sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anaxarchus, Porus

ANECDOTE, APOPHTHEGM & THE ‘REAL’

» Brian Bosworth

The ‘real’ Alexander systematically eludes It certainly deals with a detached incident, and us. The historical sources, notably , it works up to a punch line, what the ancients Tare explicit that they are out to record the termed an apophthegm.1 It also tells us a king’s achievements, which means primarily certain amount about the characters involved, his military successes. Alexander may be the especially the author of the put down but also central figure, but Arrian tells us comparatively the butt of the episode, who made a virtue out little of what he was like. What we have is a of prolixity. I may add that there are problems sequence of battle narratives, which give us of verification. There is no doubt about the a vivid impression of his strategic genius but apophthegm; it is the perfect one-liner, which, there is little about the man. In particular once heard, is always remembered. There is also Arrian is very sparing in his use of anecdote, agreement on the identity of the victim. No one the narrative, as the Oxford English Dictionary else would have boasted so openly about his puts it, ‘of a single event, told as being in itself production rate. Where the disagreement arises interesting or striking’. And, one may add, concerns the author of the witticism. A number

} amusing. I will illustrate what I mean from of names have been canvassed. I have myself (above) an episode that took place early in my career, been approached as an eyewitness, although Etching and text more years ago than I care to remember. The I was not on the scene there, but I do recall extract from The venue was the old University House, a modest one of my colleagues who was a participant Iliad of Homer. building, now demolished on aesthetic grounds. approaching me on the day in a state of high C. C Felton (ed.), (Cambridge: Brown, A group of colleagues would get together for hilarity and retailing the entire incident, Shattuck & Co, 1833). lunch and pass judgement on the most recent including the name of the central figure. That delinquencies of the then Vice-Chancellor. On is, I fear, as close to the truth as I am likely to Detail from the day in question a much loved but somewhat come. It does, however, illustrate very nicely a The Battle of Gaugamela. Relief insensitive professor came in late to join the feature of the classic anecdote, that it tends to inspired by a table, and, rubbing his hands, he exclaimed, be transferred from one individual to another Charles Le Brun’s painting on the ‘What a wonderful day! I’ve written 2,000 at a relatively early stage. The framework is same subject. Image words already’. Without looking up from his agreed, but the actors are fluid. shows Alexander tray, one of the party reacted without a pause, Arrian, then, rarely resorts to anecdote, the Great fighting and riding his horse, ‘O yes, Bert. In any particular order?’ but the same cannot be said of , who . Little things perhaps please little minds, gives us one anecdote after another in his 2 Photograph by Luis but the story became legendary among the Life of Alexander. In a famous passage he García, 2008. Source: Wikimedia Commons. participating group, and it is a classic anecdote. describes the surrender of the Indian monarch

