The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
The Massacre of the Branchidae
W. W. Tarn
The Classical Review / Volume 36 / Issue 3-4 / May 1922, pp 63 - 66 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00016103, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00016103
How to cite this article: W. W. Tarn (1922). The Massacre of the Branchidae. The Classical Review, 36, pp 63-66 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00016103
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 13 Jun 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
Karepydaatrdai avrijv. Terminations following section, ei C. xiii. 16
THE MASSACRE OF THE BRANCHIDAE. THIS story, which is of considerable summoned the Milesians in his army, importance for Alexander's character, and bade them pass judgment on the is given by Curtius 7, 5, 28 ; Strabo 11, Branchidae for their treachery, but they 518, and 14, 634; Plutarch, de ser. num. could not agree; so he massacred the vind. 557B; and came in the lost part whole population.—Now the temple of Diodorus, book 17 (table of contents). and oracle of Didyma had been sacked Though many have believed it, it is and burnt to the ground by the Persians quite certainly untrue. in the Ionian revolt, after the capture Curtius (the fullest version) says that of Miletus,1 and therefore in Xerxes' Xerxes, on his return from Greece, had day there were neither priests nor -settled the Branchidae in Bactria, temple nor treasure—i.e., the whole of because to please him they had violated the presupposition on which Curtius' %\(violaverant) the Didymeion (Strabo L-,«ays, had betrayed the temple treasure); 1 Herod. 6, 19; Xpov fieT O iv Atfiv^ottri, 4 yijdr \they greeted Alexander with joy; he rt KO( ro xpritrrripiov, tru\r)8ivTa ivfirifitrparo. 64 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW story rests is simply untrue. It was here is the silence of Ptolemy and once the fashion to ' reconcile' Hero- Aristobulus; and unfortunately many dotus and Strabo-Curtius;1 but you writers have adopted Grote's extra* J cannot' reconcile ' good early and bad ordinary contention that the silence of A late evidence when they flatly con- these two does not ' impeach the tradict each other, and Herodotus credibility of the narrative' (XII. 26, cannot well be wrong about such a n. 1), because they merely wished to simple event near his own city. save Alexander's reputation. Grote Didyma lay waste till the Milesians really constructs a critical canon to the began to rebuild it, some time after 334; following effect (see XI. 364, n. 2): it was anyhow building circ. 306-293.* whatever is not in Ptolemy is true, —Xerxes was never at Didyma at all; provided it be damaging to Alexander. Herodotus says that he returned from Before coming to Ptolemy's real atti- Greece by the Hellespont to Sardis, tude, I may notice the other cases passed the winter there in an intrigue where he (Ptolemy) passes over an with Masistes' wife, and in pursuance alleged ' atrocity.' One is the torture of the same intrigue returned straight of Batis at Gaza (Curt. 4, 6, 29). This from Sardis to Susa.—There was no can be traced; it is from Hegesias Milesian contingent in Alexander's army (fr. 3), a sufficient guarantee that it is a in Bactria. Probably there never had rhetorical invention designed to parallel been one, for no contingents from the the Achilles story. The other is the Greek towns of Asia are known, and crucifixion of Arimazes, Oxyartes' sup- doubtless (like Chios) they supplied posed commander on the Sogdian ships, as they had done for Persia; but rock, after his surrender (Curt. 7,11,28; in any case Alexander had sent all his Curtius has the story of the siege hope- Greek allies home from Ecbatana. The lessly misplaced and confused). This judgment of the Milesians was probably is certainly untrue, though the source copied from that of the Boeotians at cannot be traced.8 For the result of Thebes. — The supposed Branchidae this atrocity is supposed to have been settlement made by Xerxes in Bactria that Oxyartes came in himself and pro- (really Sogdiana according to Curtius' ceeded to procure the surrender of itinerary, but it was the Bactrian satrapy) Chorienes by persuading him of Alex- is merely a confusion of two real ander's justice and good faith (Arr. 4, settlements made by Darius; Herod. 