by F S Naiden
56. Fear of Alexander’s defeat, or even death: Bosworth (1980) ad Arr. An. 3.6.4. Other views of Harpalus’s defection: because he expected Alexander to remove him, as at Badian (1960), 246, or kill him, at Badian (1961), 23; because he expected Alexander to punish him for misconduct, at Heckel (2006), 129; because Harpalus intended to serve as a spy, at Green (1991), 222; or because he wished to join Alexander I of Epirus, at Jaschinski (1981), 12–15. The greed of Harpalus: Curt. 9.3.21, DS 17.108.9.
57. Plu. Alex. 35,5, Fort. Alex. 648c–d. He cannot have known that the Babylonians worshipped some statues of early kings and queens.
58. Ath. 13.594f; Paus. 1.37.4. The politician’s nephew’s building contract: Plu. Phoc. 22.2–3.
59. Money and troops: DS 17.108.6. Harpalus comes to supplicate: App. 2 #28 with Hyper. 1.18; see Naiden (2009), 159, 168, 177.
60. Macedonian demands that Athens, the supplicandus, surrender the suppliant: DS 17.108.7. A synopsis of the affair: Berve (1926), no. 143, here pp. 78–79, but with no focus on the use and abuse of supplication, as is true of Heckel (2006, 20016), s.v., and sundry other treatments, including Badian (1961).
61. The offer of Gorgos the armorer: Plu. Alex. 41.8, Ephippos FGrH 26 F 5. Perhaps Gorgos had a selfish motive for his gesture: he was an informal patron for Samos, which resented recent Athenian meddling in Samian affairs, and so he encouraged Alexander to attack Athens in order to please his clients, as suggested by Pédech (1984), 353.
62. The death of Harpalus: Berve (1926), no. 143, p. 79. The death of Demosthenes and the attendant legal complications: Naiden (2009), 202–4.
63. Adapted from Nizami 1.23.10–24.
64. The tale of the mirror and the dragon: Mulla (1893), 12. The global mirror: Steingass (1892), 1108.
Chapter 11
The Waters of Life
1. Alexander’s new foe, boredom: Curt. 6.2.1–2: militarium rerum quam quietis otiique patentior.
2. Hephaestion’s expedition: Arr. An. 7.7.1, 7.7.6.
3. The last assembly of the army, at Opis: Arr. An. 7.8.1–11.1. The lacunose Curt. 10.2.13–14 lacks the participation of the officers, and the offer of commands to Persians, as does DS 17.109.2–3. Plu. Alex. 71.2–8 lacks these features and also the arrest and execution of the leaders of the troops. Mockery of Amon appears at Arr. An. 7.83, DS 17.108.3, and Justin 12.11.6.
4. The executions after the assembly: Arr. An. 7.8.3. Alexander now had Persian guards (Plu. Alex. 71.3) and attendants (Justin 12.11.6), but did not give them this sensitive assignment.
5. Here as at the Hyphasis, Arrian and Curtius give somewhat similar accounts of Alexander’s speech, even in regard to the army’s performance under Philip (Arr. An. 7.9–10, Curt. 10.2.15, 30), a theme otherwise found only in Curtius (3.10.3–10, 4.14.1–7). A similar view: Sisti (2001) ad loc., with refs. Skeptical views: Bosworth (1995) ad Arr. An. 5.25.3, detecting Roman models; Tarn (1948), 2.287–90, detecting invention; Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad Curt. 10.2.12–4.3, detecting a familiar contrast between the two authors, one pro-Alexander and one anti.
6. The companions’ ethos of share and share alike: Samuel (1988), reflected not only at Arr. An. 7.9.9–10.3 but also at 5.26.7–8; for Alexander it was a trope available in times of emergency.
7. How seriously did he mean his offer of commands to Persians (Arr. An. 7.11.3)? Very seriously, to judge from Bosworth (1988a), 272–73; even more seriously according to Briant (1974), 110–11. The ancient sources for Alexander’s Persian troops, reviewed by Bosworth (1980b), 12–19, do not mention Persian officers, save for the Bactrian Hystaspes, as at Berve (1926), no. 763.
8. The Macedonians are driven to supplicate: App. 2 #29, but with no supplication at Curt 10.2.13–3–3.14 and DS 17.109.2–110.1 as opposed to Arrian, Plutarch, and Justin. Arr. An. 6.11.1 and Plu. Alex. 71.7–8 report an interval of three days in which Alexander was incommunicado, a doublet for his action at the Hyphasis, and Curt. 10.3 and Justin 12.11.9–12 report a speech made to the Persian troops, one that Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad loc. observe has more Roman than Persian points of reference.
