¹ The standard treatment is that of Berve, H., RE xvii.267–8 (Nikanor [4])Google Scholar, a conservative compendium of accepted views. General accounts of the period of the Successors deal with Nicanor's activities to some degree (see most recently Billows, R. A., Antigonus the One-Eyed [Berkeley, 1990] 86–8), but there is as yet no formal study of him in his own right.Google Scholar

² This is a time-hallowed theory, stated without argument by Droysen, J. G., Geschichte der Hellenismus ii².1 [Gotha, 1878] 186Google Scholar and reiterated by Heberdey, R., ‘Νικνωρ Ἀριστοτλους Σταγειρτης’, in Festschrift Th. Gomperz (Vienna, 1902) 412–16Google Scholar. See also Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte iv² (Berlin, 1925–7) 1.100, 2.457Google Scholar; Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich, 1926) ii.277, n. 557Google Scholar; RE xvii.267; G. T. Griffith in OCD ² Nicanor (1); G. Wirth, Kl.P. iv.98, Nikanor (5); Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W., A History of Macedonia iii (Oxford, 1988) 209.Google Scholar

³ Diog. Laert. 5.12–16. For discussion see Düring, I., Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Göteborg, 1957), 61–5).Google Scholar

⁴ Vit. Marciana 3 (Düring pp. 96–7); Usaibia 3 (Düring, p. 214).

⁵ Inschr. Ephes. 2011. The inscription was first published by Heberdey (above, n. 2), who saw that it confirmed the tradition of adoption. His views have been largely accepted by historians (cf. Berve, RE xvii.267), though students of philosophy have been surprisingly cautious (Düring, 63–4; Chroust, A. H., Aristotle [London, 1973] i.196).Google Scholar

⁶ Diog. Laert. 5.16: ναθεîναι δ κα Νικνορα σωθντα ἣν εὐχν ὑπρ αὐτου ηὐξμην. ζωα λθινα τετραπχη Δι σωτ⋯ρι κα Ἀθηνᾳ σωτερᾳ ν Σταγεροις.

⁷ Diod. 18.8.3 (Νικνορα τν Σταγειρτην); Hypereid. c. Dem. col. 18; Din. 1.81–2, 103; cf. Berve (above, n. 2) ii.276, n. 557.

⁸ Din. 1.82, 103. On the background see Badian, E., ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81 (1961) 32–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashton, N. G., ‘The Lamian War – A False Start?’, Antichthon 17 (1983) 50–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosworth, A. B., Conquest and Empire (Cambridge, 1988) 220–2.Google Scholar

⁹ There has been a tendency to argue for some specific ‘dangerous mission’ (cf. Düring [above, n. 3] 62, 271), but the general hazards of life around Alexander will have been great enough to justify vows for Nicanor's safe return. Particularly so after the fall of Callisthenes, which seems to have had no impact upon Nicanor but cannot have left Aristotle free of anxiety.

¹⁰ Diog. Laert. 5.11,13; cf. Düring (above, n. 3) 62.

¹¹ The details are provided by Sextus Empiricus, adv. math. 1.258 (Düring [above, n. 3] 268, T 11b). Pythais had two offspring from her second marriage, Procles and Demaratus, who studied with Theophrastus; and Aristoteles, her child by Metrodorus, is named in Theophrastus' will (Diog. Laert. 5.53) as a potential student of philosophy. He was, then, a youth but not adult by the time of Theophrastus' death (c. 286), and his parents must have been married by 300.

¹² Cf. Lewis, D. M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977) 54Google Scholar n. 30 ‘a shocking mésalliance’, implying (I think) that the condescension was on the Teuthranian side.

¹³ Diod. 18.65.1 documents Olympias' intervention in favour of her ally, Polyperchon. She had earlier made representations to Athens in the hope of having Harpalus extradited (Diod. 17.108.7) and was popular there (Diod. 18.65.2). But as wife of Philip and mother of Alexander; she also would have had considerable moral influence upon Nicanor's Macedonians (cf. Diod.) 19.11.2; Justin 14.5.9–10), and Nicanor obviously had some difficulty retaining their allegiance to Cassander.

¹⁴ Polyaen. 4.11.2; see below, pp. 64–5.

¹⁵ Hammond and Walbank (above, n. 2) 270. For Craterus' pedigree see Moretti, ISE 73; Billows (above, n. 1) 396. I am grateful to a referee for pointing out the parallel.

¹⁶ Cf. Hyp. c. Dem. col. 18. Given that Nicanor had some powers of negotiation and would report back to Alexander, it was wise to offer him diplomatic honours, even if one's city was not drastically affected by the Exiles' Decree.

