Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:37:02.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perdiccas and the Kings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. B. Bosworth
A. B. Bosworth
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

New evidence often complicates as much as it clarifies. That truth is well illustrated by Stephen Tracy's recent and brilliant discovery that a tiny unpublished fragment of an Attic inscription belongs to a known decree (IG ii. 402). The decree has hitherto been recognised as an enactment of the oligarchy imposed by Antipater in 322. Its proposer, Archedicus of Lamptrae, was a leading member of the new regime and held the most influential office of state, that of anagrapheus, in 320/19.2 Appropriately enough the decree confers honours upon members of the Macedonian court, but as the stone now reveals, it is phrased in a remarkable and anomalous manner: ‘in order that as many as possible of the friends of the king and of Antipater may be honoured by the Athenian people and confer benefactions upon the city’. There is no question about the meaning. The decree refers to friends of an unknown king, who are also friends of Antipater. But after Alexander's death there was a dual kingship. Philip III Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV reigned jointly and are generally termed ‘the kings’. How can the singular singular be explained?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 420 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The fragment comes from the Agora (I 4990), and the new text is published by Tracy, Stephen V. in Hesperia 62 (1993) 249–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am most grateful to have had the opportunity of reading the article in draft by courtesy of Professors Tracy and Habicht, both of whom suggested that I develop my ideas in print. They should not be held responsible for what has emerged.

2 See now the study by Chr. Habicht, , “The Comic Poet Archedikos’, Hesperia 62 (1993) 253–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar which convincingly identifies the oligarch Archedicus with the comic poet of the same name, notorious for his attacks on Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes (Polyb. 12.13.3 = Timaeus, FGrH 566 F 35). For the role of Archedicus as anagrapheus see IG ii2. 380–84 with Dow, Sterling, “The Athenian Anagrapheis’, HSCP 67 (1963) 37–54, esp. 45–7Google Scholar.

3 11. 3–7: [[πως ἄν ὡ]ς πλπῖστοι τν τ[ο] ασ|[ιλως φίλ]ων κα Ἀντιπτ[ρ]ου τε | [τιμηνο]ι ὑπò το δμου το Ἀθ|[ηναίων εὐε]ργετσιν τν πóλιν | [τν Ἀθηναί]ων.

4 For the evidence see the study by Habicht, Chr., ‘Literarische und epigraphische Überlieferung zur Geschichte Alexanders und seiner ersten Nachfolger’, Akten des VI. Intemationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Vestigia 17: Munich 1973) 367–77Google Scholar.

5 See particularly IG ii2. 240, 11. 12–15 (= Tod 181): ὡς Φ;ίλιππον, [πρττω|ν γ]αθν τι δ[νατ]αι Ἀθην[αίοις π|αρ] [Φ]ιλίππον; IG ii2. 211 (Tod 166); 127 (Tod 157). The oath after Chaeronea committed the Athenians not to undermine τ]ν βασιλείαν [τ]ν Φ[ιλίππου (IG ii2. 236, 11.12–13 = Tod 177), but the regal title itself does not appear. Nor does it elsewhere. Even at Delphi the Macedonian hieromnemones are termed οἱ παρ Φιλίππου.

6 Above, n. 2, at note 12.

7 No extant decree from the last years of the reign refers explicitly to Alexander. In IG ii2. 329 (Heisserer, A. J., Alexander the Great and the Greeks [Norman, 1980] 4–5)Google Scholar he is simply Ἀλξανδρος (but cf. Tronson, A., AncW 12 [1985] 15–19Google Scholar, arguing that this may be Alexander's uncle, Alexander II). In other states he is βασιλεὺς Ἀλξανδρος (cf. Heisserer 44, 80, 143, 146, 173; IG vii. 3206 = Tod 197), and in Athens itself Demosthenes is alleged to have proposed an εἰκὼν Ἀλεξνδρον βασιλως (Hyper, , c. Dem. col. xxxii. 3–5)Google Scholar. The name Alexander is usually, if not invariably, given: the one exception is the controversial ruling at Mytilene which twice refers to βασιλεὐς (IG xi. 2.6, ¶. 28, 47 = Heisserer 123–4).

8 As in the famous decree of the Nesiotae in honour of Thersippus (OGIS 4, ¶. 13–14): παργενóμενος πρòς τος βασίληας κα Ἀντίπατρον.