4, 21, 7); even in Curtius Oxyartes per- 204, he settles the captive Barcaeans suades Sysimithres (Chorienes) by in Bactria, and 6, 20 he settles the parading Alexander's fides (8, 2, 27), captive Milesians at Ampe, at the mouth for Curtius had not even the wit to of the Tigris. Note that Alexander see that his two statements are mutually never meets with any of the real settle- exclusive. It was the fashion of his ments made by Darius; presumably time to discredit Alexander; anything they had become merged in the native did. population. Somewhat different is Arr. 1, 8, 1, The internal evidence, then, disposes with which Grote (XI. 264, n. 1) made of the story quite conclusively. It is a great play; even Niese, generally peculiarly naive and clumsy fabrication. sensible, has followed him (1, 57, n. 2). The external evidence is no less con- Ptolemy says Perdiccas attacked Thebes clusive. The most important matter without orders; this is supposed to be Ptolemy trying to save Alexander's reputation again by representing that 1 References in F. Cauer, Branchidai in Pauly-Wissowa. he did not wish to storm Thebes. 2 See generally B. Haussoullier, Etudes sur (Why he should not storm Thebes, if FHistoire de Milet et du Didymeion (1902); and notes to O.G.I.S. 472. It was waste in 332/1 ; 3 To Arrian, Arimazes is unknown; while Callisthenes ap. Strabo. 17, 814. Haussoullier Diodorus is lost. But Polyaen. 4, 3, 29, which suggests that Callisthenes' story of the spring differs considerably from Curtius' version of the gushing forth again means that the Milesians siege, probably represents the Cleitarchean had already begun to clear the site. But see tradition ; it knows nothing of the supposed post. crucifixion. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW at war with her, is not explained.) ably from the Ephemerides), an explana- Unfortunately the vulgate also repre- tion which, by the addition of a couple sents that Alexander would have spared of words, he could have made perfectly Thebes if he could j1 and he also good, according to the standard of the desired to spare Halicarnassus (Arr. 1, time; he had only to say, as he does 22, 7). The attack on Thebes agrees not say, that the Indian mercenaries with Perdiccas' headstrong character, had taken the oath to Alexander. and is no doubt true; but the point is, If historical criticism has any mean- that the matter is not one which can ing, Ptolemy's silence about the Bran- possibly affect Alexander's reputation chidae massacre would be conclusive, one way or the other; that is a ques- even if the internal evidence were not. tion, not of the taking of Thebes, but It remains to ask how such a baseless of the subsequent destruction of the story arose. city. It will be noticed that in Strabo the Now, what was Ptolemy's real attitude Branchidae betray the temple treasure, in the matter of saving Alexander's while Curtius has joined the betrayal reputation ? (I am not concerned with story to another version in which they Aristobulus, who is hardly in the same sack the temple themselves {yiolaverant}. class.) It is quite simple. He never Where the betrayal version comes from does try to save Alexander's reputation. is unknown; it is sufficiently foolish, He probably would hardly have under- for had there been a temple and had stood what the phrase meant. He be- Xerxes been there he needed no longed, not to the nineteenth century A. D., ' betrayal'; his guards had only to walk but to the Macedonia of the fourth cen- in and take. The other story comes tury B.C., to a place and a time in which from Callisthenes, who relates (Strabo you could not be a king in kid gloves. 17, 814) that Apollo deserted the place Kings as he knew them had to do because in Xerxes' time the Branchidae certain things; and if Alexander did the medised and sacked the temple. Further sort of things that he, Ptolemy, after- back than Callisthenes it cannot be wards did himself, he probably thought traced; but whether he invented it him- it very natural, and certainly related it self or not is immaterial, for as we quite simply; his great merit is, that have seen it is untrue (Herod. 