¹⁷ Heberdey (above, n. 2) 415–16, accepted by the editors of Inschr. Ephes. 2011.

¹⁸ This is the tendency in more recent work; cf. Tritle, L. A., Phocion the Good (London, New York, Sydney, 1988), 53Google Scholar (explicitly separated in the index from the agent of Alexander); Billows above, n. 1) 86.

¹⁹ ‘Suda’ s.v. Νικνωρ, a virtual transcription of Harpocrat. s.v. Νικνωρ. There is apparently no textual variation.

²⁰ Arr. 3.25.4; Curt. 6.6.18–19; cf. Berve (above, n. 2) ii.275, n. 554.

²¹ There is no article in RE. The only reference I have as yet found to Nicanor, son of Balacrus, is Berve (above n. 2) ii.100, n. 200, who suggests that he was the son of Balacrus the Bodyguard. But he does not pursue the suggestion and he gives no separate listing to this Nicanor.

²² Arr. 2.12.2 (appointment to Cilicia); Diod. 18.22.1 (death). For Balacrus' coinage, including a unique stater with his name (ΒΑΛΑΚΡΟΥ) in full, see von Aulock, H., ‘Die Prägung des Balakros in Kilikien’, JNG 14 (1964) 79–82Google Scholar; Price, M. J., The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (London, Zurich, 1991) 370.Google Scholar

²³ Preserved only in Photius, Bibl. cod. 166, 111 b 2–31: cf. 2–3: λλ᾽ οὐν εἰσγει Βλαγρον πρς τν οἰκεαν γυναîκα Φλαν τοὔνομα γρϕοντα (θνγατρ δ᾽ ἠν Ἀντιπτρου αὕτη).

²⁴ Antonius does not state that Balacrus was satrap of Cilicia, nor for that matter does he explicitly make him an eye-witness of the events at Tyre (so Badian, , ‘Two Postscripts on the Marriage of Phila and Balacrus’, ZPE 72 [1988] 116Google Scholar). Antonius' ‘Balagrus’ is able to send his wife transcripts of tablets discovered at Tyre (Photius 111 b 26), which tells in favour of Antonius having given him some role at the siege, but that could still have been as satrap of Cilicia (possibly in command of troops from his satrapy).

²⁵ Accepted as such, though without great conviction, by Berve (above, n. 2) ii.100; Cl. Wehrli, , ‘Phila, fille d' Antipater et épouse de Démétrius’, Historia 13 (1964) 140–6, esp. 141Google Scholar. Other scholars have been agnostic or negative; cf. Droysen (above, n. 2) ii.².1.86, n. 1; Kaerst, RE ii.2816; Beloch (above, n. 2) iv².2.127, n. 1. However, there is now an increasing awareness of the authentic, if capricious, historical detail contained in the Greek novels. See the recent article of Jones, C. P., ‘Hellenistic History in Chariton of Aphrodisias’, Chiron 22 (1992) 91–102.Google Scholar

²⁶ Heckel, W., ‘A Grandson of Antipatros at Delos’, ZPE 70 (1987) 161–2Google Scholar (accepted and refined by Badian, above, n. 24), quoting IG xi.2.287 B57 (c. 250: cf. 161 B85 [278 B.c.], 203 B49 [269]), a dedication of a gold stephanos by 'Αντπατρος Βαλγρου.

²⁷ Balacrus and Balagrus appear variants of the same name. For copious examples see , J. and Robert, L., Fouilles d' Amyzon en Carie i (Paris, 1985) 232–3, n. 34Google Scholar. It is probably coincidence that ‘Balagrus’ is the preferred form in both Antonius and the Delian records. The coinage of the satrap of Cilicia (above, n. 21) proves conclusively that the contemporary spelling of his name was Balacrus.

²⁸ IG xi.4.585 (300–250 B.c.): Θρασας Βαλγρον Μακεδὼν νρ.

²⁹ IG xi.2.154 A40 (296 B.c.): ττε Βλαγρος ἠλθεν (such an entry is apparently unique in the inventories). For his dedication see ID 1.298 A178 (240 B.c.).

³⁰ The authorised version is that of Beloch (above, n. 2) iv².2.126–7, who dates Phila's birth ‘bald nach 350’; but he is constrained to disregard the evidence that Phila was Antipater's eldest daughter (see below) and dismisses the explicit statement of Antipater's age (125). Berve (above, n. 2) ii.46 n. 2, 382 (n. 772) pointed out the fallacies in the argument, but even he was not prepared to go back much beyond 350 (‘selbst vor 350 geboren’). That has remained orthodoxy: cf. Hoffmann, W., RE xix.2987–8Google Scholar; Wehrli (above, n. 25) 141; Heckel (above, n. 26) 161.

