ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΙ ΑΓΩΝΕΣ ΤΟΥ 324 -_Ladynin_.pdf

Ivan A. Ladynin

The Olympic Games of 324 B.C.and the unication

of lands under Alexanders sway

In August 324 B.C. 1 at the Olympic Games a herald read tomore than 20.000 exiles from Greek poleis a declaration by theMacedonian king which was brought from his headquarters in Asiaby his special envoy Nicanor of Stagira : King Alexander to theexiles from the Hellenic cities. We have not happened to be the rea-son of your exile but we will be [that] of [your] returning to yourfatherlands, except for those guilty of sacrilege. We have writtenabout it to Antipater, so that he force [those] unwilling [to acceptthis decision] among the cities (Diod., XVIII.8.4). This fragmenthas been repeatedly commented by students of Alexanders time.Most of them found it authentic, probably coming back to the textof Hieronymus of Cardia 2. This episode at Olympia is related oralluded to by other narratives as well (Diod., XVII.109.1, speci-fying that the exemption from Alexanders decree concerned alsomurderers ; Dinarch., C.Dem., 81-82 ; Hyper., C.Dem., XVIII ;Curt., X.2.4-7 ; Just., XIII.5.2-5 ; Plut., Apopht. Lac. Eudamid.,9). The course of the events which led to this episode and followedit, the compatibility of Alexanders decision with the foundations of

Msogeios 24 (2004), p. 161-183, Hrodotos, Paris

1. The games culminated at the full moon of 4 August, according to R. SEALEY, The Olympic festival of 324 B.C. , CR 10 (1960), p. 185-186 ; check A.B. BOS-WORTH, Conquest and Empire. The reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge,1988, p. 220, n. 36, who is reluctant to reject an alternative date of 3 September.

2. E. BIKERMAN, La lettre dAlexandre aux bannis grecs , REA 42 (1940),p. 25-26 ; L. PEARSON, The lost histories of Alexander the Great, New York, 1960,p. 443-444 ; J. HORNBLOWER, Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford, 1981, p. 87-88 ;A.B. BOSWORTH, op. cit., p. 220-222 ; N.G.L. HAMMOND - F.W. WALBANK, A histo-ry of Macedonia, vol. III, Oxford, 1988, p. 80, n. 1.

08_Ivan_A._Ladynin_161_184 20-12-04 14:16 Page 161

the Corinthian League, and the material effects of this act (whichwould have been especially strong for Athens and Aetolia) havealready been studied quite at length 3. It is a general 4 (and undoub-tedly true) opinion that Alexanders decision on exiles contradictedto the Covenant of Corinth : it violated the principle of non-interfe-rence in the internal life of the Greek cities, which was a cornersto-ne of koine eirene within the Corinthian League since its foundation(IG2.II-III.1, n 236.11-14 : a provision of the Covenant that thepolitical situation existing at the time of its conclusion in all themember-states of the League, including Macedonia, should not bechanged, cf. [Ps.]Dem., XVII.10, 15 ; id., 4 : the return of the exi-led sons of the tyrant Philiades to Messene by Alexander being trea-ted as a violation of the Covenant), and its realization was carriedout immediately by Antipater without any conrmation by the Lea-gues synedrion (cf. [Ps.]Dem., XVII.15, on the synedrions prero-gatives). It is no wonder that the limits dened by the Covenantmust have become too narrow for Alexander as a triumphantconqueror of the Near and the Middle East and a successor to theAchaemenids (in fact, [Pseudo-]Demosthenes did his best to showthat the king of Macedonia was crossing these limits in some minoroccasions still early in his reign) ; but it was the episode of 324 B.C.that blatantly marked Alexanders rupture with the Covenantsregulations in a matter of pan-Hellenic importance. Nevertheless, itis still not quite clear if this rupture revealed itself only ipso facto,in connection with the decision on exiles which Alexander waswilling to promulgate ; or it was a specic well-considered and well-prepared act aimed at transforming Alexanders relations withGreece and given a proper legal shape. Though rather overlooking

162 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

3. See a convenient survey with references to major studies at A.B. BOS-WORTH, op. cit., p. 220-228 ; for earlier studies check J. SEIBERT, Alexander derGrosse, coll. Ertrge der Forschung (vol. X), Darmstadt, 1972, p. 170-171. Ialso borrow a lot of historiographical data from a Russian compendious publica-tion by L.P. MARINOVICH, Greki i Aleksandr Makedonskiy ( The Greeks andAlexander of Macedon ), Moscow, 1993.

4. The only exception is the opinion of E. BICKERMANN who considered thedecree on exiles legal within the Leagues provisions, as they allowed to the king ofMacedonia to return those who were exiled unlawfully (E. BIKERMAN, op. cit.).However, the decision of Alexander had obviously in view all the exiles, no matterhow legal their expulsion was, except the most outspoken offenders.


the real importance of the problem, a number of authoritativescholars of the past century seem to have accepted the formerview 5. The aim of the present paper is to try to substantiate the lat-ter one and to evaluate the true scale and the character of changesin Alexanders relations with the Greek states, which he might havebeen willing to introduce by the time of the Olympic Games of 324.

There is no doubt that the message read in Olympia was just asolemn announcement of Alexanders decision on exiles, and not thevery act giving to it a legal shape. The existence of such act is pro-ved by the legislation of some Greek cities promulgated to the effectof this decision. For a long time three inscriptions of Alexanderstime recording psephismai on exiles from Tegea (SIG3, 306 =M.N. Tod, vol. II, n 202), Mytilene (IG XII.2.6 = M.N. Tod,vol. II, n 201) and Calymna (Michel, n 417) were thought tohave appeared in the situation of 324 B.C. 6. In 1980s A.J. Heisse-rer suggested redating the inscription of Mytilene to 332 ; however,the traditional dating of this text cannot be said fully rejected 7 and

The Olympic Games of 324 B.C. 163

Msogeios 24 (2004)

5. V. EHRENBERG, Alexander and the Greeks, Oxford, 1938, p. 39-41 ; T.T.B.RYDER, Koine eirene. General peace and local independence in ancient Greece,Oxford, 1965, p. 10 ff. (the rupture with the Covenant was quite deliberate butwas in fact a neglection of its provision rather than replacing them with some newlegal base) ; E. BADIAN, Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia, in Ancientsociety and institutions. Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg, Oxford, 1967,p. 60. According to CL. PREAUX, Alexanders decision on exiles showed that by theend of his life he became a real sovereign of Greece; however, she did not point outwhich form he gave to his new authority (Les villes hellnistiques principalementen Orient, in Recueil de la Socit Jean Bodin, vol. VI : La ville, Bruxelles, 1954,p. 86-88).

6. For the traditional dating and interpretation of these inscriptions checkrst of all the edition of M.N. TOD (loci cit. and p. 301 for the inscription ofCalymna).

