Felix Jacoby

Die Fragmente
der
Griechischen Historiker
Continued

IV A: Biography

Fascicle 8
Anonymous Papyri
[Nos. 1119−1139]

Edited by

James H. Brusuelas
Dirk Obbink
Stefan Schorn

LEIDEN | BOSTON

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents

Abbreviations ix

Introduction 1

Part 1
Politicians, Rhetoricians and Rulers

1119 Anonymous, on Solon or Kilikian Soloi (P. Oxy. IV 680) 7

S. Oswald

1120 Anonymous, on Alkibiades (P. Oxy. III 411) 29

E. Chepel

1121 Anonymous, on Demosthenes (PSI II 144) 57

M. McOsker

1122 Anonymous, on Demosthenes (P. Mich. inv. 10) 73

M. McOsker

1123 Anonymous, on Isokrates (P. Oxy. L 3543) 101

J.H. Brusuelas and K.F. Funderburk

1124 Anonymous, Life of Isokrates (P. Cairo Masp. II 67175) 121

K. Fleischer and J.H. Brusuelas

1125 Anonymous, on Alexander the Great (P. Oxy. LVI 3823) 133
M. Perale and G. Taietti

1126 Anonymous, on Alexander the Great (P. Oxy. LVI 3824) 153
M. Perale and G. Taietti

1127 Anonymous, on the Ptolemies (P. Haun. I 6) 169

Y. Trnka-Amrhein

1128 Anonymous, on Theoxena (P. Oxy. XXXVII 2821) 213

C. Meccariello

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

vi contents

1129 Anonymous, on Pyrrhos, King of Epeiros (P. Mil. Vogl. II 48) 225
S.P.C. Hendriks

Part 2
Poets

1130 Anonymous, on Alkman (P. Oxy. L 3542) 237

J.H. Brusuelas

1131 Anonymous, on Simonides (P. Princeton inv. Am87–59A) 257

J.H. Brusuelas

1132 Anonymous, Pindar (P. Oxy. XXVI 2438) 271

M. de Kreij

Part 3
Philosophers

1133 Anonymous, on Sokrates (P. Hibeh II 182) 299

M. McOsker

1134 Anonymous, on Plato’s Dialogues (P. Oxy. XLV 3219) 347

Th. Miller and Y. Trnka-Amrhein

1135 Anonymous, on Critical Signs in the Manuscripts of Plato (PSI

XV 1488) 385
G. Verhasselt

1136 Anonymous, on a Female Pupil of Plato, Speusippos, and

Menedemos (P. Oxy. LII 3656) 413
C. Meccariello

1137 Anonymous, on Stilpon (P. Oxy. LII 3655) 429

C. Capuccino and G. Iovine

1138 Anonymous, on Sokrates and the Sokratic Schools (BKT

IX 117) 447
G. Verhasselt

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

contents vii

Part 4
Varia

1139 Anonymous, Miscellaneous Lives (P. Oxy. XV 1800) 479

M. de Kreij and C. Meccariello

Index Locorum 579

Index Nominum 612

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

 1125
Anonymous, on Alexander the Great
(unknown date)

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

134 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

Fragmentum

1 (FHG –; FBP –; CPS A 2,9,4 F; TM 63167) P. Oxy. LVI 3823:

̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ ι̣ ̣μοι. οὐκ ἀλλότρι ̣[ον γάρ ἐ-

ϲτι τοῖϲ] π̣ ερὶ τὰϲ πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά-
ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν τὸ τ[ῶν ὑπερ-
ενεγκ]ά̣ντων ἐν τοῖϲ κ̣ [ατὰ πό-
5 λεμον] ἔργοιϲ μὴ μό[νον τὰϲ
ἐν το]ῖϲ̣ ἀγῶϲι πράξειϲ̣, [ἀλλὰ ἅ-
μα καὶ] τὰϲ ἐν τοῖϲ λόγοιϲ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
̣ ̣ μέ]ν̣αϲ αὐτῶν ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ ἀ-
πομν]η̣ μονεύειν. οἰόμ[εθα δὲ
10 δεῖν] διενέγκαντοϲ, ε[ἴ τινεϲ
κ]α̣ι ̣̀ ε[̣̔́ τε]ρ̣οι ̣, Ἀ̣ λεξάνδρου κ[αὶ τὸ εἶ-
δ]οϲ τῆϲ εἰϲ θεοὺϲ μετα[βολῆϲ
π]άντων ἀνθρώπων [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
]̣ ντεϲ μνηϲθῆναι τῶν ὑ[π’ αὐ-
15 τ]οῦ πραχθέντων. Ἀλέξαν̣[δροϲ
γὰρ ὁ Φιλίππου γεγονὼϲ κ[ατὰ
πατέρα μὲν ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέου[ϲ, κα-
τὰ δὲ̣ μητέρα τῶν Αἰ⟨α⟩κι{ν}δ[ῶν
⸏παραλαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατ[ρὸϲ
Ed. Kerkhecker (1989); papyrum ipsi inspeximus. 1a–1 [τρόπον ἐν ᾧ πλείονέϲ εἰϲιν] | [οἱ
εὐδό]κ̣ ι ̣μοι Perale : [εἰ καὶ τῶν ϲυγγραφέων ἡγοῦνται] | [οἱ εὐδό]κ̣ ι ̣μοι (εὐ. iam Kerkhecker) οὐκ
ἀλλότρι ̣[ον εἶναι Luppe : etiam possis ἄλ]κ̣ ι ̣μοι vel ]μ̣ μοι Parsons* 1–2 ἀλλότρ̣ι[ον γὰρ ἔ]|[ϲται τοῖϲ]
Parsons* : ἀλλότρι ̣[ον δέ,] | [ὁπότε] aut ἐπειδὴ] vel ἀλλότρι ̣[όν ἐϲ]|[τιν, ὅτε aut ἐπεὶ Kerkhecker
2–3 πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά]|[ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν Kerkhecker 3–4 τὸ τ[ῶν ὑπερ]|[ενεγκ]ά̣ντων Par-
sons* : τότ[ε τῶν δι]|[ενεγκ]ά̣ντων Kerkhecker : etiam possis δι]|[αλλαξ]ά̣ντων 4–5 κ̣ [ατὰ
πό]|[λεμον] Luppe : π̣ [ροειρη]|[μένοιϲ] Kerkhecker 5–6 μὴ μό[νον τὰϲ] | [ἐν το]ῖϲ̣ Luppe :
μὴ μό[νον ̣ ̣ ̣ γε] | [τὰϲ ἐν το]ῖϲ̣ Kerkhecker 6–7 [ἀλλ’ vel ἀλλὰ ἅ]|[μα καὶ] Luppe : ἀλλὰ] |
[πρόϲετι] vel αὐτὰϲ] | [ἀλλὰ καὶ] Kerkhecker 7–8 [γεγε]|[νημέ]ν̣αϲ Perale : [ἐξηλ]|[λαγμέ]ναϲ
Luppe : [ὑπο]|[κειμέ]ναϲ Kerkhecker 8–9 ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ] | [ἀπο-] Kerkhecker 9 οἰόμ[εθα
Kerkhecker 9–10 δὲ] | [δεῖν] Perale : δ’] | [οὖν ἅτε] Kerkhecker : το]|[ϲοῦτο] Luppe 10–
11 ε[ἴ τινεϲ] | [καὶ ἕτε]ρ̣οι ̣ R ea ap. Kerkhecker 11–12 κ[αὶ τὸ εἶ]|[δ]οϲ vel κ[ατ’ εἶ]|[δ]οϲ Perale :
κ[αὶ δὴ] | [πρ]ὸϲ vel ἐκτ]ὸϲ Kerkhecker 12 μετα[βολῆϲ Kerkhecker 13 π]άντων scripsimus
: ἁπ]άντων Kerkhecker 13–14 κεφαλαι]|[οῦ]ντεϲ Kerkhecker 14–22 Kerkhecker

