Alexander's Ὑπομνήματα And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Alexander's ὑπομνήματαand the 'World-Kingdom' Author(s): W. W. Tarn Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 41, Part 1 (1921), pp. 1-17 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/624793 . Accessed: 08/09/2014 04:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 24.118.117.36 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 04:28:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ALEXANDER'S AND THE 'WORLD-KINGDOM' bwro/uvqj/aTa So far as authority goes, Kaerst founded his theory of Alexander's world- kingdom on two passages in Diodorus and on nothing else. The first, 17, 93, 4, alludes to Ammon having conceded to Alexander the power .over the whole world, r?v crdar-yao7Ti y7~ fovoav; the reference is to 17, 51, 2, where Alexander says to the priest of Ammon, Et77E /1ot •L / ot1t&o&4e 7,v •d7wav<i r'>Y-q apxYv, and the priest replies that the god grants this. The second passage is 18, 4, 4, the story of Alexander's supposed plan to conquer Carthage, etc., and go to the Pillars, from his alleged b7ro1wnqua-'a. Every one will agree with Kaerst when he says that the political information in the Arrian tradition is imperfect, and that it is very desirable to supplement it; but the real question, which has to be faced, is, are we in a position to supplement it ? It is no good using unsound material as a supplement; it is better to say we do not know, if it comes to that. My object here is to examine the Diodorus passages and see what kind of material they offer. The Ammon oracle may be briefly dealt with; for it is only Egyptian ritual. , No doubt the oracle, as we have it, came through Cleitarchus, as is shown by the agreement of Diodorus, Justin, and Curtius; Cleitarchus may or may not have got it from Callisthenes, who may or may not have been at Siwah with Alexander. Against Callisthenes' authorship is the fact that Strabo (17, 814), the only writer who professedly cites Callisthenes' account, though he gives much detail, gives only part of the Diodorus oracle, the item that the priest hailed Alexander as son of the god. This item is true, for the priest could not do otherwise; but the other items of the oracle, including the promise of world-dominion, are more than doubtful. Callisthenes possessed in fullest measure the vice of writing for effect; 1 and in his history he added to the Ammon oracle an oracle from Didyma (Strabo i.c.) which was certainly a pure invention. For, first, the Didyma oracle is based on a story that Didyma was sacked by the Branchidae in Xerxes' time, which is simply untrue (Herod. 6, 19); and, secondly, it prophesied the battle of Arbela and the death of Darius, i.e. it was composed after 330. Consequently, the promise of world- dominion, if from Callisthenes, does not necessarily stand on any better footing than the Didyma oracle. But if it be not from Callisthenes, the case is even worse; for Cleitarchus is poorer authority and was not even contemporary 1 See e.g. Strabo 17, 814 (possibly Didymos, M6m. de 1'Acad. des Inscr. 1907, Eratosthenes' criticism), and the very 136 seq., on Callisthenes' panegyric on just remarks of P. Foucart, Etude sur Hermeias. J.H.S.-VOL. XLI. B This content downloaded from 24.118.117.36 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 04:28:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 W. W. TARN with Alexander.2 As Callisthenes is quite clear that Alexander went into the oracle alone, and as the same thing is implied in Arrian's account, then, if the world-dominion promise were not invented by Callisthenes or Cleitarchus, it can only have come from one of two sources, Alexander or the priests. But Arrian and Plutarch both say that Alexander told nothing. If, then, it were not invented, it came from the priests. And if it were invented, the material was equally supplied by Egyptian priests. For in fact the ultimate source of the Ammon oracle is not history but Egyptian ritual. In one of the hymns to Amon which formed part of Amon's daily service, Pharaoh (i.e. the priest representing him) thus addresses the god (Moret's translation): Le Pharaon est venu vers toi, Amon-RA, pour que tu lui donnes qu'il soit a la tAte des vivants.3 This is precisely Alexander's supposed question. The god, of course, accepted the appeal, and there are many references to his conferring the gift sought. E.g., when Khnum fashions Hatshepsut, he repeats the instructions he has received from Amon: 'I have given to thee all countries, all peoples.' 