CLASSICS DEPARTMENT

MASTER'S DISSERTATION IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

Q84091

THE DIVINITY OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

MA IN ANCIENT HISTORY
2013

WORD COUNT: 12,624

 Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1: Lineage and models ................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Emulation of the heroes ............................................................. 14

Chapter 3: The oracle at Siwa ..................................................................... 19

Chapter 4: Proskynesis ................................................................................ 25

Chapter 5: Cults .......................................................................................... 30

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 39

Bibliography ................................................................................................. 41

2
 Introduction

Alexander the Great is one of the most intriguing and interesting figures of the ancient

world. His legacy has exercised a considerable influence on both East and West, after his

death. His divinisation has largely been studied, thus resulting in a vast amount of

specialised literature about it. What, then, would be the justification for going over such a

much-discussed topic? The only answer would be when there is something new or, at least,

different to say.

As it will be shown in the next chapters, over the last century there has been certain

tendency among historians and biographers of Alexander to accept, without questioning,

that he was deified during his lifetime. Often, these scholars took for granted such divinity,

thus narratives were constructed based on this apparently settled proposition. However, a

rapid survey of the sources seems to indicate that this generally accepted thesis is not as

solid, as it is believed. This constitutes the aim of this dissertation, namely, to analyse these

modern accounts in the light of the ancient sources, in order to examine whether the

deification of Alexander has enough grounds to be stated confidently. Due to the word

limits of this dissertation, only the period when Alexander was alive will be studied. No

analysis will be performed, thus, of the events after his death, the honours he received from

the Successors or the influence of his behaviour on later Roman cults.

To achieve the proposed objective, the main episodes in Alexanders life that have

been used to prove his divinisation, will be studied and discussed. The first chapter will

look at the lineage and models Alexander grew up with which could have influenced him

into thinking he was something more than a simple mortal. The second chapter discusses

Alexander's emulation of the heroes (Achilles, Heracles and Dionysius) in order to see if

3
this can be used to assert whether he saw himself as a hero or as an aspirant to Olympus.

The third chapter will explore Alexanders visit to the Oracle at Siwa and his categorisation

as son of Zeus. It will also discuss if this title granted him the status of a god. The fourth

chapter will cover one important passage concerning his alleged way to heaven; that is,

when he tried to introduce proskynesis into his court. To which extent this could be taken as

evidence for the belief in his self-divinity, will be analysed. Finally, in the fifth chapter

some alleged cults of Alexander that have been used to claim he was deified before his

death will be studied.

Since the bibliography on the Macedonian King's life is vast, only the most

prominent modern authors and books will be taken into consideration and discussion. Only

decisive opinions will be referred to in the main text. Other, less important yet significant,

opinions will be mentioned in the footnotes.

Some specific religious concepts that will be used from now onwards need to be

clarified. Three main types of cults are considered when it comes to Alexanders life:

divine cult, hero cult, and founder's cult. Divine cult refers to the cult received only by the

gods. Given that this type of cult changed geographically and over centuries, it is hard to

provide one comprehensive description. However, its main characteristics can be

highlighted. This cult took place mainly in sacred places, largely temples and altars, which

could be within or outside a city, but always occupying important locations. Divine cult

involved regular sacrifices and offerings to the worshiped god made by priest and

priestesses. The objective was to obtain the god's favour or, at least, avoid his wrath.

Athletics games, libations, and prayers were also offered to the immortals. Since each god

had a specific power or ability, specific oblations were made to obtain specific benefits

from a particular deity. These gifts were offered 'to heaven', where gods lived. The honours

4
given to them were not offered to mortals, either living or dead; to do so would have been

blasphemy, and could have caused the rage of the gods. A mortal could become a god and

receive divine cult after his death. This happened on a few rare occasions, but only as

decided by the gods through oracles, since it was not a decision left up to mortals.1 Hero

cult, on the other hand, was a more local phenomenon. A hero was a mortal who, during his

lifetime, performed great and beneficial deeds for a specific group of people (a tribe or city

for example), and thus was elevated from the human category. Since he was not a god, he

could not receive the same honours. Nevertheless, he received gifts and sacrifices, and

libations were performed in his name. This cult was tied to the hero's tomb, where his

remains were deposited. Because of this, the offerings were not made 'to heaven', but 'to

earth'. For this reason, this type of cult was also known as 'chthonian cult' (from : in,

under, or beneath the earth). The place of cult was considered sacred and could include a

temple or sacrificial pit. As with the gods, people offered oblations and asked for their

favour and protection, either for them alone or for the entire city. As seen above, a hero,

after the god's decision, could become one of them. This process is called apotheosis (from

