2. On the second flight of Harpalus see, for example, Schäfer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit² iii (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 306ff.Google Scholar, Adams, C. D., TAPA 32 (1901), 121ff.Google Scholar, Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., Demosthenes (New York & London, 1914), pp. 451ff.Google Scholar, Körte, A., NJA 53 (1924), 217ff.Google Scholar, Colin, G., REG 38 (1925), 306ff. and 39 (1926), 31ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte² iv. 1 (Berlin & Leipzig, 1927), pp. 58ff.Google Scholar, Cloché, P., Démosthenes et la Fin de la democratic Athénienne (Paris, 1957), pp. 265ff.Google Scholar, Badian, E., JHS 81 (1961), 16ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. See Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich, 1926), ii 740Google Scholar s.v. ταυρίσκος. Berve points out (p. 371 n. 3) that the name Tauriscus is ‘…im 4. Jahr. in Milet bezeugt’.

4. τοὺς δὲ πρώτους τὴν Ἁρπάλου φυγὴν καὶ ἀπόδρασιν ἀπαγγείλανττας ἒδησεν, Ἐφιάλτην καὶ Κίσσον, ὡς καταψευδομένους τοῦ ἀνδρός

5. Badian, E., ‘The First Flight of Harpalus’, Hist. 9 (1960), 245ffGoogle Scholar. References to this article will be cited henceforth by author's name and page number only.

6. Heckel, W., ‘The Flight of Harpalos and Tauriskos’, CP 72 (1977), 133ffGoogle Scholar. References to this article will be cited henceforth by author's name and page number only.

7. Green, P., Alexander of Macedon (Middlesex, 1974), p. 222Google Scholar, cf. R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London, 1973 [repr. 1974]), p. 411.

8. Bosworth, A. B., Commentary on Arrian (Oxford, 1980), i. 284Google Scholar.

9. Berve, , op. cit. ii. 793 and 411Google Scholar s.vv Φιλόξενος and Κοίρανος

10. However, this action was much later (as Heckel p. 134 points out), and the parallel is inappropriate since, as will be argued, Alexander was not planning divisions of power as early as 333 with the future still so uncertain.

11. …ἐν Φοινίκη μἐν ἐπὶ τῶν φόρων ττῆ ξυλλογῆ καταστήσας Κοίρανον ΒεροιαῖῨον, Φιλόξενον δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας τὰ ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ταύρου ἐκλέγειν. Further on this 331 appointment: Bosworth, , Commentary i. 279ffGoogle Scholar.

12. Cf. Bosworth, , Commentary i. 284Google Scholar: ‘Arrian nowhere suggests that Harpalus was relieved of his post as treasurer before he fled’.

13. Alexander's letter to Darius after Issus (Arrian 2.14.4–15, Curtius 4.1. 10–15) states that he had originally set out to avenge the Greeks for the Persian invasion of 480–79: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ήγεμὼν κατασταθεὶς καὶ τιμωρήσασθαι βουλόμενος Πέρσας διέβην ἐς τὴν Ἀσίαν (Arrian 2.14.4), cf. ‘Repello igitur bellum, non infero’ (Curtius 4.1.13). However, his Asian successes and the divine element played in them, particularly after Issus, appear to have changed his mind (e.g. Arrian 2.14.7–9, Curtius 4.1.13–15).

14. Harpalus was one of several friends exiled by Philip II at the time of Alexander's attempt to marry the daughter of the Carian satrap, Pixodarus (Arrian 3.6.5, Plut., Alex. 10.1–4, Curtius 10.1.45)Google Scholar, now dated to the end of spring 336 by Hatzopoulos, M. B., Studies in the History of Art (Nat. Gall, of Art, Washington), 10 (1982), 59ffGoogle Scholar. Alexander, at the beginning of his reign, rewarded those friends loyal to him with positions in the army but Harpalus, on account of some physical deformity, was appointed as treasurer (Arrian 3.6.6). These acts may have been political: in 336 Alexander inherited the power structure and supporters of his father and, owing to his youth, might well be expected to be dominated by them. In an effort to offset this, he gathered together a circle of supporters by these appointments, each man owing loyalty to him, which was intended to counteract the influence of powerful men such as Antipater and Parmenion in time. See also Ellis, J. R., Studies in the History of Art (Nat. Gall, of Art, Washington), 10 (1982), 69ffGoogle Scholar.