9. A similar view of this, the largest act of supplication in Macedonian if not Greek history: Errington (1990), 112. Other views: Heckel and Yardley (2009) ad Justin 12.11.4, calling the events at Opis a secessio, or “strike”; Droysen (1833), 273, “Kampf zwischen dem Alten und Neuen”; Grote (1884), 2.252, “mutiny,” implying no political consequences; Schachermeyr (1973), 224–28, an unsuccessful exercise of the rights of the army assembly. A supplication, however, is better described as a pressure tactic than as an act of resistance or an exercise of a political right; see Naiden (2009), ch. 1.
10. Alexander’s latitudinarian if not ecumenical sacrifice: App. 1a #56.
11. The decree or ἐπιστολή, directed at the exiles as well as at the Greek cities, and thus undermining the cities: DS 18.8.4. Orders first published later the same year: Curt. 10.2.2–4. Murderers: Justin 3.5.2. Traitors, i.e., Thebans: Plu. Fort. Alex. 221a. Religious language used by Alexander at Opis: Arr. An. 7.5.6. Only one city, Tegea, is sure to have complied with the decree before Alexander’s death (GHI 202). The selection of secondary literature given by Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad Curt. 10.2.4–7 omits the religious issues; Cawkwell (1994) rightly observes that the decree was not a demand that Greeks worship Alexander.
12. Mercenaries dismissed by Alexander in 325: DS 17.106.3, 17.111.1. Paus. 1.25.5 says 50,000 mercenaries reached Europe.
13. A similar view of how new assignments affected social cohesion within the officer corps: Wilcken (1932), 175.
14. Satraps brought to Babylon: Peucestas for Persis, Philoxenus for Caria, and Menander for Lydia (Arr. An. 7.23.1), and apparently Stasanor for Arachosia and Gedrosia and Phrataphernes for Parthia and Hyrcania (6.27.3)
15. Sixty or more invited to meals: Ephippos FGrH 126 F 5.
16. En route they saw the bas-relief and inscription of Darius I at Behistun, which would have been known to them as the Bagistanon of Ctesias (FGrH 122 F 1b.13.2). None of the Alexander historians say how Alexander and the entourage reacted to this monument, which Ctesias may have led them to attribute to Semiramis. Resisting the idea that the Macedonians regarded this Persian artifact as a Mesopotamian one: Briant (2002), 124. No comment: Lenfant (2004), F. W. König (1972) ad loc. If the Macedonians noticed the long stairway at the bottom, this feature of the monument surely aroused Alexander’s and his engineers’ interest. The Persians destroyed the stairway in order to prevent the monument from being defaced, as at Luschey (1968), 92–94. The Macedonians had perhaps seen a copy of the inscription in Babylon. The feast: App. 1a #57. The regular sacrifices to Dionysus: Ephippos FGrH 126 F 5.
17. Rage against the Persian “Asclepius”: Arr. An. 7.14.4. We do not know who the Iranian god was; perhaps Alexander did not. The order to douse the sacred fires: DS 17.114.4. Arguing that Diodorus did not mean “put out,” and that the request was proper: Jamzadeh (2012), 135 with n. 104. Amon’s raising Hephaestion to the godhead: App. 1b #22 (DS 17.11.6).
18. The burial of Hephaestion: App. 1a #58.
19. Honors for Hephaestion: Arr. An. 7.23.7. The immediate heroization of a prominent deceased individual, such as a king or general, was unusual but not unheard of. The first known example: Brasidas at Amphipolis (Th. 5.11.1). A transition from commemoration to worship was more common: see examples at Loraux (1986), 39–40; R. Parker (1996), 135–37; Currie (2005), 112–19. Alexander surely wanted annual funeral games for Hephaestion, one point on a continuum from commemoration to worship: for examples, see Roller (1981), 6–7, and Seaford (1994), 120–21. Whether Hephaestion’s cult was to include enagismata rather than thusiai is unknown, but for enagismata to historical persons see SEG 13.312.13 (Megara), Plu. Arist. 21.3–5 (Plataea). Prohibited in Athens: Plu. Sol. 21.6. The term herōs for historical persons: Pi. fr. 133.5–6; Ar. Ra. 1039 (Lamachus). Unapologetic offerings to Asclepius: App. 1a #59.
20. The refusal to rename Hephaestion’s uni
t: Arr. An. 7.14.7.
21. The campaign against the highwaymen: Arr. An. 7.15, Ind. 40.6–8 and Plu. Alex. 72.4, with a characteristic difference between the two authors, Arrian envisioning a military purpose for the campaign, and Plutarch a quasi-religious one by which Alexander turned the Cossaeans into a tardy human sacrifice to the ghost of Hephaestion. Forty days of fighting: DS 17.112.