9 IG ii2. 401, 11. 6–10: κα ν[ν μ]ετ' [Ἀρριδαί]|ου ν το καθ[εσ]ττο[ς σατρ]|που πò βασιλ[ω]ς κα [Ἀντιπ]|τρου κα τ[ν ἄ]λλων Μακεδóνων.

10 Wilhelm, A., Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen (Vienna, 1906) 215–18Google Scholar; Kirchner, in IG ii2. 401; Habicht (above, n. 4) 373.

11 Diod. 18.39.6; Arr. Succ. F. 1.38 (Roos). On Arrhidaeus' activities see Billows, R. A., Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1990) 67–70, 82, 86Google Scholar.

12 One would read [μ]ετ[ Ἀσνδρ]|ου The hiatus is perfectly acceptable; cf. Wilhelm (above, n. 10) 217; Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions i (Berlin, 1980) 420Google Scholar.

13 Babylon: Diod. 18.3.1; Arr. Succ. F 1.6; Dexippus, FGrH 100 F 8.4; Justin 13.4.15; Curt. 10.10.2 (the majority of texts – all but Dexippus – erroneously read κσανδρος). Triparadeisus: Diod. 18.39.6; Arr. Succ. F 1.37. For the epigraphic record of his government, beginning in the first year of Philip Arrhidaeus, see , J. and Robert, L., Fouilles d'Amyzon en Carie i (Paris, 1983) 97ffGoogle Scholar.; VarinlioǦlu, E., Bresson, A., Brun, P., Debord, P., and Descat, R., ‘Une inscription de Pladasa à Carie’, REA 92 (1990) 59–78, esp. 62, 73–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Asander's activity in 321 see Arr. Succ. F 25.1–3 with Hauben, H., ‘The first war of the Successors (321 B.C.)’, AncSoc 8 (1977) 85–120, esp. 91–4Google Scholar; Billows (above, n. 11) 62–3.

14 Lycurg. c. Leocr. 18. Wilhelm (above, n. 10) 218 supported his identification of the satrap as Arrhidaeus by a reference to IG ii2. 398, in which an anonymous benefactor of Athens is honoured inter alia for his provision of corn from the Hellespont after the naval defeats of 322. That proves only that there was difficulty provisioning Athens. In a time of shortage grain would be welcome from any and every source.

15 That would have been particularly important in the aftermath of Triparadeisus, when a minor war was fought off Cnidus and Caunus between the Rhodians and Perdiccan exiles under Attalus (Arr. Succ. F 1.39; cf. VarinlioǦlu et al. [above, n. 13] 74).

16 Cf. Arr. Succ. F 1.5: ὼσ Ἀρριδαίου κελεοντος.

17 Diod. 18.3.1: συνεδρεσας μετ τν γεμóνων (cf. Arr. Succ. F 1.30). At Triparadeisus also there was probably some endorsement of Antipater's arrangements (Arr. Succ. F 1.38: Ἀντίπατρος…ὑπò πντων ἔνεκα πντων παινομενος). The council corresponds to τν ἄλλων Μακεδóνων in IG ii2. 401; see again the Thersippus decree (OGIS 4: ἔων | [τοῖς βασ]ιλεσσι φίλος κα τοῖς στροτ[|γοιισι] κα τοῖς ἄλλοισι Μακεδóνεσσι)

18 Arr. Succ. F 1.1; Dexippus, FGrH 100 F 8.1; Justin 13.4.3.

19 Curt. 10.6.9 (sextusmensis); Justin 13.2.5 (exacto mense octavo). Pace Droysen (Geschichte des Hellenismus ii2 [Gotha, 1878] 39 n. 2)Google Scholar and Berve (Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage [Munich, 1926] ii. 347)Google Scholar there is no way of deciding between the two reports.

20 Arr. Succ. F 1.8: κα εἰς βασιλα τò τεχθν νεῖπε τò πλθος.

21 Droysen (above, n. 19) assumed that the proclamation immediately followed the child's birth. For that there is no evidence whatsoever, as Malcolm, Errington has clearly stated (‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos, 323–20 B.C.’, JHS 90 [1970] 49–77, esp. 58)Google Scholar: ‘it would be entirely consistent with his (sc. Perdiccas5) earlier behaviour if he did not feel in full control until after the baby's birth and after its acclamation – which may have been some time afterwards.’

