Ephemeris of Alexander the Great

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In historical research, the ephemeris of Alexander the Great is an ancient work that is said to have been the court diary of the Macedonian king Alexander .

These ephemeris are mentioned in several ancient sources, including Arrian and Plutarch . Ptolemy is said to have used them for his lost historical work, but only fragments have survived (see The Fragments of the Greek Historians No. 117). Accordingly, the royal court diary provided detailed reports on Alexander's daily activities and was kept by Eumenes of Kardia and a certain Diodotos of Erythra. Strattis von Olynth, who is only mentioned in the Byzantine lexicon Suda , also wrote a (lost) commentary in five books.

However, some researchers have denied the existence of the ephemeris , which has long been considered certain - at least in the form in which ancient authors referred to it. Accordingly, it can by no means be ruled out that a farm diary existed in whatever concrete form; but it is questionable whether the respective ancient authors also used it. Lionel Pearson, for example, assumed that the text cited by ancient authors was a later literary production. Pearson's considerations were quite influential in terms of later research. Alan Samuel, on the other hand, assumed on the basis of the surviving fragments that the so-called ephemeris only reported on the last days of Alexander and were based on Babylonian sources, but that it was not a regular court diary that covered the entire reign of Alexander.

However, Bosworth's position is mediating. This assumes that it is not a fake; However, Eumenes only published the work shortly after Alexander's death in order to counteract rumors about an alleged murder of Alexander.

Hammond in particular repeatedly emphasized that an official court diary not only existed, but was also used by ancient authors, who also adopted an earlier Macedonian chancellery tradition. Even Klaus Master goes from these reports of the existence. But even for the proponents it is questionable whether the reports were brief or more detailed descriptions. Edward Anson's contribution to the ephemeris tends more towards the position that they existed, but that only an excerpt was available to later authors.

The topic has been controversial even more recently: while Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, for example , regards the thesis as discredited in his introduction to Alexander, Alexander Demandt adheres to it in his presentation. Hans-Joachim Gehrke refrained from making an evaluation in his research overview on the history of Hellenism .

literature

  • Edward Anson: The "Ephemerides" of Alexander the Great . In: Historia 45 (1996), pp. 501-504.
  • Albert Brian Bosworth: From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in Historical Interpretation . Clarendon Press, Oxford / New York 1988.

Remarks

  1. ^ Lionel Pearson: The Diary and the Letters of Alexander the Great . In: Historia 3 (1955), pp. 429-455.
  2. ↑ Alan Samuel: Alexander's "Royal Journals" . In: Historia 14 (1965), pp. 1-12.
  3. ↑ Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander , pp. 157ff., With further information.
  4. ↑ See above all NGL Hammond: The Royal Journal of Alexander . In: Historia 37 (1988), pp. 129-150.
  5. ↑ Klaus Meister: The Greek historiography . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1990, p. 102f.
  6. ↑ Anson, The "Ephemerides" of Alexander the Great , p. 503.
  7. ↑ Hans-Ulrich Wiemer: Alexander the Great . CH Beck, Munich 2005, p. 19.
  8. ↑ Alexander Demandt: Alexander the Great . CH Beck. Munich 2009, p. 3 and p. 5.
  9. ↑ Hans-Joachim Gehrke: History of Hellenism . 3rd edition Oldenbourg, Munich 2003, p. 158.