chapter 33 The Conscience of the King: Alexander the Great and the Ancient Disabled

Alexandra F. Morris

Alexander the Great is the most widely known secular historical figure in Western culture today. Most people know of him or his story. While atten- tion has been paid to some of the people surrounding Alexander the Great, there is almost no recognition that some of those people were disabled. Among them are Alexander’s half brother Arrhidaeus, his friend Harpalus, his father Philip ii, and a group of mutilated Greeks who Alexander and his army encoun- tered while traveling to Persepolis. By carefully examining the ancient sources, modern historical literature, disability studies, popular movies, educational and popular tv shows, and historical fiction books, we will see that these differently-abled people have, with a few exceptions, either been forgotten about or almost completely erased in both modern historical scholarship and popular media—to the overall detriment of both history and the character of Alexander the Great himself. Through these omissions, Alexander’s more com- passionate nature as well as his humane side are erased from history as well. Arrhidaeus, the first subject of discussion, also known as Philip iii Arrhi- daeus, Alexander’s half-brother, is reported to have been mentally disabled. Plutarch mentions that Arrhidaeus was a “bastard brother, who was also a fool”, and “deficient in intellect owing to bodily disease. This, however, did not come upon him in the course of nature or of its own accord, indeed, it is said that as a boy he displayed an exceedingly gifted and noble disposition: but after Olympias gave him drugs which injured his body and ruined his mind.”1 Justin mentions in regard to Arrhidaeus’s succession of Alexander that Ptolemy objected to Arrhidaeus as king, “not only on account of the meanness of his mother (he being the son of a courtesan of Larissa), but because of the extraor- dinary weakness with which he was affected, lest, while he had the name of king, another should exercise the authority.”2 Diodorus describes Arrhidaeus

1 Plutarch, Loeb Classical Library: The Parallel Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), 250–251, 439. 2 Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of PompeiusTrogus. trans. John Selby Watson. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), 13.2.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359932_034 824 morris as, “son of Philip … although he was afflicted with an incurable mental ill- ness.”3 Quintus Curtius Rufus does not portray Arrhidaeus as mentally disabled, but there may be a reason for this. Rufus most likely wrote his biography of Alexander during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius, who also had a disability, most likely cerebral palsy.4 Therefore it would not have been pru- dent for him to portray Arrhidaeus as mentally incompetent, since he was making the comparison between Arrhidaeus and Claudius as both, if only temporarily, reunited their respective empires. Arrian does not mention Arrhi- daeus’ disability (but this could be due to some of Arrian’s work being lost), but does mention that when he was made king after Alexander’s death, that Perdiccas was made the guardian of the king, not a usual Macedonian prac- tice. Interestingly, Arrian also notes that, “Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alex- ander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hin- dered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.”5 This suggests that despite Arrihdaeus’ disabil- ity, he was mentally aware enough to make his own decisions, defy the will of others, and succeed at doing what he wanted, despite the obstacles cre- ated by others. There are some historians who believe that the Arrhidaeus mentioned above is a different Arrhidaeus, but this may say more about the unconscious bias that exists against the disabled than anything else; since in their minds, because Arrhidaeus was mentally disabled he would not have been capable of making decisions for himself.6 Other historians think that the two Arrhidaeuses are one and the same.7 It is particularly interesting if there were indeed two Arrhidaeuses that there is no title or nickname given to one to distinguish them from each other, as was seen in the case of Klei- tus the Black and Kleitus the White, Ptolemy son of Lagos, or any of the other Macedonians referred to as the “son of” someone when they are mentioned in

3 Diodorus Siculus, LoebClassicalLibrary:Libraryof History. trans. Russell M. Geer. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 15. 4 Andrew Chugg, The Death of Alexander the Great: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (Bristol: Andrew Michael Chugg, 2009), 32–33. 5 Saint Photius, The Library of Photius: Volume 1, trans. John Henry Freese. (Princeton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920), 162. 6 Waldemar Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire. (Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 52–53. 7 Elizabeth D. Carney, “The Trouble with Philip Arrhidaeus”, Ancient History Bulletin 15 (2001): 63–89.