44 } Humanities Australia Porus, insisting that his intention is not to a third century historian writing a couple of give a narrative history of Alexander’s reign, generations after the event (Athen. 6.251.c = but to record episodes that are valuable as FGrH 81 F 11). This time Nicesias confronted an illustration of character. Inconsequential Alexander when he was racked with pain after words and deeds (even jokes) can give greater taking a drug and observed, ‘Even you, the gods, insight into character than any number of experience pain’. Alexander replied: ‘What battles or sieges.3 Plutarch does follow a rough kind of gods? I am afraid that we may be god chronological framework, but he interweaves hated’. Here Nicesias is associating Alexander a string of anecdotes, which he considers of with the gods, as a god himself, and Alexander importance for judging character. For instance, reacts sarcastically; any gods he belongs with when he deals with the must be the enemy of more powerful deities. (in the spring of 326) Plutarch first gives a If he is a god, he is a very weak one. Alexander brief account of the engagement, derived is sceptical here, but the anecdote belongs in from Alexander’s letters, and then moves to the context of court flattery, which clearly anecdotes, first the solicitous behaviour of the portrayed him as a god who was at least the royal elephant,4 which defended its master equivalent of the Olympians. to the last, and then the famous exchange There is a similar anecdote that shows the between Alexander and the Indian rajah, same ambivalent attitude to deification. It is Porus.5 Alexander met the captured monarch located at the siege of Massaga, the principal and asked how he should treat him. The answer city of the Swat Valley. While surveying the came as a single word βασιλικῶς (‘like a king’). fortifications Alexander was struck in the ankle That is the ultimate in one-liners. It means by an arrow and again suffered severe pain. both ‘treat me as a king’ and ‘treat me as a king There is unanimity in the source tradition that would’. The implication is that if Alexander the wound was compared with the famous mistreats him he is falling short of royal wound in the Iliad (5.335-40) that Diomedes magnanimity, and it is hardly surprising that inflicted upon the goddess Aphrodite. He Alexander acted accordingly, reinstating Porus gashed her hand, and her immortal blood in his realm as his (provincial governor). flowed. Only it was not blood. Homer states The anecdote therefore shows both monarchs that it was ‘ichor such as flows in the blessed acting as true kings. There is no suggestion gods’. If, then, ichor circulated in Alexander’s here or elsewhere that Porus had practically veins it was the most telling proof that he was destroyed his own people by his misguided not a being of mortal substance. So far there resistance to Alexander.6 What is stressed is his is agreement, but there is some doubt about fearless and dignified demeanour, which was the author of the apophthegm. According to properly rewarded. Plutarch the Homeric quotation came from At this point I shall examine a number of Alexander himself. He turned to his friends and anecdotes that circulate around Alexander’s laughingly showed them the living proof that concept of his own divinity, a favourite it was blood that came from the wound. This theme for court flatterers. It would seem that presupposes that there was some discussion Alexander was convinced relatively early in of Alexander’s nature – human or divine, his reign that he was in some way the son of and a crucial criterion would be the ichor in Zeus (or his African manifestation, Ammon), his blood. Alexander, it seems, made a joke but by the time he had reached the far north- of the matter, but it was taken very seriously east of the empire his courtiers were actively in his court. According to the contemporary promoting the view that he was a god in historian, Aristobulus of Cassandreia, the his own right. One of them, Nicesias, went comparison was made by the great athlete, so far as to claim that the March flies then Dioxippus of Athens, who was a significant bothering Alexander would conquer the fly personality at court. This is probably correct, world after tasting his blood (Athen. 6.249.d-e). for Aristobulus was a member of staff and More significant for our purposes is another perhaps reported the apophthegm at first anecdote, which was attested by Phylarchus, hand.7 In that case, why is the quotation

Humanities Australia { 45 intellectuals in a recension of the text, which he kept embedded in a gold casket.9 The passage that Dioxippus quoted contains the only references to ichor in the Iliad, and Alexander could not fail to appreciate the allusion. If he was the stuff of immortality, it was the same stuff as the weakest of the pantheon. Alexander was unlikely to have been amused, and the future career of Dioxippus shows a gradual decline in royal favour.10 He was one of the most formidable athletes of his day, the chief exponent of the all-in thuggery known as the pankration, and said to be the strongest man in . So fearsome was he that he won the (right) Olympic event without opposition (ἀκονιτί); The phalanx no one would take the lists against him. He attacking the centre in the battle joined Alexander, perhaps in 331, and was of the Hydaspes by retained as one of a select band of athletes, who André Castaigne, 1899. would demonstrate their prowess – and annoy the Macedonians who did the actual fighting sourced from Wikimedia Commons. that kept them in luxury. By 325 Dioxippus’ stock was evidently low, and at a banquet he attributed to Alexander and interpreted as a was challenged to single combat by a brash, facetious rebuff to flattery? newly promoted Macedonian. Alexander had We should perhaps look more closely no objections,11 and may even have set up at the context of the anecdote. There is the encounter. It was a mistake. Dioxippus, something rather disquieting in the Homeric resplendent in heroic nudity, had an effortless quotation. The goddess who suffers the victory over his heavily armed Macedonian wound is Aphrodite, the least warlike of adversary, and in so doing embarrassed all the Olympians, and her weakness and Alexander a second time. Not surprisingly incompetence is stressed repeatedly in the he fell more and more into disfavour, and in passage. When wounded she shrieks with the the end he was falsely accused of theft and

