No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ARRIAN, ANABASIS 1.17.10–12 AND THE HISTORY OF FOURTH-CENTURY EPHESUS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2023
Abstract
Arrian's account of Alexander's brief time at Ephesus (Anab. 1.17.10–12) is shot through with political and factional violence, but he nevertheless concludes that Alexander received acclaim for what he did in the city. But what did Alexander actually do at Ephesus? Arrian offers a list of events that historians have traditionally interpreted as connected to Macedonian intervention in Asia Minor before indicating that Alexander put an end to the violence. This article offers a new reading of this passage by situating these events in the context of fourth-century Ephesus to show how Alexander's actions responded to the local conditions that he encountered.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Footnotes
I thank Frances Pownall who organized the conference in Edmonton where I presented the first version of this paper, as well as Matt Simonton, Dan Leon, Aaron Herschkowitz, Joel Christensen and CQ's reader for invaluable feedback. All ancient dates are b.c.e.
References
1 Badian, E., ‘Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia’, in Badian, E., Collected Papers on Alexander the Great (New York, 2012 [original article, 1966]), 124–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 130–1 is a notable dissenter; see below.
2 The preference for Arrian among ancient historians is as much an indictment of the other sources as a vote of confidence in him. Over the past four decades scholars have repeatedly chipped away at Arrian's reputation, such that most biographies of Alexander now offer measured caveats about Arrian's ‘artful omission’: e.g. Cartledge, P., Alexander the Great (New York, 2004), 284Google Scholar; Green, P., Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 b.c.: A Historical Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991), 569Google Scholar; Worthington, I., Alexander the Great: Man and God (New York, 2004), 323Google Scholar. On Arrian as a historian, see Liotsakis, V., Alexander the Great in Arrian's ‘Anabasis’ (Berlin, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leon, D.W., Arrian the Historian: Writing the Greek Past in the Roman Empire (Austin, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 E.g. Green (n. 2), 185–7; Worthington, I., By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise of the Macedonian Empire (Oxford, 2014), 151Google Scholar; Naiden, F., Soldier, Priest, and God: A Life of Alexander the Great (Oxford, 2019), 56Google Scholar. In the first volume of his Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander (Oxford, 1980), 33, A.B. Bosworth observes that ‘it may be doubted how extensive [Arrian's] historical knowledge was. He had none of the erudition of Polybius, and when he leaves the narrow confines of Alexander and his chosen sources the knowledge is at best superficial.’ And yet Bosworth is content to follow Arrian's version of events when it comes to Ephesus: see Bosworth (this note), 1.131–3 and Bosworth, A.B., Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1993), 45–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 251–2.
4 Ephesus appears in conjunction with the deeds of exceptional Athenians, Spartans and Persians in the surviving fifth- and fourth-century histories, while extant fragments from local historians such as Creophylus shed light on their contemporary period, but only by implication, as Simonton, M., ‘The local history of Hippias of Erythrai’, Hesperia 87 (2018), 497–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar shows for Hippias of Erythrae. Creophylus probably belongs to the early fourth century: Thomas, R., Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World (Oxford, 2019), 201–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 For Pygela, see G. Ragone, ‘Pygela/Phygela: fra paretimologia e storia’, Athenaeum 84 (1996), 341–79.
6 I use the edition of the ATL in B. Paarman, ‘Aparchai and phoroi: a new commented edition of the Athenian tribute quota lists and assessment decrees’ (Diss., University of Fribourg, 2007). Ephesus appears from the second list, col. 6 line 13. Marathesium is sometimes linked with Ephesus, but see S.R. Jensen, ‘Tribute and syntely at Erythrai’ (Diss., Rutgers, 2010), 205–7; Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972), 428Google Scholar.
7 The definitions come from the Roman-era lexicographer Harpocration, who defined syntely (συντέλεια) as the act of paying together, and apotaxis (ἀπόταξις) as a separate assessment for those who had previously been assessed together (τὸ χωρὶς τετάχθαι τοὺς πρότερον ἀλλήλοις συντεταγμένους). Ephesus and its satellite communities fit the criteria for a syntely, but the relationship at Ephesus was different from those at Erythrae and Miletus, the other examples in Ionia that are the focus of Jensen (n. 6), 48–111 and Jensen, S.R., ‘Tribute and syntely at Erythrai’, CW 105 (2012), 479–96Google Scholar.
