No Cremation

[Taphoi]

Hi Paralus,

You seem to be holding out for dual physical paternity. It would be interesting to understand how exactly you explain the biological basis of dual paternity without supernatural intervention?

Best regards,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

By a process of elimination, it is my suggestion that Alexander must have referred the spiritual part of his birth to Ammon. I feel he may have interpreted Greek myths less literally than you.

And herein lies a problem – the modern day conception that Alexander may not (could not or would not) have interpreted the Greek myths literally. But why not? To the Greeks and Macedonians of the period, the myths were as real as the Christian concept of Jesus as the son of God.

Alexander had two fathers, Philip and Ammon, and no doubt Alexander referred his birth to both, exactly as the mythical Heracles recognised both Zeus and Amphitryon as his fathers.

Many other academics also acknowledge the above. However we need not go through a process of elimination in order to equate Alexander's understanding with our own. Badian, in The Deification of Alexander the Great, explains:

No one would deny that for an ancient Greek the boundary between human and divine, between mortal and immortal, was not where it is for a believing Jew or Christian. In Greek myth (which was to some extent regarded as ancient history) gods consorted with mortals in various ways and could father mortal sons born by mortal women – sons who, after death, might (like Heracles) be admitted to the circle of gods, or (like most others) might not; in which case they became heroes, with their own forms of cult, differing from that due to the gods. Within full historical times, mortal men had attained heroic status after death – especially founders of cities and those made equal to them. No doubt this was usually done with the approval of Delphic Apollo, who watched over religious practice in general and over the founding of cities in particular. Now, this is precisely the kind of well-regulated world that we find in Callisthenes' speech. Modern Jews and Christians, or modern rationalists, from their different points of view, have always found it difficult to believe that the ancient Greeks took their religion seriously, since it seems so patently absurd. Among other misunderstandings and misinterpretations caused by this attitude, they have tended, in particular, to deny the existence of the status boundaries set out by Pindar and Callisthenes (among many others) and especially their validity in the fourth century B.C. – the very century which, in the most "enlightened" city in Greece, saw the incidents of Socrates and the Hermias hymn that we have mentioned.

Here Badian is discussing the debate between Callisthenes and Anaxarchus, but the parts which I have bold-faced apply also to the study of any other source reference to Alexander's religiosity.

Hi Paralus,

You seem to be holding out for dual physical paternity. It would be interesting to understand how exactly you explain the biological basis of dual paternity without supernatural intervention?

In referring to the Arrian quote – "and in addition he himself traced some part of his birth to Ammon" - Fredricksmeyer in Alexander’s Religion and Divinity offers suggestions as to why Alexander could have believed in both "dual physical paternity" and ALSO "supernatural intervention."

Perhaps after changing his mind about the earlier notion of his conception in the form of a serpent, Alexander came to think that in fathering him, Zeus assumed the form of Philip, or that he was the produce of the seed of both. Whatever the explanation, we may believe that the priest at Siwah confirmed and explained the matter to Alexander in a way that made sense to him. (My italics)

And there's the crux – it need only have made sense to Alexander - it does not have to make sense to us! For example, there are other religions today that are outside of Christian understanding, but we don't need to know WHY they believe in certain things to accept that they do. That is, we don't try and make their beliefs conform to Christian concepts (as in “spiritual father and earthly father") in order to validate their religion. We don’t say "they can’t possibly believe this because we, as Christians, do not." I think the evidence shows that Alexander DID interpret the myths literally, and we should not see this as unreasonable. To quote Badian again:

It is not the purpose of this study to speculate on Alexander's psychology: to argue about why he wanted to be worshipped as a god or why he considered himself a god. However, we must conclude by stressing that he did so. This has often been denied by "rationalist" historians who assume (in Peter Green’s words) that men "of whom they approved were reasonable in the same way as themselves." The attempts of that class are on record in the pages of Tarn and Kraft, to mention no others. They have often been refuted, yet they are unlikely to cease, as long as historians still adopt these naïve and anachronistic attitudes. (Badian's italics)

Best regards,

[Paralus]

You seem to be holding out for dual physical paternity.

Not particularly. It may be that I simply like arguing. There are those who'd suggest that is true and they may have a point.

I tend to the view that, certainly by the later years, Alexander believed himself a son of Zeus-Ammon and that he equated Ammon with Zeus. His mythical lineage told him that and Siwah confirmed it. The point of the previous post being to indicate that the twenty-nine words quoted from AB Bosworth are hardly likely to indicate his view of how Alexander saw his relationship to Zeus-Ammon.

I devoted many words earlier in the thread to the events leading up to and contiguous with the abduction of the corpse. It occurs to me that there will be those for whom events post Alexander’s death do not figure strongly. For those who may not be conversant with the events of the time which led to the first of the Diadoch wars, the following is a guide. Pardon the layout: doing a table in this format is passingly difficult.

• 323, June 10: death of Alexander.
  
  323, late June/early July: “Babylonian Settlement”; Perdiccas regent and Arrhidaeus “distributes” satrapies. Perdiccas negotiates with Antipater to conciliate the other “Macedonian” power centre. Marriage to Nicaea agreed.
  
  323, July: Purification or lustration of the army. Outbreak of Lamian war in Greece
  
  323, Autumn: Antipater under siege in Lamia; Peithon appointed to deal with returning Greek colonists.
  
  323/2, Winter: Antigonus defies Perdiccas refuses to help Eumenes in Cappadocia. Leonnatus prefers to aid Antipater and, with the offer of Cleopatra’s hand in marriage, heads to Macedonia.
  
  322, Spring: Peithon defeats rebel colonists; Perdiccas campaigns against Ariarathes and settles Cappadocia; Leonnatus is killed near Lamia; siege of Lamia raised. Sea battles off Arcarnania.
  
  322, Summer: Craterus crosses into Europe – Battle of Crannon and Athenians defeated off Amorgos; Perdiccas settles Pisidia, destruction of Isaura and Laranda. Iolas brings Nicaea to Perdiccas. Cleopatra arrives in Sardis. Alexander IV joint King; Ptolemy secures his “back” and annexes Cyrenaica.
  
  322, Autumn: Perdiccas repudiates Antipater’s daughter then courts Cleopatra; Eumenes consolidates hold of Cappadocia/Armenia. Perdiccas calls Antigonus to “book”, he flees to Antipater.
  
  322/1, Winter: Antigonus with Antipater and Craterus in Greece. They decide on war and send ambassadors to Ptolemy. Invasion imminent, Eumenes deputed to take control of the Hellespont and northern Anatolian armies and takes Perdiccas’ proposal of marriage to Cleopatra; Neoptolemus intrigues against Eumenes
  
  321, Spring: Marriage alliances between Antipater, Ptolemy and Lysimachus.
  The invasion army musters to cross the Hellespont;

It is at this moment that Ptolemy, having received ambassadors from Antipater and Craterus and proposals of alliance and marriage, intercepts the funeral cortege. Whilst he may have represented his intentions to Arrhidaeus as such, it is unlikely that he did this simply to honour the dead king’s last wishes.