³¹ Diod. 18.18.7 (τν πρεσβυττην Φλαν). The figure of 79 for Antipater's age at death provided by ‘Suda’ s.v. Ἀνπατρος. It may be added that the conventional birth date of 355 for Antipater's eldest (?) son Cassander is totally without foundation. Hegesander (ap. Athen 1.18 A) states that Cassander at the age of thirty-five had not won the right to recline and participated sitting at his father's table. That proves that Cassander reached the age of thirty-five in his father's lifetime and had not speared his boar by that age. He may, however, have qualified subsequently and earned the right to recline before Antipater's death. That would make 355 merely a terminus ante quem.

³² Curt. 7.1.7; Justin 11.7.1, 12.14.1; cf. Berve (above, n. 2) ii.17–18, n. 37; Habicht, Chr., ‘Zwei Angehörige des lynkestischen Königshauses’, in Ancient Macedonia ii (Thessaloniki, 1977) 511–16.Google Scholar

³³ The date is determined by the age of their first child Antigonus Gonatas. Antigonus died in early 239 (Hammond and Walbank [above, n. 2] 313, 581–2) after a reign of 44 years, dated from 283/2. His age at death is variously given as 80 ([Luc.] Macrob. 11) or 83 (Porphyry, FGrH 260 F 3[12]). To have reached the age of 80+ in 239 (the figure in the Macrobii seems a scaling down) he can hardly have been born any later than 320, and his parents' marriage belongs in 321/20. The corollary is that the death of Phila's second husband, Craterus, must be placed in the early summer of 321. These chronological facts virtually exclude a lower dating. See the discussion of Billows (above, n. 1) 368, which ignores the evidence of Porphyry and places the marriage of Demetrius and Phila in ‘mid-320’, almost synchronous with the death of Craterus which he dates to May 320 (66).

³⁴ Plut. Demetr. 14.3, adapting Eur. Phoen. 395 – a memorably amoral sentiment, also adduced by Luc. Apol. 3 (τ γεννστατον κεινο ἰαμβειον).

³⁵ Cf. Plut. Demetr. 27.8 (τ μ καθ᾽ λικαν); Comp. Demetr. Ant. 1.5 (παρ᾽ λικαν).

³⁶ Plut. Demetr. 14.2, 37.4, 45.1; cf. Wehrli (above, n. 25) 144–6.

³⁷ Diod. 19.59.5, reported as hearsay (λγεται) but presumably hearsay which Hieronymus, the servant of the Antigonids, found credible (cf. Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia [Oxford, 1981] 226–7).Google Scholar

³⁸ Plut. Phoc. 31.2. The passage reads as though Phocion had foreknowledge of Nicanor's arrival and a preexisting friendship (χριτι του Νικνορος). In the same way the incumbent commander, Menyllus, is said to have been a friend of Phocion, obviously of long standing (Plut. Phoc. 28.1).

³⁹ Plut. Phoc. 32.4–6.

⁴⁰ Diod. 18.64.5 (των πιϕανων νδρων κα ϕιλαν χντων πρς Νικνορα). For their background (and record of liturgies under the democracy) see Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971) 397, 510–12.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For the chronology adopted here, which is essentially the traditional ‘high’ system see my article ‘Philip III Arrhidaeus and the Chronology of the Successors’, Chiron 22 (1992) 55–81, esp. 66–74.Google Scholar

⁴² Plut. Phoc. 31.1 (διαναστς Κσσανδρος κα προκαταλαμβνων τ πργματα).

⁴³ Plut. Phoc. 31.3; cf. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens² (Oxford, 1968) 92 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Diod. 18.64.4–6; Plut. Phoc. 32.9–10; Nep. Phoc. 2.4–5, 3.4.

⁴⁵ Diod. 18.65.5 and Plut. Phoc. 33.3 agree that Alexander and Nicanor held repeated parleys at the walls of Peiraeus, and so restrained the excesses of the restored democracy. They clearly understood each other and had a working relationship.

⁴⁶ Diod. 18.68.1; Cassander was duly welcomed by Nicanor and installed himself in Peiraeus, while Nicanor himself retained control in Munychia. Even now he seems treated as a colleague rather than a subordinate of Cassander.

⁴⁷ Diod. 18.68.3. On the background see my article (above, n. 41) 69–70.