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 135

[… those held in good repute or valiant (generals?)]. For it is (?) not irrele-
vant for those who concern themselves with warfare to recall (5) not only the
actions in combat, but also the sayings in the speeches of those who excelled
(?) in martial feats. (9) We thus believe it is imperative, since Alexander dis-
tinguished himself from all other men … also in the way he transited to the
heavens, to recall (in summary?) what was done by him. (15) For Alexander,
the son of Philip, descending from Herakles through his father and from the
Aiakids through his mother, having inherited the rulership from his father,

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

136 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

20 τὴν ἀρχὴν διενο[εῖ]το ἐκ τ̣[ῆϲ

Μακεδονίαϲ εἰϲ̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν Ἀϲίαν̣ [δια-
βαίνειν, ὅθεν ϲυναγαγὼν̣ [τοὺϲ
ἐν ἀξιώμαϲι τῶν φίλων ο̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣
ἐκέλευεν ὄντοϲ τὸν π ̣ [̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣
23 ὄ̣[νταϲ dub. Kerkhecker, fort. recte 24 πόλ̣ ̣ [εμον Kerkhecker

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 137

(20) had it in mind to cross from Macedonia into Asia, whence having gathered
those of his entourage who held positions of rank, he urged, as (?) … the war
(?)

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

138 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

Introduction

A prose text on Alexander, written across the fibers, including a prologue

describing the correct methodology for reporting facts of his life. The text con-
tains some notes on Alexander’s pedigree and the beginning of an account
of his expedition to Asia, presumably against the generals of Dareios. On the
recto, is an unpublished document of which only a few words have been deci-
phered by the editors of P. Oxy. LVI 3823, namely l. 1 ἀ̣παίτηϲιν, l. 2 ἀργυρικῶν,
l. 8 κατοικοί (or rather κατοικουν[τ-?). This appears to be a sworn declaration
(cf. l. 17 [εὐορκοῦϲιν μὲν ὑμῖν εὖ εἴη, ἐπιορκ]ο̣ῦ̣ϲι δὲ τὰ ἐναντία) concerning some
payment request (or the insolvency of the party concerned, cf. l. 14 διαλογιϲμὸν
το[ῦ νόμου? i.e. the Oxyrhynchites assizes), possibly related to the capitation
tax.1 The document is dated: at l. 18 we read Καίϲαροϲ Παῦνι κ̣̅. The emperor’s
name seems to be preceded by the sign for ἔτουϲ/ἔτει, rather than by the geni-
tive of a title; the formulation points to the age of Augustus.2 The literary text
must therefore have been written several decades later.
The script is a large-sized, roughly bilinear, semi-professional hand, showing
sporadic ligatures (l. 14 αι, l. 16 γεγ-), occasional blobs and serifs at the ends of
uprights, and some irregularities in letter inclination, size, and formation (cf.
e.g. α in l. 15 Ἀλεξαν̣[, ε with alternating attached/detached middle bar). This is
what Cavallo called the “P. Lond. Lit. 134 style”, popular in Egypt and Hercula-
neum from the first century BCE to the first century CE.3 Few diacritical marks
occur. The function of a paragraphos placed between ll. 19 and 20 is unclear. In
literary prose texts the paragraphos is used to distinguish self-contained sec-
tions of text, marking the end of a sentence in conjunction with a full stop.4
Here, it seems to mark a lesser pause, possibly the transition from the particip-
ial to the main clause starting at l. 20 (although in this case we would have
expected it to be placed below the beginning of l. 20).5 Elision is effected once
(unmarked). One scribal error occurs at l. 18 Αἰ⟨α⟩κι{ν}δ[ῶν.

1 See l. 4 ὑπὲρ χειρων]αξίου ἐνά̣[του or ἐνδ̣[εκάτου ἔτουϲ? cf. Wallace (1938: 191–193).
2 See Bureth (1964: 21–23).
3 Cavallo (2005: pl. XXb). The editor princeps compares the handwriting to stylized documen-
tary hands such as that of P. Oxy. II 246 = Roberts (1955: no. 10c), dated to 66CE. We see a
resemblance with P. Lond. II 354 = Cavallo—Maehler (2008: no. 88) = Cavallo (2008:
no. 41: Petition, 7–4 BCE, but looking forward in style to later Roman hands) and the hands of
semi-literary texts, such as PSI X 1178 = Cavallo et alii (1998: no. 11: Hepatoscopy handbook,
I c. CE). As for literary specimens, we suggest a comparison with PSI X 1174 = Cavallo et alii
(1998: no. 15: Korinna, I c. CE).
4 See Johnson (1994).
5 Kerkhecker thought instead it should have occurred between l. 18 and l. 19 to introduce
the participial clause.

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 139

Both the upper and the lower margins are preserved. They measure 2.3 and
2.7cm respectively, which is standard for a roll exhibiting a column height of
17cm. In general, a roll height of 22cm points to a relatively small exemplar.6
Lines are not entirely preserved, but a fairly large column width of ca. 7.2 cm
containing 20–23 letters (counting ι as 0.5) can be reconstructed; this suggests
an informal piece.7 As Denuzzo8 rightly concludes, the papyrus layout, the
usage of recycled material and the unexceptional appearance of the script all
converge to form the picture of an inexpensive manuscript, probably destined
for private reading. It is not certain whether the sheet preserved was originally
part of a roll containing a full historical or biographical work on Alexander, as
was probably the case with the detailed military accounts of Alexander’s cam-
paigns in P. Brit. Libr. 3085 (= Prandi [2010: no. 1]; on the verso, but recovered
from cartonnage and consisting of at least three columns) or P. Oxy. IV 679 (=
Prandi [2010: no. 3]) and P. Cairo inv. 49653 (= Prandi [2010: no. 5]). It is pos-
sible that a smaller portion of a roll was used to copy only selected sections of
such a work, perhaps the beginning of it (vd. below).
The syntax of the preserved section suggests, at least in its first part (ll. 1–15),
an elaborate account of Alexander’s endeavours, prefaced by a methodologi-
cal introduction on the correct approach to reporting historical or biographical
facts. The author stresses the importance of using reported speeches (l. 7 λόγοι)
to amplify and deepen traditional, more static descriptions of military deeds
(ll. 2–3 πολεμι[κὰϲ πράξειϲ) in order to outline Alexander’s personality; he seems
less preoccupied with the portrayal of Alexander as a man of warlike action as
with the analysis of the psychological features (cf. l. 8 ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ “answers”, or
possibly “decisions”, “resolutions”) that made him an exceptional man (l. 10 διε-
νέγκαντοϲ) both in life and in death (ll. 11–12 εἶδ]οϲ τῆϲ εἰϲ θεοὺϲ μετα[βολῆϲ).
Such considerations would fit, in principle, the prologue of a biographical or
historical work on Alexander. The preserved section would not have been the
very incipit of such a work, as the first line of the column contains the end
of a sentence from a previous (now lost) column, but it may well have been
part of the opening paragraphs. The first word of the column may have been
εὐδό]κ̣ ι ̣μοι, i.e. the illustrious predecessors in the genre in question (history or,
more likely, biography)—thus Luppe; or, within a military context, ἄλ]κ̣ ι ̣μοι,
referred to the kings or generals excelling as Alexander in martial deeds, cf. ll.
3–5 τ[ῶν ὑπερ]|[ενεγκ]ά̣ντων ἐν τοῖϲ κ̣ [ατὰ πό]|[λεμον] ἔργοιϲ (Parsons, per litt.).

