Philotas’_“Conspiracy”

“Then the persons who had reported the affair came forward, with various irrefutable proofs of his own guilt and that of his fellow-conspirators, of which the most damning was that he had admitted knowledge of a plot against Alexander but had said nothing about it.” (Arrian 3.26.2) Explain why Arrian comes to this conclusion about Philotas’ “conspiracy”, and assess the relative value of the source tradition for the episode. “Then the persons who had reported the affair came forward, with various irrefutable proofs of his own guilt and that of his fellow-conspirators, of which the most damning was that he had admitted knowledge of a plot against Alexander but had said nothing about it.” (Arrian 3.26.2) Explain why Arrian comes to this conclusion about Philotas’ “conspiracy”, and assess the relative value of the source tradition for the episode. There have been various suggestions put forward as to Philotas’ involvement in the conspiracy that lead to his execution or murder[1]. They range from him being an innocent bystander guilty only of neglecting to report information to Alexander through to an active participant in the conspiracy. The reasons for his neglecting to pass the information on to Alexander are also varied from not taking it seriously to passively condoning the conspiracy and waiting to see the outcome. There are equally as many suggestions as to why the Affair ended in his death. Was it a conspiracy on Alexander’s part to rid himself of the House of Parmenion ' A conspiracy by or an opportunity taken by a group of Philotas’ enemies - Hephaestion, Craterus, Coenus, Erygius, Perdiccas, Leonnatus - to rid themselves of him and thereby open up advancement for themselves ' Or was it simply that he was guilty either of being actively involved in the conspiracy or passively waiting to see the outcome ' Arrian makes it clear at the start of Book One that he uses both Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his main sources. He explains how he selects information from their accounts, if they agree he assumes that what is said is true and if they differ he chooses the more probable and interesting account. In reporting the Philotas Affair he states that it is based on Ptolemy’s account, although he had just claimed that both Ptolemy and Aristobulus mention that Alexander had previously heard information regarding Philotas’ disloyalty but had refused to believe it. It can therefore be assumed that either the two agreed (and Aristobulus is not mentioned), they disagreed and Arrian, for whatever reason, decided that Ptolemy’s version was the better or that Aristobulus did not mention the episode. Clearly from the length of Arrian’s report of the matter it would seem that Ptolemy must have had little to say on the matter. It must be understood that Ptolemy as a friend of Alexander benefited significantly as a result of Philotas’ execution.[2] Taking this into account it would seem highly probable that Ptolemy would record the event in such a way as to show Alexander in as favourable light as possible. Arrian’s account contains very little detail and treats Philotas’ execution as the straightforward result of his knowing information regarding a plot on Alexander’s life and not informing him of it. The account has been labelled “ . . . misleading brief and apologetic . . . ”[3]. All sources contain variations in their report of the Philotas Affair. Strabo agrees with Arrian in that Alexander put Philotas to death after having learnt of his traitorous intentions. Justin’s report is as succinct as Arrian’s but instead he has the execution of Philotas serving as an example of Alexander’s growing tyranny.[4] Plutarch, Diodorus and Curtius Rufus although following similar stories[5] do not coincide on all aspects of detail. Before looking at the sources it is important to acknowledge four important facts relating to the environment in which the Philotas Affair occurred. Firstly, conspiracies against the king were not uncommon. Alexander ascended the throne because of the assassination of his father Philip and this was not an isolated occurrence either: “Only two predecessors of Philip II died natural deaths; the rest died in battle or fell victim to conspiracies.”