7. A.J. HEISSERER, Alexander the Great and Greeks. The epigraphic evidence,Norman (Oklachoma), 1980, p. 131-139 (on the inscription of Mytilene ; cf. alsoA.J. HEISSERER - R. HODOT, The Mytelenean decree on concord, ZPE 63, 1986,119; I. WORTHINGTON, Alexander the Great and the date of the Mytilene decree,in Acta of the University of New England International Seminar on Greek andLatin Epigraphy, ed. IAN WORTHINGTON, Bonn, 1990, p. 194-214, also in ZPE 83,1990, p. 194-214). The Russian scholar L.P. MARINOVICH prefers the traditionaldating for all the three inscriptions (though without making her reasons for thatperfectly clear) : op. cit., p. 202-205. The fundamental study by A.J. HEISSERERdemonstrated his inclination to place inscriptions of his interest in timespan thatseemed better elucidated by narrative sources : he preferred 332 as the date of the


for the important act of Tegea it still stands strong 8. An inscriptionfrom Eresus reflects in its part the debate over the possible returnof the Eresian tyrants descendants according to Alexanders deci-

164 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

Mytilene decree to 319 (which seemed to him also possible : op. cit., p. 137-139 ;cf. below his variants for dating the decree of Tegea) just because the develop-ments at Asia Minor and the Aegean islands in 336-332 involving Parmenion,Pharnabases, Gegelochus and others, as described by the historians of Alexander,provide for the inscription a more rich and denite historical context (op. cit.,p. 131-136). The scholar suggested no better proof for this dating, though the cor-relation of the inscription with this sequence of events is convenient but by nomeans certain. Moreover, the settlement in the polis of Mytelene at the reconquestof Lesbos by the Macedonian force in 332 seem to be founded on the agreementbetween its authorities and Alexanders general Gegelochus (ARR., Anab., III.2.6 ;op. cit., p. 135-136), and not from a royal act, as shown in the decree. I would alsosuggest to treat more seriously a nal provision of the Mytelene decree: The basi-leis are to offer to the gods each year the sacrices that the demos vowed, when itsent the messengers to the king; and there is to be present at the sacrice the wholedemos and the messengers sent off to the king being men from those living (pre-viously) in the city and men from the returned exiles (l.44 ff. ; I use for bettercertainty the reconstruction and the translation by A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit.,p. 125). The establishment of divine offerings in connection with an embassy toAlexander, as well as the involvement in the ritual of messagers to the king, implyvery strongly the religious character of the mission, possibly its relevance of thekings cult (the same supposition has been done on the grounds of an earlierreconstruction of the text, which suspected the mention of sacrices on the kingsbirthday : cf. M.N. TOD, vol. II, p. 293) The embassies from Greek poleis toAlexander on religious matters (DIOD., XVII.113.3) and with a task of crowninghim with golden wreaths as if he were a god (ARR., Anab., VII.23.2, in obviousconnection with Alexanders demand of deication ; see in more details below)were sent in early 323 B.C.; and it is reasonable to place Mytelenes mission amongthem, which would serve an argument in favour of 324/323 as the date of thedocument. According to CHR. HABICHT (Gottmenschtum und griechische Stdte,Berlin, 21970, p. 17-22) the worship of Alexander in the cities of Asia Minor couldhave been established in 334-333, and one accepting this dating might expand it onthe honours paid to the king by the Myteleneans. However I would not believe theidea of CHR. HABICHT to be motivated with more than a supposition that theGreeks of Asia Minor might have thanked Alexander with worship for their libe-ration and his benevolence towards them. The oracles of Branchidae aboutAlexanders divine birth and of Sybil and Athenais of Erythrae about his eugeneia,though brought to Memphis in early 331 by the Miletian embassy, were rather expert opinions of the cult-centres conrming the judgement of the oracle ofAmmon than a result of Alexanders ofcial worship at Milet or any other city ofAsia Minor (FGrH. 124, F.14a = STRABO, XVII.1.43). The logic of ideologicaldevelopment in Alexanders time suggest rather that the cities of Asia Minor ini-


sion of 324 (IG XII.2.526 = M.N. Tod, vol. II, n 191) 9. The royalact on exiles is mentioned in these inscriptions as diagramma, ordiagrapha, i.e., according to E. Bickermann, a typically Hellenis-tic royal act taking effect with its public announcement 10. The ins-criptions refer to this act as to the source for poleis legislation onexiles : probably, it declared the very decision on their return andprovided for a matrix of its conditions, while the psephismai put itinto effect and specied these conditions in conformity with local


Msogeios 24 (2004)

tially incorporated in the Achaemenid Empire could not vow it before 330 (whenAlexanders cult must have become obligatory for his Greek and Macedonian sur-rounding in Asia) or even later ; as for the free cities both inside and outside ofthe Corinthian League they probably had to introduce Alexanders cult only in324-323 (see for more details below). A.J. HEISSERER convincingly showed thatMytilene has been by 338 outside the direct Persian control and, since 336 orslightly later, inside the League (op. cit., p. 132-133).

8. A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 219-229, see especially p. 219-220 : the scholarcontemplated a possibility of dating the inscription to 317 (i.e. the time of Cassan-der settlement with besieged Tegea, which seemed especially tting due to the richhistorical context of this variant, cf. DIOD., XIX.35.1) but rejected it as the use ofthe term diagramma in the text suggested the events after the exiles decree to be abetter context for it ; I. WORTHINGTON, The date of the Tegea decree(Tod II 202). A response to the diagramma of Alexander III or of Polyperchon?,Ancient History Bulletin 7/2 (1993), p. 59-64.

9. A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 27-78. The grounds for the earlier expulsion ofthe Eresian tyrants and their kin were provided, at least in part, also by the orders(diagraphai) of the Macedonian kings (i.e., not only Alexander but also his fatherPhilip : IDEM, p. 44-45 gamma, c, section 6, l.32 ; cf. [PS.]DEM., XVII.7).However, it seems that these commands of the king were not the ultimate decisionon the exile of the tyrannical faction but only a very strong impetus for a formal-ly independent legislative and judicial decision of the Eresian demos. Besides, inboth cases that the kings commanded the exile of this faction from Eresus (in 336,when Parmenion occupied Eresus on behalf of Philip II, and about 332, when thecity was liberated of Persians by Alexanders troops), they did not abide any for-mal restrictions because the city had to be considered as their booty rather thanas their partner in the Corinthian League (in which the city was incorporated orreinstated later). In a minor scale the situation of Eresus in these cases repeated asituation of the entire Balkan Greece between the battle of Chaeronea and theassembly of Corinth (see below about Philips alleged diagramma which precededthe assembly).

10. E. BIKERMAN, op. cit., p. 25-30 ; cf. M.N. TOD, vol. II, p. 297, with refe-rence to SIG3, 312, ll.11-13 (though the announcement mentioned in this inscrip-tion had in view Alexanders decision on a specic case of Samos rather than theall-comprising decision on the exile ; see below).


situation. It seems that the diagramma did not have a direct legaleffect in each city-state : otherwise the adoption of local laws on itsbase would have been superfluous. However, it is certain that thecity-states were obliged to adopt such laws and to accommodatetheir former legislation to the provisions of diagramma : the pse-phisma of Tegea says that it is intended to withdraw regulations contradicting to [what is found] in the diagramma (ll.3-4 : a ). At Eresus the kings direct deci-sion not only served grounds for the descendants of the localtyrants to claim their return but, later, allowed the city to decidethis specic case up to its own interests. The claim was rejected bya special court which the Eresian demos constituted in obedienceto the diagrapha and in accordance with the law ( | b ] a[] [ | ][] [a] ... ; the diagrapha mentioned in this phrase is denitely notthe all-comprising act of 324 but another specic letter of Alexan-der to the Eresians answering their plead 11) ; symptomatically, inthis case the king satised the appeal also not by his direct orderbut, again, by enabling the polis institutions to make their owndecision.

