[History] Alexander the God

[Sétanta]

Author: rez
Original Thread: Alexander the God

Alexander the God

Worshipping Rulers as Gods

Concerning the opposition offered to Alexander by Callisthenes over the question of obeisance, there is also the following story [1]. It had been agreed between Alexander, the sophists and the most distinguished of the Persians and the Medes at his court that the subject should be raised during a drinking party. Anaxarchus launched the topic, saying that Alexander had much better claims to be regarded as a god than Dionysus and Heracles [...]. The Macedonians would have better reason to honor their king with divine honors; there was no doubt that once Alexander departed from men they would honor him as a god. How much more justifiable it would therefore be to honor him in his lifetime rather than wait for his death, when the honor would be of no benefit to the recipient.

After Anaxarchus had spoken to this effect, those who were privy to the plan praised his words and wanted to begin doing obeisance to Alexander, but the majority of Macedonians were displeased and kept quiet. Then Callisthenes intervened with these words: 'Anaxarchus, I declare that there is no honor fitting to man that Alexander does not deserve. But a distinction has been drawn by men between honors fit for mortals and honors fit for gods, for example in the matter of building temples and setting up cult statues and setting apart sacred enclosures for gods, and making sacrifices and libations to them, and offering hymns to the gods but eulogies to men. Most important is the distinction observed in the matter of obeisance. You greet men with a kiss, but since a god is placed higher up and it is sacrilege to touch him, you honor him in this way with obeisance. Dances, too, are held in honor of the gods, and paeans are sung to praise them. No wonder, when one considers that different honors are appropriate to different gods, while heroes receive yet others distinct from divine honors. It is unreasonable, therefore, to obliterate all these distinctions by inflating human beings to excessive proportions through extravagant honors, while inappropriately diminishing gods, as far as is possible, by offering them the same honors as men. Alexander himself would not tolerate for a moment a private individual laying claim to royal honors on the strength of some unjust show of hands or vote. How much more justified would be the displeasure of the gods against men who assume divine honors or allow others to do it for them. Alexander has more than justified the claim that he is and is seen to be the bravest of the brave, the most kingly of kings and the greatest of all generals. More than anyone else, Anaxarchus, you ought to have put forward this point of view and opposed the rival line of argument, because of your position as philosopher and instructor of Alexander. You ought not to have launched this subject. Remember that it is not Cambyses or Xerxes you are associating with and advising, but the son of Philip, descended from Heracles and Aeacus, whose forefathers came from Argos to Macedonia, and have since ruled the Macedonians by law and not by force. Why, not even Heracles received divine honors from the Greeks in his lifetime, nor even after his death until Apollo at Delphi gave an oracle instructing Heracles to be honored as a god. If one must think in foreign ways on the ground that this argument has originated in a foreign land, then do not forget Greece, Alexander. It was for her sake that you launched your whole expedition, to add Asia to Greece. Consider then whether on your return you will exact obeisance from the Greeks, the freest of men, or will you make an exception for the Greeks but inflict this indignity on the Macedonians? Or will you draw a distinction in the matter of honors generally, receiving from Macedonians and Greeks honors fit for men and acceptable to Greeks, and foreign honors only from non-Greeks? It may be said that Cyrus the son of Cambyses was the first man to receive the honor of obeisance, and that it is this which has kept the Persians and Medes submissive as you can see. But you must remember that the great Cyrus was humbled by Scythians, poor but independent men, and Darius by other Scythians, and Xerxes by Athenians and Spartans, and Artaxerxes by Clearchus, Xenophon and the Ten Thousand [2], and lastly our opponent Darius by Alexander - who had not yet been the object of obeisance.'