22. Events in Babylon in Alexander’s absence: In 328, an astronomical diary recorded a movement of troops from Susa to the land of the Hannaeans, the archaic term for “northwesterners” that the priests assigned to Macedonians and Greeks (AD -328 rev. 26: lúGAL ki-ṣir, “chief of the troops.”). The same year, the absent Alexander gave some unspecified order (AD -328 rev. 23). Alexander pledged tithes: Van der Spek (2006), 270. The work of the exorcist: RAcc. 40, 113. The rites for temple repair: Linssen (2004), 100–107. Repair of Esangil would continue for centuries (CT 49, 154). Price rises: Van der Spek and Mandemakers (2003). A new crown for Marduk: AD -324 B rev. 23.
23. Trouble in Babylon on his arrival: App. 1b #23. The leader, “Belephantes”: DS 17.112.2. The reason for this warning may have been a solar eclipse predicted for May 12, some months in the future, at Labat (1965), 81.1. A solar eclipse neutralized by ritual during the reign of Cyrus the Great: Beaulieu and Britton (1994). The liver-reader: Arr. An. 7.19, vindicating Greek divination; Plu. Alex. 73.3–5, saying that Alexander regretted entering Babylon, and thus tacitly vindicating the Babylonians. The problem of the correct route: Arr. An. 7.16.5–17.1; DS 17.112.4, referring only to another route of entry; Plu. Alex. 73 and Justin 12.13.3 giving no particulars, as also at App. BC 2.153. It would seem that only Ptolemy was well informed about the warnings given by the priests. Alexander’s response: Arr. An. 7.17.6, App. BC 2.153. Rough ground: Bosworth (1988a), 168. Arrian’s claim that the Babylonians wished to keep him out of the city for selfish, pecuniary reasons (7.17.1–4) is erroneous; see Boiy (2004), 201–2; so also Smelik (1978), 93–94.
24. Alexander holds court: Ephippus FGrH 126 F 3.
25. Mazdai’s half-Babylonian son: Berve (1926), no. 154.
26. Temples in Greece and also Macedon respond to Alexander: DS 18.4.4–5. Honors: Arr. An. 7.23.2, saying only that the Greeks gave him a golden crown, an honor Arrian mistakenly thinks is only for gods; no details at DS 17.113.1–2. The contrary view: Meyer (1910), holding that Alexander demanded deification as reported at Ael. VA 2.19. The intransigent Arabs: Arr. An. 7.19.6. They perhaps knew, even if Alexander did not, that faraway Carthage paid tribute to Esarhaddon (Prism B 5.54–6.1 at ANET 291).
27. Hephaestion worshipped only as a hero: Despinis (1997), no. 23; Stewart (1993), 453–55, fig. 72. Alexander insulted by the Spartans: Plu. QG 219e. Ael. VH 2.19. An Athenian insult: Plu. X orat. 842d. A lawsuit against worshipping Alexander in Athens: Hyper. 6.21–22. Similarly, Hyper. 5.2 mentions an eikōn of Alexander, but not an agalma. Ephippos FGrH 126 F 5 speaks of incense being offered and silence being observed, but gives no locations. A similar view: Cawkwell (1994), 297. A contrary view: Habicht (1970), 30–34; Fredricksmeyer (2003), 276. The contempt expressed by Demosthenes: Hyper. 6.31. So also Dinarch. 1.94, saying that Demosthenes allowed Alexander honors in heaven, but not in Athens. Additional sources: Mari (2002), 239–41, linking the Greek response to the contemporary, and likewise unenthusiastic, response to the exiles’ decree.
28. The Greek oracle on Alexander’s divinity: Kallisthenes FGrH 124 F 14, unless this author invented the oracles, in which case it can still be said that he thought the invention plausible, given previous developments in Anatolia. The date of the oracle, which was reportedly announced to Alexander while he was in Memphis in early 331, must have been sometime in 332. The Persian oracle, preserved in Greek, is described at Boyce and Grenet (1991), 13.
29. A routine supplication: App. 2 #30, assuming that owner, Megabyzus, was one of the hereditary priests known by this name, as at Str. 14.1.23. Eunuchs: Munn (2006), 159.
30. A life-like portrait of a deathless Alexander as at Ch. 9, n. 31. This compliment was given to the entire oeuvre of Apelles: Pl. NH 35.79. Other images of Alexander blurring the distinction between mortal and immortal: Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad Curt 10.5.33.