A reference to the diagramma of 324 and some obvious parallelsto it seem to be found in another act a diagramma of 319 B.C.issued by Polyperchon on behalf of Alexanders successors (PhilipArrhideus and Alexander IV : Diod., XVIII.56). This act declaredthe willingness of the kings to bring peace and stability to Greeceand the restoration of the regimes which existed under Philip II andAlexander ( b a d d \) ; it allo-wed the Greek city-states to act in all other matters according tothe decrees ( a a ) issued by them(i.e. by those earlier kings) . The verb has probably inthis case a strong political implication 12, the whole phrase thusmeaning that city-states were recommended to make their laws onthe base of the royal decrees, just as it had been in the case ofAlexanders decree on exiles. Similar model of law-making was pro-

166 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

11. A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 44-45 gamma, c, section 6, l.12 ; cf. l.23, 36-37 , beta, right lateral, ll.16-19 ; see for the historical commentary of the ins-cription in general : 58 ff.

12. LSJ II, 1460 (s.v. , III.5).


posed in the same document once more, as Polyperchon urged allthe Greeks to pass laws ( b f -) prohibiting any hostile actions against the Macedonian kings.Inconsistencies between the regulations of Philip II and Alexanderfor the Greek cities were to be brought to the judgement of the pre-sent Macedonian kings. Signicantly enough, the diagramma of 319also declared the restoration of exiles (those driven from theirhome cities by Macedonian generals) and dened its basic condi-tions and the exemptions from it (like in 324, those exiled for bloodguilt or impiety) : probably this part of the act repeated in generalthe regulations made by Alexander several years before. Finally,Polyperchon vested himself on behalf of the kings with the power toimplement the diagramma, which resembles very much the autho-rity of Antipater towards Greek cities dened by Alexander in 324.It is important to understand which acts were referred to as theearlier kings diagrammata providing for the precedents for Poly-perchons own decree. U. Wilcken suggested with enough reasonthat the diagramma of Philip II was probably the fundamental act,which urged the Greek cities to send their representatives to theassembly of Corinth and outlined the foundations of koine eirenewithin the future league 13. In such case the alluded diagramma ofAlexander must have been an act comparable with that of Philip inthe magnitude of its message ; at the same time, the sources seem totell nothing about any other decree of pan-Hellenic importance byAlexander, except the notorious act on exiles. Hence there is somereason to believe that the diagramma of 324 B.C. was not connedin its contents to the case of exiles but gave a wider program ofAlexanders relations with Greece, perhaps, similarly to the act ofPolyperchon in 319 14.


Msogeios 24 (2004)

13. U. WILCKEN, Philipp II. von Makedonien und die panhellenischen Idee,SBPAW 18 (1929), p. 299 ff. (U. Wilcken backed his idea with an evidence by Jus-tin that Philip established the law of common peace for Greece ; JUST., IX.5.2 : pacis legem universae Graciae... statuit ).

14. Symptomatically, HYPEREIDES tells that Nicanor brought to Greece Alexan-ders orders concerning not only exiles but also the assemblies of the Acheaen,Arcadian and perhaps Boeotian leagues (C.Dem., XVIII) ; unfortunately, thefragmentary text of the speech gives no information about the essence of the kingsdecisions concerning these unions of poleis : cf. A.B. BOSWORTH, op. cit., p. 222and n. 39.


The most important observation concerning Polyperchons dia-gramma is that it presented the superiority of the Macedonian kingsover the Greek institutions, which was manifested in royal acts ser-ving a base for poleis legislation, as a well-established and unim-peachable political practice. Obviously enough, this practice wasincompatible to the provisions of the Covenant of Corinth, and itsdescription in the diagramma of 319 leaves no doubt that by thistime these provisions were far beyond in the past. One should notbe discouraged by the fact that such practice came back as far inthe past as Philips diagramma of 338 : that act of the direct Mace-donian dictate to the poleis institutions all over Greece must havebeen singular and resulted in the decisions which made such dicta-te impossible (to say the least, illegal) within the framework of theleague (cf. the supposition about similar situations in the speciccase of Eresos, note 9). Thus, it is quite signicant that Alexandercared to give to his decision on exiles a denite legal form of an actthat in due course was considered a precedent of high importance.Issuing it must have marked not just actual but also formal ruptu-re of the king with the Covenants provisions which would havebeen hardly possible without his ascribing to himself a new statusover the Greek city-states, different from that of a head of theCorinthian League.

Both Diodorus (XVII.109.1-2) and Curtius (X.2.4-7) tell aboutAlexanders decision on exiles in a very close connection to the war-riors mutiny in Opis at Mesopotamia in spring 324 B.C. (resp.Diod., XVII.109.2-3, and Curt., X.2.83.14) 15. According to A.B.Bosworth, the embassy of Nicanor could have reached Greece bythe start of the Olympic Games only if it had been dispatched inMay 324 at its very latest ; A.J. Heisserer gave an even earlier ter-minus ante quem of early March 16 but both variants imply that thetask of Nicanor must have been formulated very shortly after Opisevents. The neighbourhood of the two episodes was certainly notoccasional : it has been shown in fact that Alexanders earlier orderto satraps to dismiss their mercenary troops (Diod., XVII.106.3,111.1) must have created a mass of unemployed warriors which

168 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

15. Cf. A.B. BOSWORTH, op. cit., p. 221 and n. 37. See about the events atOpis : IDEM, p. 159-161 ; J. SEIBERT, op. cit., p. 172.

16. IDEM, p. 221 ; A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 188.


consisted to large extent of former citizens of Greek states andbadly needed some accommodation 17. If the famous discharge ofveterans at Opis touched the Greek soldiers of Alexander who fol-lowed him to the east on their own will after the formal dismissal ofthe Corinthian Leagues troops in 330 B.C. (Curt., VI.2.17 ; Diod.,XVII.74.3 ; Just., XII.1.1-3 ; Plut., Alex., 42 ; Arr., Anab., III.19.5), it must have added still more to this mass. These consequencesof military changes were denitely not the only motive for Alexan-ders decision on exiles : Diodorus says that it was caused byAlexanders pursuit of glory and desire to have many partisans ineach city due to the inclination of Hellenes to revolutions anddefections (VIII.8.2). The latter explanation reveals Alexandersdesire to get a stronger position in his relations with Greeks afterhis wars at the east were over ; if such plan (or at least the decisionon exiles, as its important part) took denite shape about theevents at Opis, it must have been the most appropriate time forlaying its legal background.