: deification), the main example of which is Heracles.2 The last type of cult that

will be included in this dissertation is the founder's cult. This type was much more common

in colonies than in the continent. When the oikist (from : founder) died, he was

buried in an important place of the city, commonly the agora. The tomb contained his body

and marked the place of worship. Honours similar to those given to heroes were offered to

the founder, but more sporadically. People gave presents and offerings to him asking for the
1
For the main features of divine cult see: Parker (2011) 67-70; Mikalson (2005) 49. For a complete analysis
of the main cults in Ancient Greece see: Larson (2007) 15-155. For mortals who obtained the category of
gods see: Larson (2007) 183-195.
2
For hero cult see: Ekroth (2007) 100-114; Parker (2011) 103-22; Mikalson (2005) 32-49; Larson (2007)
196-202. For full works on the topic see: Kearns (1989); Kernyi (1959); Farnell (1970). For Heracles' case
see: Kernyi (1959) 125-206.

5
safety and prosperity of the city. These celebrations took place once a year and symbolised

the unity of the community around whom they considered to be their protector. The

founder, as the hero, was not a deity but only an intercessor between the people of the city

and the gods.3

3
Studies devoted to this cult are fewer. For full study with bibliography see: Malkin (1987) 189-266.

6
 Chapter 1: Lineage and models

In order to understand the phenomenon of the divinisation of Alexander the Great, it is

necessary to start from the very beginning, that is, from the lineage he descended.

Alexander belonged to the Molossian House of Epirus through his mother and the Argead

House of Macedonia through his father. The Molossians claimed to be descendants of

Achilles and the Argeads of Heracles.4 In Ancient Greece, the line between myth and

history was very thin, and they were open to erase it easily, accepting these lineages as

true.5 Such claims of heroic ancestors were not a rare thing, and rulers used them to validate

their power and policies.6 For Alexander in particular, these mythic characters provided

strong models of emulation and a firm foundation for his enterprise against the Persian

Empire. He took these models very seriously knowing that they might bring him high

reputation among his subjects and success to his army.7

Since the beginning, Alexanders life was accompanied by fantastic stories and

portents. Plutarch's account relates the existence of tales surrounding his birth. The day

before her wedding with Philip, his mother Olympias dreamed that a thunderbolt came

upon her and impregnated her.8 After the wedding Philip also had a dream, in which he put

a seal on Olympias' womb, and that the seal depicted a lion.9 A third story tells that Philip

spied Olympias in her chambers while she was lying with a serpent. Worried about this, he

4
Plut. Alex. 2.1, Mor. 334D; Diod. 17.1.5; Just. 7.1; Hyg. Fab. 123; Pind. Nem. 4.51-3. For this lineage in
ancient historians see: Thuc. 2.99; Hdt. 8.138-9. Most modern historians agree on the existence of such
bloodline: Carney (2006) 5; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 256; Worthington (2004) 36-7; Green (1991) 40; Wilcken
(1967) 56; Hammond (1980) 14-15, 17, 35; Hamilton (1973) 29; Brunt (1976a) 464; Badian (2006) 245;
Balsdon (1950) 374.
5
Plut. Alex. 2.1; Bosworth (1988) 278, 281; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 254; Stewart (1993); Green (1991) 40.
6
Green (1991) 39-40.
7
Curt. 8.8.14. For Alexander and the relevance of his ancestors in his life, see below chap. 2.
8
Plut. Alex. 2.2
9
Ibid.

7
sent a certain Chaeron, otherwise unknown, to Delphi to ask the oracle about this. The reply

of the god was that he had to hold Ammon in greatest reverence and that he would lose the

eye with which he spied his wife lying with the snake.10 These logoi, as Plutarch called

them, had historical basis: Olympias was initiated in the Bacchic mysteries of Dionysus,

and therefore she was a snake handler.11 Furthermore, Philip lost an eye during the siege of

Methone in 355-4.12 However, as fanciful as they are, together with their similarities with

the Romance, it is impossible to take them seriously.13 Indeed, every single historian who

has made a reference about these tales has discarded them as unhistorical and as probable

later inventions to support Alexander's claim to be the son of Zeus.14 Since Alexander never

referred to these tales in later years, and being mere stories and most likely false creations,

they say nothing reliable about Alexander's divinisation.

