The Anabasis of Alexander or, The history of the wars and conquests of Alexander the Great
despot, to which of the Grecian States would you wish him to flee for
preservation?” Callisthenes again replied:—“If not among others, at
any rate among the Athenians an exile would find preservation; for they
waged war on behalf of the sons of Heracles against Eurystheus, who at
that time was ruling as a despot over Greece.”[552] How he resisted
Alexander in regard to the ceremony of prostration, the following
is the most received account.[553] An arrangement was made between
Alexander and the Sophists in conjunction with the most illustrious
of the Persians and Medes who were in attendance upon him, that this
topic should be mentioned at a wine-party. Anaxarchus commenced the
discussion[554] by saying that he considered Alexander much more
worthy of being deemed a god than either Dionysus or Heracles, not
only on account of the very numerous and mighty exploits which he
had performed, but also because Dionysus was only a Theban, in no way
related to Macedonians; and Heracles was an Argive, not at all related
to them, except that Alexander deduced his descent from him. He added
that the Macedonians might with greater justice gratify their king
with divine honours, for there was no doubt about this, that when he
departed from men they would honour him as a god. How much more just
then would it be to worship him while alive, than after his death, when
it would be no advantage to him to be honoured.
CHAPTER XI.
CALLISTHENES OPPOSES THE PROPOSAL TO HONOUR ALEXANDER BY PROSTRATION.
When Anaxarchus had uttered these remarks and others of a similar
kind, those who were privy to the plan applauded his speech, and
wished at once to begin the ceremony of prostration. Most of the
Macedonians, however, were vexed[555] at the speech and kept silence.
But Callisthenes interposed and said:—“O Anaxarchus, I openly declare
that there is no honour which Alexander is unworthy to receive,
provided that it is consistent with his being human; but men have made
distinctions between those honours which are due to men, and those due
to gods, in many different ways, as for instance by the building of
temples and by the erection of statues. Moreover for the gods sacred
enclosures are selected, to them sacrifice is offered, and to them
libations are made. Hymns also are composed in honour of the gods, and
eulogies for men. But the greatest distinction is made by the custom
of prostration. For it is the practice that men should be kissed by
those who salute them[556]; but because the deity is located somewhere
above, it is not lawful even to touch him, and this is the reason no
doubt why he is honoured by prostration. Bands of choral dancers are
also appointed for the gods, and paeans are sung in their honour. And
this is not at all wonderful, seeing that certain honours are specially
assigned to some of the gods and certain others to other gods, and,
by Zeus, quite different ones again are assigned to heroes, which are
very distinct from those paid to the deities.[557] It is not therefore
reasonable to confound all these distinctions without discrimination,
exalting men to a rank above their condition by extravagant
accumulation of honours, and debasing the gods, as far as lies in human
power, to an unseemly level, by paying them honours only equal to those
paid to men.” He said that Alexander would not endure the affront, if
some private individual were to be thrust into his royal honours by an
unjust vote, either by show of hand or by ballot. Much more justly then
would the gods be indignant at those mortals who usurp divine honours
or suffer themselves to be thrust into them by others. “Alexander not
only seems to be, but is in reality beyond any competition the bravest
of brave men, of kings the most kingly, and of generals the most worthy
to command an army. O Anaxarchus, it was thy duty, rather than any
other man’s, to become the special advocate of these arguments now
adduced by me, and the opponent of those contrary to them, seeing that
thou associatest with him for the purpose of imparting philosophy and
instruction. Therefore it was unseemly to begin this discussion, when
thou oughtest to have remembered that thou art not associating with
and giving advice to Cambyses or Xerxes, but to the son of Philip, who
derives his origin from Heracles and Aeacus,[558] whose ancestors came
into Macedonia from Argos, and have continued to rule the Macedonians,
not by force, but by law. Not even to Heracles himself while still
alive were divine honours paid by the Greeks; and even after his death
they were withheld until a decree had been published by the oracle of
the god at Delphi that men should honour Heracles as a god. But if,
because the discussion is held[559] in the land of foreigners, we ought
to adopt the sentiments of foreigners, I demand, O Alexander, that thou
shouldst bethink thyself of Greece, for whose sake the whole of this
expedition was undertaken by thee, that thou mightest join Asia to
Greece. Therefore make up thy mind whether thou wilt return thither and
compel the Greeks, who are men most devoted to freedom, to pay thee the
honour of prostration, or whether thou wilt keep aloof from Greece, and
inflict this honour on the Macedonians alone, or thirdly whether thou
wilt thyself make a difference in every respect as to the honours to
be paid thee, so as to be honoured by the Greeks and Macedonians as a
human being and after the manner of the Greeks, and by foreigners alone
after the foreign fashion of prostration. But if it is said that Cyrus,
son of Cambyses, was the first man to whom the honour of prostration
was paid, and that afterwards this degrading ceremony continued in
vogue among the Persians and Medes, we ought to bear in mind that
the Scythians, men poor but independent, chastised that Cyrus;[560]
that other Scythians again chastised Darius, as the Athenians and
Lacedaemonians did Xerxes, as Clearchus and Xenophon with their 10,000
followers did Artaxerxes; and finally, that Alexander, though not
honoured with prostration, has conquered this Darius.”
