DOCSLIB.ORG

Plutarch's Alexander

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

chapter 14 Plutarch’s Alexander Sulochana R. Asirvatham In her monograph on the Roman Alexander, Diana Spencer studied the rep- resentation of Alexander the Great in Latin literature, which tends to view him negatively as an example of the excesses of power.1 Roman sources are not all negative, however: the empire also birthed the most laudatory pieces on Alexander we possess, all written in Greek—Plutarch’s biographical Life of Alexander and his two display-speeches collectively known as DeAlexandriFor- tuna aut Virtute, Dio Chrysostom’s Kingship Orations, and Arrian’s Anabasis.2 To say that they are the “most laudatory” is not to say that they are uncriti- cal, but that they generally present Alexander as a hero, or at least as someone capable of heroic behavior..This represents a clear departure from the less obvi- ously ideological treatments found in the Hellenistic period; the imperial Greek works also imbue Alexander for the first (and last) time in antiquity with a dis- tinctly “Hellenic” persona reflecting the particular philosophical and cultural dispositions of each author. Plutarch’s Alexander-works are certainly the most colourful and, today, the most popularly influential writings on Alexander3— indeed, one wonders whether we would be tempted to talk about a “renais- 1 Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2002). 2 This also includes the Greek Alexander Romance, which like Plutarch’s and Arrian’s works present Alexander as ambitious, brave, and daring. Unlike those works, however, the Romance and its offshoots have a humbling message for Alexander, who, as he travels the world in a quest for knowledge (rather than for conquest), comes across a number of human and super- natural beings who counsel him to heed his own mortality. While Plutarch sees Alexander as a force of nature who comes to a tragic end, and Arrian’s work is an extended praise of Alex- ander’s Achillean attributes, the Romance and the vast tradition it influenced uses Alexander to contemplate mortality and the limits of human greatness. Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend (New Haven, ct/London: Yale University Press, 2008), is the most complete available study of the Alexander Romance tradition in much of its globe-and-time- spanning entirety. 3 Admittedly this is hardly a scientific statement, but it is based on two observations. First, Plutarch’s Life of Alexander is the only extant account of Alexander’s birth and childhood, and as such it has naturally become the basis for any popular work that deals with young Alexan- der (e.g. Mary Renault’s Fire From Heaven (New York: Knopf, 1969); Oliver Stone’s film Alexan- der (2004)). Highlights are stories that illustrate Alexander’s precociousness (e.g. the taming of Bucephalas) and education (by Aristotle and Leonidas), but perhaps the most powerful © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359932_015 356 asirvatham sance” of interest in Alexander under Trajan without him.4 I am not primarily concerned here with establishing a connection between Trajan and Alexander, although it seems reasonable to think that it was Trajan’s interest in Alexan- der that prompted Greek writers to create new Alexanders. I seek instead to demonstrate how Plutarch establishes Alexander as the supreme conquering figure in world history—a world history that had for centuries been accepted by Greek writers as having the Roman Empire at its “end”—by distinguishing him from at least three “entities”: the Macedonian past, which includes his parents, Macedon itself, and its Macedonian soldiery; from his Hellenistic Successors; and, finally, from the Romans themselves—the last most easily examined by comparison with his treatment of Alexander’s counterpart in the bioi, Julius Caesar.5 (The Macedonian soldiers are sometimes an exception, as they have point of interest is the rumour that Alexander was really the son of Zeus, which Plutarch suggests was fostered by Olympias (see below). The second observation is the influence that Plutarch’s presentation of Alexander in De Alexandri Fortuna aut Virtute as a “unifier of mankind” (329a–d) has continued to have on his popular image (as any internet search of “Alexander the Great” and “unity of mankind” will easily demonstrate), despite its decades-long rejection by scholars (e.g. Ernst Badian, “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind”, Historia 7 (1958): 425–444; H.C. Baldry, “The Idea of the Unity of Mankind”, in Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 8 (1961): 167–195; see also PaulVeyne, “Humanitas: Romans and non-Romans”,in The Romans, ed. Andrea Giardina, trans. L.G. Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993, 342–369). The idea came into the English-speaking world from Droysen via W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1948), 399–449, who believed that the idea that Plutarch attributes to Zeno the Stoic in De Alexandri Fortuna aut Virtute, but which Plutarch says was only put into action by Alexander, originally came from Alexander himself. For quite the opposite interpretation (that Plutarch has imposed Romanizing ideas on Alexander) see Sulochana R. Asirvatham, “Classicism and Romanitas in Plutarch’s De Alexandri Fortuna aut Virtute”, American Journal of Philology 126:1 (2005): 107–125, and below. 4 As does, e.g. Angela Kühnen, Die imitatio Alexandri als politisches Instrument römischer Feldherren und Kaiser in der Zeit von der ausgehenden Republik bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (PhD. diss., Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2005), 193–194. 5 This article, in parts, summarizes arguments I have made elsewhere in “Olympias’ Snake and Callisthenes’ Stand: Religion and Politics in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander”, in Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, ed. Sulochana R. Asirvatham et al. (Lanham, md: Rowman and Littlefield 2001), 93–125; Asir- vatham, “Classicism and Romanitas”; Sulochana R. Asirvatham, ‘The Roots of Macedonian Ambiguity in Classical Athenian Literature,’ in Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza, ed. Timothy Howe, et al. (Claremont, ca: Regina Books, 2009), 235–255; Sulochana R. Asirvatham, “His Son’s Father? Philip ii in the Second Sophistic”, in Philip ii and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives,.
Recommended publications
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman

    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman

    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
  • The Date of the First Pythiad-Again Alden A

    The Date of the First Pythiad-Again Alden A

    MOSSHAMMER, ALDEN A., The Date of the First Pythiad - Again , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.15 The Date of the First Pythiad-Again Alden A. Mosshammer OST HISTORIANS have long agreed that the first in the regular M series of Pythian festivals celebrated every four years at Del­ phi took place in 58211. Now H. C. Bennett and more re­ cently S. G. Miller have argued that we should instead follow Pausa­ nias in dating the first Pythiad to 586/5, because the Pindaric scho­ liasts, they maintain, reckon Pythiads from that year. 1 The debate is an old one, but it has important implications for our understanding of the sequence of events at the time of the First Sacred War. Bennett and Miller have rightly criticized the excessive claims that have been made for some of the evidence; and Miller, in particular, has offered some important new insights into the problem. The argument in favor of 58211 nevertheless remains the stronger case. It needs to be presented once again, both to take these new objections into account and to elucidate the tradition that has given rise to the debate. I. The Problem According to the Parian Marble, our earliest evidence (264/3), the Amphictyons celebrated a victory against Cirrha by dedicating a por­ tion of the spoils as prizes for a chrematitic festival celebrated in 59110, and again the games became stephani tic in 582/1. 2 Pausanias 1 H. C. BENNETT, "On the Systemization of Scholia Dates for Pindar's Pythian Odes," HSCP 62 (1957) 61-78; STEPHEN G.
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History

    Citations in Classics and Ancient History

    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
  • ANDREW COLLINS, Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander's Divine

    ANDREW COLLINS, Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander's Divine

    Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander’s Divine Birth Andrew Collins The proclamation of Alexander’s divine sonship at Siwah is universally acknowledged to have been of great importance to the steps that led to his later demand for divine honours. But the issue of whether Alexander already held a belief that he was son of a god before he travelled to Siwah is an equally important research question. Already a number of scholars have argued that Alexander believed in his divine sonship before Egypt,1 and I wish to strengthen that case in this paper by arguing that Arrian, Anabasis 4.10.2—a passage ascribing to Callisthenes a remark about Olympias’ stories concerning Alexander’s divine birth—has a greater claim to historicity than has hitherto been thought. First, some prefatory remarks on the notion of divine sonship are pertinent. Alexander’s assertion of divine sonship during his life did not make him a true god or fully divine in Greek thought or culture.2 For the Greeks, a man fathered by a god with a human mother during his lifetime was rather like a demigod of Homeric myth, on a par with the heroes of the mythic times, such as Heracles, Perseus and the Dioscuri. Homer, above all, uses the word “hero” of his living warriors, a subset of whom were sons of one divine and one human parent.3 The child of such a union was not an Olympian god, with the attributes and supernatural powers of the cosmic deities. One must also distinguish between the hero conceived as (1) a living man who was the son of a god (the sense in which the word is used by Homer), and (2) the hero as a powerful spirit of a dead human being, who received 1 E.
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece

    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece

    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
  • An Examination of the Political Philosophy of Plutarch's Alexander