31. A minimum of 8,000 stationed in Babylon: Bosworth (1988a), 267, following Brunt (1976), 23.
32. Mount Athos and other extravagant projects: Plu. Alex. 72.5–8.
33. The pearl fishery: Arr. An. 7.20.7. The Greek Androsthenes sailed farther, and wrote the requisite book (Str. 16.4.2, Ath. 3.93b). Red Sea voyages: Str. 16.4.2, Tzet. Chil. 7.174. Alexander must have known about the circumnavigation of Arabia from Hdt. 4.44, if not from the Chalouf Stela, as at Redmount (1995), 60–61. Alexander was thus using Greek navigators to make himself as well informed as a Persian predecessor about erstwhile Babylonian possessions. He may not have known about the desert campaigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (Prism B 6.1–13, 7.82–10.5 at ANET 291–92).
34. Curt 10.1.16–19 retrojects Alexander’s naval plans to the previous year. The motive, punishing the Arabs, appears at Arr. An. 7.19.3–4 and Str. 16.1.11, but Schachermeyr (1973), 131–40, followed by Atkinson and Yardley (2009) ad Curt. 10.1.16–19, accept the notion, reported at Aristoboulos FGrH 139 F 59 and Str. 16.1.11, that Alexander wished to make himself a third god among the Arabs, who worshipped only two, Zeus (or Uranus) and Dionysus. Yet Alexander could not have been so uninformed as to suppose that the Arabs were bitheists; Hdt. 3.8.1 and 1.131.3 name a total of three Arab gods.
35. The forty-seven vessels: Arr. An. 7.19.3. The Pallacopas canal: 7.21.1–7.
36. Arab tribute to Babylon: Sargon & Sennacherib, 123–28.
37. Moderation on campaign: Plu. Symp. 1.6. An ambitious man’s objections to drink and sex: Plu. Alex. 22.3. Some degree of restraint in sexual predation: Plu. Amat. 760c, Fort. Alex. 333a. The exchange of a woman for a picture: Ael. VH 12.3, Lucian. Im. 7.
38. Drinking with impunity: Plu. Q. conviv. 623f–24a (during the life of Callisthenes), Alex. 70.1 (at Susa), Ael. VH 3.23 (some month other than the one described in the extant Ephemerides). Reports of earlier drinking: Curt. 5.7.1 (Persepolis); 6.2.1 (a general statement concerning 330 onward); 8.1.22 (the night of Clitus’s death). These passages lend some force to Tritle’s claim (2003) that Alexander drank because of post-traumatic stress disorder, provided that the stress was provoked by conditions in Central Asia.
39. Temple-building: DS 18.4.5, reporting 9,000 talents were to be spent at locations starting with Dodona.
40. Dressing like Amon: Ephippos FGrH 126 F 13. Other people dressing like gods, but only at symposia: Ath. 7.289b-c. More vanities of Menecrates, Philip’s doctor: Plu. Ages. 21.10, Reg. apophth. 191a, Lac. apophth. 213a. A pyramid for Philip: DS 18.4.5.
41. A third possibility, besides attending or not: a curtailed ceremony, as at ABC #7, col. 3.7–8. A fourth, the use of a substitute, is doubted by Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (1987). Alexander’s participation from the perspective of two recent Assyriologists: affirmed by Dalley (1998), 39; no opinion offered by Kuhrt (1990). Alexander’s activities in 323 make it certain he had already arrived in the city by early April. Otherwise he would not have had time to sail to the marshes near the Gulf, visit the colony there, return to Babylon (Arr. An. 7.21), and then sail into the marshes a second time and return to drill his fleet (7.23.5), all before falling ill at the end of May.
42. The New Year’s festival: RAcc, 127–48; Linssen (2004), 215–37. Descendants at the festival: Linssen (2004), ch. 6, n. 391.
43. No easy translation for “Pegasus,” since the Babylonian for this constellation, īku, means “ditch.” Other translations were easier: Virgo for the “furrow,” Capricorn for the “goat-fish.” Knowledge of the entire zodiac perhaps began to reach Greece in Alexander’s time: Rochberg (2010), 13.
44. Marduk as in the Enūma Eliš (ANET 60–72), 6.1–8, 6.129–31. Purpose of the recitation: 7.145–10.
45. Alexander’s words, “I did not strike the cheeks of
the clergy,” are to be taken figuratively, i.e., “did not consume their wealth.”
46. The rural visit at the end of the ceremonies: Black (1991), 45–46.
47. Disputes about changes in the celebration of the symbolic royal marriage: Falkenstein (1959), 162–63. Leading interpretations of the festival do not discuss Alexander, e.g., the interpretation that it symbolizes natural cycles, as at Frankfort (1948), 315–28; or the mock-death of the monarch, as at Eliade (1959), 51; or serves as nationalistic religious propaganda, as at J. Smith (1976).
48. An earlier king with Alexander’s hobby: Xerxes, but we cannot tell where he looked (Ktesias FGrH 688 F 13.25, Ael. VH 13.3, Str. 16.1.5). Lenfant (2004), lxxxviii–lxxxix, suggests one such tomb was discovered in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.