[6] Secondly, Philotas was in a very isolated situation. His father, Parmenion, was back in Ecbatana and his two brothers, Nicanor and Hector, were dead. In fact it was the death and funeral of the former that had meant he had been away from the camp and had only returned days before the conspiracy was discovered. Thirdly, there was a degree of dissatisfaction among the Macedonians because of Alexander’s adoption of Persian customs and that he seemed to want to continue his journey despite the initial objective, defeating the Persians, having in essence been achieved. The old guard, of which Parmenion was a prominent member, preferred the traditional customs of the Macedonians where the king was as equal among his peers. Alexander was well aware of the growing dissatisfaction against him and his new way of life. No doubt he would be looking for ways to reinforce his position. Finally, what was the role of judicial assemblies in Macedonian culture ' Anson (2008, 137) contends that prior to Alexander’s reign there is little evidence confirming the use of judicial assemblies. He also states (147): “By bringing issues to an assembly a sense of transparency could be obtained and the responsibility for the decision shared.” Diodorus, Plutarch and Curtius Rufus all give fuller accounts and far greater detail than Arrian, Justin or Strabo. Curtius Rufus is the fullest account and the importance he places on the matter is indicated by the amount of space devoted to reporting it and his account has been described as being coherent and carefully constructed.[7] Plutarch’s account is next as far as length of account goes with Diodorus’ being the shortest of the three. These three sources all concur with Arrian in stating that Philotas knew of the alleged conspiracy by Dymnus and associates and failed to pass the information on to Alexander. This in itself was a treasonable offence and Philotas was careless in failing to pass the information on considering the previous occasions where the Macedonian king had been assassinated. It was this fact of not passing on crucial information relating to a plot on Alexander’s life that acted as the catalyst for the events that lead to Philotas’ execution. Questions remain as to the events that unfolded. Why did Alexander pursue action against Philotas ' Did he believe Philotas to be an active participant in the conspiracy ' Was he manipulated by a group of younger commanders who saw an opportunity to remove someone and advance their own promotion ' Was this an opportunity to make a stand and destroy the House of Parmenion ' Was there a need to reign in the Macedonian discontent against him for beginning to adopt Persian customs and move away from Macedonian tradition ' These are all possible explanations for the events that followed the uncovering of the conspiracy. The answer may not lie simply in just one of the options but maybe in some complicated combination of two or more of them. Only Arrian and Plutarch make mention of a previous situation in which Philotas’ loyalty was questioned. Arrian states that Alexander did not believe it due to the fact that Philotas had been a friend for a long time and that he had bestowed honours on his father Parmenion.[8] Plutarch offers a different explanation as to Alexander’s inaction: “. . . either because he had confidence in Parmenion’s loyalty, or perhaps he feared the power and prestige of father and son.”[9] The placement of these reasons could be to suggest that things had changed and that with the new conspiracy Alexander no longer trusted Parmenion’s loyalty or was beginning to fear the combined power of father and son. In Plutarch’s account it was Craterus who brought Philotas’ mistress, Antigone, to Alexander to report what Philotas had said, in private, about him. Also, Alexander ordered her to keep him informed of everything she learned from Philotas. This would suggest that Alexander was beginning to have some doubts about Philotas’ loyalty and leaves open the possibility that he might, given another similar incident, take action in the future. Diodorus, Plutarch and Curtius Rufus all mention Dymnus and have no doubt that he was conspiring against Alexander’s life. None of these sources give any indication of the reasons behind Dymnus’ conspiracy. The three accounts describe Nicomachus conveying information about the plot gained from Dymnus to his brother Cebalinus and his subsequent approach of Philotas to get this information conveyed to Alexander. Different reasons are attributed to Philotas giving Cebalinus for his failure to inform Alexander of the information. According to Diodorus the reason was that he had not found an appropriate time; Plutarch mentions that Philotas said Alexander was engaged on more important business and Curtius Rufus states that the reason given by Philotas was that Alexander had no time. All three explanations seem rather weak especially when Philotas visited Alexander regularly during each day and surely an appropriate moment would have presented itself. All three again concur in that Cebalinus did not give up in his desire to ensure that Alexander was informed. Eventually the information reached Alexander through the help of another person at Alexander’s court. Alexander’s reaction on hearing the information regarding the conspiracy on his life was that he was enraged according to Plutarch and that he burst into tears according to Curtius Rufus. Alexander sent for Dymnus to be arrested and again here the three accounts show variation. In Plutarch Dymnus was