15. He cannot have complained in these terms otherwise the king would not have been so surprised at the news of the flight: Plut., Alex. 41.4Google Scholar (quoted above, n. 4).

16. Schäfer, , op. cit. iii. 305ffGoogle Scholar. is chronologically incorrect in stating that Alexander, as well as reinstating Harpalus to his former position, also ‘… überwies ihm als solchem u.a. auch die zu Ekbatana erbeuteten königlichen Schätze’. This transference occurred only in 330 (Arrian 3.19.7), cf. Berve, , op. cit. ii. 76ffGoogle Scholar.

17. Arrian says that Alexander πείθει αὐτὸν κατελθεῖν, which implies a particular occasion.

18. Dr Develin points out that ἀναπείθειν may also be translated as ‘to bribe’ or ‘to induce’, and cites Hdt. 5.63.1 and Aristophanes, Wasps 101 as examples. However, Herodotus reads ἀνέπειθον τὴν Πυθίην χρρήμασι therefore bribe is the logical translation (cf. 5.66.1: ὄς [i.e. Cleisthenes] περ δὴ λόγον ἒχει τὴν Πυθίην where ἀναπεῖσαι refers back to 5.63), and the Aristophanes passage should be read with 102 (as Dr Develin admits) to give:

τὸν ἀλεκτρυόνα δ', ὄς ἦδ' ἀφ' ἐσπέρας, ἒφη (100)

ὃψ' ἐξεγείρειν αὐτὸν ἀναπεπεισμένον

παρὰ τῶν ὑπευθύνων ἓχοντα χρήματα (102)

Since Arrian's ἀναπεισθείς stands alone it cannot be taken to mean bribe in any sense; in any case, for what reason would Tauriscus bribe Harpalus? Dr Develin believes that since ἀνα – does strengthen the verb (and I agree) and implies the need to overcome unwillingness (he cites Hdt. 3.148.2 and Aristophanes, Clouds 77), either Arrian is inaccurate or must mean that Harpalus was induced to do what he did. As I suggested earlier, Harpalus might well have first dismissed the idea of flight but was then induced to flee by Tauriscus, in which case this translation of ἀναπείθειν is quite appropriate.

19. On a possible explanation for Tauriscus' flight, see below n. 24.

20. See above, n. 14.

21. Diod. 17.108.4–6, Curtius 10.1.45, cf. Schäfer, , op. cit. iii. 306Google Scholar, Colin, , op. cit. pp. 317ff.Google Scholar, Berve, , op. cit. ii. 77ff.Google Scholar, Cloche, , op. cit. p. 266Google Scholar, Green, , op. cit. pp. 414ffGoogle Scholar.

22. Commentary i. 284ff.

23. See for example Schäfer, , op. cit. iii. 305Google Scholar, Berve, , op. cit. ii. 75ff.Google Scholar, Tarn, W. W., Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1948), i. 3Google Scholar, Ellis, J. R., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London, 1976), p. 60Google Scholar. It is possible that Harpalus himself intended to go to Italy, although this was not the cause of the flight as Colin believes (REG 38 (1925), 317)Google Scholar: ‘… il s'enfuit, dans l'intention de rejoindre Alexandre le Molosse, qui combattait alors en Italie’.

24. Precisely why such a little-known figure as Tauriscus was present at Alexander's camp or why he fled is unknown. A possible explanation is that since his name is evidenced at Miletus (above, n. 3) he might have worked against Alexander in 334 and been brought to the king either for punishment or to extract information. When the Persians retook Miletus, his own (?) city, in 333, Tauriscus might then have fled to escape Alexander – possibly he had supplied the king with misleading information. This, of course, dates the flight after the fall of Miletus when no precise date is known.

25. Commentary i. 284.

26. Berve, , op. cit. ii. 219Google Scholar says simply that he ‘… entweder einen anderen Posten erhielt oder um jene Zeit starb’.