater now intended permanently to give up the court to Antigonus. This is not in the epitome of Arrian, which only connects Antigonus' control of the court with the war with Eumenes. Rightly on this, Bengtson, op. cit., 99–100.

¹³⁹ D. xviii 39.7; A. succ. 38.

¹⁴⁰ A. succ. 37. The commonness of the name Nicanor (9 known under Alexander alone: Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii nos. 553–61Google Scholar) makes identification hazardous. Antipater had a son Nicanor (Berve, no. 553) who might conceivably have been thus attached to Antigonus, as was Cassander. Another possibility is Nicanor of Stageira (Berve, no. 557), who had brought Alexander's ‘Olympic proclamation’ to Greece in 324; but if so he will not have been long in Cappadocia, for Cassander appointed him commandant of the garrison in Munychia when Antipater died in 319 (Plut. Phocion 31.1). However, the Cappadocian satrap might be neither of these men: so Beloch, GG iv 1, 117.

¹⁴¹ Cf. Kaerst, PW s.v. ‘Arrhidaios’, no. 5.

¹⁴² Menander: Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 255 Google Scholar, wrongly says M. was dead by 321. Tarn, , CAH vi 470 Google Scholar, has this right, but he invents M.'s appointment as Antigonus' second-in-command. On M.'s later career, cf. Geyer, PW s.v. ‘Menandros’ no. 5. Clitus: cf. Schoch, PW s.v. ‘Kleitos’ no. 10. J. xiii 6.16 has C. wrongly on Perdiccas' side in the invasion of Egypt: see Beloch, , GG iv 1, 87 Google Scholar, n. 3.

¹⁴³ Cf. Kaerst, PW s.v. ‘Asandros’ no. 3.

¹⁴⁴ D. xviii 39.6; cf. A. succ. fr. 10.2: Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii 390 Google Scholar, following Wilcken, correctly identifies him with the of [Arist.] Oecon. ii 31, p. 1351, who became satrap of Caria after Ada's death.

¹⁴⁵ A. succ. 35; D. xviii 39.6. Nepos, , Eumenes 5.1 Google Scholar, is alone in making Seleucus a leading con spirator; yet although this is widely accepted (e.g. Tarn, , CAH vi 469 Google Scholar) it is not confirmed by A. and D., who at Triparadeisos both explicitly connect Antigenes' appointment, which they mention immediately after Seleucus', with the murder. Hieronymus may therefore not have connected Seleucus with it.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. list and discussion in Beloch, , GG iv 2, 314 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ A. succ. 38.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Schachermeyr, , Klio xviii (1925) 456.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ A. succ. 43–4. D., who does not mention Antigonus' brief control of the court, records tout court that Antipater brought the kings back to Europe to their homeland (xviii 39.7). The number of troops involved in the exchange is uncertain: A. says 8,500 infantry and an equal number (ἴσους) of companion cavalry. The cavalry figure is nonsense, for even after assimilating Eumenes' army Antigonus had only 7,000 cavalry (D. xviii 45.1). The important fact, however, is that the total number of troops was large enough to indicate a firm commitment.

¹⁵⁰ D. xviii 40.1; 50.1.

¹⁵¹ Plut. Demetrius 14; D. xix 59.3–6. A son of this marriage, Antigonus Gonatas, died in 240/39 aged 80: [Lucian] Macrob. 11 (but cf. Eusebius, i 237, who makes him an impossible 83!). Beloch, , GG iv 2, 134–5Google Scholar, argues for 321/0 (i.e. at this time, since he places Triparadeisos in 321); so also Seibert, , Beiträge 13.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Fragments in FGrH 154; the whole material reviewed by Brown, , AHR lii (1946–1947) 684 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ On these cf. Fontana, , Lotte 259 ff.Google Scholar; on D. xviii 1–4, cf. Schachermeyr, , JOAI xli (1954) 118 f.Google Scholar (= Griffith, , Alexander the Great 322 ff.)Google Scholar; Badian, , HSPh lxxii (1967) 183 fr.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ FGrH 155, with Jacoby's commentary.

¹⁵⁵ C. x 6.1–10.8: this is interwoven (clearly by C. himself) with his account of Alexander's death.

¹⁵⁶ Lotte 299 ff. (with copious bibliography).