6 See Johnson (2004: 141–143).

7 See Johnson (2004: 103).
8 Denuzzo (2003: 84).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

140 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

A similar methodological approach can be seen in the introduction to Plu-

tarch’s Life of Alexander. Plutarch wishes to delineate the main character’s
nature (ἦθοϲ … τὰ τῆϲ ψυχῆϲ ϲημεῖα) by focusing on moral qualities (δήλωϲιϲ
ἀρετῆϲ καὶ κακίαϲ) rather than “spectacular military deeds” (ἐπιφανεϲτάταϲ πρά-
ξειϲ), which he leaves to others (ἑτέροιϲ τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τοὺϲ ἀγῶναϲ). This is
achieved through the careful and systematic selection of certain stories from
the narrative material available: ἐὰν μὴ πάντα μηδὲ καθ’ ἕκαϲτον ἐξειργαϲμένωϲ τι
τῶν περιβοήτων ἀπαγγέλλωμεν, ἀλλὰ ἐπιτέμνοντεϲ τὰ πλεῖϲτα.9 (Presumably based
on this passage, the editor princeps Kerkhecker restores [κεφαλαι]|[οῦ]ντεϲ in
ll. 13–14 of our papyrus.) The Life of Alexander is a sort of “historical sketch”
in which the main narrative is often interrupted and enriched by digressions
aimed at presenting him as a philosopher-king;10 of course, it is ultimately
the reader’s responsibility to decide whether this representation befits the his-
torical Alexander.11 Not dissimilarly, the author of P. Oxy. LVI 3823 may also
have carefully selected and abridged sources in order to portray Alexander as a
paradigmatic figure.
The moralistic/didactic tone of ll. 1–15 seem to point to a biographical work.
At l. 15, the author’s focus shifts from method to “facts” and a brief outline
of Alexander’s descent from Herakles and the offspring of Aiakos (ll. 15–20)
is offered. However, the rather abrupt transition from Alexander’s ascent to
power (very concisely phrased at ll. 19–20) to his battles in Asia has puzzled
previous commentators. At ll. 20–24, the author refers to Alexander’s decision
to attack Persia, overlooking Alexander’s earlier military stages, i.e. the Balkan
campaign against the Illyrians and Thrakians and the destruction of Thebes.12
If the preserved section were conceived as a prologue to a historical work, we
would indeed have expected a reference to these events following Alexander’s
genealogy (ll. 15–18).13 However, the lack of an explicit chronology for the mil-
itary events in Alexander’s life is not at odds with the ancient biographical
tradition, which is not bound to such rules in terms of composition.14
According to Denuzzo,15 the desultory character of the narration visible in
P. Oxy. LVI 3823, ll. 15ff. would suggest a collection of exempla or anecdotes.

9 Cf. Hamilton (1969: 1) and Desideri (1995).

10 Powell (1939: 229).
11 See Prandi (2000: 384); cf. Whitmarsh (2002: 178–179).
12 These are mentioned in other Alexander works, including the Oxyrhynchos Chronicle
(P. Oxy. I 12: see col. iii, l. 27–33 = FGrHist / BNJ 255,6 for Alexander’s conquests).
13 Cf. Kerkhecker (1989: 7–8).
14 See e.g. Schorn (2012: 417).
15 Denuzzo (2003: 84).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 141

However, a rapid glance at the only available example of anecdotes on Alexan-

der on papyrus, P. Berol. 21258 (= Prandi [2010: no. 8]), shows that such a text
had an even more simplistic approach to narrating facts. The contrast between
P. Berol. and P. Oxy. LVI 3823 is strong also in terms of palaeography and layout;
the Berlin text is written in a semi-cursive hand and the passages are sepa-
rated by large blank sections. We would be inclined to think of P. Oxy. LVI 3823
as an excerpt from a more ambitious biographical or historiographical work,
epitomized to make the text shorter and more accessible to an undemanding
reader, possibly a school audience. Our impression is that the copyist may have
excerpted from a full-scale biography, maintaining the prologue from the origi-
nal work and compressing drastically the biographical information on Alexan-
der’s military campaigns. This process of selection produced, as a result, a less
coherent narration. It is perhaps significant that the only spelling error in text,
Αἰ⟨α⟩κι{ν}δ[ῶν] in l. 18, occurs in conjunction with a mythological name, which
the ‘excerptor’ may have been unfamiliar with.16 But the error may have also
been accidental and should not necessarily be taken as an indication of the
literacy level of the copyist.
Assuming the text was instead the original, independent composition by a
biographer interested more in moral insights than historical detail, one may
explain the omission of the Balkan campaigns by the fact that Alexander’s
apokriseis during the Persian campaign probably offered more significant mor-
alizing exempla than those in the initial stages of his reign. Philip II too had
conducted victorious campaigns in the Balkans, eventually subduing and uni-
fying Greece by force, but the conquest of the Persian Empire was Alexander’s
own unmatchable achievement, something great enough to attract the interest
of a vast audience and the perfect subject for the sort of encomiastic biograph-
ical sketch the author may have had in mind. In any event, it seems reasonable
to think of a text originating from a biographical work presenting Alexan-
der as an exemplary leader or a short didactic essay anticipating Plutarchean
themes.17
As pointed out by Kerckhecker, ll. 16–18 find an exact correspondence of
words with Diod. 17,1,5, whereas ll. 21–23 bear a general resemblance to 17,16,1.
The Oxyrhynchos text (or indeed the work the scribe excerpts from) may have
depended upon either Diodoros or one of his sources, Kleitarchos, Diyllos or

16 Αἰκινδ[ῶν for Αἰακιδ[ῶν. Note that the name Ἀκίνδυνοϲ is attested in Roman Egypt: vd.
P. Princ. I 3, l. 6, I c. CE; BGU VII 1642, l. 7, II c. CE; P. Oxy. XLVIII 3407, IV c. CE—a farm-
stead named after A.
17 Cf. Prandi (2010: 38): “uno scritto che tratta temi ‘plutarchei’ prima di Plutarco”.