This is a very strange allusion for a flatterer to have made. The greatest conqueror of all time is assimilated to the goddess of love. This is a real sting in the tail, and Alexander could not but be aware of the allusion.

pain and leaves the battlefield to find first aid committed suicide. The whole story was an and comfort in her mother’s arms. The passage object lesson not to provoke or challenge the ends with Zeus himself, greatly amused, king. He had a long memory. advising his daughter to avoid things military, Perhaps we can now fill out the historical and keep to her own theatre of operations context of the anecdote. It presupposes two – the marriage bed.8 This is a very strange quotations of the same passages: first we have allusion for a flatterer to have made. The Dioxippus’ use of the Aphrodite episode and greatest conqueror of all time is assimilated to then Alexander’s reply to it. All sources state the goddess of love. This is a real sting in the that Dioxippus’ quotation and its repetition by tail, and Alexander could not but be aware of Alexander were a reaction to wounds sustained the allusion. He was steeped in Homer, and in battle. The second was the wound at the allegedly collaborated with two of the court siege of Massaga in winter 327-326. The first is

46 } Humanities Australia open to conjecture, but Alexander sustained of Phoenicia at his disposal, yet he singled out several wounds in the campaigning season Tyre for his celebrations. Tyre had suffered a of 329. My preference would be the encounter seven-month siege the previous year and must near Samarkand, in which Alexander was have still shown the marks of destruction. again wounded by an arrow, which supposedly Large stretches of the walls would have been transfixed his leg and shaved the fibula. After reduced to rubble, and the interior of the city that one can make real sense of the exchange. would have been fired, except for the palace Dioxippus saw Alexander after his wound. and state temples. Most sinister of all were That in itself is significant. The pankratiast the remains of the fighting population, which was a huge man, and at the best of times he had been crucified along the shoreline. Two would have towered over the Macedonian thousand of them are reported to have suffered king, who was of relatively modest stature. The that appalling death, and Alexander would have disparity was emphasised by the quotation. For made sure that some of the whitened bones Dioxippus, Alexander may have been divine remained on the crosses as a lasting warning and have ichor in his veins, but his model not to challenge his sovereignty. Certainly the was the unwarlike Aphrodite. In contrast Cypriot kings would have been on their best Dioxippus must have looked like Zeus himself. behaviour, well aware that many had served What is more, he was Zeus invictus, not with the Persian navy in the Aegean and only merely victorious but untouched, a candidate came over to Alexander at the news of his for heroic honours after his death. It made victory at Issus. Particularly sensitive was Alexander look insignificant. Two years later, Nicocreon, king of Salamis, the most powerful in the Swat valley, Alexander sustained another state of . In the months after the fall arrow wound in the leg, and he referred back of Tyre his father had died (or been deposed), to Dioxippus’ quotation, and did so pointedly. and he had been installed as king. It was in his His friends gathered round, and he displayed interest to make the most positive impression his wound, stating categorically, ‘This, as you on his new overlord, who had enlisted his see, is blood, not ichor’. This does not mean brother as a companion, and no doubt that Alexander was rejecting any suggestion hostage.12 To that end he lavished time, effort that he was divine. He was rejecting Dioxippus’ and money to support the Argead family friend, implicit comparison with Aphrodite. It was the actor Thessalus, who was a celebrated tragic not good enough to have ichor, which could actor and a competitor in the dramatic festival. run in the veins of any old god, however Nicocreon basked in the limelight, but he unimpressive. His aim was to achieve godhead was not everyone’s favourite. In fact he had a through achievement on earth, like his great particularly poisonous enemy, the philosopher ancestor , who served as a role model Anaxarchus of Abdera. Anaxarchus was, to put for Alexander to surpass, and his wounds would it mildly, an exotic personage. He was known discharge human blood. After his translation to as the ‘Eudaimonist’, the pursuer of good life, Olympus it could be changed to ichor. and his near contemporary, Clearchus of Soli, With Dioxippus we are not faced with a describes how he had his wine poured by a single isolated story. There are two traditions, naked nymphette and made his baker wear interrelated by context and punch line, and gloves and a facemask while he was kneading they can be combined as a narrative. I should dough. Such a man would revel in the luxury like to examine another of these anecdotal of Alexander’s court, and it is clear that the strings, which again sheds light on the thorny king found him an amenable companion. question of deification. The setting is Tyre, in Anaxarchus’ philosophical doctrine is the early summer of 331. There Alexander held practically irretrievable. All that survives is a a famous festival, at which the city kings of couple of fragments, one of which comes from Cyprus distinguished themselves by attracting a treatise On Kingship, and stresses the need the leading actors of Greece to participate in for moderation. Erudition (πολυμαθίη) is all a great dramatic festival. Now, the choice of very well, but it must be judiciously exploited.13 venue is significant. Alexander had the whole It can benefit the clever man, but it damages