Alexander's parents, Philip and Olympias, were highly influential during his first

years of life.15 His mother, as descendant of Neoptolemus, was possibly responsible for

Alexander's early fascination with Achilles,16 as well as his later passion for Dionysus, her

favourite god.17 It is possible that she was also responsible for influencing the choice of

Alexander's first tutors,18 especially Lysimachus, who used to call him Achilles, Philip

10
Ibid. 3.1. For Chaeron, see: Heckel (2006) 82.
11
Plut. Alex. 2.5-6. For Bacchae as snake handlers see Euripides' Bacchae. See also: Hamilton (1973) 29-30;
Carney (2006) 93-98.
12
Diod. 16.34.5. See also: Hammond (1980) 37.
13
For the fantastic stories presented in the Alexander Romance see the translation of Richard Stoneman
(1991). For comments and analysis of these stories see: Stoneman (2010), (2012).
14
Plut. Alex. 2.5; Arr. Anab. 4.10.2. For modern authors see: Green (1991) 36; Hammond (1980) 35-6;
Hamilton (1973) 29-30; Stoneman (2004) 16. Worthington (2004) 31, rejects the historicity of these tales and
entertains the idea that they were invented by Alexander himself. For full analysis with commentaries and
bibliography see: Hamilton (1999) 2-6. For the relationship between these tales and Alexander's claim to be
the son of Zeus see: Carney (2006) 92, (1992) 171; Wilcken (1967) 129.
15
Curt. 10.5.30
16
Plut. Alex. 5.4; Carney (2006) 6; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 255.
17
Fredricksmeyer (2003) 264. Contra Heckel (2004) 208, who states that it is unlikely that Olympias' beliefs
influenced Alexander.
18
Plut. Alex. 5.4; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 255.

8
Peleus, and himself Phoenix, Achilles' tutor.19 However, not much can be said regarding the

figure of Olympias and the divinisation of Alexander, except for Curtius' account that near

the end of his life, Alexander expressed the intention of deifying his mother, and entrusted

the task to his closest friends, in the event he was not alive to do it.20 Most modern

historians and biographers of Alexander ignore the issue, without even mentioning it.

Probably their decision is appropriate, since this passage looks like a Roman fiction to

validate posthumous cults for imperial women.21

When it comes to Philip, and his influence on Alexander, sources are much more

explicit and there is much more to say. As it will be shown in the next lines, Alexander

seems to have emulated his father in two aspects: the political and the religious spheres. On

the personal level, the relationship between Alexander and his father was not good; there

were quarrels and discussions.22 However, the young Macedonian Prince saw in his father a

model for political success and a king worthy of emulation.23 In the political field, Philip

was not only innovative but also aggressive. He was, for example, the first Greek to name a

city after himself.24 As a well-known fact, Alexander emulated this and founded many

cities with the name Alexandria and among these, the most relevant was that in Egypt.25

Philip was also the first to mint currency using his own name, the Philippeioi coins.26 Right

after Philip died, Alexander began to mint coins which would be later known as

19
Plut. Alex. 5.5; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 255; Hamilton (1973) 30; Heckel (2006)153.
20
Curt. 9.6.26, 10.5.30
21
Carney (2006) 101, (2000a) 21-43.
22
Plut. Alex. 9.1 is probably the best known of these quarrels. See also: Plut. Alex. 9.1; Curt. 8.1.23; Green
(1991) 40; Worthington (2004) 38; Fredricksmeyer (1990) 300-1.
23
Cartledge (2004) 220, 227; Worthington (2004) 37, 43; Green (1991) 40.
24
Diod. 16.3.7, 16.71.2; Fredricksmeyer (1974) 52, (1990) 306; Cartledge (2004) 219-20.
25
Plut. Alex. 26.3-6; Arr. Anab. 3.1.5. See also: Fredricksmeyer (1990) 306, (2003) 254.
26
Mrkholm (1991) 41; Hammond (1979) 663-4, (1994) 114.

9
Alexandroi.27 According to Fredricksmeyer, the fact that both father and son founded or

renamed cities after them is an aggressive gesture that could imply a usurpation of the

honours of the tutelary deity of the city.28 However, in my opinion, since there is no

evidence to attest that neither received founder's cults in these cities, Fredricksmeyer's

statement is no more than an assumption. Minting coins after themselves proved nothing

but their high self-esteem, let alone their self-images as deities or supernatural beings.29

Regarding the religious field, Alexander inherited from his father a profound sense

of religiosity and reverence for the gods. Philip showed a tendency for large festivals and

regular sacrifices to the gods,30 especially before and after a major battle.31 This was

probably incited by his position as king, and therefore as High Priest of Macedonia.32