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

142 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

Duris.18 Among these, Hammond showed a preference for Diyllos,19 whom he

saw behind both Diod. 17,17,1 and 17,17,6.20 Indeed, Diyllos’ peculiarly ‘factual’
style could be evoked here to explain the Oxyrhynchos author’s plain and unen-
gaged treatment of Alexander’s crossing to Asia. But both Diodoros and the
Oxyrhynchos author could have drawn from other sources, including lost his-
torical treatises or chronicles.21 On the contrary, the affinities in vocabulary
highlighted in the editio princeps between P. Oxy. I 12 and Josephus’ account
of Alexander’s crossing of the Hellespont and victory at Granikos (AJ 11,8,1) do
not seem particularly relevant,22 and the lexical consonances between P. Oxy.
LVI 3823 and the Oxyrhynchos chronicle should not be overemphasized either.
These lie essentially upon the common use of παραλαβὼν τὴν ἀρχήν (P. Oxy.
LVI 3823, ll. 19–20; P. Oxy. I 12 col. iii, ll. 27–28) and the expression εἰϲ τὴν Ἀϲίαν
διαβαίνειν (P. Oxy. LVI 3823, ll. 21–22; P. Oxy. I 12 col. iv, l. 4), but such vocabulary
is too commonly employed to suggest any direct relationship between these
three sources.23

Commentary

1 ] ι̣ μ̣ οι. before ι ̣, the upper extremity of an oblique descending from right to

left meeting with iota’s upright. The upper diagonal of κ does not touch ι at
l. 18 Αἰ⟨α⟩κι{ν}δ[ῶν, so one would be tempted to read ]μ̣ μοι (Parsons, per litt.).
However, the script is inconsistent enough to allow such discrepancies (see
above). οὐ]χ̣ί μοι, οὐκ ἀλλοτρί[οιϲ ̣ is ruled out by sense and syntax (see below),

18 On the sources of book XVII see most recently Prandi (2013: xvi–xxx).
19 Hammond (1983: 35) noted that in Diodoros “the acts of Alexander on crossing to Asia
(17,17,1–3) are recounted in a factual and unrhetorical manner which is unsuitable for
Cleitarchus”.
20 Ibid., 37–38, 51; cf. Alfieri Tonini (1991: 68–75) on Diodoros’ probable ample use of Diyl-
los in the Alexander accounts.
21 For instance, P. Oxy. I 12, composed between 30 BCE and ca. 200CE, may have epitomized
one of these earlier historical or chronological works: see Grenfell—Hunt, P. Oxy. I,
25–26; cf. Johanson (1978–1979) who posited a school context for the papyrus, which
would explain its conciseness and the lack of historical precision; most recently Chris-
tesen (2007: 337 n. 53); Burgess—Kulikowski (2013: 313).
22 Cf. already Prandi (2010: 38).
23 (τὴν) ἀρχὴν παραλαβὼν is used for describing the beginning of Alexander’s reign by Plb.
4,23,8 and, later, Luc. DMort. 25,3 (cf. Arr. An. 1,1,1 παραλαβόντα δὲ τὴν βαϲιλείαν), whereas
εἰϲ τὴν Ἀϲίαν διαβαίνειν is used with reference to Alexander’s expedition by Diodoros (cf.
also 18,56,4), Aischines (Ctes. 163, 238), Polybios (3,6,4), Plutarch (Alex. 7,4; 49,7; De Alex.
fort. II 12 p. 342e), and Arrian (An. 2,14,4).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 143

δο]κ̣ ⟨ε⟩ῖ μοι (Kerkhecker) by the absence of other instances of iotacism else-
where in the papyrus.

1 οὐκ ἀλλότρι̣[ον. “It is not irrelevant”; cf. Plb. 3,57,4 ἡμεῖϲ δ’ οὐχὶ νομίζοντεϲ ἀλλό-
τριον εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ μέροϲ τῆϲ ἱϲτορίαϲ “subject foreign to my history”. Kerkhecker
cites Plu. De comm. not. 6 p. 1061a (quoting Chrysippos) ἄτοπον καὶ ἀλλότριον (of
incidental manifestations of virtue), but the expression is already in Thphr. CP
3,1,2 οὐκ ἔϲτιν ἄτοπον οὔδ’ ἀλλότριον “odd or at variance with nature”; cf. also 1,4,5
ἀλλότριον δὲ τῷ ζῶντι τὸ μὴ ζῶν.

2–3 π̣ ερὶ τὰϲ πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά]|[ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν. Note the analogy with Dion.
Hal. Ant. 11,1 ὅϲοι περὶ τὴν φιλόϲοφον θεωρίαν καὶ περὶ τὰϲ πολιτικὰϲ διατρίβουϲι πρά-
ξειϲ. For διατρίβω with περὶ and the acc. see already Isoc. Hel. 4; Plat. R. 10,597a.
(of philosophers lingering on/engaging in arguments).

3–9 τὸ τ[ῶν ὑπερ]|[ενεγκ]ά̣ντων … ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ ἀπομν]η̣ μονεύειν. Kerkhecker sup-

plies τότ[ε at l. 3, which he took to be in relation with an earlier (ὁπ)ότε or
ἐπει(δή) lost in the lacuna at the beginning of l. 2: οὐκ ἀλλότρι ̣[ον δέ,] | [ὁπότε]
(or ἐϲ|τιν, ὅτε]) π̣ ερὶ τὰϲ πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά|ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν, τότ[ε … ἀ|πομν]η̣ μο-
νεύειν. In this reconstruction, the plurality of the subject would need to be
explained with a plural occurring in the previous sentence, i.e. ]κ̣ ι ̣μοι or ]μ̣ μοι.
Luppe accepted Kerkhecker’s supplement εὐδό]κ̣ ιμοι and built (with something
of a stretch) a very complex syntactical architecture where the plural subject
first occurs in the protasis of a conditional, the apodosis being the sentence
starting at l. 9 with οἰόμ[εθα, i.e. (εἰ καὶ τῶν ϲυγγραφέων ἡγοῦνται)] | [οἱ εὐδό]κ̣ ι ̣μοι
οὐκ ἀλλότρι̣[ον εἷ]|[ναι, ὅτε] περὶ τὰϲ πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά]|[ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν, τότ[ε …
ἀ]|[πομν]η̣ μονεύειν, οἰόμ[εθα τοϲοῦτο … μνηϲθῆναι τῶν ὑ[π’ αὐ]|[τ]οῦ πραχθέντων.
In such reconstruction, the syntax seems to us unnecessarily convoluted, the
use of τότε superfluous, and the resulting expression “since they do focus on
wartime action” rather pointless. We prefer to punctuate after ] ι̣ ̣μοι; this word
must have ended the sentence preceding the main clause at l. 1, e.g. (τρόπον ἐν
ᾧ πλείονέϲ εἰϲιν)] | [οἱ εὐδό]κ̣ ιμοι (cf. Theon Progymn. p. 114 Spengel ἐκεῖνο τὸ
γένοϲ (here, “genre”) προκρίνωμεν, ἐν ᾧ πλείουϲ εἰϲὶν οἱ εὐδόκιμοι): “[It is crucial
for a historian/biographer to make full use of speeches made by remarkable
men, an approach followed by many who] are held in good repute”. But given
the military context, we cannot exclude that the author here was talking about
brave generals (ἄλ]κ̣ ιμοι?) rather than conscientious writers. Following a sug-
gestion by P. Parsons (per litteras), we take δι]ατρίβουϲιν to be a dative depend-
ing on ἀλλότριόν (ἐϲτι), e.g. οὐκ ἀλλότρι[ον γὰρ ἔ]|[ϲται (slightly longer than ἐ|ϲτι)
τοῖϲ] περὶ τὰϲ πολεμι[κὰϲ πρά]|[ξειϲ δι]ατρίβουϲιν τὸ τ[ῶν ὑπερ]|ε[νεγκ]άντων …