Humanities Australia { 47 the person who unthinkingly utters every at the table’.14 There is real venom here, and sentiment before the entire people. Knowledge Anaxarchus spat it out (ἀπορρίπτων) directly of what is appropriate (καιρό) is the mark of at Nicocreon, making it unmistakable who the wisdom. It is difficult to deny that Anaxarchus target was. It is interesting that Nicocreon is was aiming at his rival , who spoke not given his title of king. Like Porus in out emphatically against Alexander’s plan to he is called satrap, a term that underlines his introduce the Persian practice of ceremonial subordinate status. He might be king to his prostration at his own court. Callisthenes subjects in Cyprus, but around Alexander succeeded in having the proposal quashed, but there was only one king – himself. For all he had fallen fatally out of favour, and shortly his display at the festival Nicocreon was no afterwards was implicated in a conspiracy, independent ruler, and if he misbehaved could arrested, tortured and executed. If ever there be summarily executed. That is presumably was an object lesson in avoiding unseasonable one of the many messages that could be read frankness, that was it. In contrast Anaxarchus into the apophthegm. If Nicocreon deserved to was far more adroit, a natural courtier. He was be decapitated, then he was guilty, or thought no uncritical flatterer; rather he was an expert guilty, of insubordination. That would have in ethical admonition, whose speciality was to been a devastating insinuation, given the mix encomium with criticism. But there was far history of the royal house of Salamis during the more honey than vinegar in his admonitions. Persian Empire, which was an almost unbroken For instance, he is said to have criticised series of rebellions, not least by Nicocreon’s Alexander for his propensity to flattery, but father, Pnytagoras. Nicocreon may have been then turned the moral edification into a joke: represented as following in his footsteps and flattery is appropriate for the progeny of Zeus, planning revolt and domination over the nine who kept buffoons in their entourage, cities of Cyprus. the satyrs, and Heracles the Kerkopes. It was a As it turned out, Nicocreon survived the nice analogy: Anaxarchus’ rivals at court were reign of Alexander, and there is no evidence equated with the more grotesque and dissipated that he fell out of favour. However, Anaxarchus’ figures of mythology, and Alexander was feted attack was remembered and exploited, just as the counterpart of Heracles and Dionysus, like Dioxippus’ quotation of Homer, and is both of whom were sons of Zeus and gained evoked in the second strand of the anecdotal divinity through their achievements on earth. string. This anecdote conforms perfectly to Anaxarchus, then, was a royal favourite and type. It is a distinct episode and leads up to a as such dangerous. That emerges clearly from memorable apophthegm, reported with similar the first part of our anecdotal string. For some wording throughout the tradition. The context reason he had made an enemy of Nicocreon, is not given. Alexander was with his entourage king of Salamis. We are not told what caused when there was a huge clap of thunder that the enmity, but it was deep, bitter and lasting. shocked the gathering. Anaxarchus was again After Alexander’s death Anaxarchus was present, and delivered an ironic challenge: inadvertently driven into Cyprus by the ‘Could you, the son of Zeus, do something prevailing wind, and fell into the hands of like that?’ There is something distinctly anal Nicocreon, who had him pounded to death in this. Alexander is invited to break wind so with iron pestles – a sad end for the pursuer of violently that it would match the thunderclap. happiness. The two were enemies at the time The king facetiously declined the challenge, of the great dramatic festival in Tyre where claiming that ‘he did not wish to be an object the bad blood oozed out openly. At a formal of fear to his friends, as you would have me do, banquet there Alexander asked Anaxarchus, you who disparage my banquet because you who was (of course) a noted epicure, how he see fish set out on the tables, and not ’ found the meal. The philosopher responded heads’. Alexander is sending Anaxarchus’ with a memorable apophthegm: ‘everything apophthegm back at him and intensifying it. is excellent, o king, but one thing is missing Now it is not a single satrap’s head at risk but a – the head of a certain governor set before us plurality. The peripatetic scholar Satyrus went