6, 19). he does not garble his facts. Four But the oracle which Callisthenes based instances of this may suffice here. He on this untrue story (Strabo ib.) is gives the death of Parmenion as simple untrue also; this is shown, not by murder; while the vulgate knows of Strabo's (? Erathosthenes') comments, a treasonable letter of Parmenion's but by the fact that the oracle ' fore- (Curt. 6, 9, 13), and says that the army told' the battle of 'Arbela' and the condemned him (Diod. 17, 80, 1). He death of Darius, i.e. it was composed alone relates that Alexander tortured by Callisthenes himself after 330. The Callisthenes and put him to death, as whole of Callisthenes' story about against the legend (Chares, Aristobulus) Didyma, the point of which is that that he died in prison. He relates that the deserted oracle had in 332/1 hailed Alexander scourged, pilloried, and muti- Alexander as son of Zeus, is then lated Bessus (precisely as Darius I. had simply an invention; and it was from treated his rebels); while in the vulgate this invention that there arose the story Bessus is handed over to Darius' rela- of the massacre of the Branchidae. tives for torture (Diod. 17, 83, 9; How it arose is quite obvious, and Just. 12, 5, 11) or simply put to death can be seen from the story of the (Curt. 7, 10, 10). Above all, he not massacre as given in Curtius. The only gives quite frankly, with the Branchidae had wronged Apollo, and vulgate, the Massaga massacre, but Apollo had done Alexander a good adds (as the vulgate does not) the un- turn (so far Callisthenes); clearly there- satisfactory official explanation (prob- fore Alexander must do something for Apollo, and what better than to avenge 1 Just. 11, 3, 6, 'eadem indulgentia usurus,' him on the Branchidae. Who it was etc., which is certainly not Ptolemy. who took this up and actually invented NO. CCLXXXV. VOL. XXXVI. 66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW the massacre, whether Cleitarchus, of Alexander burning 120,000 Sogdians Hegesias, or another, is as immaterial alive; for Darius had settled Greeks OH as it would be to enquire whether it the Oxus, and Alexander had treated was Onesicritus or somebody else who the revolted Sogdian fortresses, Cyro- actually invented the equally baseless polis, etc., with unusual severity. One Queen of the Amazons story. Certainly thing about the massacre story can be the inventor of the massacre knew little said with fair certainty. Justin's silence of the relevant facts. For the motif of shows that it formed no part of the the story, as often noticed, is Alexander's anti-Alexander tradition common to piety towards Apollo of Didyma; and Trogus and Curtius; and there can unfortunately in actual fact Alexander therefore be little doubt that, as had no piety towards Apollo of Didyma E. Meyer has suggested,3 the inventor at all. Didyma was not among the of the story thought that he was temples which, it was alleged, he was glorifying Alexander, just as Hegesias going to rebuild when he died (Diod. thought that his story of the torture 18, 4, 5); he had passed the deserted of Batis made Alexander a second site without notice, though he had Achilles. This relieves Callisthenes of found time to plan a temple to Zeus at the odium of the invention. True, we Sardis (Arr. i, 17, 5); and though he do not know exactly where his history sent back to Athens the statues of Har- ceased, and he was not put to death till modius and Aristogeiton, he did not early in 327; but after the proskynesis send back to Miletus the bronze temple affair he became Alexander's enemy, statute carried off from Didyma by and we may safely ascribe the massacre Darius; it was left to Seleucus, whom story to some writer of a subsequent legend made Apollo's son, to restore generation. This is the more certain the statue1 and favour the rebuilding. because the same writer (Diod. 17, That Alexander should think nothing no, 4) relates that Alexander in 324— of Didyma was natural enough, seeing i.e., long after Callisthenes' death—en- its very small importance till after his countered in Kelonai a similar bilingual time.2 Sogdiana was of course the community, Boeotians this time, of natural place to locate the massacre, course also settled by Xerxes. as appears again in Theoplylact's story W. W. TARN. 1 Paus. 1, 16, 3; cf. O.G.I.S. 213, 214. 3 8 Wilamowitz, Gott. Gel. Anz., 1914, p. 72. Kleine Schriften (1910), p. 286, n. I.
A NEW FRAGMENT OF THEOPHRASTUS. IN a papyrus (Pap. 2242,24*5 X n cm.) his Natural History, and also borrows recently presented to the British on occasion without acknowledgments Museum by Professor F. W. Kelsey, of (see 11. 20, 27). Theophrastus has been Michigan, is preserved a fragment re- already represented in papyri, P. Oxy. 699 lating to the natural history of the dog, giving a scrap from the Characters and and apparently belonging to the lost P. Hib. 16 fragments attributed by Blass work of Theophrastus, Trepl ^