-Arrian 4.10.5-12.5


It is arguable that the introduction and encouragement of performing obeisance to Alexander the great was the initial step on the road to the curiously Greek practice of revering Kings as living gods. The mark of respect that Alexander learned from the Persian court etiquette placed Alexander further from the image of the accessible Macedonian champion king, and closer to the distant and awe inspiring universal monarch. However, the first point to be noted is that even though the Persian form of obeisance or “Proskynesis” in no way reflected a worship of the great King as a living God. Strabo also tells us that this custom was not reserved for just the Persian king, but that all Persians were obliged to perform Proskynesis to other Persians who were of considerably higher rank. The fact that the Greeks completely failed to understand this gesture tells us a great deal about the interaction of the Macedonians and Persians at Alexander’s court. If a greater level of communication between the two sets of courtiers had been established then perhaps the Macedonian nobility would have been far less affronted by the idea that they should perform Proskynesis to Alexander.

Howeve,r there is of course the possibility that Alexander himself had understood the concept of Proskynesis as a mark of simple respect yet failed to properly distinguish this from worship to his “companions.” Throughout Arrian, Alexander is constantly at the forefront of Macedonian integration policies whereas his fellow countrymen were far more isolationist. One such example is the way that Alexander adopted elements of the Persian dress, much to the resentment of his compatriots. This attempt at introducing Obeisance could quite well have been another example of Alexander failing to convince his troops to embrace a different culture to their own. The fact that Alexander is not reported to have attempted to make this explanation of the Persian custom to his men and the point that the arguments in favour of Proskynesis all involve Alexander’s legitimacy as a God indicate the first option as the most likely. Furthermore, the behaviour of Alexander up to this point in his campaigns, such as in the oasis at Siwa, demonstrates that he likely believed he was a living God already.

Alexander was not the first Greek to receive the honour of deification, not only was Alexander’s father worshipped alongside Artemis in Eresus, but Alexander had been portrayed by Phillip’s coinage as Apollo . Since Alexander has been raised under an arguably deified father and portrayed as a god it is very likely that this belief was ingrained into his psyche from childhood. We can see evidence of this in Alexander’s later own coinage when he is depicted as Zeus Ammon amongst other divine characters. The fact that Alexander so readily proclaimed his divinity in such a way is quite clear evidence that Alexander wished to be treated as a god. Considering the Hellenistic people thought of prostration before a man as akin to the worship of the gods then introducing Proskynesis was the simplest way for Alexander to instigate his subjects into what he considered worshipping him.

If we accept that Alexander truly was concordant with the idea that his men should worship him as a god, then we must read that either Alexander failed to understand a major custom of his subjects the Persians. Or he knowingly reformed the custom for his own personal ends and duped the Persians at court into worshipping him as a god instead of paying their respects to their King. Neither of these options paints Alexander in a particularly dignified light, instead the usual image of Alexander embracing his conquered peoples is rather distorted. However even though Alexander likely believed in his own divinity, he does not violently condemn Callisthenes for his arguable blasphemy in refusing to perform Proskynesis. Instead he is shown to be out of favour with the refusal to kiss him by Alexander, but the later implication of Callisthenes in the pages plot to assassinate Alexander has been seen by some as Alexander’s revenge. Given this sort of retribution for insulting his divinity we can see that Callisthenes had exposed a great weakness in Alexander’s character, that of his arrogance. The idea that Alexander could firstly compare himself to the gods was hubristic enough to cast doubt on his virtue, but to kill a man for failing to recognise, that is a step further towards tyranny. This sort of behaviour influenced Alexander’s companion’s ideals and beliefs to the extent that some of the Hellenistic kings attempted to emulate this style of divine and absolute kingship, notably Antigonus II.

Bibliography-

Josef Weishoffer, Ancient Persia, I. B. Tauris Publishers, 1996, p.p. 35 – 36

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html, 15/11/06

Tytus. K. Mikolajczak, Bryn Mawr Classical review, Alexander the Great and the Iranian world, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2006/2006-03-41.html, 15/11/06

Robert Fleischer, Hellenistic Royal Iconography on Coins, Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Aarhus University press, 1996, p.p. 28 – 30

Plutarch, Life of Alexander, Vol VII, verse 55, P.P. 385, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...xander*/8.html, 15/11/06