Alexander showed a very similar behaviour, he was prone to celebrate festivals and games

to the Olympians,33 and to pray to them after main battles or military enterprises.34 He also

inherited the idea that the campaign against Persia was a 'sacred war' to avenge the offences

against the Greek gods.35 In fact, both father and son punished Greek communities who had

desecrated the temples of the Olympians.36 This fundamental religious aspect of his

expedition explains the altars offered to the gods at the end of his campaign.37

But Philip seemed to have taken his 'sacred mission' too seriously, and started to

show signs that he was not a simple mortal. According to Clement of Alexandria, the

27
Oikonomides (1981) XV-XX.; Bellinger (1963) 1-34; Mrkholm (1991) 42-44; Stoneman (2004) 7.
28
Fredricksmeyer (1974) 52, (1990) 306.
29
There are other examples related to the emulation from Alexander to Philip (recognition as Commander in
Chief of the Pan-Hellenic forces, leader of the campaign against the Persian Empire, daredevil behaviour in
battle, etc.), but they are irrelevant to this dissertation's aim.
30
Diod. 16.91.4; Lane Fox (2004) 436, 442; Fredricksmeyer (1974) 52.
31
Diod. 16.55.1, 16.86.6, 16.91.1-3; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 254.
32
Fredricksmeyer (2003) 256.
33
Arr. Anab. 1.4.5, 1.11.1, 2.24.6, 3.6.1, 5.2.6, 6.19.4, 6.28.1-2; Curt. 3.12.27, 4.2.2, 8.10.17; Diod. 17.106.1
34
Curt. 4.13.15; Diod. 16.16.4; Plut. Alex. 33.1, 67.1
35
Diod. 16.89.2; 17.17.2; Arr. 2.14.4; Just. 11.5.6; Hdt. 8.109; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 260-261.
36
Alexander: Curt. 7.5.28-35. Philip: Diod. 16.35.6; Just. 8.2.1-7
37
Arr. Anab. 5.29.1; Curt. 9.3.19; Diod. 17.95.1; Plin. NH. 6.49

10
second century Christian author, in 338 BC after the battle of Chaeronea, the Athenians

enacted a law to worship Philip publicly as a god and as part of the Heraclid bloodline.38

The place selected by the Athenians was Cynosarges, a gymnasium located in the southern

suburbs of Athens.39 This place was devoted to Heracles and his family. Considering that

and recognising Philip's lineage as a Heraclid it is probable that, if the account is true, the

Athenians thought suitable to select Cynosarges as the place for his worship. To my mind,

despite Clement's account, a law this sort would have caused great uproar among the Greek

cities, and nothing like this is mentioned in the sources. Furthermore, knowing

Demosthenes' disgust for Philip, a public law of this kind would have been a recurrent topic

in his speeches, but there is nothing related to this specific point.40 Also, it is said that

Philip received systematic sacrifices at Amphipolis and that there was an altar in Eresos

devoted to "Zeus Philippios".41 If this is true, the sacrifices to Philip did not imply divine

worship, but acted as signs of gratitude for the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrison in

359 BC and, therefore, the restoration of the independence of the city.42 Pausanias relates

that after his victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC Philip commissioned the construction of a

memorial which would be used as a temple to Zeus. He called it "Philippeion", and it

contained chryselephantine statues of him, Olympias, Alexander, Eurydice his mother, and

Amyntas his father.43 Since Pausanias' account states that chryselephantine was reserved

for honouring the gods, some scholars have suggested that this building was conceived by

38
Clem.Al. Protr. 4.47-48
39
For a full description of the gymnasium see: Wycherley (1978) 229.
40
See Fredricksmeyer (1974) 43-47, who takes the report as truthful.
41
Tod 191 [253-67]. For discussion see: Fredricksmeyer (1974) 50-51; Badian (1981) 39-41, (2006) 246-8;
Bosworth (1988) 281; Worthington (2004) 273, 275-6; Hornblower (1983) 278-9; Hammond (1979) 691-8,
720-2.
42
However, the historicity of this cult remains uncertain. For discussion see: Fredricksmeyer (1974) 50-51;
Badian (1981) 39; Bosworth (1988) 281.
43
Paus. 5.20.9-10

11
Philip to claim divinity and to create a dynastic cult for his family.44 Although this might be

true, the extant sources are silent about Philip's intentions. Therefore the real meaning of

this building will remain forever in the field of speculation. The most significant evidence

for Philip's pursuit of divine status is the widely discussed statue of himself at his daughter's

wedding. Diodorus relates that in 336 BC Philip celebrated the wedding of his daughter