killed while being arrested which resulted in Alexander feeling bitter resentment toward Philotas and lead him to be willing to listen to accusations by his enemies; Curtius Rufus has him mortally wounding himself while being arrested and dying in Alexander’s presence without offering any information and Diodorus has Alexander learning everything from him, although what was learnt is not divulged, and later killing himself. Curtius Rufus’ account continues with details of Philotas’ summoning and explanation to Alexander regarding his inaction in not reporting the information. Alexander offers his right hand and the two seem to be reconciled and the matter at an end. After his departure Alexander calls a meeting of his friends and at this meeting Nicomachus conveys details of the conspiracy as he knew them. Craterus is hostile toward Philotas in his comments and others have no doubt that Philotas’ silence was clearly suppression of the information due to his active involvement in the conspiracy. They agreed that he should be interrogated under torture and so during the night he was arrested. According to Curtius Rufus the trial took place the following day before the Macedonian Assembly. It was a carefully stage managed affair with Alexander initially manipulating the situation and building anticipation. He then levels the charges against Philotas all of which do not prove that he was guilty of being an active participant in the conspiracy and asks for the death sentence. Amyntas and Coenus, Philotas’ brother-in-law, make speeches attacking Philotas after which he is invited to offer his defence at which point Alexander excuses himself. This could be interpreted as another example of Alexander manipulating the situation and in effect saying to the Assembly that Philotas’ fate is in their hands. Philotas during his defence carefully answered all of the charges laid against him by Alexander. His arguments were so strong that it was doubtful any of the charges could be proved and that the case against him was very weak. On his return Alexander adjourns the trial to the next day. During the night Philotas was tortured and a confession extracted. Curtius Rufus comments it got to a point that it was no longer torture but punishment that Philotas enemies were subjecting him to. The next day the Assembly reconvened, Philotas’ confession was read and his fate was sealed. Plutarch’s version is slightly different, and has less detail, in that Philotas’ enemies brought many accusations against him and as a result he was arrested, interrogated and tortured. There is no specific mention of either a trail before the Macedonian Assembly or a confession being made by Philotas just that he was executed. Diodorus’ account, like Plutarch’s, has less detail than Curtius Rufus’ and states that Philotas acknowledged carelessness in not reporting the information but denied involvement. Philotas agreed to have his fate decided by the Macedonians and after arguments were heard he was condemned. Philotas was then tortured to extract a confession that was gained before his eventual execution. These accounts can be used to argue for different answers to the questions posed in the opening paragraph. Was it a conspiracy on Alexander’s part to rid himself of the House of Parmenion ' Conspiracy would seem to be a little strong in describing the possibility that Alexander used this event to destroy the House of Parmenion. A conspiracy suggests a planned action[10] and there are too many variables in this for the whole action to be planned. What guarantee was there that Philotas would not convey the information told to him by Cebalinus ' If he had passed the information on he would have been in the clear and no action against him would have been possible. The matter would be at an end as far as he was concerned. Alexander may well have decided on hearing about the plot to use the situation to justify the execution of both Philotas and Parmenion, something he could not do without the support of the army and something they would not allow without just cause. Alexander seems to have used the Macedonian Assembly here to convict Philotas in a similar fashion to the way he used member states of the League of Corinth to decide the fate of Thebes earlier. He could be accused of manipulation to get the result he wanted and in effect absolving himself of responsibility or at least sharing the blame. Was it a conspiracy or an opportunity taken by a group of Philotas’ enemies - Hephaestion, Craterus, Coenus, Erygius, Perdiccas, Leonnatus - to rid themselves of Philotas and thereby open up advancement for themselves ' Again, as above conspiracy would seem too strong a claim but certainly it could be seen as too good an opportunity to let slip by for a group that had little liking for Philotas. The fact that they all benefited from Philotas’ could be seen as justification for their