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

144 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ ἀ]|[πομν]η̣ μονεύειν “It will not be/is not irrelevant for those who con-
cern themselves with warfare to recall not only the deeds but also the sayings
of the great generals”. Other attempts at reconstructing the syntax (e.g. ὅτε …
ἀλλότρι ̣[οι … δι]ατρίβουϲιν, τότ[ε … verb + ἀ]|[πομν]η̣ μονεύειν, or οἱ εὐδό]κ̣ ιμοι οὐκ
̣ … δι]ατρίβουϲιν κτλ …) have proved futile.
ἀλλοτρί[ωϲ

4–5 κ̣ [ατὰ πό]|[λεμον] ἔργοιϲ. Luppe’s supplement fits the space well, explains
the trace before the break, and finds parallels in a number of historical sources:
Thuc. 2,36,4, Plb. 1,6,6 etc., Diod. 8,1,1 etc., Dion. Hal. Ant. 6,96,2 etc.; cf. Plat.
Leg. 11, 921e and Aeschin. In. Ctes. 243 τὰ κ. π. καλὰ ἔργα. Kerkhecker suggested
π̣ [ροειρη]|[μένοιϲ], but π does not suit the upright visible before the break (no
sign of/room for upper horizontal protruding to the left). Here, ἔργα must be
synonymous with ll. 2–3 (πολεμι[κὰϲ) πρά]|[ξειϲ; cf. e.g. Dion. Hal. Ant. 3,1,5–
2,1 πολιτικὰ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα τοῦ ἀνδρὸϲ (Tullius Hostilius) ἔργα παραδίδοται λόγου
ἄξια. πολεμικαὶ δὲ πράξειϲ πολλαὶ μὲν καὶ ἄλλαι μνημονεύονται. For the opposition
ἔργα / λόγοι in rhetors’ speeches see Isoc. Hel. 4 ἐν μὲν τοῖϲ λόγοιϲ … ἐν δὲ τοῖϲ
ἔργοιϲ.24

5–6 μὴ μό[νον τὰϲ] | [ἐν το]ῖϲ̣ ἀγῶϲι πράξειϲ̣ … [---ἀ]|[πομν]η̣ μονεύειν. Cf. Aristid.
Or. 40,18 οὐ τοίνυν ἐπὶ πράξεϲι μόνον καὶ ἀγῶϲιν (“in connection with deeds and
contests”) ἔχοι τιϲ ἂν Ἡρακλέουϲ μνημονεύειν, ἀλλὰ κἀν ταῖϲ ἐπιθυμίαιϲ τοῦ βίου
κτλ. Plutarch (De Alex. fort. II 11,342d) describes Alexander as eager to cross to
Asia, but held back by military manoeuvres (πράξειϲ) against the Illyrians and
the Triballians and great dangers and struggles (ἀγῶϲι μεγάλοιϲ). The two words
are often combined by Plutarch with reference to military acts: vd. Mar. 7,1 πρά-
ξεων μεγάλων καὶ λαμπρῶν ἀγώνων ἐπιλαβόμενοϲ; Comp. Lys. et Sull. 4,1 πολέμων
δ’ ἀγῶϲι καὶ ϲτρατηγικαῖϲ πράξεϲι, Comp. Cim. et Luc. 1,8,1 αἱ δὲ περὶ τὰϲ πράξειϲ
καὶ τοὺϲ ἀγῶναϲ κατορθώϲειϲ; cf. Praec. ger. rei publ. 1 p. 798b ἐν πράξεϲι πολιτικαῖϲ
καὶ δημοϲίοιϲ ἀγῶϲι, with qualifying adjectives relating to the sphere of public
engagement.

6–7 ἀλλὰ ἅ]|[μα καὶ]. We accept Luppe’s supplement (Kerkhecker’s [ἀλλὰ] |

[πρόϲετι] and [αὐτὰϲ] | [ἀλλὰ καὶ] are both too long for the space), but we prefer
to syllabize [ἀλλὰ ἅ]|[μα, as we believe that not more than 4–5 letters would fit
at the beginning of l. 7.

24 Cf. Zajonz (2000: 99–100).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 145

7 ἐν τοῖϲ λόγοιϲ̣. “in speaking” as opposed to “in fighting” (l. 6 ἐν το]ῖϲ̣ ἀγῶϲι πρά-
ξειϲ̣). The importance accorded to the words uttered by a leader is a topos dear
to Plutarch. It appears in three of his works, two of which are on Alexander, De
Alex. fort. and the Life of Alexander. Kerkhecker aptly showed how the contrast
between deeds and words of remarkable men is extensively treated in Reg. et
imp. apophth. 172c–d: words, not actions mirror the ethos of a political or mil-
itary leader, as the former depend on judgment, while the latter are subject to
Fortune. The De Alex. fort. I 9 p. 330e contains a condensed version of the same
principle: as a man’s ethos lies in words, it is Alexander’s speeches that show his
wisdom and self-restraint. The opposition λόγοϲ / ἔργον is in dynamic tension
with another opposition, τύχη / ἀρετή: notwithstanding Fortune’s attempts to
hamper his virtue, Alexander remains a true philosopher (ibid., 330c–e). He
is, in fact, a better philosopher than those commonly accredited as such—
Sokrates, Plato and Pythagoras (ibid., 331a), as he has put into practice (ἔργον)
his philosophical principles (λόγοϲ, see 333a); cf. De Stoic. repugn. 1 p. 1033b:
the λόγοϲ of a philosopher is an ἔργον.25 As Spencer observed,26 the De Alex.
fort. differs substantially from the Life in the characterization of Alexander; in
the former, Plutarch portrays Alexander as a ‘thinking soldier, a philosopher in
action’, whereas in the latter he delineates the profile of a ‘philosopher-king’.
The papyrus seems to reflect the moral and philosophical plan of the Life:
Alexander stands out (διενέγκαντοϲ, l. 10) for his virtue, and this is proven by
his words.