Cleopatra with her uncle Alexander of Epirus. For this occasion, Philip entered the theatre

with a procession of statues of the twelve Olympian gods and, to the surprise of the public,

a thirteen statue made its entrance depicting him as magnificent as any other god.45

Unfortunately Philip's aim with this gesture is not accessible to us. He was struck and killed

before having the chance to explain his aim to his guests. However, such display would

hardly mean, as Diodorus stated, any other thing than the King's self-proclamation as

somebody worth of divine consideration.46 Some scholars have also suggested that

Isocrates' appeals to Philip influenced him to start elaborating this idea.47 Alexander must

have been present in the wedding, and our sources attest it.48 To what extent did this

sumptuous display influenced Alexander in his own pursuit of divine honours? It is

impossible to know but, since Philip was held in high regard by his son, at least in the

political and religious fields, it is plausible to say that if Alexander ever thought of

44
Fredricksmeyer (1974) 55; Carney (2006) 101; Cartledge (2004) 219; Lane Fox (2004) 440-1; Green
(1991) 81. Lapatin (2001) 118, states that the presence of chryselephantine should not be overstressed as
evidence for divinity.
45
Diod. 16.92.5. Just. 9.6.1, also attests the wedding but he does not mention the statue.
46
Diod. 16.95.1. For discussion see: Fredricksmeyer (1974) 57-8, (2003) 255; Bosworth (1996) 130;
Cartledge (2004) 219-20. Hammond (1994) 184, states that Philip was already a god among the Macedonians
but he fails to provide any evidence for his thesis. Worthington (2004) 273-6, says that, since worship of a
living man was blasphemy, Philip was deified only after his death, and that the statue was a simple reflection
of his glory as King of Macedon. However, he also fails to provide any evidence.
47
Isoc. Ep. 3.5, Or. 5. For discussion see: Balsdon (1950) 363-71; Brunt (1976a) 464-5; Fredricksmeyer
(1974) 58, (2003) 254; Hammond (1994) 184; Cartledge (2004) 220; Wilcken (1967) 34.
48
Just. 9.6.3

12
becoming something more than a simple mortal, his father's actions must have had

something to do with it.49

With all the evidence presented so far in this chapter, it is possible to conclude that

Alexander was descendant of the great heroes of the past, that some stories were invented

after his birth to enhance his divine origins, that his parents influenced him to pursue the

features of the heroes, and that, apparently, in the last years of his life, his father thought to

be closer to the gods than to the mortals. None of these deductions are sufficient to state

that Alexander was deified during his lifetime. They only provide plausible evidence to

support the thesis that he, as did his father, considered himself divine.

49
Badian (2006) 245-9, leans toward the idea that Philip influenced Alexander in this regard.

13
 Chapter 2: Emulation of the heroes

The second topic to be analysed in order to shed light on the divinisation of Alexander will

be the strong and systematic emulation he had for the heroes. Some scholars had suggested

that this emulation was the king's own manner to acquire divine status.50 In accordance to

them, Alexander knew well that heroes could make their way to heaven depending on their

deeds.51 This is the reason of what he did; he was looking for divine recognition in

accordance to his great actions.

As seen in chapter one, Alexander could trace his lineage to Heracles and Achilles.

For him, these mythic heroes were real persons who had lived before him.52 The young

Prince was educated by a traditional code of pursuit of glory and honour (philotimia),53 and

the copy of the Iliad he kept with him during his campaign turned to be his guide and

manual on how to achieve it.54 Alexander's first sign of reverence to his heroic ancestors

are the coins he minted before departing to Asia. The new coins contained depictions of

Athena, a winged Nike, Heracles in lion skin, Zeus with a thunderbolt, and a bow together

with a club.55 All these images were meaningful for Alexander. Athena was the tutelary

goddess of Athens, the city with the biggest animosity against Alexander. The winged

Victory could mean a projection of the expected victory over the Persian Empire. And

finally, both Zeus and Heracles were part of his bloodline. Therefore, it is clear that since

50
Antela (2007) 89-103; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 256; Edmunds (1971) 378; Bosworth (1996) 130, (1988)
278, 284; Cartledge (2004) 226; Lane Fox (2004) 439-440; Hamilton (1973) 71; Wilcken (1967) 127.
51
Diod. 4.38, relates Heracles' example. Larson (2007) 183-195, presents a small guide to the best known
cases in the Ancient Greek world.
52
Brunt (1976a) 464, Stewart (1993) 78; Bosworth (1988) 281; Worthington (2004) 37.
53
Plut. Alex. 8.2; Worthington (2004) 37; Brunt (1976a) 464.
54
Plut. Alex. 8.2, 26.1; Heckel (2004) 208; Fredricksmeyer (1990) 304; Hamilton (1973) 31.
55
Mrkholm (1991) 42-44; Bellinger (1963) 1-34; Oikonomides (1981) XV-XX; Stoneman (2004) 7.