48 } Humanities Australia even further. In his version of the apophthegm among men. The two concepts could coexist. Anaxarchus urges Alexander to have the heads Alexander could boast divine parentage. As son of satraps and kings brought before him. It of Zeus he could expect to enjoy exceptional reads as though Anaxarchus was suggesting a favour and divine assistance, as his historian bloodbath, in which the Cypriot kings would Callisthenes had suggested in his account of figure prominently. For all the coarse humour the Battle of Gaugamela, a few months after there is a very sinister undertone. In the earlier the games at Tyre. Alexander called on his anecdote Anaxarchus had directed his attack at divine father ‘to defend and encourage the a single individual, Nicocreon. Now the range is ’. This strongly recalls Aristarchus’ wider. Alexander implies that he could institute burlesque, but it is deadly serious. Alexander a purge of his subordinates throughout the is represented invoking the assistance of Zeus, Levant. He is not about to do so, but his and is duly answered by the appearance of an response hints that he very well could. This is eagle, confirmation that Zeus would support an anecdote that starts as a joke but soon takes his son and bring victory. It is the most striking on rather darker colours. The urbane, facetious instance of Alexander’s good fortune, to have Alexander could become the repressive on side a father who was the supreme force autocrat. He is also son of Zeus. That is clear of the universe, and he emblazoned it on his from Anaxarchus’ challenge, which presupposes coinage. There on his celebrated decadrachms

It is the most striking instance of Alexander’s good fortune, to have on side a father who was the supreme force of the universe, and he emblazoned it on his coinage.

that Alexander could match the thunderbolts we see him brandishing the thunderbolts so of his Olympian father. Here anecdote blends characteristic of Zeus with Victory herself about } into history proper. Alexander had recently to crown him as invincible. The son of Zeus (above) been in , where he had visited the great appropriately wears the regalia of his father. He , sanctuary of Zeus Ammon at the oasis of also wears a plumed helmet and grasps a sarisa successor of . Siwah. The officiating priest had hailed him as in his left hand. This is the visual counterpart Courtesy of son of Zeus, and, according to Curtius (4.7.30), to Callisthenes’ account of Gaugamela. Kenneth Sheedy FAHA, Alexander did not simply assent to being called Alexander assumes the attributes of his divine Australian Centre for Ancient son of Zeus, he actually demanded it, much to father, and achieves victory without end, the Numismatic Studies. the chagrin of his Macedonians. The anecdote greatest of all Macedonian monarchs. we have examined shows the new convention in That is one aspect of Alexander’s relations operation. Anaxarchus exploited the alarming with the divine. More radical still was his thunderclap to produce an outrageous piece of assimilation to divinities proper, divinities flattery. If Alexander could match the explosion whose blood was ichor. There is a famous he was truly the progeny of Zeus, and deserved anecdote that associates the two aspects. It recognition as such. derives from a certain Ephippus of Olynthus, So far we have examined two anecdotal who wrote a treatise on the deaths of strings separately. In one Alexander is depicted Alexander and his favourite . as the son of Zeus: he is confirmed in his This concentrated upon the more sensational belief at Siwah, and Anaxarchus reinforces aspects of court life, particularly the prodigious the notion by suggesting that he could eclipse drinking that took place at the court symposia. a thunderstorm simply by his bowel motions. Ephippus also supplied details about the That was superhuman. But it was more than contemporary worship of Alexander, and was that. As we saw, Alexander could be represented probably an eyewitness. In particular he gave as more than human. He was positively alien, a highly colourful account of a celebration with ichor running in his veins, literally a god at the Median capital of Ecbatana, held in