7–8 [γεγε]|[νημέ]ν̣αϲ. “Present in”/“emerging from” would seem to be a suitable

supplement (cf. Greg. Nyss. In cant. cantic. 6,71 ἡ ἐν τοῖϲ φθάϲαϲι λόγοιϲ γεγενη-
μένη θεωρία; Isoc. Hel. 2 τὴν περιεργίαν ταύτην ἐν τοῖϲ λόγοιϲ ἐγγεγενημένην “affec-
tation arisen in rhetoric”), although the gap at the end of l. 7 might have been
large enough to accommodate up to five letters. We could not find convincing
parallels for either Kerkhecker’s [ὑπο]|[κειμέ]ναϲ or Luppe’s [ἐξηλ]|[λαγμέ]ναϲ.

8 ἀποκρ̣[ίϲειϲ. Lit. “answers”, possibly “resolutions”. As P. Parsons points out (per

litt.), the use of ἀπόκριϲιϲ here implies the situation where someone puts a ques-
tion to the great man, and his incisive answer shows his character—it may be
a “decision”, but the meaning may be wider, as at Plu. Alex. 15,4 (Alexander to
Perdikkas).

25 Wardman (1955: 96–99).

26 Spencer (2002: 37).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

146 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

10–11 ε[ἴ τινεϲ]|[ κ]α̣ ι ̣̀ ἕ[̣ τε]ρ̣οι̣. Rea’s supplement (ap. Kerkhecker) ε[ἴ τινεϲ | καὶ
ἕτε]ρ̣οι ̣ is compatible with the space and the (previously unreported) traces at
the beginning of l. 10 (lower extremities of one, possibly two letters and the
left-hand lower arc of a rounded one). The normal word order for the paren-
thetical phrase would be in fact εἰ καί τινεϲ ἕτεροι: vd. Plb. 3,95,7, or καὶ εἴ τινεϲ
ἕτεροι, if followed by finite verb: Aristot. EN 1,13 p. 1102a. However, ε[ἰ καί τινε]|ϲ̣
ἕ[̣ τε]ρ̣οι would be difficult to accommodate at the end of l. 10, and word divi-
sion would be unusual.27 Alternatively, one could propose ε[ἰ δὴ δι]|α̣φ̣[έ]ρ̣οι “if
he differed indeed (from other men)”, but we would expect to see traces of φ’s
upright somewhere below the line.

10 διενέγκαντοϲ. Cf. P. Laur. IV 138 (= Prandi [2000: no. 10]) A, ll. 6–7 νε]νίκη-
κεν δὲ τοὺϲ πọ[λλοὺϲ ? | ἀ]ν̣δραγαθίᾳ τε καὶ εὐε[ργεϲίᾳ and Β 5 οὐ]δενὸϲ ἐλάττονα
(Prandi, ἔλαττον Pintaudi).

11–12. κ[αὶ τὸ (or, perhaps too short for the lacuna, κ[ατ’) εἶ]|[δ]οϲ τῆϲ εἰϲ θεοὺϲ
μετα[βολῆϲ. Lit. “(also) in the image of his transit to the gods”; cf. Is. Hel. 61 τὴν
δύναμιν ἰϲόθεον λαβοῦϲα … τοὺϲ ἀδελφοὺϲ εἰϲ θεοὺϲ ἀνήγαγεν, βουλομένη δὲ πιϲτὴν
ποιῆϲαι τὴν μεταβολὴν “transformation” (Helen raising Kastor and Polydeukes
to gods). Arrian (An. 7,27,3) reports the expression παρὰ θεοὺϲ ἀποχώρηϲιϲ, say-
ing that Alexander wished to throw himself into the Euphrates, so that the
future generations, not finding his corpse, would believe in his descent from
and return to the gods: ἐκ θεοῦ τε αὐτῷ ἡ γένεϲιϲ ξυνέβη καὶ παρὰ θεοὺϲ ἡ ἀπο-
χώρηϲιϲ, cf. Zonaras Hist. Succ. Alex. F 24,4 Roos = FGrHist 156 F 10,4 εἰϲ θεοὺϲ δὲ
ἡ μεταχώρηϲιϲ, possibly based on Arrian.28 As Kerkhecker writes, μεταβολή “is
rather a euphemism for death than a technical expression for deification; here
it is more than merely a colourless circumlocution and expresses the peculiar
nature and circumstances of Alexander’s death”. Supplementing the accusative
of respect κ[αὶ τὸ εἶ]|[δ]οϲ allows us to avoid the difficult κ[αὶ δὴ] | [πρ]ὸϲ “and
especially by reason of” and κ[αὶ δὴ] | [ἐκτ]ὸϲ “even apart from”: for εἶδοϲ as acc.
of respect with μεταβάλλειν vd. [Aesop.] 175 (I 1 Hausrath—Hunger) πονη-
ροί, κἂν τὰ μάλιϲτα τὸ εἶδοϲ μεταβληθῶϲι, τὸν τρόπον οὐ μεταβάλλονται; as object
of the same verb, vd. Plu. Soll. animal. 36 p. 984a οὐ γὰρ ὁ θεὸϲ … μεταβαλὼν τὸ
εἶδοϲ (Apollo Delphinius); Comm. not. adv. Stoic. 11 p. 1064a μεταβαλεῖν εἰϲ θηρίου

27 In prose papyri, final consonants are normally kept with their word (unless the word is a
postpositive: see Janko [2000: 76]) and the line is ‘compressed’ accordingly to preserve
column alignment. On syllabification in Greek literary papyri see Colomo, forthcoming.
On the division of syllables in Greek inscriptions, Threatte (1980: 64–73).
28 See Swan (2004: 37).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 147

μορφὴν τὸ εἶδοϲ. For κατ’ εἶδοϲ: Arist. Long. 1,5 p. 464b19 λέγω δὲ κατὰ γένοϲ μὲν
διαφέρειν οἷον ἄνθρωπον πρὸϲ ἵππον (μακροβιώτερον γὰρ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένοϲ ἢ
τὸ τῶν ἵππων), κατ’ εἶδοϲ δ’ ἄνθρωπον πρὸϲ ἄνθρωπον.
The rhetoric of Alexander’s divinity originated, essentially, from three epi-
sodes from his campaigns: first, his visit to the oracle of Ammon at the oasis
of Siwa in 331BC and the priest’s acknowledgment of his filiation to the god;
secondly, his introduction of the custom of proskynesis during a banquet in
Baktria in 327BC; thirdly, his demand for divine honours from the Greek cities
in 324BC. The ancient sources report different versions of these three inci-
dents, and it is not clear whether Alexander demanded or merely encouraged
his own divine cult, or when this began.29 Whether contrived by Alexander or
not, his divine status soon became one of the political refrains of Ptolemy’s
propaganda, leading to the institution of a royal cult and the construction of
the sumptuous sema in Alexandria (Ps.-Callisth. Hist. Alex. (recension β) 3,34;
Str. 17,1,8 p. 749).30 Legends about the king’s divine birth, his assimilation to
Dionysos, and the ascent to the heavens of his soul proliferated in the Hel-
lenistic age and created a model of heroic leadership for Roman generals of
the Late Republic (Scipio, Pompey and Caesar) as well as emperors (Augus-
tus, Caligula, and Trajan).31 Plutarch also devotes two chapters of the Life (2–3)
to the description of the portents accompanying Alexander’s conception and
birth, which serve as proof of his divine status.