8 Balcer, J., Sparda by the Bitter Sea (Providence, 1984), 418Google Scholar suggested that the change was meant to weaken potential rivals within the Delian League; cf. Engelmann, H. and Merkelbach, R., Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai (Bonn, 1972), 34Google Scholar with regard to Erythrae. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969), 135–6Google Scholar, at 193 claim that the change was meant to increase revenue despite this frequently not happening.
9 Jensen (n. 7), 105, 479–96 and Jensen, S.R., ‘Synteleia and apotaxis on the Athenian tribute lists’, in Figueira, T.J. and Jensen, S.R. (edd.), Hegemonic Finances (London, 2019), 55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 The fragmentary nature of the lists makes determining the date of these changes difficult. Ephesus is absent from the extant list for 446/5 (list 9) and appears on the list for 445/4 (list 8) without the notation for the accompanying aparche (col. 5 line 17). List 11 (444/3) records Ephesus with a six-talent phoros, but includes no evidence for the satellite communities (col. 1 line 25). Isinda's contribution appears on list 12, which also has a record for Pygela without its payment (col. 1 lines 29–30). No payment is recorded for Pygela until 440/39 (list 15, col. 2 line 13).
11 Rubinstein, L., ‘Ionia’, in Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (edd.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford, 2004), 1053–107Google Scholar, at 1094 suggests that Milesians in Pygela had ‘limited citizenship’ and Pygelans in Miletus had reciprocal privileges.
12 Pygela escapes mention in ancient accounts of the refoundation, but it was probably included, as suggested by Robert, L., ‘Sur les inscriptions d’Éphèse: fêtes, athletes, empereurs, épigrammes’, RPh 41 (1967), 7–84Google Scholar, at 40, to general agreement.
13 I accept the general historicity of this campaign, but Polyaenus’ details are suspect. There is nothing to suggest a date, and the episode dimly echoes another mysterious operation where Aegyptus, one of Mausolus’ subordinates, failed to capture Miletus. On dating the campaign to c.353, see Hornblower, S., Mausolos (Oxford, 1982), 112Google Scholar. Cf. Ragone (n. 5), 364–6.
14 See LGPN Va 206, which lists the numismatic evidence separately from Arrian and Polyaenus.
15 Badian (n. 1), 127 and H.-J. Gehrke, Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich, 1985), 59 do so explicitly. Philip's activity in the eastern Aegean sets the chronological boundaries in this interpretation, while the Persian return falls roughly between Philip's death and Alexander's campaign; but see below.
16 Simonton, M., ‘The burial of Brasidas and the politics of commemoration in the Classical period’, AJPh 139 (2018), 1–30Google Scholar, at 7–9 characterizes the destruction of monuments as typical of conflict between different regime types. Cf. the Philites Stele (I.Erythrai 503), which describes how an oligarchic coup had defaced the statue of a ‘tyrannicide’ considered a hero in the dêmos, probably by removing its sword: Teegarden, D.A., Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle against Tyranny (Princeton, 2013), 142–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simonton (this note), 11–13; Simonton (n. 4), 87.
17 Diodorus Siculus (15.90.3–4) presents the ‘Satraps’ Revolt’ as a symptom of the Persian Empire in crisis, but revolts were endemic in Anatolia: P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, transl. P.T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN, 2002), 656–75, 680–1; P. Debord, L'Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412–323 a.C.) (Bordeaux, 1999), 302–66; M. Weiskopf, The So-Called ‘Great Satraps’ Revolt’, 366–360 b.c.: Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West (Stuttgart, 1989), 94–9.
18 On the Ionian renaissance, see Hornblower (n. 13), 78–105; P. Pedersen, ‘The 4th-century b.c. “Ionian Renaissance” and Karian identity’, in O. Henry (ed.), 4th-Century Karia: Defining a Karian Identity under the Hekatomnids (Paris, 2013), 33–46.
19 Ellis, J.R., Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London, 1976), 221–2Google Scholar; Badian (n. 1), 127; Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T., A History of Macedonia. Volume II: 550–336 b.c. (Oxford, 1979), 691Google Scholar; Heckel, W., The Conquests of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 2008), 43Google Scholar. In fact, the Macedonians never reached Ephesus in 336: Bosworth (n. 3 [1993]), 34–5, 251–2.