4 The hymn of victory of Thutmoses III (Amon speaks): 'I have come, causing thee to smite the uttermost ends of the lands; the circuit of the Great Circle (Okeanos) is enclosed in thy grasp.' 5 In the Harris papyrus, Ramses III says: 'Thou didst assign to me all the lands as far as the circuit of the sun.' 6 This is the supposed answer to Alex- ander. Sir G. Maspero, though he did not give the details, long ago pointed out with great emphasis the exact agreement of the story of the Ammon-oracle with the ritual,' and Mahaffy followed him.8 Certainly Maspero believed that Alexander did in fact go through the ritual; but that is another matter. Neither Callisthenes nor Cleitarchus is good enough evidence to prove this; all they prove is that some one knew what might be expected to happen, i.e. knew the Egyptian practice. Besides, Alexander, some years later, did tell one thing that passed, and it has no connection whatever with Diodorus' story; he said that Ammon had told him to what gods to sacrifice (Arr. 6, 19, 4). Personally, therefore, I do not believe that Alexander went through the ritual; but that is not the real point. The point is, that once we see that we are dealing with a ritual, with its roots far down the centuries, it matters nothing whether the thing happened or not, or what Greek historian first 2 F. Reuss, Rh. Mus. 57 (1902), 581 Egypte, 1897; republished in his Etudes de seq.; 63 (1909), 58 seq.; P. Schnabel, mythologie et d'archeologie egyptiennes, vol. 6 'Berossos und Kleitarchos,' 1912; and see (1912). See esp. p. 265, " C6r6monial et Th. Lenschau, 'Bericht uiber griechische discours, tout y est conforme au rituel des Geschichte 1907-14,' p. 191, in Bursian- temples pharaoniques," etc.; and p. 274, Kroll's Jahresbericht, 1919. " I1 serait difficile de rencontrer roi si 3 A. Moret, 'Le rituel du culte divin pietre que les dieux ne lui eussent fait la journalier en Egypte;' Annales du Mu8de' m6me promesse " (world-rule) " a sati6t6; Guimet, Bibliotheque d'Etudes, 14 (1902), Amon terminait son entretien avec Alex- p. 128. Moret mentions other hymns to andre comme il l'avait commenc6, par un the same effect. compliment emprunt6 au rituel en usage 4 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, II. depuis le commencement de la monarchie 203. egyptienne, et qui n'avait rien que d'ordin- 5 Ib. II. 265. aire dans son esprit." 6 Ib. IV. p. 142. 8 A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic 7 Comment Alexandre devint dieu en Dynasty, 1899, p. 16. This content downloaded from 24.118.117.36 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 04:28:14 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ALEXANDER'S o/ivyara AND THE 'WORLD-KINGDOM' 3 related it; for it has ceased to have any bearing on what we want to know- what did Alexander intend or plan or claim ? Because a Pope granted to a series of monarchs the title of 'Most Christian King,' we do not deduce there- from the personal attitude of this or that one toward religion; and if an Egyptian liturgy promised Alexander, as it promised many other Pharaohs, world- dominion, we must not on this ground attribute to him claims to world-dominion or plans for world-conquest. The promise of world-dominion was of no more importance, outside of Egypt, than the claim attributed to the McNeils of Barra was of importance outside Barra.9 In this respect, it is very important to note that what Alexander asks for, and what the god grants, is not 'authority a over all men,' but 'the authority,' Tyv a'ppXr,T27v ovalav (twice repeated), known thing; 10 it had been known in Egypt for many centuries. The other passage, Diod. 18, 4, 4, goes to the root of the whole matter; and the first thing any one has to do, in considering Alexander, is to make up his mind about the vital matter of Alexander's is he, with LTrova4,7uara; the majority-e.g.