13–14 [κεφαλαι]|[οῦ]ντεϲ. “Summarizing” (Kerkhecker), cf. Thuc. 3,67 ἀλλ’ ἢν

οἱ ἡγεμόνεϲ, ὥϲπερ νῦν ὑμεῖϲ, κεφαλαιώϲαντεϲ πρὸϲ τοὺϲ ξύμπανταϲ διαγνώμαϲ
ποιήϲηϲθε, ἧϲϲόν τιϲ ἐπ’ ἀδίκοιϲ ἔργοιϲ λόγουϲ καλοὺϲ ζητήϲει. Alternatively, [ἐπι-
κοϲμή]|[ϲα]ντεϲ “having honoured him”, used (absolutely) in the sense of “hon-
ouring” in Hdt. 7,228 Ἀμφικτύονέϲ εἰϲί ϲφεαϲ (the Spartans) οἱ ἐπικοϲμήϲαντεϲ
(with inscriptions and pillars). If we assume, instead, that π]άντων ἀνθρώπων
is governed by this participle, [ἐπακού]|[ϲα]ντεϲ “having heard from all men”
becomes possible. However, a generic reference to mankind does not really suit
the earlier detailed methodological remarks.

16–17 κ[ατὰ] | πατέρα μὲν ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέου[ϲ. As pointed out by Kerkhecker, ll. 16–
17, starting from the participle γεγονώϲ, show exact correspondence with Diod.

29 See Tarn (1948: appendix 22: Alexander’s deification); Edmunds (1971: 363–391);
Friedricksmeyer (2003: 253–278); Mossé (2004: 81–83); Worthington (2012: 319–
324); (2014: 265–269) with updated bibliography.
30 Cf. Goukowsky (1978: 133–135).
31 Weinstock (1971: 356–384); Spencer (2002: 37; 165–203); Mossé (2004: 170–172).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

148 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

17,1,5. The Argead dynasty claimed descent from a Heraklid ancestor; see Hdt.
7,137–139, Thuc. 2,99,3 on the Temenid Perdikkas as founder of the Makedonian
royal family; Theopomp. Hist., FGrHist / BNJ 115 F 393, Plu. Alex. 2,1, Iust. 7,1,7–
2,4 on the Temenid Karanos as ancestor. Full genealogy (Herakles—Karanos—
Perdikkas) in Satyros F *28 fr. 1 col. II and F *29 Schorn.32 Alexander’s descent
from Herakles was undisputed, see e.g. Plu. Alex. 2,1: τῶν πάνυ πεπιϲτευμένων
ἐϲτί; cf. Arr. An. 4,10,6–7: Ἡρακλείδην γὰρ εἶναι Ἀλέξανδρον … καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο
εἶναι ἀμφίλογον ὅτι ἀπελθόντα γε ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ὡϲ θεὸν τιμήϲουϲι. In De fort. Alex.
II 11 p. 342a, Plutarch stresses Alexander’s descent from Herakles by a ‘logical’
argument: were the Makedonian not the son of Zeus—as Herakles was—, he
could not have bore all the toils that Virtue inflicted on him.33

17–18 κα]|τὰ δὲ̣ μητέρα τῶν Αἰ⟨α⟩κι{ν}δ[ῶν. Alexander was descended from the
Aiakids, the mythical family of Achilles, through his mother Olympias; Achilles’
son, Neoptolemos, while returning from the Trojan war, landed in Epeiros and
founded the royal house of the Molossians, to which Olympias belonged (Plu.
Pyrr. 1). Famous for her strong character and the introduction of wild Dionysiac
rituals (Plu. Alex. 2,6 ἡ δ’ Ὀλυμπιὰϲ μᾶλλον ἑτέρων ζηλώϲαϲα τὰϲ κατοχάϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ
ἐνθουϲιαϲμοὺϲ ἐξάγουϲα βαρβαρικώτερον), Olympias must have had an impact on
Alexander’s beliefs, fostering in him the idea that he was the son of Zeus and the
heir of Achilles,34 whose deeds Alexander read in an edition of Homer prepared
for him by Aristotle: see Onesicr., FGrHist / BNJ 134 F 38 = Plu. Alex. 8,2. Alexan-
der’s humble reverence towards his ancestor is discernible in the episode of his
arrival at Troy, where he anoints Achilles’ tomb and organises a race in his hon-
our: Plu. Alex. 15,4; cf. Diod. 17,17,3; Arr. An. 1,12,1–2.

21–22 εἰϲ̣ τ̣ὴ̣ν Ἀϲίαν̣ [δια]|βαίνειν. See above, introduction. Before crossing the
Hellespont, Alexander allotted all his wealth to fellow Makedonians (Plu. Alex.
15,2–3) and planned the campaign in advance to determine the time most suit-
able for departure: Diod. 17,16; cf. Arr. An. 1,1,2–3. Alexander inherited the idea
of a Panhellenic crusade from his father Philip II, who in 336 BC had sent Par-
menion and Attalos to Anatolia to free the Greek cities (Diod. 17,91–92).35

32 On Herakles and Makedonian ethnicity, and Alexander’s credentials as Temenid, see

Hall (1997: 64).
33 On the Alexander birth myths, see Odgen (2011: 7–28).
34 Friedricksmeyer (2003: 255); Thomas (2007: 95–97).
35 On Alexander’s Panhellenic campaign, see Flower (2000: 97–98).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 149

22–23 ϲυναγαγὼν̣ [τοὺϲ] | ἐν ἀξιώμαϲι τῶν φίλων. Cf. Arr. F 24,4 Roos—Wirth:
ἐν ἀξιώϲει ξυναγαγὼν καὶ φράϲαϲ τὴν Περδίκκου διάνοιαν; Diod. 17,16,1 ϲυνήγαγε
τοὺϲ ἡγεμόναϲ τῶν ϲτρατιωτῶν καὶ τοὺϲ ἀξιολογωτάτουϲ τῶν φίλων “the noblest,
most important, noteworthy of friends”, i.e. close advisers in his entourage
(summoned by Alexander before setting off for the Asiatic campaign). The
plural ἀξιώματα refers to social / official distinction, cf. e.g. Diod. 19,56,1 κατη-
γορίαν ἐποιεῖτο (sc. Seleukos) πικρὰν Ἀντιγόνου, λέγων ὅτι διέγνωκεν πάνταϲ τοὺϲ
ἐν ἀξιώμαϲιν ὄνταϲ. The term presupposes a hierarchic honour-based system
of the Makedonian kingdom: the king entrusted the members of the Graeco-
Makedonian elite with administrative and military matters at various levels.
These men constituted special elite units of cavalry or infantry, and could
serve as πάρεδροι “advisors to the king” or ϲωματοφύλακεϲ, a group of seven
selected bodyguards who would watch over the king during times of illness
or guard him during the night.36 As pointed out by P. Parsons (per litt.), one
may draw a correspondence between this assemblage and the ἑταῖροι in Plu.
Alex. 15,2, where the king distributes parts of the crown property to his com-
panions.