It seems that one should pay a better attention to the nal scenesat Opis as Alexanders historians describe them. According toArrian, Alexander celebrated his reconciliation with warriors witha banquet during which he prayed about various good things andabout homonoia and a community of rule for Macedonians andPersians (Arr., Anab., VII.11.9 : b a d d d ). Thispassage was inspiring for the scholars who believed in Alexanderssincere and profound desire to achieve the unity of the peoplesunder his sway 18 ; scepticism about their view seems to have beenwell-founded 19 but, actually, nobody suggested a better alternativefor interpreting this evidence of Arrian. It seems wrong to approa-ch it without taking into consideration a very similar fragment ofAlexanders speech at Opis presented by Curtius. According to thisauthor, Alexander not only spoke about the equality of the Per-


Msogeios 24 (2004)

17. E. BADIAN, Harpalus , JHS 81 (1961), p. 27-30.18. Cf. e.g. W.W. TARN, Alexander the Great, vol. II, Cambridge, 1948,

p. 442-443 ; see in more details on the problem of the unity of mankind inAlexanders policy : J. SEIBERT, op. cit., p. 186-191.

19. E. BADIAN, Alexander the Great and the unity of Mankind , Historia 7(1958), p. 428-432 ; A.B. BOSWORTH, op. cit., p. 160-161.


sians and the Macedonians in military virtue and about the neces-sity of mutual respect between them but also gave a rather precisedescription of their political status in his empire : There is one andthe same kingdom in Asia and Europe... Those who will live underthe same king should be of the same right (Curt., X.3.13-14 : Asiae et Europae unum atque idem regnum est... Eiusdem iurisesse debent, qui sub eodem rege victuri sunt ). This phrase is evi-dently influenced by the denitions of Roman law ; but probably itdescribes the heart of the matter quite accurately and comes backto some authentic background 20. Signicantly, Arrian describedthe reconciliatory feast of Alexander and his Macedonian veterans,while Curtius presented the kings speech before his Asiatic troops :though the surrounding of the king in each episode was different, inboth cases he drew an item of the same tumultuous affair and it isonly natural that the message of his words and actions was similar.In other words, the evidences of Arrian and Curtius must implythat the events at Opis resulted in Alexanders declaring the uni-

170 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

20. According to F.R. WST, Arrians account on the events at Opis comesback to Cleitarchus via Aristobulus ( Die Rede Alexanders des Groen in Opis,Arrian VII 9-10 , Historia 2, 1953/1954, p. 177-188 ; Die Meuterei von Opis,Arrian VII 8 ; 11, 1-7 , Historia 2, 1953/1954, p. 418-431 ; Zur Meuterei vonOpis : Berichtigung , Historia 3, 1954/1955, p. 497). Leaving aside the contro-versial problem of dependence between these two alleged prototypes one shouldsay that the idea of Arrians deriving his information on the episode from Cleitar-chus sounds rather good. A better look at the accounts of the events at Opis byArrian and Curtius shows that they narrate in the same way the start of the muti-ny and the indignant speech of Alexander (ARR., Anab., VII.8-11.1, and CURT.,X.2.8-30) ; then Curtius presents in details Alexanders speech before Asiatictroops (CURT., X.3.5-14) while Arrian only tells with reserve that the king recei-ved the Persian elite and made a distribution of military ranks between its mem-bers (ARR., Anab., VII.11.1 ; it seems that the author simply skips other details ofthe episode, possibly the kings speech). Of the two authors only Arrians descrip-tion of Alexanders reconciliation with the Macedonians is known (IDEM, 11.3-9,including the phrase of our interest) ; but CURTIUS text after X.3.14 is lost and itcould have contained a similar account. Thus, the two accounts are mutually com-plementary and have strong afnities which can be explained by their common ori-gin. Taking into consideration the dependence of Curtius on Cleitarchus (which isnot denied even by the critics of the vulgate theory : N.G.L. HAMMOND, Three his-torians of Alexander the Great. The so-called vulgate authors Diodorus, Justinand Curtius, Cambridge, 1983) it is possible to suspect the latter to have been thesource of both authors.


cation of all the lands under his power into a single structure 21. Itis true that the Greeks and their city-states are not mentioned inthese fragments directly ; nevertheless, as it has been mentioned,some number of Greeks remained in Alexanders army throughouthis oriental expedition, and they were certainly present in the massof mutinous soldiers at Opis. It was certainly more appropriate todenote and address the entire of this mass after its prevailing partas Macedonians , though, signicantly, the geographical correla-te to this denotation in Curtius narration is not Macedonia butthe entire Europe . Thus, speaking about the position of Mace-donians in his Empire Alexander probably had in mind its entirenon-Asiatic population.

There can be no doubt that the structure inaugurated byAlexander had to be founded on his autocracy which had been thebase of his relations with not only his oriental subjects but also hisMacedonian and Greek entourage at the east since at least 330B.C., when he was declared a king of Asia 22. Initially Alexan-ders autocratic authority at the east and his royal cult (which ser-ved its ofcial ideological grounds and was addressed to Macedo-nians and Greeks 23) were accurately separated from his politicaland ideological course in Greece (and, as it seems, in Macedo-nia 24). A symbol of this separation can be seen in Alexanders way


Msogeios 24 (2004)

21. See a very similar interpretation of Arrians evidence by R.M. ERRINGTON(A history of Macedonia, Berkeley Los Angeles London, 1990, p. 113).

22. See a handy summary of changes that took place in Alexanders policy,ideology and court style after the ultimate defeat of the Persians and his acceptingthe status of the Achaemenids legitimate successor ( le coup dtat de 330 ) :P. GOUKOWSKY, Essaie sur les origines du mythe dAlexandre, vol. I, Nancy, 1978,p. 27-41. A resent study of Alexanders power at the Orient was unavailable forme: E. FREDRICKSMEYER, Alexander the Great and the kingship of Asia, Alexan-der the Great in fact and ction, Oxford, 2000, p. 136-166.

23. P. GOUKOWSKYs idea that Callisthenes work about Alexander was nishedand published as an integrate text about 330 seems to be well founded (op. cit.,p. 22-23). The ideological message of this work (its being a summary of Alexan-ders glorication as a son of god) is notorious (e.g., FGrH. 124 T.8 = ARR.,Anab., IV.10.2 ; T.20 = POLYB., XII.12b; T.21 = PHILODEM., d ; I 2, 4 ;et al.).

24. Macedonia under the government of Antipater seems to have remaineduntouched by any changes in Alexanders course since the very start of the war atthe east. The signs of Alexanders desire to bring his home region under a closercontrol were the actual appointment of Craterus as its new regent instead of Anti-


to seal up letters he sent to Europe with his former signet ring andthe ones he wrote to Asia with that of Darius (Curt., VI.6.6).Symptomatically, Plutarchus added that Alexander used to bearrogant before barbarians like the one strongly convinced of hisdivine descent and birth, and before Greeks he deied himselfmoderately and carefully (Alex., 28) ; it seems plausible that thisevidence is founded on the association of Alexanders cult with hisstatus of autocratic ruler at the east. At the same time, in 330 thesynedrion of the Corinthian League still existed and worked (at theitems of the war of Megalopolis : Curt., VI.1.20), and there seem tobe no indication of any changes in Alexanders Greek policy duringthe rest of his oriental enterprise. Probably, at this time Alexanderexercised a tripartite authority of unrestricted ruler of his Asiaticpossessions deriving his legitimacy from the Achaemenids, head ofthe Corinthian League with all necessary restrictions of his power,and hereditary king of Macedonia. As it has been shown, one canguess that these divisions of Alexanders authority have merged intosome new quality in early 324, at the end of the events at Opis.