    An Examination of the Political Philosophy of Plutarch's Alexander

    “If I were not Alexander…” An Examination of the Political Philosophy of Plutarch’s Alexander- Caesar Richard Buckley-Gorman A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics 2016 School of Art History, Classics and Religious Studies 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………3 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 Chapter One: Plutarch’s Methodology…………………………………………………………….8 Chapter Two: The Alexander………………………………………………………………………….18 Chapter Three: Alexander and Caesar……………………………………………………………47 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….71 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………….73 2 | P a g e Acknowledgements Firstly and foremost to my supervisor Jeff Tatum, for his guidance and patience. Secondly to my office mates James, Julia, Laura, Nikki, and Tim who helped me when I needed it and made research and writing more fun and less productive than it would otherwise have been. I would also like to thank my parents, Sue and Phil, for their continuous support. 3 | P a g e Abstract This thesis examines Plutarch’s Alexander-Caesar. Plutarch’s depiction of Alexander has been long recognised as encompassing many defects, including an overactive thumos and a decline in character as the narrative progresses. In this thesis I examine the way in which Plutarch depicts Alexander’s degeneration, and argue that the defects of Alexander form a discussion on the ethics of kingship. I then examine the implications of pairing the Alexander with the Caesar; I examine how some of the themes of the Alexander are reflected in the Caesar. I argue that the status of Caesar as both a figure from the Republican past and the man who established the Empire gave the pair a unique immediacy to Plutarch’s time.
  • Arrian the Personal Historian

    Arrian the Personal Historian

    Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Arrian the Personal Historian Version 1.0 December, 2005 Kyle Lakin Stanford Department of Classics & Stanford Law School Abstract: Current scholarship ignores the personal nature of the second preface of Arrian's Anabasis. This preface reveals that the Anabasis can be read as a work about Arrian's own personal identity. Arrian's biographical history allows us to speculate that his identity was in flux throughout his life. By understanding the Anabasis as Arrian's way to claim to be a Greek, we can better interpret his characterization of Alexander. © Kyle Lakin. [email protected] Lakin 2 Arrian the Personal Historian In his Anabasis, Arrian claims his work about Alexander as a peculiarly personal triumph for a historian. He does not claim it to be a defining work for all mankind but rather to fulfill a personal goal that he has held since childhood. …a)ll0 e)kei~no a0nagra&fw, o3ti e0moi\ patri&j te kai\ ge&noj kai\ a0rxai\ oi#de oi( lo&goi ei)si& te kai\ a0po\ ne&ou e!ti e)ge0nonto. (I.12.5) ...But I write this because these words are country, family, and offices and have been since I was a child. Arrian claims that oi#de oi( lo&goi has been a work connected to his personal life unlike any other. Much discussion over the meaning of oi#de oi( lo&goi has shown that its interpretation depends mostly upon the view that an individual scholar holds concerning Arrian’s trustworthiness. It has been interpreted as everything from “this history” to “these writings” to “writing history” in an abstract sense.1 But the interpretation of this passage is crucial to our interpretation of the work, for if Arrian’s history was intensely personal, then this raises questions about his historiographical aims and method.
  • Imitation of Greatness: Alexander of Macedon and His Influence on Leading Romans

    Imitation of Greatness: Alexander of Macedon and His Influence on Leading Romans

    Imitation of Greatness: Alexander of Macedon and His Influence on Leading Romans Thomas W Foster II, McNair Scholar The Pennsylvania State University Mark Munn, Ph.D Head, Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies College of Liberal Arts The Pennsylvania State University Abstract This paper seeks to examine the relationship between greatness and imitation in antiquity. To do so, Alexander the Great will be compared with Romans Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius. The question this paper tries to answer concerns leading Romans and the idea of imitating Alexander the Great and how this affected their actions. It draws upon both ancient sources and modern scholarship. It differs from both ancient and modern attempts at comparison in distinct ways, however. This paper contains elements of the following: historiography, biography, military history, political science, character study, religion and socio-cultural traditions. Special attention has been given to the socio-cultural differences of the Greco-Roman world. Comparing multiple eras allows for the establishment of credible commonalities. These commonalities can then be applied to different eras up to and including the modern. Practically, these traits allow us to link these men of antiquity, both explicitly and implicitly. Beginning with Plutarch in the 1st/2nd century CE1, a long historical tradition of comparing great men was established. Plutarch chose to compare Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar. The reasons for such a comparison are quite obvious. Both men conquered swaths of land, changed the balance of power in the Mediterranean and caused many to either love them or plot to kill them. Scholars have assessed this comparison continuously.
  • Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

    Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Royal Holloway - Pure Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius JOHN SELLARS ABSTRACT: Although Marcus Aurelius refers to Socrates only a handful of times in the Meditations, and often only to name him as an example of an illustrious figure now long dead, this chapter argues that there is a distinctive Socratic character to the philosophical project that we see at work in Marcus’s notebook writings. In those few places where Marcus does invoke Socrates it is usually in connection with one of the central preoccupations of the Meditations, in particular the notion of taking care of oneself, the primacy of virtue, and the need for self- control. Moreover, Marcus’ practice of writing to himself may also be seen as a Socratic enterprise, when approached in the light of a suggestive passage from Epictetus. This chapter i) examines Marcus’s knowledge of Socrates and the sources he used, and ii) explores the Socratic themes in the Meditations noted above. Although Marcus does not explicitly say much about Socrates, I suggest that he probably considered the Meditations to embody a deeply Socratic project. 1. Introduction Marcus Aurelius mentions Socrates a dozen or so times in the Meditations.1 To these explicit references we can add a few quotations from the Socrates of Plato’s dialogues where he is not named.2 Of these few scattered references to Socrates, some merely name him in a list of illustrious people who are now dead: Heraclitus, after many speculations about fire which should consume the Universe, was waterlogged by dropsy, poulticed himself with cow-dung and died.
  • Epictetus, Stoicism, and Slavery

    Epictetus, Stoicism, and Slavery

    Epictetus, Stoicism, and Slavery Defense Date: March 29, 2011 By: Angela Marie Funk Classics Department Advisor: Dr. Peter Hunt (Classics) Committee: Dr. Jacqueline Elliott (Classics) and Dr. Claudia Mills (Philosophy) Funk 1 Abstract: Epictetus was an ex-slave and a leading Stoic philosopher in the Roman Empire during the second-century. His devoted student, Arrian, recorded Epictetus’ lectures and conversations in eight books titled Discourses, of which only four are extant. As an ex- slave and teacher, one expects to see him deal with the topic of slavery and freedom in great detail. However, few scholars have researched the relationship of Epictetus’ personal life and his views on slavery. In order to understand Epictetus’ perspective, it is essential to understand the political culture of his day and the social views on slavery. During his early years, Epictetus lived in Rome and was Epaphroditus’ slave. Epaphroditus was an abusive master, who served Nero as an administrative secretary. Around the same period, Seneca was a tutor and advisor to Nero. He was a Stoic philosopher, who counseled Nero on political issues and advocated the practice of clemency. In the mid to late first-century, Seneca spoke for a fair and kind treatment of slaves. He held a powerful position not only as an advisor to Nero, but also as a senator. While he promoted the humane treatment of slaves, he did not actively work to abolish slavery. Epaphroditus and Seneca both had profound influences in the way Epictetus viewed slaves and ex-slaves, relationships of former slaves and masters, and the meaning of freedom.
  • Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan

    Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan

    Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan MPLICATED IN A PLOT by the Royal Pages (the basilikoi paides) against Alexander’s life in Bactria in 327 B.C.E., the historian I Callisthenes was condemned as a traitor and died—either tortured and hanged, or imprisoned and carted about with the army until disease brought about his death.1 His demise marks something of a nadir in Alexander’s reign; indeed, centuries after the fact, Curtius could claim that no one’s execution incited greater resentment of Alexander among the Greeks (nullius caedes maiorem apud Graecos Alexandro excitavit invidiam).2 The reason for that resentment is not difficult to discover. Despite the avowals of the Alexander-apologists that the Pages had implicated Cal- listhenes, his supposed involvement in the plot was unsupported by evidence. Arrian concedes as much, observing that most traditions had no indication of Callisthenes’ guilt, while Plutarch cites a letter purportedly written by the king himself in the im- mediate aftermath of the conspiracy, in which the Pages were said to have confessed under torture that the conspiracy was en- tirely their own, and that nobody else was cognizant of the plot.3 The underlying cause of Callisthenes’ downfall is, instead, 1 For Callisthenes’ fate Arr. 4.14.3 cites divergent accounts by Ptolemy FGrHist 138 F17 (put to death; so too Curt. 8.8.21) and Aristobulus FGrHist 139 F 33 (died while imprisoned). Aristobulus clearly based his account on Chares (FGrHist 125 F 15 = Plut. Alex. 55.9). 2 Curt. 8.8.22.