20 Although Arrian calls Alexander's opponents at Ephesus ‘oligarchs’, as distinguished from the newly empowered ‘democrats’, the make-up of the body politic at this period is opaque. F. Naiden, Ancient Supplication, rev. edn (Oxford, 2009), 147–53 argues that Syrphax ought to be identified as a Persian-supported tyrant, and cf. Briant (n. 17), 855; U. Muss, ‘Zur geschichte des Artemisions’, in U. Muss (ed.), Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums (Vienna, 2008), 47–54, at 51.
21 Bieber, M., ‘The portraits of Alexander the Great’, TAPhA 93 (1949), 373–421Google Scholar, 423–7, at 378; and Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Madison, WI, 1964), 20–1.
22 Green (n. 2), 98, 186 refers to the dedication as ‘a quasi-cult’, while Badian (n. 1), 127 claims that the Ephesians made Philip synnaos (‘sharing a temple’) with Artemis; I take him as suggesting divine overtones in the action.
23 Bosworth (n. 3 [1980]), 133 and (n. 3 [1993]), 281; Worthington, I., Philip II of Macedonia (New Haven, CT, 2008), 231Google Scholar. For the standard distinction between statue types, see Queyrel, F., ‘Les statues honorifiques entre texte et image’, Pallas 93 (2013), 99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 99; Stewart, A., Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1993), 208Google Scholar.
24 Steiner, D., Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought (Princeton, 2001), 260–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Worthington, I., ‘Hyperides 5.32 and Alexander the Great's statue’, Hermes 129 (2001), 129–31Google Scholar.
26 See particularly Ma, J., Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Muss (n. 20), 49; Rubinstein (n. 11), 1073.
28 These negotiations at least by 337 with the so-called Pixodarus affair and probably earlier. I follow S. Ruzicka, ‘The “Pixodarus affair” reconsidered again’, in E. Carney and D. Ogden (edd.), Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives (Oxford, 2010), 3–12 in seeing greater diplomatic activity by Philip than is sometimes assumed.
29 Nawotka, K., ‘Freedom of the Greek cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great’, Klio 85 (2003), 15–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 18–23.
30 Alexander needed no persuasion, but Delius’ presence served as political theatre to demonstrate that the Greeks of Asia would rise up against their barbarian overlords just as Isocrates had predicted (4.135).
31 Badian (n. 1), 130–1.
32 M. Faraguna, ‘Alexander and the Greeks’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden, 2003), 99–130, at 109–10. On syntaxis and phoros, see M.M. Kholod, ‘On the financial relations of Alexander the Great and the Greek cities in Asia Minor’, in A. Mehr, A.V. Makhlayuk, O. Gabelko (edd.), Ruthenia Classica Aetatis Novae (Stuttgart, 2013), 83–92 and M.M. Kholod, ‘The financial administration of Asia Minor under Alexander the Great’, in T. Howe, S. Müller, R. Stoneman (edd.), Ancient Historiography on War and Empire (Oxford, 2017), 136–48.
33 τοὺς δὲ φόρους, ὅσους τοῖς βαρβάροις ἀπέφερον, τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι ξυντελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν. The infinitive here is often taken to include an implied ‘henceforth’, but Arrian's compressed style could simply indicate a one-time demand.
34 Cic. Brut. 83.286–7; L. Pearson, The Lost Historians of Alexander the Great (Oxford, 1960), 246–7.
35 For Artemidorus, see BNJ 438 (T.M. Banchich).
36 Argead kings often made extravagant donations to important sanctuaries (H. Bowden, ‘The Argeads and Greek sanctuaries’, in S. Müller, T. Howe, H. Bowden and R. Rollinger [edd.], The History of the Argeads: New Perspectives [Wiesbaden, 2017], 163–82), but, while Kholod (n. 32 [2017]) has recently shown that Alexander was not strapped for resources, the dedication probably belongs after 334, if it was not a later invention altogether (B. Dreyer, ‘Heroes, cults, and divinity’, in W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle [edd.], Alexander the Great: A New History [Malden, MA, 2009], 218–34, at 225–6; cf. Bosworth [n. 3 (1980)], 132–3).