CHAPTER XII.
CALLISTHENES REFUSES TO PROSTRATE HIMSELF.
By making these and other remarks of a similar kind, Callisthenes
greatly annoyed Alexander, but spoke the exact sentiments of the
Macedonians. When the king perceived this, he sent to prevent the
Macedonians from making any farther mention of the ceremony of
prostration. But after the discussion silence ensued; and then the
most honourable of the Persians arose in due order and prostrated
their bodies before him. But when one of the Persians seemed to have
performed the ceremony in an awkward way, Leonnatus, one of the
Companions, laughed at his posture as mean. Alexander at the time was
angry with him for this, but was afterwards reconciled to him.[561]
The following account has also been given:—Alexander drank from a
golden goblet the health of the circle of guests, and handed it first
to those with whom he had concerted the ceremony of prostration. The
first who drank from the goblet rose up and performed the act of
prostration, and received a kiss from him. This ceremony proceeded
from one to another in due order. But when the pledging of health came
to the turn of Callisthenes, he rose up and drank from the goblet,
and drew near, wishing to kiss the king without performing the act of
prostration. Alexander happened then to be conversing with Hephaestion,
and consequently did not observe whether Callisthenes performed the
ceremony properly or not. But when Callisthenes was approaching to kiss
him, Demetrius, son of Pythonax, one of the Companions, said that he
was doing so without having prostrated himself. So the king would not
permit him to kiss him; whereupon the philosopher said:—“I am going
away only with the loss of a kiss.” I by no means approve any of these
proceedings, which manifested both the insolence of Alexander on the
present occasion and the churlish nature of Callisthenes. But I think
that, so far as regards himself, it would have been quite sufficient
if he had given his opinion discreetly, magnifying as much as possible
the exploits of the king, with whom no one thought it a dishonour to
associate. Therefore I consider that not without reason Callisthenes
became odious to Alexander on account of the unseasonable freedom of
speech in which he indulged,[562] as well as from the egregious fatuity
of his conduct. I surmise that this was the reason why such easy credit
was given to those who accused him of participating in the conspiracy
formed against Alexander by his pages, and to those also who affirmed
that they had been incited to engage in the conspiracy by him alone.
The facts of this conspiracy were as follows:—
CHAPTER XIII.
CONSPIRACY OF THE PAGES.
It was a custom introduced by Philip, that the sons of those
Macedonians who had enjoyed high office, should, as soon as they
reached the age of puberty, be selected to attend the king’s court.
These youths were entrusted with the general attendance on the king’s
person and the protection of his body while he was asleep. Whenever the
king rode out, some of them received the horses from the grooms, and
brought them to him, and others assisted him to mount in the Persian
fashion. They were also companions of the king in the emulation of
the chase.[563] Among these youths was Hermolaüs, son of Sopolis, who
seemed to be applying his mind to the study of philosophy, and to
be cultivating the society of Callisthenes for this purpose. There
is current a tale about this youth to the effect that in the chase,
a boar rushed at Alexander, and that Hermolaüs anticipated him by
casting a javelin at the beast, by which it was smitten and killed.
But Alexander, having lost the opportunity of distinguishing himself
by being too late in the assault, was indignant with Hermolaüs, and
in his wrath ordered him to receive a scourging in sight of the other
pages; and also deprived him of his horse. This Hermolaüs, being
chagrined at the disgrace he had incurred, told Sostratus, son of
Amyntas, who was his equal in age and intimate confidential friend,
that life would be insupportable to him unless he could take vengeance
upon Alexander for the affront. He easily persuaded Sostratus to join
in the enterprise, since he was fondly attached to him. They gained
over to their plans Antipater, son of Asclepiodorus, viceroy of Syria,
Epimenes son of Arseas, Anticles son of Theocritus, and Philotas son
of Carsis the Thracian. They therefore agreed to kill the king by
attacking him in his sleep, on the night when the nocturnal watch
came round to Antipater’s turn. Some say that Alexander accidentally
happened to be drinking until daybreak; but Aristobulus has given the
following account: A Syrian woman, who was under the inspiration of
the deity, used to follow Alexander about. At first she was a subject
of mirth to Alexander and his courtiers; but when all that she said
in her inspiration was seen to be true, he no longer treated her
with neglect, but she was allowed to have free access to him both by
night and day, and she often took her stand near him even when he was
asleep. And indeed on that occasion, when he was withdrawing from the
drinking-party she met him, being under the inspiration of the deity at
the time, and besought him to return and drink all night. Alexander,
thinking that there was something divine in the warning, returned
and went on drinking; and thus the enterprise of the pages fell
through.[564] The next day, Epimenes son of Arseas, one of those who
took part in the conspiracy, spoke of the undertaking to Charicles son
of Menander, who had become his confidential friend; and Charicles told
it to Eurylochus, brother of Epimenes. Eurylochus went to Alexander’s