Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

136 AFTER PHILIP AND ALEXANDER
after Alexander are depicted in Diodorus’ narrative as acting or
thinking in their own interests, except for Hieronymus’ patron, the
general Eumenes (Hornblower 1981, 159). Indeed, it is surely signifi -
cant that the verb idiopragein (“to pursue one’s own interests”) and
its verbal family appear only in book 18, which is largely based on
Hieronymus (Hornblower 1981, 168–69). The following example
illustrates Hieronymus’ partiality for explaining actions in terms of
self-interest or utility.
In 324 Alexander issued a decree that allowed Greek exiles to
return home and instructed their native poleis to accept them. My
interest is not in assessing his motives but in how they are reported
in the sources. 2 In addition to epigraphic and other evidence, the four
major historical accounts of this decree come from Diodorus book
17 on Alexander’s campaign (17.109.1–2), Curtius Rufus’ history of
Alexander (10.2.4–7), Justin’s summary of Pompeius Trogus on
Alexander (13.5.2–5), and Diodorus book 18 on Alexander’s successors
(18.8.2–5). Diodorus 17, Curtius, and Justin all report on the
decree and the reactions to it, but say nothing about Alexander’s reasons
for issuing it (cf. also Orosius 3.23.14). Only Diodorus 18
explains that Alexander ordered the return of the exiles not only in
order to gain fame ( doxa) but also because he wished to have in each
polis many people who would entertain good will ( eunoia) toward
him and so allow him to check revolutions and stases among the
Greeks. In response to the proclamation of this decree at the Olympic
Games, the crowd shouted their approval, welcomed Alexander’s
favor, and praised his benefaction ( euergesia).
The wording of the last report is probably Diodorus’ own, and so is
the reference to the reciprocal power of doing good unto others. 3 Yet
our interest is not in Diodorus’ style or motifs but in his explanation
of the decree. The reasons given for Alexander’s actions, regardless of
their accuracy, are absent in the other sources, and, most importantly,
in Diodorus book 17. Because book 17 was based mostly on Cleitarchus,
and because it is highly unlikely that Diodorus, after reporting
on the decree in book 17, decided to add his own explanation of
it in book 18, it is right to recognize here the contribution of his source,
Hieronymus, who detected utilitarian motives and self-interest behind
the royal decree. 4
While the explanation of Alexander’s decree in terms of its utility
is not improbable, the attribution elsewhere of utilitarian reasons to
the actions of the satrap of Persis, Peucestas, is hardly adequate. In
318/7 the diadoch Antigonus Monophthalmus campaigned against a
coalition army representing the kings of Macedonia, led by Eumenes.
According to our sources, Eumenes faced frequent challenges to his