pursuing a case against him. Was it simply that Philotas was guilty either of being actively involved in the conspiracy or passively waiting to see the outcome ' It would seem unlikely that Philotas was actively involved in the conspiracy. If he had been actively involved why was Dymnus not informed and why were Cebalinus and Nicomachus not silenced ' Of the two possibilities the second is more likely and could be very probable. It is clear from accounts that Philotas believed that much of Alexander’s success was because of what his father, Parmenion, and he had done for him. The aftermath of Philotas’ execution also adds to the difficulty in interpreting exactly what were Alexander’s motives and was he really the one who decided what was to occur or was he manipulated by others. Despite suspending the law relating to the punishment of the relatives of those found guilty[11] it was this law that in effect he must have used to justify the killing of Parmenion as there was no real evidence to implicate him in the conspiracy. The truthfulness of Philotas’ admission under torture that Parmenion was involved is questioned. Alexander also had Alexander Lyncestes executed in what seems to have been a prearranged political move.[12] It would be very difficult to allow him to live after Philotas and Parmenion were executed as he had been denounced by informers years earlier for plotting against Alexander’s life. It is not clear from the source tradition as to why the Philotas Affair was dealt with in the way it was and delivered the outcome it did. Arrian, Justin and Strabo give too little detail on which to judge the validity of their conclusions regarding what it shows about Alexander and his motives. Diodorus’, Plutarch’s and Curtius Rufus’ accounts contain conflicting detail, omissions and additions that can be manipulated and used to prove a number of reasons for explaining who was deciding and why the results that occurred did so. It is difficult to fully evaluate the relative merits of the sources as they were all written many years after Alexander’s death using sources that are no longer available. These sources were written by those close to the court of Alexander and therefore will have a bias from the perspective of the victors. Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Justin, Plutarch and Strabo wrote their account for a particular purpose and this again will mean the introduction of some bias to their reporting of events. The best that can be realised is that there are alternative views as to Alexander’s motives for taking certain actions. It has to be accepted that coming to a definite conclusion that is universally accepted is not going to be possible. Sources Arrian, (1971). The Campaigns of Alexander (Translated by A. de Selincourt). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Diodorus of Sicily, (1963). Library of History, Volume VII, (Translated by C. Bradford Welles). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Justin (1997). Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus Books 11-12: Alexander the Great. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Plutarch, (1973). The Age of Alexander (Translated by I. Scott-Kilvert). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Quintus Curtius Rufus, (1984). The History of Alexander (Translated by J. Yardley, with an introduction and notes by W. Heckel). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bibliography Adams, W. L. (2003). The Episode of Philotas: An Insight. In Heckel, W. and Tritle, L. A. (Eds) Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander. Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 113-126. Anson, E. M. (2008). Macedonian Judicial Assemblies. Classical Philology, 103(2), 135-149. Badian, E. (2000). Conspiracies. In Bosworth, A. B. & Baynham, E. J. (Eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (pp 64-68). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baynham, E. J. (1998). Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 171-180. Bosworth, A. B. (1980). A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bosworth, A. B. (1988). Conquest and Empire. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press, 101-4. Pomeroy, S. B., Burstein, S. M., Donlan, W. & Roberts, J. T. (2004). A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reames, J. (2009). Crisis and Opportunity: the Philotas Affair . . . again. In Howe, T. and Reames, J. (Eds.) Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza. Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 165-181. ----------------------- [1] Adams, 2003, 113 [2] Baynham, 1998, 172 [3] Bosworth, 1988, 101 [4] Justin, 12.5.1 [5] Bosworth, 1980, 359 [6] Pomeroy et al, 2004, 256 [7] Baynham, 1998, 172 [8] Arrian, 3.26 [9] Plutarch, Lives, 49 [10] Reames, 2009, 166. [11] Quintus Curtius Rufus, 6.11.20 [12] Quintus Curtius Rufus 7.1.5-9