37 Translation adapted after H.L. Jones's Loeb Classical Library volume. Herostratus’ motivation for burning the temple remains a mystery. Proposals range from him being a scapegoat for a lightning strike (following Arist. Mete. 3.1) to his being a foreign saboteur to having been commissioned by the temple administration because a sharp rise in the water table threatened the existing structure (D. Knibbe, Ephesos-Ephesus: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Portrait einer modern Großgrabung [Frankfurt, 1998], 88–9; Muss [n. 20], 51; G.M. Rogers, The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesus [New Haven, CT, 2012], 33 n. 6).
38 Alexander received a comparable inscription at Priene (I.Priene 156) on the temple of Athena Polias. Badian (n. 1), 132 compares the two, arguing that compliance won Priene the king's favour where intransigence at Ephesus won his enmity, but this is a big leap from scant evidence. The inscription at Priene refers to Βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος, a title which Alexander probably adopted in correspondence with Greeks only after the battle of Gaugamela in 331. S.G. Patronos, ‘Public architecture and civic identity in Classical and Hellenistic Ionia’ (Diss., Oxford, 2002), 116–21 nevertheless dates it to 333, but see Arena, E., ‘Alessandro Basileus nella documentazione epigrafica: la dedica del tempio di Atena a Priene (I.Priene 156)’, Historia 62 (2013), 48–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the implausibility of an early date.
39 Excavations at the Artemisium have revealed that the rebuilt temple employed an archaizing style that recalled the ancient prominence of the sanctuary (Muss [n. 20], 51–2). These details take on different significance whether they formed during a period of autonomy or as an assertion of independence under Alexander, but could fit in either context.
40 Baron, C., Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic Historiography (Cambridge, 2013), 58–88Google Scholar argues that Polybius’ critique has distorted Timaeus’ reputation for the worse.
41 C.B. Champion, ‘Timaios (566)’, BNJ T10 commentary; Baron (n. 40), 79.
42 Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54 mentions the sanctuary of Artemis as a particularly safe place to deposit money; Caes. BCiu. 3.33 describes how Scipio intended to seize the pecunia from the temple.
43 Megabyxos is not a name but a title given to wardens at the sanctuary: J. Bremmer, ‘Priestly personnel of the Ephesian Artemision: Anatolian, Persian, Greek, and Roman aspects’, in B. Dignas and K. Trapedach (edd.), Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus (Washington, D.C., 2008), 62–91.
44 Alexander: Arr. Anab. 1.18.2; Agesilaus: Xen. Hell. 3.4.18; Ages. 1.27. Naiden (n. 3), 55 and Appendix 1A no. 9 reads the passage as an epinician parade for Granicus at the invitation of the Ephesian assembly.
45 Börker, C., ‘König Agesilaos von Sparta und der Artemis-Tempel in Ephesos’, ZPE 37 (1980), 69–75Google Scholar, at 69–70 argues for an otherwise unattested building phase; contra, Wesenberg, A., ‘Agesilaos im Artemision’, ZPE 41 (1981), 175–80Google Scholar.
46 Nudell, J.P., ‘Oracular politics: propaganda and myth in the restoration of Didyma’, AHB 32 (2018), 44–60Google Scholar.
47 Badian (n. 1), 127–31 argued that Alexander's initial positive feelings quickly fermented when the citizens rejected his generosity, while Bosworth (n. 3 [1993]), 45 characterized Alexander's actions as ‘benevolent despotism’.
48 In one, the king rewarded the artist with the gift of his mistress Pancaste after Apelles painted her nude; in another, Alexander and Bucephalus had divergent opinions about one of Apelles’ paintings (Ael. VH 2.3). However, Alexander's casual disregard for bodily autonomy and equine art criticism reveal nothing about his relationship with Ephesus. On Apelles, see Heckel, W., Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great (Malden, MA, 2005), 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Pancaste, Heckel (this note), 189.
49 Probably for having killed a politician favourable to Macedonia: Dmitriev, S., The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece (Oxford, 2011), 102–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogers (n. 37), 48–9; Walser, A.V., Bauern und Zinsnehmer (Munich, 2008), 47–9Google Scholar.
50 Bosworth (n. 3 [1980]), 33 attributes this to a lack of erudition, but Photius (Bibl. 91) praised Arrian's lack of unnecessary digressions as one of his virtues as a historian. On Arrian's sophistication as stylist, see Liotsakis (n. 2).
51 Briant, P., Darius dans l'ombre d'Alexandre (Paris, 2003), 4Google Scholar ≈ Darius in the Shadow of Alexander, transl. J.M. Todd (Cambridge, MA, 2015), 4.