22 Habicht, , Ath. Milt. 72 (1957) 158Google Scholar, no. IB, 1. 11. See also Habicht (above, n. 4) 371.

23 Diod. 18.55.4: τν τν βασιλων κα τν γεμóνων εὔνοιαν The diagramma which follows is couched in the first person plural, but refers to Philip II as ‘our father’ (18.56.2, 7), language only appropriate to Philip Arrhidaeus.

24 Diod. 18.16.1; 22.1. Habicht (above, n. 4) 374 takes it as axiomatic that ‘König Alexander war dabei nicht zugegen.’

25 Justin 13.6.10. The text is corrupt, but the reference to both kings is clear enough. The manuscript reading, which has been variously emended, is: Arrhidaeum et Alexandri Magni filium in Cappadocia quorum cura illi mandata fuerat de summa belli adhibet. Diodorus 18.25.6 refers to the council of war (in Pisidia) but mentions only Perdiccas’ friends and commanders.

26 Diod. 18.23.2: ò δ Περδίκκας πρóτερον μν ν κεκρικὼς κοινοπραγίαν… ὡς δ παρλαβε τς τε βασιλικμεις κα τν τν βασιλων προστασίαν, μετπεσε τοῖς λογισμοῖς I must withdraw my suggestion, made two decades ago (CQ 21 [1971] 135)Google Scholar, that the koinopragia relates to Alexander's reign and that the change of calculation came when Perdiccas' position was secured at Babylon. There must have been an interval of coexistence after Alexander's death. For the interminable bibliography on the Babylon settlement, fortunately of little relevance here, see Seibert, J., Das Zeilalter der Diadochen (Darmstadt, 1983) 84–9Google Scholar, to which add the recent discussions by Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Macedonia iii (Oxford, 1988) 98–107Google Scholar; The Macedonian State (Oxford, 1989) 237–43Google Scholar.

27 It is possible that there was no actual vote. Diodorus may be referring to the actualities of the situation: Perdiccas had taken over the royal armies when he invaded Cappadocia and, since the kings were with him in person, he was automatically their protector. But Perdiccas had used the army in the past to enforce his will (Diod. 18.4.3–6; cf. Badian, E., ‘A king's notebooks’, HSCP 72 [1967] 183–204, esp. 201–4Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., ‘The nature of the Macedonian state under the monarchy’, Chiron 8 [1978] 77–133, esp. 115–18)Google Scholar, and he probably did have the troops make him formally responsible for the kings at the same time as they proclaimed the infant Alexander. It was not in any sense a usurpation of the powers of Craterus, as has often been argued, most elaborately by Fritz Schachermeyr (Alexander in Babylon) [SB Vienna 268/3: 1970] 170, 183; see also his intervention after Habicht's paper [above, n. 4] 377). Craterus probably represented royalty in Macedonia as before. What was fixed in Cappadocia was the welfare of the kings, now committed formally to Perdiccas. Unless he returned with them to Macedonia, there was no necessary conflict of roles.

28 On Meleager's position see Arr. succ. F 1.3 (ὔπαρχον Περδίκκα); cf. Justin 13.4.5: castrorum et exercitus et rerum cura Meleagro et Perdiccae adsignatur (Madvig's ‘correction’, regum for rerum is uncalled for and quite misleading). Meleager's execution shortly after the settlement made Perdiccas a free agent, but he may not have considered it prudent to have his dominance acknowledged and sanctioned by the army (which after the troubles of the accession might have been reluctant to confer more power upon him).

29 Diod. 18.23.1; Arr. Succ. F 1.21; Justin 13.6.5–6; P. Berl. 13045 = V. di Falco, , Demode oratore (Naples, 1954) 74–5Google Scholar. Nicaea reached Perdiccas' court after the destruction of Isaura and Laranda and was presumably sent out by her father in the late summer, the moment the news of the proclamation of Alexander IV broke in Greece.

30 Diod. 18.18.9. For what it is worth (surely not much) the fictitious dialogue between Deinarchus and Demades (P. Berl. 13045, 11. 195ff. = di Falco [above, n. 29] 75–7) seems to connect Nicaea's arrival with Athenian negotiations over Samos.