Bibliography

Alfieri Tonini, T., Problemi di fonti nei libri XVI e XVII di Diodoro, in E. Calvagno—
C. Molè Ventura (eds.), Mito, storia, tradizione. Diodoro Siculo e la storiografia clas-
sica, Atti del Convegno Internazionale Catania-Agira (7–8 Dicembre 1984), Catania
1991, 65–75.
Anson, E.M., Macedonia’s Alleged Constitutionalism, in CJ 80 (1985), 306–316.
Bureth, P., Les titulatures impériales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions
d’Égypte (30 a.C.–284 p.C.), Bruxelles 1964.
Burgess, B.W.—M. Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time. The Latin Chronicle Traditions from
the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD, Turnhout 2013.
Carney, E., The Role of the Basilikoi Paides at the Argead Court, in T. Howe—J. Reames
(eds.), Macedonian Legacies. Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in
Honor of Eugene N. Borza, Claremont 2008, 145–164 = ead., King and Court in Ancient
Macedonia. Rivalry, Treason and Conspiracy, Swansea 2015, 207–223.
Cavallo, G., Scrivere libri e documenti nel mondo antico. Mostra di papiri della Bib-
lioteca Medicea Laurenziana (25 Agosto–25 Settembre 1998), Firenze 1998.

36 On Makedonian hetaireia Kalléris (1954: 172–179); Anson (1985: 315–316); Errington

(1986: 217–218); Hammond (1989: 53–57); Roisman (2003: 294–298).

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

150 politicians, rhetoricians and rulers

Cavallo, G., Il calamo e il papiro. La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di
Bisanzio, Firenze 2005.
Cavallo, G., La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri, Pisa—Roma 2008.
Cavallo, G.—H. Maehler (eds.), Hellenistic Bookhands, Berlin 2008.
Christesen, P., Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge 2007.
Colomo, D., Word Division in Literary Papyri, delivered at the 26th International Con-
gress of Papyrology, University of Geneva, 17.08.2010.
Denuzzo, I., Le storie di Alessandro nei papiri, in PapLup 12 (2003), 69–98.
Desideri, P., “Non scriviamo storie, ma vite” (Plut. Alex. 1.2). La formula biografica in
Plutarco, in Testis Temporum. Aspetti e problemi della storiografia antica, Como 1995,
16–25.
Edmunds, L., The Religiosity of Alexander, in GRBS 12 (1971), 363–391.
Errington, M., Geschichte Makedoniens, München 1986.
Flower, M., Alexander the Great and Panhellenism, in A.B. Bosworth—E.J. Bayn-
ham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, 96–135.
Friedricksmeyer, E.A., Alexander’s Religion and Divinity, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s
Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden—Boston 2003, 253–278.
Goukowski, P., Essai sur les origines du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 av. J.-C.), I. Les
origines politiques, Nancy 1978.
Hall, J., Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997.
Hamilton, J.M., Plutarch, Alexander. A Commentary, Oxford 1969.
Hammond, N.G.L., Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The So-Called Vulgate
Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius, Cambridge 1983.
Hammond, N.G.L., The Macedonian State. Origins, Institutions and History, Oxford
1989.
Hatzopoulos, M.B., Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, I. A Historical and Epi-
graphical Study, Athens 1996.
Janko, R., Philodemus. On Poems. Book 1, Oxford 2000.
Johanson, S.F., Scholar at Work. The Compiling of the Oxyrhynchos Chronicle (P. Oxy. I,
12), in J. Bingen—G. Nachtergael (eds.), Actes du XVe congrès international de
papyrologie, III, Brussels 1989, 78–85.
Johnson, W.A., The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose, in ZPE 100
(1994), 65–68.
Kalléris, J., Les anciens Macédoniens. Étude linguistique et historique, I, Athens 1954.
Kerkhecker, A., 3823. On Alexander, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, LVI, London 1989,
6–13.
Luppe, W., Der Bericht über Alexanders Taten P.Oxy. 3823, in ZPE 86 (1991), 19–23.
Mossé, C., Alexander. Destiny and Myth, Edinburgh 2004.
Odgen, D., Alexander the Great. Myth, Genesis and Sexuality, Exeter 2011.
Powell, E., The Sources of Plutarch’s Alexander, in JHS 59 (1939), 229–240.

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV

1125. anonymous, on alexander the great 151

Prandi, L., L’Alessandro di Plutarco. Riflessioni su De Al. Magn. Fort. e su Alex., in L. van
der Stockt (ed.), Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch. Acta of the IV Interna-
tional Congress of the International Plutarch Society (Leuven, July 3–6 1996), Leuven—
Namur 2000, 375–386.
Prandi, L., Corpus dei papiri storici greci e latini. Parte A: Storici greci. 2. Testi storici
anepigrafi. Vol. 9: I papiri e le storie di Alessandro Magno, Pisa—Roma 2010.
Prandi, L., Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca storica libro XVII. Commento storico, Milano 2013.
Roberts, C.H., Greek Literary Hands, Oxford 1955.
Roisman, J., Honor in Alexander’s Campaign, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to
Alexander the Great, Leiden—Boston 2003, 279–321.
Schorn, S., Chamaeleon. Biography and Literature “Peri tou deina”, in A. Martano—
E. Matelli—D. Mirhady (eds.), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Her-
aclea. Text, Translation, and Discussion, New Brunswick—London 2012, 411–444.
Spencer, D., The Roman Alexander. “Reading a Cultural Myth”, Exeter 2002.
Stagakis, G.S., Observations on the ETAIROI of Alexander the Great, in Ancient Mace-
donia, I. Papers Read at the First International Symposium held in Thessaloniki (26–
29 August 1968), Thessaloniki 1970, 86–102.
Swan, P.M., The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s
Roman History Books 55–56 (9B.C.–A.D.14), New York 2004.
Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great, II, Cambridge 1948.
Thomas, C., Alexander the Great in His World, Oxford 2007.
Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, I. Phonology, Berlin—New York 1980.
Wallace, S.L., Taxation in Egypt. From Augustus to Diocletian, Princeton 1938.
Wardman, A.E., Plutarch and Alexander, in CQ n.s. 5 (1955), 96–107.
Weinstock, S., Divus Julius, Oxford 1971.
Whitmarsh, T., Alexander’s Hellenism and Plutarch’s Textualism, in CQ n.s. 52 (2002),
174–192.
Worthington, I., Alexander the Great. A Reader, London-New York ²2012.
Worthington, I., By the Spear. Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of
the Macedonian Empire, Oxford 2014.
Zajonz, S., Isokrates’ Enkomion auf Helena. Ein Kommentar, Göttingen 2000.

Marco Perale (Liverpool) and Guen Taietti (Liverpool)

For use by the Author only | © 2019 Koninklijke Brill NV