Let us return to the supposition that Alexanders diagrammacarried by Nicanor to Greece contained more than just Alexandersdecision on exiles (see also n. 14 above). It would be natural toassume that this document reflected in this or that way the wholechange of Alexanders status over the Greek city-states which hehad designed at Opis : in this case Polyperchon would have hadevery reason to refer to it as to an act of great constitutional impor-tance. Probably, the essence of this all-comprising decision wasannounced in Alexanders camp after his reconciliation with thearmy and then, once again and perhaps in another form, at Olym-pia, while the complete text of the act must have been dispatched tothe Greek poleis and to Antipater. It will hardly be ever known inwhich terms exactly the new status of Alexander was dened: howe-ver, it might be signicant that the inscription of Tegea and Calym-na (and of Mytilene, which is important in case its dating to 324 hasgrounds) call him king (cf. IG II/III2, n 236 = M.N. Tod,vol. II, n 177, l.4-5 : the Covenant of Corinth is mentioned as a

172 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

pater in 324 and, probably alongside with this, the proliferation of Alexanderscult to Macedonia (to which Antipater thought necessary to resist : SUIDA, s.v. \ ; see below).


] a[ ]e , without calling Alexan-ders father as a partner of Athens and other poleis his royal title).Though the immediate realisation of the decision on exiles was trus-ted to Antipater, Alexander must have contemplated a wider imple-mentation of the reform, which he designed, on all the Europeanterritories it involved ; and for this a convinced devotee of Macedo-nian traditions like Antipater was no use. Craterus was commissio-ned not only to bring a column of Macedonian veterans home butalso to replace Antipater with a regency over Macedonia, Thrace,Thessaly and the eleutheria of Hellenes (undoubtedly, the city-states inside the Corinthian League and, perhaps, outside it : Arr.,Anab., VII.12.4 ; cf. Just., XII.12.9). The rst and easier part ofthis commission shows that it must have been trusted to Craterusimmediately after Alexanders decision in Opis about the dischargeof veterans. The scope of Craterus anticipated authorities conrmsthat Alexander intended to reorganize his relations with all theEuropean lands under his influence, and the very fact of appoin-ting an actual vicegerent over the Greek city-states shows evidentlythat the provisions of the Covenant of Corinth ceased to exist forthe king even formally. The same is proved by the fact that inspring 323 B.C. numerous embassies of Greek poleis were sent onvarious matters, including appeals against the return of exiles,directly to Alexanders court at Babylon, without any mediation ofthe Leagues synedrion which otherwise would have been necessary(Diod., XVII.113) 25.

A somewhat unexpected illustration to the major point of thispaper might be found in the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription of311 B.C. known as the Satrap Stela. This is a text, which registeredthe return of previously conscated land domain to a temple atButo and at the same time described some episodes of 310s B.C.(the transfer of Egyptian capital to Alexandria, the victorious cam-paign of 312 at Asia, the suppression of the revolt at Cyrene in 313-312, etc.), their chief hero being the satrap of Egypt Ptolemy 26. A


Msogeios 24 (2004)

25. Cf. about the messengers of Mytelene note 7 above ; about Eresos envoysto Alexander in 323 asking his decision on the return of the exiled descendants oftyrants : A.J. HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 39, 45, 61-63, 76 (according to this scholar,both Mytilene and Eresus were originally incorporated in the league).

26. See editions and translations of this inscription : K. SETHE, Hieroglyphi-sche Urkunden der griechisch-rmischen Zeit, coll. Urkunden des gyptischen


fragment of the text mentions the stay of Alexander IV (son ofAlexander the Great and Roxane), when being a formal Pharaoh,outside Egypt : ... while His Majesty was in Stt (Urk., II, 13.4 : \w h. m.f m-h

nt Stt ). The word Stt is a well-known Egyptian cho-ronym which denoted originally the lands to the north-east of Egyptand, in due course, the entire Asia 27. However, this prince and hismother were brought to Macedonia in 321 B.C. (Diod., XVIII.39.7) and kept in custody at the citadel of Amphipolis by Cassandersince 316 B.C. (id., XIX.52.4 ; Just., XIV.6.13). The Egyptiandenotation Stt has never been applied to European lands : in otherfragments of the Satrap Stela (Urk., II.14.9, cf. 10-11, 14) and inthe contemporary Stela of Naples (id., 3.16, 4.4) it alluded ratherdenitely to the Achaemenian Empire. Thus, its use in respect ofMacedonia is either a rough mistake (which is improbable, as thewhereabouts of Alexanders son at that time must have been quitenotorious for the elite of all parts of his fathers former empire,Egypt being no exception) or has some rather elaborate justica-tion. One should take into account that Alexanders empire couldbe viewed as a direct continuation of the empire of Achaemenidswith a rather good reason ; hence it is quite plausible that the fami-liar denotation of the latter could be transferred on the former bothin its totality and in respect of its separate parts. In this case Mace-donia, or perhaps the entire Balkan peninsula, could have beendenoted Stt if it was considered an integrate part of Alexandersempire standing on equal footing with its Asiatic provinces.Without being certain, it seems quite possible that a formal motive

174 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

Altertums (vol. II), Leipzig, 1904-1916 (see below references to the abbrevia-tion: Urk., II), p. 11-22; A. BEY KAMAL, Stles ptolmaques et romaines II (Cata-logue gnral des antiquits gyptiennes du muse du Caire, n 23001-23246),Cairo-Leipzig, 1905, 168 ff., pl. 61 ; Das Dekret des spteren Knigs Ptole-maios I. Soter zugunsten der Gtter von Buto (Satrapenstele), 311 v. Chr. (bersetzung und Kommentar von U. KAPLONY-HECKEL), Texte aus der Umweltdes Alten Testament, vol. I : Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden. Historisch-chro-nologische Texte, Gtersloh, 1983, p. 613-619.

27. A. ERMAN - H. GRAPOW, Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache, vol. IV,p. 348 (3, 6 and Belegstellen ad loc.) ; H. GAUTHIER, Dictionnaire des noms go-graphiques contenus dans les textes hiroglyphiques, vol. VI, Le Caire, 1929,p. 95 ; W. HELCK, Fremdvlkerdarstellungen, Lexikon der gyptologie, vol. II,Wiesbaden, 1977, p. 319.


for such perception of Balkan lands could have been the unicationof all Alexanders possessions in 324 B.C. 28.

