Some more long quotes to follow because I want to discuss the use of "lion’s den" in this Lucian excerpt. I did a Google Desktop search and have not found any other reference except for the incident concerning Lysimachus which has been dismissed (quite sensibly, IMO) as fiction. There are other references to this but I don't think it is necessary to include them all. First up is Justin:
Justin 15.3
Lysimachus was of a noble family in Macedonia, but was exalted far above any nobility of birth by the proofs which he had given of personal merit, which was so great, that he excelled all those by whom the east was conquered, in greatness of mind, in philosophy, and in reputation for prowess. For when Alexander the Great, in his anger, had pretended that Callisthenes the philosopher, for his opposition to the Persian mode of doing obeisance, was concerned in a plot that had been formed against him, and, by cruelly mangling all his limbs, and cutting off his ears, nose, and lips, had rendered him a shocking and miserable spectacle, and had had him carried about, also, shut up in a cage with a dog, for a terror to others, Lysimachus, who was accustomed to listen to Callisthenes, and to receive precepts of virtue from him, took pity on so great a man, undergoing punishment, not for any crime, but for freedom of speech,8 and furnished him with poison to relieve him from his misery. At this act Alexander was so displeased, that he ordered Lysimachus to be exposed to a fierce lion; but when the beast, furious at the sight of him, had made a spring towards him, Lysimachus plunged his hand, wrapped in his cloak, into the lion’s mouth, and, seizing fast hold of his tongue, killed him. This exploit being related to the king, his wonder at it ended in pleasure, and he regarded Lysimachus with more affection than before, on account of his extraordinary bravery. Lysimachus, likewise, endured the ill-treatment of the king with magnanimity, as that of a parent... ...
The most interesting part of the above is that Heckel, in his
Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great says that "The Lysimachus of Plutarch's version of the Callisthenes affair (55.2) is not the son of Agathocles: Berve (ii.241 no. 481; cf. Hamilton 14. 153-4; Pearson 57) correctly recognized that this is Lysimachus, Alexander's Acarnanian tutor, the victim of Chares' hostility." So we not only have a gory description of Callisthenes' punishment which is not to be found elsewhere, but we apparently have the wrong Lysimachus being thrown into the fictional lion's den. Why fictional? Because of Curtius:
Curtius 8.1.13-17
[13] Alexander and his whole army entered one such forest, known to have been left undisturbed for four consecutive generations, and he issued orders for the animals to be beaten from their coverts throughout its length. [14] Among these animals was a lion of unusual size which came charging forward to pounce on the king himself. Lysimachus (who subsequently gained royal power) happened to be standing next to Alexander, and had started to aim his hunting spear at the beast when the king pushed him aside, told him to get out of the way, and added that he was as capable as Lysimachus of killing a lion single-handed, [15] In fact, once when they were hunting in Syria, Lysimachus had on his own killed a lion of extraordinary size, though his left shoulder had been lacerated right down to the bone and he had been within an inch of his life. [16] This was the point of Alexander's taunt to Lysimachus but his actions were, in fact, more courageous than his talk - he not only took on the animal but he dispatched it with a single stroke. [17] (I am inclined to think that it was the event I have described above that gave rise to the widespread but unsubstantiated story that Lysimachus was deliberately exposed to a lion by the king.)
Curtius, as we all know well, hardly missed an opportunity to repeat salacious gossip, often presenting incidents as fact that again are not to be found elsewhere. When Curtius, of all people, describes such a story as unsubstantiated I do think we can safely regard it as fiction.
Which takes me back to Lucian who refers to Alexander (potentially) shutting someone up in a lion's den as if it was an unremarkable occurrence. His emphasis is on the crime, not on the punishment. It is my opinion that Lucian drew from the "widespread but unsubstantiated story" about Lysimachus and decided that it must have been a common punishment. Therefore, if one disregards this part of the excerpt as fictional, then it is worth examining the rest of the piece with caution. Do I believe that altars, temples, offerings and festivals for Hephaistion were instituted? Yes, because we have that dedication to Hephaistion The Hero in Macedonia. Many others were possibly begun and then abandoned after Alexander's death, but whether Hephaistion was declared a god or a hero (discussion in another thread) people would have responded as instructed. And Alexander did give instructions.
Do I believe that some of Alexander's men used their own supposed devotion to Hephaistion as a means to gain further favour from Alexander? Yes, again. These were canny men who understood how to get ahead. I suspect that men like Hagnon and Medius wasted no time in impressing Alexander with their devotions. The same applies to slandering others with claims of irreverence. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was attempted, to varying degrees of success. There seems to be no evidence of a culling; no evidence of dismissal or "banishment" (as my translation reads). On the other hand, loss of favour would be possible, although all the major players seem to have survived unscathed. If a person should familiarize themselves with all the extant sources – as I did when joining Pothos – and then read the Liber de Morte, they could be forgiven for wondering about some of the names at Alexander's famous "last dinner'. My first thoughts were, "Who ARE these people?" Medius, Asander, Stasanor, Heracleides the Thracian, Holcias, Europius, Ariston of Pharsalus, etc. Yes, some of them are mentioned briefly in the histories (and appear after Alexander's death) but even now I had to check Heckel to confirm the information. None of them figure prominently as
major friends (Friends) of Alexander until this very intimate dinner. Could some of them have gained increased favour by using either flattery or slander to take advantage of a man who had recently suffered a major loss? Certainly they could. I obviously can't say this definitely happened, but I doubt there's a period of history where men in similar circumstances wouldn't have attempted to do so.
So, all in all, I think there's a modicum of truth underneath Lucian's tirade, but I really don't believe it as stated. Of course, as I always say, this is only my opinion and others may differ. I'm simply trying to answer your question "Do we believe it or not" as best I can.
Best regards,