14
the very beginning of his reign, Alexander appealed to these characters as companions in

his enterprise.

Soon these first signs with a clear political agenda turned into a personal matter for

the young King. Arrian says that <a pothos seized him>.56 This pothos

is traditionally translated as "longing" or "yearning".57 Nevertheless, as with any

translation, it is impossible to capture the full meaning of a Greek concept using a modern

word. To understand this force that made Alexander behave as he did, it is necessary to

search deeper. Nearchus, Alexander's Companion and Admiral, described this pothos as a

perpetual desire to do something new and extraordinary.58 In other passages, Arrian used

the notion to refer to his continuous desire to discover unknown regions,59 found new

cities,60 visit mythical places,61 do things that no one had done before,62 and the most

interesting for the aim of this dissertation, surpass the deeds of the heroes.63 This desire was

part of Alexander's emulation; it as a perpetual aspiration to match and outdo the heroes, to

acquire fame and glory as they did.64 He made use of this aspiration to encourage his men

before battle, and to convince them to keep moving forward despite their anxiety for

returning home.65

56
Arr. Anab. 1.3.5. In the same passage Ehrenberg (1963) 74, uses instead of . The meaning
remains the same.
57
Ehrenberg (1963) 74; Hammond (1980) 47-48, 88.
58
Arr. Ind. 20.1
59
Arr. Anab. 7.1.1
60
Arr. Anab. 3.1.5
61
Arr. Anab. 5.2.5
62
Arr. Anab. 3.29.4
63
Arr. Anab. 4.28.4. Heckel (2004) 208, believes that these actions were performed for political gain. Stewart
(1993) 85, suggests a supreme self confidence through which Alexander thought he could do whatever he
desired. Worthington (2004) 281, says that Alexander was simply mad. It seems to me that the most asserted
opinion is Ehrenberg (1963) 77, who states that Alexander behaved in such a manner due to a "mythical and
historical consciousness and pride which were deep-rooted in the innermost core of Alexander's personality".
64
Cohen (1995) 484; Carney (2000b) 275-6; Bosworth (1996) 117-28, (1988) 282; Stewart (1993) 78, 81;
Worthington (2004) 37.
65
Arr. Anab. 5.26.5, 7.10.6; Curt. 9.2.29, 9.4.21.

15
 Alexander's pothos took the shape of emulation of three particular heroes.66 The first

one was Achilles. As mentioned before, the Homeric hero was Alexander's ancestor, and

fascinated him since boyhood.67 He provided a model for Alexander's behaviour, especially

in his first years in Asia. As soon as the Macedonian King arrived to Asia Minor, he paid a

visit to the mythic Ilium and made symbolic gestures. He offered sacrifices to Priam "not to

vent his anger on the race of Neoptolemus, of which he himself was a scion".68 Right after

this, Alexander crowned the tomb of Achilles, and Hephaestion that of Patroclus.69 In my

opinion these gestures were not only romantic, but political as well. Alexander was

beginning a Pan-Hellenic crusade against the barbarians in the East to punish them for their

offences against Greece, just as in the Iliad. The similarities with Achilles fighting against

the Trojans who insulted the Greeks are evident, and Alexander, who knew this, made the

most of the opportunity.70 Probably due to this Achillean inspiration, Alexander behaved

bravely in battle.71 The ancient sources also attest the King's reaction when his closest

friend Hephaestion passed away. Plutarch says that "Alexander's grief at this loss knew no