Humanities Australia { 49 honour of Dionysus during the autumn of (64-5) that Gorgus was a historical personage 324. Alexander was the centre of attention, who very probably had an animus against the recipient of a vast number of crowns. The Athens. Nevertheless Pearson regards Ephippus’ highlight of this egregious display of flattery work as invention: ‘It is interesting to note was provided by Gorgus, the guardian of the how skilfully Ephippus has built up his story royal arsenal, who made a formal proclamation, on the basis of certain well-attested facts’. But quoted verbatim by Ephippus. Gorgus gave surely the reverse is true. Everything that can Alexander crowns worth 3,000 gold staters, and be verified on the strength of existing evidence promised ten thousand panoplies and the same has been verified. In particular the acclamation number of catapults and artillery for the siege of Alexander as son of Ammon (Zeus) occurs of Athens. This was a time of acute tension, in a precise context, in the Dionysiac festival at when Alexander came close to invading Attica, Ecbatana; the host, Alexander’s satrap of and Gorgus’ offer of munitions would have (Atropates), is also a historical personage, been a timely one. The proclamation was and the general strategic picture is plausible. not only notable for its extravagance. Gorgus The Athenians were anticipating an attack hailed Alexander as son of Ammon, as his at the time. Why not, then, draw the obvious men had been instructed to do at Siwah. The conclusion? The anecdote is true as it stands, announcement, moreover, is presented in direct and the apophthegm (Gorgus’ proclamation) is speech as an apophthegm, which would surely correctly cited. In that case Gorgus did crown have been remembered by all participants in Alexander and proclaimed him son of Ammon. the festival. There is no reason to suppose that the story Now, Gorgus is a well-known historical is not correct as it stands, and certainly no personage. He came from the Carian city reason to think that the acclamation was not of Iasus, where he was a rich, respected to Alexander’s liking. On the contrary, it seems citizen, and at some stage attached himself that Gorgus chose exactly the wording that he to Alexander’s court. He was a power broker, felt would be most effective with Alexander, whose support could be extremely valuable. which was correctly reported by Ephippus. There is corroboration in an inscription of the This takes us to the previous anecdote from island of Samos, which recorded how Gorgus Ephippus, which portrays Alexander assuming offered a crown to Alexander on an occasion the cult dress of the Olympian gods. While this when he declared his intention of returning is more difficult to believe than his assumption Samos to the Samians. This is patronage at of the title of son of Zeus (Ammon), again there work. Gorgus supported the interests of his is a match with the material record. According clients on Samos, and at the same time worked to Ephippus, Alexander took on the dress of against the Athenians, who had occupied the Ammon himself, in particular the rams’ horns island since 365, and showed no intention of that are the glory of the coinage of . relinquishing it. Everything fits together, but Here art reflects life, and the image on the coins even so there has been a trend among modern marks out Alexander as not merely his father’s scholars to dismiss the story as fabrication. son but his father’s substance. It became as There is a footnote in Sir William Tarn’s much an identifying mark as the rams’ horns Alexander the Great (ii.354. n.2) that has the of Ammon himself. Similarly, he ‘often’ wore dubious distinction of having every word in it the lion skin and club of Heracles. As a Heraclid wrong. In his view Alexander objected violently himself he would honour the founder of the to being called a son of Ammon; ‘it always line by assuming his characteristic dress. But roused him to fury’. ‘Always’ is pitching it too there was more. Heracles was notoriously the strongly; there is just one instance of such benefactor par excellence of humanity, and was fury, in the mutiny at Opis, when Alexander taken into Olympus as a reward, with a goddess had much more than a mocking reference as his consort. As we have seen, Heracles to Ammon to take care of. There is a similar was a model for Alexander, and Heracles’ sentiment in Lionel Pearson’s respected work head appeared on the obverse of his imperial on the lost histories of Alexander. He concedes tetradrachms, by far the most prolific and