Coming back to the Greek material, it should be said that theproblem of exiles returned by Alexander was, to say the least,neighbouring in time with another problem posed before the Greekcity-states, i.e. his deication. Later sources stated quite denitelythat Alexander demanded in a letter his recognition as a godexpressed in the poleis laws (Ael., V.H., II.19 : \ - , e e ; Plut., Apopht. Lac.,219e) ; besides he wanted to impose his cult on Macedonia underAntipaters government (Suida, s.v. \ ; see note 24).Without paying much attention to the statement concerning Anti-pater, modern scholars often question the truth of the evidenceabout Alexanders demand to poleis. The major ground for thesehesitations is the lack of its direct evidence in the contemporarysources (i.e. the speeches by Hypereides and Dinarchus againstDemosthenes) as well as in the works by Diodorus and Curtius(unlike their telling about the return of exiles). The nal conclu-sion was that, contrary to the later sources, the initiative of Alexan-ders deication in the Greek poleis came from themselves 29. Argu-


Msogeios 24 (2004)

28. This interpretation of the Satrap Stelas fragment with more argumenta-tion and references to relevant publications is to be found in my articles : I.A.LADYNIN, Oboznachenie Stt v Stele Satrapa (Urk., II.13.4). K vospriyatiyumirovoy derzhavi Argeadov na Vostoke ( The toponym Stt in the Satrap Stela(Urk., II.13.4). On the perception of the Argeadai Empire in the Orient ), Vest-nik Drevney Istorii (Journal of Ancient History) 2/241 (2002), p. 3-19 (in Rus-sian; English summary p. 18-19; I consider publishing an expanded version of thisarticle in English translation); IDEM, Adversary H

ry(): his name and deeds

according to the Satrap Stela , Chronique dgypte, 2005, especially n. 55 (for-thcoming).

29. See a relatively recent work by CHR.W. BLACKWELL (In the absence ofAlexander. Harpalus and the failure of Macedonian authority, coll. Lang Classi-cal Studies , vol. XII, New York, 1999, p. 151-155), with a good compendium ofearlier opinions by J.P.V.D. BALDSON ( The divinity of Alexander , Historia 1,1950, p. 383 ff.), CHR. HABICHT (op. cit., 17 ff., esp. p. 34-35), N.G.L. HAMMOND(The Macedonian state : the origins, institutions and history, Oxford, 1989,p. 234-235) and others. According to CHR.W. BLACKWELL himself, Alexandersdeication must have really place him above any judgement and make the Greeksstop connecting the Macedonian domination with his personality (op. cit., p. 155 :The Athenians could revere Alexander while continuing to resist his orders ; theycould debate in all sincerity his divine honours while arming themselves against the


ments taken from the contradictions of sources should always betreated seriously ; one should, however, begin with checking if thesealleged contradictions cannot be explained without rejecting thevalidity of really important statements. There is no wonder that nodetailed account of Alexanders demand on deication (by the way,as well as of his decision on exiles) is found in the speeches againstDemosthenes : their being topical must have restrained theirauthors from lengthy descriptions of the things their audience waskeeping well in mind. As for Diodorus and Curtius, it can be saidthat the former is more and the latter is less apologetical of Alexan-der (Curtius being, for instance, more outright and sharp in des-cribing the use of the episode at Siwa oasis by Alexander for hisdeication : Curt., IV.7.8, 29-30 ; cf. Just., XI.11.6, 8, 11-12).Hence Diodorus in his book XVII (or better say his prototype, per-haps Cleitarchus) seems to have tried to depict Alexanders deci-sion on exiles as a benevolent act, without stressing its negativeimplications for poleis (XVII.109.1) ; contrary to that, Curtius saidopenly that this act started the abolition of the Greek laws and onlythe Athenians dared to resist it in order to protect not just theirown but also common freedom (X.2.6-7). Curiously enough, bothhistorians, despite the differing tendencies of their accounts on theevents of 324, equally had some reason to abstain from mentioningAlexanders demand on deication: for Diodorus it would have rui-ned the idea of Alexanders benevolence, and for Curtius it wouldhave done the same with the illusion of the Athenian resistance, asthe city nally allowed, if not formally recognized, Alexandersdeication 30. So the silence of these authors about Alexandersdemand does not necessarily denies the truth of its later evidence,which anyway gives a much more plausible reason for his deica-tion by poleis than their own initiative.

176 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

Macedonian hegemony ). The paradoxicality of this judgement does not help tomake it true : pragmatic Greeks certainly knew much better when they addressedin 323 their appeals against the return of exiles to Alexander (DIOD., XVII.113.3)or deliberated his possible concessions to Athens in this matter depending on hisdeication (cf. i.e. a well-known remark of Demades according to VAL. MAX.,VII.2, ext. 13 ; the late dating of this source does not give hesitations about theauthenticity of this statement, as no serious grounds for inventing it can be sus-pected).

30. CHR. HABICHT, op. cit., p. 31-32 ; see also below.


However, the problem of interest for this paper is not just thereality of Alexanders demand on his deication by poleis but alsoits relation to the decision on exiles. In fact, one should notice thesimilarity of both Alexanders decisions in a very model of puttingthem into effect through local psephismai. At the same time, theyseem to have been very strongly intertwined in the course of theirrealization, as it is known best of all from the case of Athens. Accor-ding to the Attic orators accusing Demosthenes, in 324 he took amost active part both in the sacral mission (architheoria) of Athensto Olympia (Dinarch., C.Dem., 81-82) and in passing divinehonours to Alexander through the Athenian ecclesia (idem, 94 :Demosthenes saying that the demos should not dispute the celestialhonours of Alexander ; Hyper., C.Dem., XXXI-XXXII : Demos-thenes conceding to Alexander in ecclesia to be a son of Zeus orPoseidon if he wishes and willing to put a statue to Alexander theking and the invincible god ), so that this point seems with greatprobability to have been among the subjects of Demosthenes nego-tiations with Nicanor at Olympia. The loss of Samos (seized from itsnatives by the Athenian clerouchoi still in 366/365) must have beenfor Athens the direct consequence of Alexanders decision on exiles(Diod., XVIII.8.7 ; Just., XIII.5.2-3) 31, and Demades connectedvery denitely the success of pleading Alexander about concessionsin this issue with granting him divinity (Val. Max., VII.2, ext. 13 : nolentibus enim Atheniensibus divinos honores Alexandro decer-nere videte , inquit, ne dum caelum custoditis, terram amitta-tis ; cf. Ael., V.H., V.12, and Athen., VI.261b, about Demadesproposal to declare Alexander the thirteenth divinity enjoying thestate worship from the Athenian polis). The connection between thequestions of Samos and of Alexanders divinity in Athens revealsitself in two more instances. According to Ephippus, general Gor-gus of Iasos, who was among the protectors of the Samian exiles andthe most ardent enemies of Athens, made a declaration at the feastof Dionysus at Ecbatana : Gorgus, the guardian of arms, crownsAlexander the son of Ammon with (a crown worth) 3.000 gold


Msogeios 24 (2004)

31. See on the Samian question in general : R.M. ERRINGTON, Samos,Alexander and the Lamian war , Chiron 5 (1975), p. 51-57 ; K. ROSEN, Der gttliche Alexander, Athen und Samos , Historia 27 (1978), p. 23 ff. ; A.J.HEISSERER, op. cit., p. 182-202.