66
Due to the limited space available in the present dissertation, the emulation of Dionysus is not going to be
analysed. However, features concerning this matter are not different from those of Heracles (rivaling with his
deeds, surpassing his travels, encouraging his men to advance further, etc.). For the relationship between
Alexander and Dionysus see: Arr. Anab. 4.8.1, 4.9.5, 5.2.6, 5.26.5, 7.10.6, 7.20.1; Curt. 3.12.18, 8.2.6, 8.5.10-
7, 8.10.17, 9.4.21, 9.8.5, 9.10.24; Diod. 17.72.4, 17.106.1. For modern works on the subject see:
Fredricksmeyer (1997) 97-109; Nock (1928) 21-43; Brunt (1983) 435-42.
67
See above: n. 4, 6, 16, 19.
68
Arr. Anab. 1.11.8; Diod. 17.17.3; Just. 11.5.2; Plut. Alex. 15.4. According to the legend, Neoptolemus, son
of Achilles, murdered Priam. Alexander, being descendant of his blood, prayed to him to forgive this crime.
For this story see: Virg. Aen. 2.506-558; Bosworth (1980) 102.
69
Arr. Anab. 1.12.1. Plut. Alex. 15.4 adds that Alexander and his Companions ran a race naked to honour the
heroes. Although the historicity of this passage has been questioned, it seems very plausible that Alexander
decided to pay respects to Achilles. For comments and analysis see: Bosworth (1980) 103-4; Hamilton (1999)
38. Badian (2006) 250, states that all these stories are pure inventions.
70
See: Edmunds (1971) 373; Hamilton (1973) 32; contra Wilcken (1967) 83-84, who suggests only romantic
motivations.
71
Arr. Anab. 7.10.1-3; Edmunds (1971) 373-4; Cohen (1995) 484; Stewart (1993) 82-3. Contra Worthington
(2004) 281. For Achilles as the archetypical hero and warrior see: King (1987).

16
bounds".72 He cut the manes and tails of all horses and mules, crucified Hephaestion's

doctor, and prohibited any kind of music in the camp.73 The most interesting account

related to this is Arrian's. He says that "for the greater part of the day he lay prostrate and

weeping on his companion's body and would not be parted"74 and that he "cut off his hair

over the corpse, especially considering his emulation of Achilles, with whom he had a

rivalry since boyhood".75 Even in moments of great sorrow, Alexander did not lose the

opportunity to rival his personal hero. He could have expressed his great sadness in any

other way, but he chose to do it just like Achilles.76

The second hero Alexander emulated was Heracles. He, as Achilles, was part of

Alexander's lineage. The Macedonian King emulated Heracles in two ways. The first type

was to prove that he was as capable as him in carrying out great enterprises. A clear

example of this, is the trip to the oracle in Siwa in Egypt whereto, according to the legend,

Heracles had also gone.77 He also increased the sacred precinct (temenus) of Artemis'

temple at Ephesus, which it is said to have been enlarged by Heracles as well.78 With these

actions, Alexander was trying to show both Greeks and Macedonians that he had all it

could take to do great things. Moreover, he demonstrated that not only was he capable of

rivalling Heracles, but also that he was able to surpass him. The ancient historians' accounts

say that Alexander managed to take Aornus, a city in India that even Heracles himself was

72
Plut. Alex. 72.2. For comments on Plutarch's account see: Hamilton (1999) 201. Perrin (1985) 56-68,
suggests that these stories are later inventions.
73
Plut. Alex. 72.2. Arr. Anab. 7.14.4 also mentions that he ordered the death of the doctor but by hanging, not
by crucifixion.
74
Arr. Anab. 7.14.3
75
Arr. Anab. 7.14.4
76
For other minor signs of emulation of Achilles see: Diod. 17.97.3; Curt. 4.6.29, 8.4.26. For the request of
honours at Hephaestion's death, see below chap. 5.
77
Arr. Anab. 3.3.1-2; Bosworth (1988) 281; Cartledge (2004) 221; Stoneman (2004) 48. For an analysis of
this travel and its meaning to Alexander's divinity see below chap. 3.
78
Strab. 14.1.23; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 263.

17
unable to subdue, and that he did it especially for this particular reason.79 Once in India

Alexander's army was tired and eager to go back to Macedonia to enjoy their wealth

acquired during the campaign. But Alexander tried to convince them to advance further, to

continue marching through unknown regions, to keep fighting Indian tribes and, in doing

so, to surpass the exploits and travels of Heracles.80

Despite the evidence presented in this chapter, none of the ancient sources specifies

that Alexander asked his subjects to be honoured as a hero. Furthermore, he never

mentioned his aim in emulating the heroes. As stated above, modern historians speculate as

to a religious motive with divine aspirations, but it does not represent more than a guess

without enough evidence to support it.81 It is equally plausible that this attitude of

emulation is part of Alexander's pothos, with no other intention than the pursuit of honour

and glory. However, it would be erroneous to say that these scholars' interpretation is

completely wrong and pointless. It is quite plausible that Alexander entertained the idea

that he was not a regular mortal and that he might have deserved divine honours owing to

his great achievements, but it can not be stated as a truth, as many of these historians do. In

conclusion, the emulation of heroes does not constitute a definitive reason to affirm

categorically the divinisation of Alexander, and the sources do not provide enough

information to reconstruct the King's intentions.

