Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/1161

Rh NEARCHUS. obtained a pilot .acqn.iinted with the coast, which greatly facilitated his farther progress, and at length on the eightieth dJiy of his voyage (Dec. 9.) he anchored at the mouth of the river Anamis, in the fertile district of Harmozia, and had the happi- ness of learning that Alexander himself was encamped at a short distance in the interior. Nearchus himself hastened to the king, who re- ceived him with every demonstration of joy, and celebrated sacrifices and festivals for the safet}' of his fleet, in which the admiral was distinguished by every kind of honour. He was, however, unwilling to expose his friend to any farther dan- gers, and was desirous to transfer to some one else the task of conducting the fleet up the Persian gulf, but Nearchus insisted on being allowed to complete what he had so successfully begun, and returned to his camp on the Anamis, from whence he continued his voyage with comparatively little of difficulty or danger along the north shore of the Persian gulf to the mouth of the Pasitigris, and up tliat river to Susa. Here he arrived in February 324, shortly after Alexander himself ; and in the brilliant festivities with which the king here cele- brated the conquest of Asia as well as his own nuptials with Stateira, Nearchus bore an important part, being one of those rewarded with crowns of gold for their distinguished services, at the same time that he obtained in marriage a daughter of the Rhodian Mentor and of Barsine, to whom Alex- ander himself had been previously married. (Arr. Ind. 21—42, Anah. vi. 28, vii. 4. ^9,5.^ 9; Strab. XV. pp. 721, 725, 726 ; Curt. x. i. $ 10 ; Diod. xvii. 106 ; Plut. Alex. 68. Concerning the chro- nology of the voyage, see Vincent, vol. i., and Droysen, Gescli. Alex. pp. 478, 481.) From this time Nearchus appears to have con- tinued in close attendance upon Alexander till his death, as we find him mentioned as dissuading the king from entering Babylon on account of the predictions of the Chaldaeans, and again during Alexander's last illness holding a conversation with him upon naval matters. It appears, in- deed, that he had been already designated for the chief command of the fleet with which the king was at this time meditating the conquest of Arabia, B. c. 323 ; and the latter had just given him a sumptuous feast previous to his departure, when the illness of Alexander himself put an end to the expedition. (Plut. Alex. 73, 75, 76 ; Diod. xvii. 112; Arr. Anab. vii. 25.) It was natural that one who had held so high a place in the confidence of the king should take a prominent part in the discussions that ensued after his death : yet it is remarkable that Curtiiis is the only writer who mentions his name at all upon that occasion. But the statement of that author (x. 20), that it was Nearchus who put forward the claims of Heracles, the son of Barsine, to the throne, is rendered so probable by his near connexion with the latter, that there can be little doubt of its correctness. But it is probable that his not being a Macedo- nian by birth operated against Nearchus, and it would seem that his tranquil and unambitious character did not qualify him to take a leading part in the stormy dissensions that followed : he not only acquiesced in the adoption of arrange- ments opposed to his advice, but seems to have been contented, in the division of the provinces, to obtain his former government of Lycia and Pam- phylia, and to hold even these as subordinate to NEARCHUS. 1147 Antigonus. (Justin, xiii. 4 ; comp. Drovsen, Hellenism, vol. i. p. 42.) To the fortunes of the latter, whether from motives of private friendship or policy, we find him henceforth closely attached : in B. c. 317 he accompanied Antigonus in his march against Eumenes ; and generously interceded with him in favour of the latter, when he had fallen into his hands as a prisoner. (Diod. xix. 19 ; Pkit. Eiim. 18.) Again, in 314, he was one of the generals who were selected by Antigonus, on account of their mature age and experience in war, to assist with their counsels his son Demetrius, left for the first time in command of an army. (Diod. xix. QQ.) This is the last occasion on which his name appears in history. We learn from many ancient authors that Near- chus left a history or narrative of the voyage by which he had- earned such great celebrity, and the substance of this interesting work has been for- tunately preserved to us by Arrian, who has de- rived from it the whole of the latter part of his " Indica." The strange paradox put forward by Dodwell {Dissert, de Arriani Nearcho., ap. Geogr. Gr. Minores, tom. i., reprinted, together with a Latin translation of Vincent's refutation by Schmieder, in his edition of the Indica of Arrian, p. 232, &c.), that the work made use of by Arrian was not really the production of Nearchus, but the forgery of a later age, though adopted by Bohlen {das alte Indien., vol. i. p. 68), has been generally rejected by later writers, and is sufficiently refuted by Vincent in his elaborate work on " The Com- merce and Navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Seas (vol. i. p. 68 — 77):" but he justly adds : " The internal evidence of the work speaks more forcibly for itself than all the arguments which can be adduced in its favour.'* The accuracy of the geographical details contained in it has been fully demonstrated by the same author, as well as by the eminent geographers d'Anville, Gosselin, and Ritter, who have also shown that many of the statements regarded by the ancients as marvellous or incredible have been confirmed by the re- searches of modern travellers. In other instances, although we cannot defend the accuracy of his assertions, it is at least possible to show how the error has originated. ( See particularly Schmieder, ud Arr. Ind. 25.) Indeed Strabo himself, while he censures Nearchus, together with Megasthenea and Onesicritus, for his fabulous tales (ii. p. 70), has, in numerous instances, made use of his autho- rity without scruple (xv. pp. 689, 691, 696, 701, 705, 706, 716, 717, &c.). On the other hand, it seems probable that Pliny, on whose authority Dodwell mainly relied, had not consulted the ori- ginal work of Nearchus, but had contented himself with the abridgment of that of Onesicritus, as pub- lished by Juba. (Plin. H.N. vi. 23; comp. Vin- cent, /. c, and Geier, Ale^. Almjni Hist. Soipt. p. 80, &c.) Suidas, who accuses Nearchus of having falsely pretended to be commander of the whole fleet, when he was in fact only a pilot or captain (Ku§epi/7jTTjs), has by a strange error transferred to him nhat Arrian, whose very words he copies, oays of Onesicritus. (Suid. «. v. tiiapxos ; Arr. Anab. vi. 2.) Schmieder and some other writers, relying partly upon a passage of Suidas (s. v. Neopxos), partly upon some statements quoted by Strabo, which have no immediate reference to the voyage, have maintained that, besides the Ilapan-Aous, or narrative of his