pothos.org

In the previous topic, agesilaos quoted the following:

17. At Alexander's court there was no more fatal imputation than that of refusing worship and adoration to Hephaestion. Alexander had been so fond of him that to appoint him a God after his death was, for such a worker of marvels, nothing out of the way. The various cities at once built temples to him, holy ground was consecrated, altars, offerings and festivals instituted to this new divinity; if a man would be believed, he must swear by Hephaestion. For smiling at these proceedings, or showing the slightest lack of reverence, the penalty was death. The flatterers cherished, fanned, and put the bellows to this childish fancy of Alexander's; they had visions and manifestations of Hephaestion to relate; they invented cures and attributed oracles to him; they did not stop short of doing sacrifice to this God of Help and Protection. Alexander was delighted, and ended by believing in it all; it gratified his vanity to think that he was now not only a God's son, but a God-maker. It would be interesting to know how many of his friends in those days found that what the new divinity did for them was to supply a charge of irreverence on which they might be dismissed and deprived of the King's favour.

How seriously are we meant to take this? If Alexander was this far off his rocker, he was a prime candidate for murder. So is Lucian using a source that suggested Alexander was poisoned by someone? Or is he following a source that emphasised the decline in Alexander's character, the climate of fear at the court, the corruption by absolute power, the decadent influence of the Persians, the delusion of godhead? Or is Lucian simply exaggerating for a sensational effect?

If this is accurate though, there is only a very short period of time for it to have happened - after Alexander's canal building trip on the Euphrates and return to Babylon and the return of the envoys from Ammon approving worship of Hephaestion, and before Alexander's death. Unless Alexander had started to pay honours to Hephaestion before the return of the envoys, perhaps responding to flatterers, this short period of time would have been the only time when, officially, any honours could have been paid to Hephaestion. Does this invalidate the whole thing? Yet Alexander was so confident of a positive answer from Ammon that he had already instigated the building of temples such as that in Alexandria and had contracts signed in Hephaestion's name. So, do we believe it or not?

I have to give your closing questions some more thought but in the meantime I thought I'd answer this part of your post:

Alexias wrote: So is Lucian using a source that suggested Alexander was poisoned by someone? Or is he following a source that emphasised the decline in Alexander's character, the climate of fear at the court, the corruption by absolute power, the decadent influence of the Persians, the delusion of godhead? Or is Lucian simply exaggerating for a sensational effect?

The title of the piece is Slander Volume 1, Chapters 17-19 (from an older translation) and the rest of the piece is as follows:

It was then that Agathocles of Samos, one of Alexander's captains whom he esteemed highly, came near being shut up in a lion's den because he was charged with having wept as he went by the tomb of Hephaestion. But Perdiccas is said to have come to his rescue, swearing by all the gods and by Hephaestion to boot that while he was hunting the god had appeared to him in the flesh and had bidden him tell Alexander to spare Agathocles, saying that he had not wept from want of faith or because he thought Hephaestion dead, but only because he had been put in mind of their old-time friendship.

As you see, flattery and slander were most likely to find an opening when they were framed with reference to Alexander's weak point. In a siege the enemy do not attack the high, sheer and secure parts of the wall, but wherever they notice that any portion is unguarded, unsound or low, they move all their forces against that place because they can very easily get in there and take the city. Just so with slanderers: they assail whatever part of the soul they perceive to be weak, unsound and easy of access, bringing their siege-engines to bear on it and finally capturing it, as no one opposes them or notices their assault. Then, when they are one within the walls, they fire everything and smite and slay and banish; for all these things are likely to happen when the soul is captured and put in bondage.

Frankly, I think his conclusion is a little overwrought. The only reference to slander is the beginning sentence (your quote) and the question "Well, how many of Alexander’s friends do you suppose, reaped the results of Hephaestion's divinity during that period, through being accused of not honouring the universal god, and consequently being banished and deprived of the king's favor?" No names of people who were banished, only the question! Even the reference to Agathocles doesn't say that he was "falsely" accused - just accused. Every time I read this quote and I get to the end I find myself raising my eyebrows and then starting at the beginning again to try and figure out exactly what Lucian is talking about.

So … I'm not sure that this helps you understand this quote or if it makes it even more confusing.

Best regards,

It would seem Agathokles' offence was weeping and thus treating Hephaistion as a dead man and not a God; this is Waldemar Heckel's interpretation in 'Who's Who....' so I can't claim it as I too was mystified as to Agathokles' crime!

It is not really possible to state the opinion of Lucian's source on Alexander's death as the story of Agathokles is unique to Lucian; the story does share errors of fact with Diodoros so we could place it in the 'vulgate tradition' but there is no reason to think that Lucian found it in a complete history rather than a collection of moral dicta, nor is it possible to separate the satirist's exaggerations from his source's. Your point about the short possible timescale is well made and adds to the reasons for rejecting the whole passage as a moralistic fantasy.

Amyntoros, whilst the English title is 'Slander' the Latin means 'Why insults are not to be believed' but that, of course is not the Greek title, which I have yet to discover!

The Greek title of this work by Lucian is:
'Perì toù mè raidìos pistèuein diabolè'. Sorry, I cannot write here with Greek alphabet. BTW, correct Latin title is 'Calumniae non temere credendum'
Best regards

Oops, probably my typo; the Greek would be 'Concerning why accusations are not to be believed lightly', the same might be said for the details in Lucian

Just in case you were wondering why I am interested in the title it is because the Latin and Greek both convey a moral purpose that the simple English does not, Lucian has an agenda. That said, it could be that the titles are the work of a later editor and not Lucian's! Nothing is ever straight forward

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,

The Lysimachos who is the tutor is one of the accusers of Kallisthenes along with Hagnon, the one sent to face a lion is meant to be the son of Agathokles, though it is clearly fiction. Exposure to lions is a Persian punishment, at least in the Hellenistic mind. Daniel was thus punished by Darieos' ministers and the book of Daniel post-dates the death of Alexander and the stabilisation of the successor kingdoms into the Seleukid, Ptolemaic, Antigonid and Attalid (the accuracy of a prophecy can be used as a terminus post quem!). This in turn dates the 'den tradition' to the mid third century BC, though whether the Biblical tradition was influenced or influencing must remain a moot question, though one may also note the similarity between the extended version of Spitamenes fate, found in the Metz epitome and the story of Holophernes and the Metz version of the death of Bessos where he is crucified and stoned to death (by slings - I made a schoolboy howler when I translated this on Alexander-sources.org loath though I am to lose '...he executed him by impalement through the fundament, after the Persian manner.' it should read 'he was crucified and stoned to death [by slingers] in the Persian manner' Doh!) this latter suggesting a Jew to Greek transmission; in any case a late and unreliable tradition.

Whilst there are elements that can be seen as historical in this tale of lucian they are no more than background, in the same way that a pulp author might have an accurate mis-en-scene; Barbara Cartland might get the name of a king right and a contemporary allusion but i doubt anyone would base a thesis on eighteenth century social mores on her works! The lamentable thing is that this passage has been said to provide our best 'evidence' for the nature of Hephaistion's cult; given the evident falsity of the greater part of the exemplum it is totally unsafe to take any detail as worthwhile without support from a safer source.

I expect all members to rush out and buy my latest ouevre, 'The Mills and Boon Guide to Surgical Proceedure; part 1'