J98 HISTORY OF GREECE. The soldiers in Ekbatana, on hearing of this bloody deed, burst into furious mutiny, surrounded the garden Avail, and threat- ened to break in for the purpose of avenging their general, un- less Polydamas and the other murderers should be delivered to them. But Kleander, admitting a few of the ringleaders, exhi- Arrian and liis authorities run the two together as if they were one. As to the evidence purporting to prove that Philotas did conspire, Arrian tells us that " the informers came forward before the assembled soldiers and con- victed Philotas with the rest by other indicia not obscure, hut chiefly by this — that Philotas confessed to have heard of a conspiracy going on, without mentioning it to Alexander, though twice a day in his presence"' — «i2 TO»)f uTjvvTuc Toil Ipyov napeX^ovra^ e^eXiy^ai ^Omtov te koI rovg u/i(p' av- Tov dAXoif re kXtyx^^ °'" '^ u(pa.veai,Kaifiu?iiaTa dy ore atrof iiXuruc nenva&ai /nev — (TvvicpTj, etc. What these other indicia were, we are not told ; but we may see how slender was their value, when we learn that the non-revelation admitted by Philotas was stronger than any of them- The non-revelation, when we recollect th.at Nikomachus was the only informant (Arrian loosely talks of nr]vvTug, as if there were more), proves absolutely nothing as to the complicity of Philotas. though it may prove something as to his indiscretion. Even on this minor charge, Curtius puts into his mouth a very sufficient exculpation. But if Alexander had taken a different view, and dismissed or even confined him for it, there would have been little room for remark. The point upon v.-hich Arrian is at variance wiih Curtius, is, that he states "Philotas with the rest to have been shot to death by the Macedo- nians " — thus, seemingly contradicting, at least by implication, the fact of his having been tortured. Now Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin, all concur with Curtius in affirming that he was tortured. On such a matter, I prefer their united authority to that of Ptolemy and Aristobulus. These two last- mentioned authors were probably quite content to believe in the complicity of Philotas upon the authority of Alexander himself; without troubling themselves to criticise the proofs. They tell us that Alexander vehemently denounced (KarrjyopTjaai laxvpuc) Philotas before the assembled soldiers. After this, any mere shadow or pretence of proof would be sufficient. More- over, let us recollect that Ptolemy obtained his promotion, to be one of the confidential body guards {aufiaTO(t>v?^nKe^), out of this very conspiracy, real or fictitious ; he was promoted to the post of the condemned Demetrius (Arrian, iii. 27. 11) How little Ptolemy and Aristobulus cared to do justice to any one whom Alexander hated, may be seen by what they say afterwards about the philosopher Kallisthenes. Both of them affirmed that the pages, condemned for conspiracy against Alexander, deposed against Kallisthenes as having instigated them to the deed (Arrian, iv. 14, 1). Now we know, from the authority of Alexander himself, whose letters Plutarch quotes ( Alexand ^5),