¹⁵⁷ With, e.g., Schachermeyr, , Klio xviii (1925) 442–3.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See, most recently, Sumner, , AUMLA xv (1961) 30 ff.Google Scholar, who identifies C. with the novus homo of Tac. Ann. xi 20 f. and Plin. Ep. vii 27, and the rhetorician in Suet. de rhet. (index). The book would be written under Gaius and Claudius, the end of book x shortly-after Claudius' accession. Milns, , Latomus xxv (1966) 490 ff.Google Scholar argues for Galba. But unconvincingly: he deals adequately neither with the prosopographical problem nor eiusdem domus of C. x 9.6. Full discussion of literature up to 1958 in Korzeniewski, , Die Zeit des Quintas Curtius Rufus (Diss. Köln, 1959)Google Scholar; to which add also Instinsky, , Hermes xc (1962) 379 ff.Google Scholar (Vespasian); Verdière, , WS lxxix (1966) 490 ff.Google Scholar (Nero); Scheda, , Historia xviii (1969) 380–3Google Scholar (Vespasian).

¹⁵⁹ Fontana, Lotte 300. C. knows, for instance, historians who alleged that Alexander's will distributed the satrapies—a view which he rightly rejects. But he had read them: x 10.5.

¹⁶⁰ Schwahn, , Klio xxiii (1930) 236 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Plut. Eumenes 3.1–2 (for instance).

¹⁶² C. x 6.10–12.

¹⁶³ Tarn, , JHS xli (1921) 18 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, rejected by Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii, 102 f.Google Scholar, but restated with some new but still quite unconvincing points by Tarn, in Alexander the Great ii 330 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ D. xx 28.

¹⁶⁵ Refs. in Berve, , Das Alexanderreich ii, 271 and n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Fontana, , Lotte 302.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ J. xiii 2.6 ff.

¹⁶⁸ Lotte 304 ff. For Eumenes in 318, cf. D. xviii 60.4–61.3; Plut. Eumenes 13.

¹⁶⁹ A Babylonian astronomical date: ‘month II, Babylonian day 29’. Cf. Samuel, , Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962) 46–7Google Scholar, who points out that this replaces Beloch's widely accepted 13th June.

¹⁷⁰ RAL ser. 8, iv (1949) 53 ff. against the traditional date of 321.

¹⁷¹ Cf. D. xviii 36.6–34.5.

¹⁷² ‘A Babylonian Chronicle concerning the Diadochi’, obv. lines 4–5, in Smith, S., Babylonian Historical Texts (Methuen, London 1924) 142–4.Google Scholar Italian translation by Furlani, in RFIC lx (1932) 462 fr.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Table in Parker, and Dubberstein, , Babylonian Chronology ² (Chicago, 1945) 34.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Marmor Parium (FGrH 239) B 11.

¹⁷⁵ Parker and Dubberstein, ibid.

¹⁷⁶ Bab. Chron. line 5.

¹⁷⁷ Plut. Phocion 28.

¹⁷⁸ D. xviii 37.1. Before his death Perdiccas had had news of Eumenes' battle with Neoptolemus (see above, n. 127) which was ‘about ten days’ before that with Crateras (Plut. Eumenes 8.1).

¹⁷⁹ D. xviii 29.4; Marmor Parium B 11.

¹⁸⁰ D. xviii 25.3–4. Even Manni, , Demetrio Poliorcete (Rome, 1951) 73 f.Google Scholar, explains D.'s winter as late 322/1, and places the peace in summer 321. But D.'s narrative states explicitly that the war continued into a winter, and was only broken off to prepare for the crossing to Asia.

¹⁸¹ Noticed by Manni, , Demetrio Poliorcete 75 Google Scholar, though it produces difficulties for him.

¹⁸² D. xviii 18.

¹⁸³ Plut. Eumenes 3.2 f.; A. succ. 11; D. xviii 16.2–3.

¹⁸⁴ D. xviii 16.1:

¹⁸⁵ D. xviii 16.4:

¹⁸⁶ D. xviii 16.4 ff.

¹⁸⁷ D. xviii 22.1.

¹⁸⁸ D. xviii 23.4–24. 1.

¹⁸⁹ D. xviii 23.1; cf. A. succ. 21.

¹⁹⁰ I am grateful to Professor E. Badian for invaluable encouragement and help with this paper, and to Professor A. E. Astin for making comments on a draft which resulted in many improvements. I know they do not agree with some of my interpretations: for these and what blemishes remain I alone am responsible.