⁴⁸ Diod. 18.69.1–2 (Aegina and Salamis). For the fall of Athens see Diod. 18.74.1–3; Paus. 1.25.6; Parian Marble, FGrH 239 B 13; IG ii².1201. The last extant decree of the democracy is IG ii².350 + add. p. 659, dated to the seventh prytany 318/17 (cf. Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens ii [Brussels, 1982], 108–11, D39Google Scholar). Athens was surrendered in spring 317.

⁴⁹ Diod. 18.68.3–4; cf. Moretti, ISE 52, lines 15–25.

⁵⁰ Diod. 18.72.2–3. On the background see Billows (above, n. 1) 82–3, 86, dating the campaign to summer 317 (see, however, my article [above, n. 41] 68, 74).

⁵¹ Diod. 18.72.3; Polyaen. 4.6.8.

⁵² Polyaen. 4.6.8, stressing Nicanor's πειρα. Diodorus 18.72.4 records seventeen ships sunk and forty captured with their crews. If an extra thirteen were irretrievably disabled, it would match the seventy of Polyaenus. See Billows (above, n. 1) 87 n. 12, contra Engel, R., ‘Polyains Stratagem IV 6,8 zur Seeschlacht am Hellespont’, Klio 55 (1973) 141–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ According to Polyaenus loc. cit. (cf. Diod. 18.72.8) he provided marines from his hypaspist corps (cf. Arr. 2.20.6) commissioned to threaten with death any crews which refused action.

⁵⁴ Diod. 18.63.6, 73.1; cf. Polyaen. 4.6.9.

⁵⁵ Diod. 18.75.1. Antigonus also decorated his warships with spoils to increase their propaganda effect in the Levant (Polyaen. 4.6.9). His fleet was active in Cilicia by t he autumn of 318 (see my article [above, n. 41] 65–6, 68, 80–1), and Nicanor had presumably returned to Athens by that time. Diodorus apparently dates Nicanor's arrival after the fall of Athens (spring 317: see above, n. 48); but the passage is contracted and prospective, and it is not easy to deduce what was his primary point of reference. It could well have been the death of Nicanor which came after the fall of Athens, and Diodorus may have given a compressed retrospective summary of the preceding events. There was probably an interval of months between Nicanor's return and death.

⁵⁶ Diod. 18.75.1; Polyaen. 4.11.2.

⁵⁷ This clearly belongs to the context of Cassander's first invasion of Macedonia (summer 317), which Diodorus (18.75.1) places immediately after the death of Nicanor. For dating and background see my article (above, n. 40) 17–18.

⁵⁸ Κσσανδρος δ παραχρημα συνγαγεν κκλησαν κα τοις βουλομνοις κατηγορησαι Νικνορος πτρεψεν This ecclesia is surely an assembly of Cassander's troops, as is generally assumed (cf. Granier, F., Die makedonische Heeresversammlung [Munich, 1931], 85–6Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., ‘The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy’, Chiron 8 (1978) 119Google Scholar; Goukowsky, P., Diodore xviii 102, n. 1Google Scholar). Hammond and Walbank (above, n. 2) 137 suggest that the trial took place before the Athenian Assembly. But, even if Nicanor were alleged to have injured Athenians, it was a remarkable anomaly to have a non-Athenian tried in an Athenian forum, strange enough if one accepts that he was the adoptive son of Aristotle, inexplicable if he was the son of Phila and Balacrus. Polyaenus admittedly uses the term κατεψηϕσαντο which is indeed ‘appropriate to an Athenian Assembly’. It is also appropriate to any assembly whatsoever.

⁵⁹ Wölfflin's Teubner text reads τν Μουνυχαν νεχειρώσατο, meaning (I presume) ‘gained mastery of Munychia’. The manuscripts vary between χειρώσατο (K), νωχυρώσατο (F) and ὠχυρώσατο. The lectio difficilior appears to be νωχυρώσατο ‘fortified’, which is tentatively accepted in LSJ ². If that is read, one must assume that Cassander blocked access between Peiraeus and Munychia while the trial took place. It clearly took some effort on his part to regain the old garrison centre (cf. Trogus, Prol. 14: receptaque a defectore Nicanore Munychia).

⁶⁰ Diod. 19.51.3. Aristonous was killed by the relatives of Crateuas, whom he had defeated (and spared) a few days previously. For his career under Alexander see Berve (above, n. 2) ii.69, n. 133.

⁶¹ Diod. 19.51.2–4; Justin 14.6.6–7.

⁶² Evidence and bibliography in Billows (above, n. 1) 409–11.

⁶³ I am grateful to Norman Ashton for reading and improving an earlier draft of this article. The imperfections which remain are, as always, my own.