31 Cleitus' victory was complete by midsummer 322(cf. Ashton, N. G., “The naumachia near Amorgos in 322B.C.’, ABSA 72 [1977] 1–11)Google Scholar. Athens was in no position to resist; her ships, perhaps commandeered after defeat, were used by Antigonus for his escape to Macedonia later that year (Diod. 18.23.4).

32 Polyaenus 8.60; cf. Arr. Succ. F 1.22–3; Diod. 19.52.5.

33 Arr. Succ. F 1.23: ἤν κα ὔστερον ἢγγετο Περδίκκα διαπραξαμνου.

34 Diod. 18.25.3. The chronology adopted here and throughout this article is the old ‘high’ chronology, which I have restated in two forthcoming articles. It has become fashionable to date the Aetolian campaign a year later, to the winter of 321/20 (see Schober, L., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens undder Oberen Satrapien von 323–303 v. Chr. [Frankfurt and Bern, 1981] 54–5Google Scholar; Billows [above, n. 11] 62–4). That seems to me to slow down the pace of events unacceptably. There is a gap of nearly a year before Craterus and Antipater settle accounts with the Aetolians. The campaign began shortly before the onset of winter and the invaders were digging in to starve the enemy out when Antigonus arrived on the scene (Diod. 18.25.1–2). The events need not have engrossed more than two months over the height of winter, so that Antipater and Craterus were free to invade Asia Minor in the spring of 321. Nor does the dedication made at Delphi by Craterus’ son (Moretti, , ISE no. 73)Google Scholar prove that he was born before his father's death (Gullath, B. and Schober, L., ‘Zur Chronologie der frühen Diadochenzeit’, in Studien zur alten Geschichte [ed. Kalcyk, H., Gullath, B., Graeber, A.: Rome, 1986] 331–78, esp. 355)Google Scholar: κα λίπε παῖδα at the end of the line cannot be taken with deadly precision and is surely consistent with the younger Craterus having been born posthumously.

35 Justin 7.5.9–10; cf. Tronson, A., ‘Satyrus the Peripatetic and the marriages of Philip II’, JHS 104 [1984] 116–26, esp. 120–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hammond, , The Macedonian State 137)Google Scholar. The tradition is often discounted (cf. Griffith's, G. T. critical discussion in A History of Macedonia ii [Oxford, 1979] 208–9, 702–4)Google Scholar; but the variant tradition in Satyrus (Athen. 13.557B) and the ‘Suda’ (s.v. κρανος) that Philip had a reign of 22 years (against 24 in Diodorus) is surely decisive.

36 Diod. 18.17.6–7. On the negotiations see Gehrke, H. J., Phokion (Munich, 1976) 87–90Google Scholar; Tritle, L. A., Phocion the Good (London, New York, Sydney, 1988) 129–31Google Scholar.

37 [Plut.] Mor. 847 E; cf. Diod. 18.17.7.

38 Plut. Phoc. 26.2; Dem. 28.2; Mor. 849 A–B. See now Engels, J., Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides (Munich, 1989) 381–2Google Scholar.

39 Plut. Phoc. 26.3–5; cf. Diod. 18.17.8.

40 Plut. Phoc. 27; Diod. 18.18.1–3.

41 Plut. Phoc. 28.2; Cam. 19.6; Dem. 28.1.

42 On the honorary citizenship conferred upon Philip, Antipater and the crown prince Alexander see Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens iii (Brussels, 1983) 69–71Google Scholar.

43 See above, n. 2.

44 Plut. Dem. 28.4; Mor. 849 C (Hermippus F 68 [b] Wehrli). Cf. Engels (above, n. 38) 386–7.

45 Diod. 18.22.2. It is unlikely that this whirlwind campaign was deferred until the spring of the following year, as is assumed by Errington (above, n. 27) 77; Schober (above, n. 34) 58; and Billows (above, n. 11) 58.

46 The proclamation may have come somewhat earlier, in the aftermath of the defeat of Ariarathes. Plutarch (Eum. 3.14) suggests that Eumenes left Cappadocia with the royal party (συνανζευξεν) and that there were already two kings. But his narrative is contracted. It presumably took Eumenes some time to make the appointments with which Plutarch accredits him(cf. Briant, P., Rois, tributs et pay sans [Paris, 1982] 15–30)Google Scholar; and he may have joined Perdiccas later after the regent had completed his operations at Laranda and Isaura.