pieces, and in case he besieges Athens (will provide him) 10.000suits of armour and the same number of catapults and other wea-pons sufcient for war (FGrH. 125, F.5 = Athen., XII.538b). TheSamian inscription SIG3 312, ll.11-13, tells that this demonstrationof loyalty took place when Alexander announced in his camp thathe was giving back Samos to (the) Samians . Contrary to the ideaof M.N. Tod 32, this was not the case of Alexanders proclaiming hisoverall decision on exiles for the rst time ; most probably the ins-cription means just the conrmation of its being effective in the spe-cic case of Athens and Samos, obviously some time after Alexan-ders general decision had already been known in Greece. The war,which Gorgus had in mind, was undoubtedly the anticipated repri-sal against the Athenian resistance to this decision (see about thereturn of exiles to Athens and Aetolia as the chief catalyst for pre-paring the eventual Lamian war still in Alexanders lifetime : Diod.,XIX.8.6-7 ; Just., XIII.5.1-2 ; Curt., X.2.1-7). At the same timeGorgus strongly stressed Alexanders divine descent 33 making con-spicuous his enthusiasm about it, as if in distinction to poleis (andespecially Athens) reluctance to accept it. This nuance hints thatAlexanders rigorous declaration on Samos might have been an ans-wer to Athenians opposing his earlier demand on deication, thelatter having been probably sweetened with the promise of conces-sions on the Samian question. It is logical to place the entire episo-de at Ecbatana somewhere in the later part of 324, i.e. after thenegotiations at Olympia where Athens must have made their posi-tion on Alexanders demands clear for the rst time. However, themost important observation is that the questions of exiles andAlexanders divinity came together in these demands from the verybeginning ; thus, the demand of deication must have been formu-lated by the king and forwarded to Greece simultaneously with thedecree on exiles, shortly after the events at Opis. The statement ofthe Suida lexicon seems to show that Antipater was demanded toproclaim Alexanders divinity at Macedonia about the same time(perhaps, the demand was offered to him together with the order toforce the return of exiles on Greek city-states).

178 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

32. See note 10 above.33. It has been suggested that Ammon has been interpolated in this fragment

by Athenaeus instead of the initial Zeus in Ephippus prototype : F. JACOBY, Ephippos (4) , RE V (1905), p. 2858.


Another important evidence bringing the problem of Samos andAlexanders divinity at Athens together is the letter of the king tothe Athenians quoted by Plutarchus (Alex., 28) : I would not havegiven to you this free and noble city ; (but) you possess it havingreceived it from (the one who has been) called then the lord and thefather of mine (meaning Philip II : a d e ) . This quotation is thought to be authen-tic 34 and, according to an unequivocal remark by Plutarchus him-self, must be treated as an assertion of Alexanders divine descent(of his double paternity , i.e. being a true son of Zeus-Ammonand a virtual son and successor of Philip II 35). The fact that theofcial letter referred to this idea as to a triviality suggests that itsaddressee accepted it ; at the same time, the letter is evidently aconcession of the disputed city to Athens. Sources tell that a groupof Samians took Alexanders declaration at Ecbatana seriously andtried to return to their home-island ; they were interned and sen-tenced to death at Athens and got saved only thanks to having beenbought out by an Antileon 36. Thus, the Athenians were really eagerto defend with arms what they regarded as their land. It seems thatthe letter was a result of the compromise on the Samian questionachieved by Alexander and Athens. The essence of this compromi-se was guessed rather wittily by K.M.T. Atkinson : the Atheniandemos neither promulgated, nor denied formally Alexanders wor-ship (this was the point of Demosthenes proposal at ecclesia accor-ding to Dinarch., C. Dem., 94), which did not exclude his being


Msogeios 24 (2004)

34. J.R. HAMILTON, Alexander and his So-Called Father , CQ (n.s.) 3(1953), p. 155-157 ; IDEM, Plutarch Alexander. A commentary, Oxford, 1969,p. 73. J.R. HAMILTON dated the letter to 324-323 B.C. but N.G.L. HAMMOND sug-gested a much earlier date of 334-333 (Sources for Alexander the Great. An ana-lysis of Plutarchs Life and Arrians Anabasis Alexandri, Cambridge, 1993, p. 175and n. 30). The latter view seems improbable : Alexanders controversies withAthens concerning Samos are known only at the end of his life, and the logic of hiscults evolution hardly allows to suspect his claim of divine descent before thefamous visit to Siwa oasis in early 331 B.C.

35. W.W. TARN, Alexanders deication, IDEM, Alexander the Great, vol. II,Cambridge, 1948, p. 354 (the scholar is perhaps a bit too outright in postulatingthe direct Egyptian origin of the idea, though his judgement about its substancemust be true).

36. CHR. HABICHT, Samische Volksbeschlsse der hellenistischen Zeit ,MDAI(A) 72 (1958), p. 156-164.


worshipped privately by his devotees ; in his own turn, Alexanderdid not insist on the Athenian evacuation of Samos 37. There is,however, another evidence by Hypereides, who spoke in his Epita-phios about the shame of seeing that sacrices are offered tohumans, statues, altars and temples to gods are erected carelesslyand to humans with care, and we are forced to worship their home-servants like heroes (Col., VIII.21). There is no doubt that thefragment alludes to the worship of Alexander and Hephaestion,who appeared as paredroi in a number of cult instances 38. Hephae-stion died in October 324 and the permission by the oracle ofAmmon to grant him heroic worship was received by Alexander inspring 323 39 ; however, one can guess that he would not have pres-sed the poleis to honour his favourite before providing for theirrecognition of his own divinity. This suggests that the cult ofAlexander must have become an established practice about the endof 324 ; and for all we know the Greek city-states did not resist it(see, i.e., on Alexanders recognition as god at Sparta, where theonly form of opposing it was traditional laconic irony : Ael., V.H.,II.19). Symptomatically, Hypereides says that the worship ofAlexander is only looked at by his fellow-citizens with much sorrow,but they are forced to pay honours to Hephaestion. Perhaps, this isone more proof that the cult of Alexander at Athens was reallyunofcial, as suggested by K.M.T. Atkinson, but this concession ofAthens seemed to Alexander sufcient for forcing on the city theworship of his deceased friend. Oddly enough, in such case the cultof Hephaestion must have acquired in Athens a more obligatoryposition than that of Alexander himself.

A discussion whether Alexanders deication vested him withsome extraordinary constitutional rights in Greek poleis or not 40

180 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

37. K.M.T. ATKINSON, Demosthenes, Alexander and Asebeia, Athenaeum 51(1973), p. 321-324.

38. CHR. HABICHT, Gottmenschtum und griechische Stdte, op. cit., p. 32-33.39. CHR. HABICHT, op. cit., p. 30 and n. 10, with reference to H. BERVE, Das

Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, vol. II, Mnchen, 1926,p. 174.