50 } Humanities Australia widely circulated of any coinage that the world humanity to the Underworld? If so, it is hardly had seen, so it is hardly surprising that his surprising that he was treated with reverential image gradually fused with that of Alexander. silence by his courtiers. This is the most potent The two looked the same and had the same proof that Alexander was viewed as a god in his attributes. One may add that Dioxippus’ own right. He had libations poured before him, appearance at his combat with Corrhagus, myrrh and incense were burned continuously nude and with a Herculean club, challenged in his honour, and ritual silence was observed, Alexander’s monopoly of the image of Heracles, the sign of the presence of a god. The anecdote and would not have endeared him to the king. does not end in an apophthegm, rather a But Alexander did not simply imitate vignette which reflects the sheer terror that male divinities: he assumed the attributes Alexander could inspire. He was intolerable and of Artemis, something that has provoked murderous, and was thought to be in a state of outrage, especially with scholars of a Victorian violent depression (μελαγχολικόϚ) – perhaps disposition, who rejected the very idea of their in part a reaction to the death of Hephaestion. manly hero cross-dressing. That in itself was Ephippus paints a memorable picture of terror, sufficient to dismiss the anecdote: ‘Ephippus which, if he witnessed it, would never have has nothing to do with history’ is Tarn’s been forgotten, just as the dynast is contemptuous verdict. However, Alexander said to have had a severe anxiety attack when did have a somewhat tortuous relation with he came face to face with a statue of Alexander Artemis. He was allegedly born on the day that at Delphi. the great temple at Ephesus was burned down, This vivid description has often been thanks to the absence of the goddess, who was discounted. Ephippus is thought to have away in Macedon aiding the confinement of been hostile to Alexander, and therefore Olympias, and he himself had provided for the created the blackest picture possible. There prosperity of the rebuilt temple by assigning is a predisposition to discount it as fiction; it tribute money for its upkeep. Now, Alexander is dismissed out of hand without any serious did not, of course, adopt the persona of argument. The great German scholar, Felix Artemis the attendant of childbirth. He took Jacoby, found himself at a loss when dealing on the appearance of Artemis the huntress, with the episode. He found it difficult to bearing her characteristic bow and hunting accept the authenticity of all the details in the spear (σιβύνη). That was logical enough. first passage (dressing as the gods), but in the Alexander was one of the keenest and most second passage (on Gorgus) Ephippus is so well assiduous huntsmen of all time, and took every informed that in the first too it is perhaps only opportunity to be present at the chase. Indeed, the nuances (‘Ton und Beleuchtung’) that are along with the symposium, hunting was the false. It is better to concede that both passages characteristic occupation of the Macedonian are correct in detail, and there is no reason court, and taking on the dress of Artemis to think that Ephippus is writing fiction to indicated that he was uniquely successful – and blacken the memory of Alexander. He may uniquely dangerous. have had no love for the king (and there is little Dressing as a god does not imply divine enough indication of that), but the picture he status: otherwise there would be a plethora of constructs cannot be faulted. Our attitude to Athenian deities who had played the role of anecdotal evidence should be less sceptical gods at the dramatic festivals. However, there than it has been in the past. Unless it is proven is clearly a suggestion that Alexander took on otherwise, we should accept its historicity, the functions of the gods, even the sinister role assuming that the tradition goes back to some of Hermes, whose major task it was to conduct memorable deed or apophthegm. The model the dead to Hades, as Alexander would have and master is , who commits himself known well from the finale of the Odyssey. to recording what is memorable, and provides Is it too much to see the dress of Hermes as us with a coruscating array of amusing and an indication that Alexander was responsible informative anecdotes. The material that for the transfer of a significant portion of I have examined here (unlike Herodotus’