40. According to W.W. TARN the Covenant of Corinth bound Alexander asking and member of the league, but not as a god (op. cit., vol. I, p. 111-114,vol. II, p. 370-372) ; on the contrary, E. BICKERMANN deliberated in connectionwith the decree of 324 that no Greek deity had in any polis constitutional right to


seems not only scholastic but also missing a really crucial aspect ofthe matter. In fact Alexander was the rst ruler that belonged toHellenic Kulturkreis and claimed the autocratic authority overpeople also belonging to it. Thus, there is no wonder that he (orrather his historiographer Callisthenes) had to go all the way backto the epic of Homer in order to nd in the Greek tradition positi-ve images of rulers vested with personal power 41. However, theseantecedents could have only limited power for grounding an auto-cracy of a real ruler that started his career within the patriarchalMacedonian institutions and the poleis tradition of the late classi-cal period. It was Aristotles saying that a legitimate claim of auto-cracy might come only from the one outstanding with his virtue ( \ ) among all his fellows (Polit., III.8.1284a3ff. ; idem, III.11.1288a15ff.) : the philosopher says that such oneshould not only become a king in his community but also to be rea-sonably regarded as a god among men (idem, III.8.1284a10-11 : a e r e ; cf. idem, VII.14.1332b16-22). It is not so much important now if these ideas ofAristotle influenced Alexanders political practice and ideology orthe matter was just the opposite (which, however, seems more plau-sible). But one thesis defended by Aristotle is fundamental : toground his claim of autocracy within the classical culture of thelate 4th century B.C. a ruler had to prove his complete distinctionfrom his subjects and exclusive superiority over them immanent tohim. This was exactly what Alexander has been willing to achievethrough his royal cult since at least 330 B.C. ; hence it was impos-sible to equalize his authority at the east and in Balkan Greece andMacedonia without spreading his cult on these lands. It is not cer-tain (and, perhaps, not even likely) that the deication of Alexan-der in poleis was claimed directly in his diagramma of 324 B.C. onhis new status in Greece and on exiles ; however, this act and thekings claim of divinity were certainly not merely simultaneous.


Msogeios 24 (2004)

make or transcend laws (E. BICKERMAN, Rev. : W.W. TARN, Alexander theGreat, Cl.Phil. 45, 1950, p. 43; K.M.T. ATKINSON suggested that Alexanders for-mal deication by poleis could grant him control over oaths made in the name ofstate gods and, perhaps, over some sacrosanct institutions (op. cit., p. 331-334).

41. See about Homerian flavour in the work of Callisthenes : P. PEDECH,Historiens compagnons dAlexandre. Callisthne Onsicrite Narque Ptole-me Aristobule, Paris, 1984, p. 42 ff.


Finally, one should consider why Alexander chose Olympia toproclaim an important point of the reforms he launched at Opisand to start negotiations concerning them (cf. Attic orators onNicanors mission). His youthful remark that he would take part inOlympic Games only with kings as his competitors (Plut., Alex., 4)reveals his indifference and a good deal of despise about the festi-vity, in which his ancestors and especially his father had been onceso willing to participate 42. At the same time there were several epi-sodes when Alexander propagandized the most important events ofhis reign before the Hellenic world through feasts and agones withparticipation of celebrated Greek athletes and artists (Arr., Anab.,III.1.4, 5.1-2 : feasts at Memphis before and after Alexandersreturn from the oasis of Ammon in 332-331 B.C. ; idem, III.6.1,Curt., IV.8.16, Plut., Alex., 29 : feasts and sacrices to Heracles atTyre in 331 B.C. ; FGrH. 125 F.4 = Athen., XII.538b-539a: famouswedding at Susa in 324 B.C. ; Arr., Anab., VII.14.10, Plut., Alex.,29 : Hephaestions mourning at Ecbatana somewhat later). Moreo-ver, it seems there might have been a more or less permanent teamof artists employed by Alexander on such occasions : the artistsAthenodorus and Lycon of Scarphe, according to Plutarchus andChares, performed both at the feast of Tyre and at the wedding atSusa 43. This talent for public relation in Alexander confronts hiswide-spread image of a passionate hero, but perhaps it is in betterkeeping with reality. Thus, the declaration by Nicanor arranged bythe king at the Olympic Games of 324 B.C. might be called a mostremarkable episode of these propagandistic activities. However,the choice of proper setting for the show must have had importantpolitical implications. The change of Alexanders status over Greekcity-states could not be promulgated through the institutions of theCorinthian League, as it violated its basic principles. At the sametime, a number of Greek poleis, Sparta being perhaps the mostimportant of them, remained outside the Corinthian League throu-ghout the reigns of Philip and Alexander : however, the writtendemand of deication was addressed by Alexander to Sparta like to

182 Ivan A. Ladynin

Msogeios 24 (2004)

42. R.M. ERRINGTON, A history of Macedonia, op. cit., p. 9, 26, 223, 227 ;D.G. ROMANO, Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, and the ancient Olym-pic Games , in The world of Philip and Alexander. A symposium on Greek lifeand times, Pennsylvania, 1990, p. 63-79.

43. J.R. HAMILTON, Plutarch Alexander. A commentary, op. cit., p. 76.


any other city-states (Ael., V.H., II.19 ; cf. Plut., Apopht. lac.,219). If this demand was connected with the change of Alexandersstatus in Greece (which was suggested above), one has to concludethat the king intended to spread on Sparta his authority backed bythis new status. The Olympic Games of 324 B.C. enabled Alexanderto address all the Hellenes as a cultural and religious unity, whichdid not have a political framework but was wider and undoubtedlymore renowned than the Corinthian League. The sanction of thisunity for Alexanders new status was important enough itself ;however, the address to it must have also been intended to bringinto the autocratic structure under Alexanders sway all the Greekcity-states, including those remaining outside the League. Onemight consider as well a possible connection of this action toAlexanders last plans including the conquest of central Mediterra-nean with its Greek poleis (Diod., XVIII.4.4) 44.

Les Jeux Olympiques de 324 avant J.C. et lunication des pays sous la domi-nation dAlexandre (rsum). Dans cet article il est question de la fameusedclaration sur le retour des exils faite par Alexandre le Grand (par le biais deson envoy Nicanore de Stagira) aux Jeux Olympiques de 324 avant J.-C. Cettedclaration semble tre nettement lie ( la fois des points de vues chronologiqueet logique) la demande dAlexandre dtre di et vnr dans les poleis de laGrce. Les deux actes sont interprtes dans larticle comme les constituants duplan gnral dintgration de la Grce et de la Macdoine dans la structure auto-cratique de lEmpire oriental dAlexandre. La ralisation de ce plan (probable-ment aprs lmeute dOpis au printemps de 324) ne pouvait tre acheve parAlexandre quavec labandon complet des conditions du covenant de Corinthe. Ladclaration en Olympie devait mettre une partie de ce plan sous les auspices delassemble festivale panhellnique de lautorit suprme. Les sources montrentque cela na pas t la seule action propagandiste dAlexandre qui a mis son ser-vice la tradition grecque dagones et de ftes publiques.


Msogeios 24 (2004)

44. F. SCHACHERMEYER, Die letzte Plne Alexanders , JAI 41 (1954),p. 118-140 ; IDEM, A kings notebooks , HSCP 72 (1967), p. 183-204 ; J. HORN-BLOWER, op. cit., p. 94-96.


Documents

ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΙ ΑΓΩΝΕΣ ΤΟΥ 324 -_Ladynin_.pdf