Humanities Australia { 51 anecdotes) has little in the way of narrative 4. P l u t . Alex. 60. 12-13. The story is extremely context, but internal analysis reveals nothing popular and appears widely in the extant tradition. See Arr. 5.19.2 with Plut. Mor. 181e, self-contradictory or implausible. Instead I 332e, 458b. have traced a line of consistent anecdotes, 5. It is Porus who steals the limelight. Alexander which illustrate both Alexander’s view of his is practically anonymous, described as the mortal (or divine) status and the reaction of straight man to Porus’ Achilles. his entourage, showing early conviction that 6. On this see A. B. Bosworth, Alexander and he was the son of Zeus Ammon and a growing the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 9-19. conviction that he was a god in his own right, 7. Athen. 6.251a = FGrH 139 F 47. The quotation is emulating and surpassing Heracles. At the also attributed to the philosopher Anaxarchus, same time his courtiers reacted in different but it is a late tradition (Diog. Laert. 9.60), and ways, some accepting and promoting the cult is probably affected by Anaxarchus’ reputation of Alexander as god, others rejecting it. And as a flatterer. Seneca (Suas. 1.5) attributes it to Callisthenes, but it occurs in a piece of there were those who, like Anaxarchus, chose a rhetoric, which conflates Callisthenes and middle way, using irony and humour to anchor Cleitus in an unholy jumble. Alexander to his mortality. This is exactly the 8. ‘No, my child, not for you are the works detail that is remembered and passed on by of warfare. contemporaries, and the anecdotes that provide Rather concern yourself with the lovely secrets of marriage’ (Iliad 5.428-9) the evidence should be treasured and exploited, 9. Strab. 13.1.27 (594); cf. Plut. Alex 8.2. The not casually ruled out of court. ¶ recension of the text was allegedly the work of Anaxarchus and Callisthenes, both with philosophical persuasion and mutually hostile. Brian Bosworth FAHA spent 10. According to Curtius (9.7.18) Alexander gave most of his academic career at way to popular demand because he could not the University of Western prevent the contest; the Macedonian inspired Australia, from 1967-2007. He is terror as if he were Ares, while Dioxippus currently Emeritus at UWA, excelled in sheer strength and athletic Conjoint Professor of Classics at training; still more, because of his club he bore a resemblance to Heracles. For Dioxippus’ the University of Newcastle, and Professor of athletic pre-eminence note the observations of Ancient History at Macquarie University. Apart from the orator Hyperides (Eux. 78-82). the history and historiography of Alexander the Great 11. That may be so, but equally there may be some and his successors, Professor Bosworth’s research element of drama. Alexander was quite capable interests include Thucydides and Classical Greek of putting on a show of reluctance. history, Roman imperial history and historiography. 12. Nithaphon, mentioned as a trierarch at the Hydaspes (Arr. Ind. 18.8). 13. The source for this anecdote was the peripatetic 1. There is little literature on the anecdote in philosopher Satyrus, who took advantage of antiquity. The most comprehensive treatment an impressive thunder clap in to make a is still Richard Saller’s essay, ‘Anecdotes as scurrilous comparison. Alexander happened Historical Evidence for the Principate’, Greece to be riding with his entourage, when there Rome, 27 (1999), 69-83. As its title suggests, was a sudden violent storm which made their its field is largely confined to the Roman horses rear. At that Anaxarchus challenged his world, whereas my discussion is focused on overlord, pretending that he could rival and the early , where there is an surpass Zeus himself when it was a matter of abundance of evidence, but little attempt to breaking wind (6.250f-251a). exploit it. 14. The fragments deal with the excessive drinking 2. P l u t . Alex..1.3. Compare the similar at symposia, which was hard fact. There is programmatic statement in Arrian’s praefatio, perhaps some hostility in the allegation that which may foreshadow Plutarch. See the it was the wrath of Dionysus that brought his excellent discussion of Timothy E. Duff, death, because Alexander had stormed his Plutarch’s Lives (Oxford: Oxford University native city of Thebes (Athen. 10.434.b = FGrH Press, 2002), pp. 14-34. 126 F 3), but contemporaries might have felt this 3. In similar vein Nietzsche is said to have to be a reasonable inference. There is no basis observed that the picture of a person can for Tarn’s dismissal of Eppiphus as a ‘scurrilous be constructed from three anecdotes (Aus pasquinader’. drei Anekdoten ist es möglich, das Bild eines Menschen zu geben). 52 } Humanities Australia