79
Arr. Anab. 4.28.1-2, 5.26.5; Diod. 17.85.1-5; Curt. 8.11.1-25; Just. 12.17.12. See also: Heckel (2004) 208;
Fredricksmeyer (2003) 264; Edmunds (1971) 374; Bosworth (1988) 282; Green (1991) 385; Wilcken (1967)
179; Hamilton (1973) 110. For a military analysis of this campaign see: Fuller (1998) 248-254.
80
Curt. 9.2; 9.4.15-21. For other signs of emulation and reverence to Heracles see: Arr. Anab. 1.4.5, 1.11.7,
2.5.9, 2.18.1, 2.24.5, 3.6.1, 5.29.1-2, 7.16.8; Curt. 3.12.27, 4.2.2, 4.4.13; Diod. 17.4.1, 17.95.1, 17.117.1-2;
Just. 12.7.12. See also: Heckel (2004) 208; Fredricksmeyer (2003) 262-4; Edmunds (1971) 375; Bosworth
(1988) 281-2; Lane Fox (2004) 443; Worthington (2004) 274; Green (1991) 552; Wilcken (1967) 64;
Hammond (1980) 44, 115; Hamilton (1973) 71.
81
Green (1993) 402, is aware of this mistake. See also: Stewart (1993) 95.

18
 Chapter 3: The oracle at Siwa

Another topic that has been used by some scholars to prove that Alexander was deified

during his lifetime was his visit to Egypt and, particularly, to the oracle of Ammon at Siwa

in 331 BC. This trip had particular religious and political consequences that, according to

these scholars, led to Alexander's belief in his own divinity.82 Worthington, for example,

considers this episode as the turning point where "Alexander the man became also

Alexander the god".83 In the next lines the evidence for this passage, the visit at Siwa,

Alexander's position as Pharaoh, and the foundation of Alexandria, will be analysed in

order to examine if the evidence sustains these scholars thesis.

Alexander's trip to Siwa is attested by almost all of the ancient sources. The overall

narration is that Alexander crossed the dessert, received some divine assistance on the way,

arrived at the oasis, and consulted the oracle.84 This passage, however, shows some

differences amongst authors. Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, and Diodorus mention the 'divine

assistance' under the form of crows, which led the convoy to the oasis, and rain that aided

them. Arrian is the only one who also reports Ptolemy's account of the presence not of

crows, but of talking snakes leading the march.85 Once Alexander arrived at the temple, he

was greeted by the priest, and then consulted the oracle. Arrian's account is stunningly

brief. He says that Alexander went to the oracle, consulted the god, and returned to

Memphis. His only portrayal of this passage is that Alexander

82
Bosworth (1988) 278-9; Worthington (2004) 278; Hogarth (1915) 57-59.
83
Worthington (2004) 278.
84
Arr. Anab. 3.3-4; Curt. 4.7.1-32; Plut. Alex. 26.6-27.6; Diod. 17.49-51. For a description of the oasis and
the temple see: Curt. 4.7.20-4; Diod. 17.50; Parke (1967) 194-241.
85
For modern discussion of this 'divine' aids see: Bosworth (1980) 272-3; Hamilton (1999) 70-1, (1973) 75-6;
Wilcken (1967) 122-3, 197; Hammond (1980) 125-6; Badian (2006) 250-1.

19
 <listened what his heart desired>.86 On the salutation of the priest and the modus

operandi of the consultation of the oracle Arrian says nothing. On the other hand, the

remaining sources preserved similar accounts with some slight differences between them.

Justin, Curtius, Diodorus, and Plutarch say that Alexander was hailed as 'son' by the

priest,87 but only Justin states that Alexander sent men ahead to bribe the priest so that he

could receive this salutation and favourable oracles from the god.88 After this, an exchange

between Alexander and the priest is attested by these sources: the King asked about his

father's murderers and the success of the campaign. Furthermore, all of them agree that

when Alexander asked for his father's assassins, the priest corrected him saying that his

father was Ammon, and that he could not be killed by a mortal.89 Justin and Curtius add

that Alexander's Companions were ordered by the Libyan god to treat the King as a god.90

Nonetheless, many scholars correctly agree that this exchange between the priest and the

conqueror is probably fictitious and that Alexander consulted the oracle in private.91

An important question remains: Why did Alexander go to Egypt and, in particular,

to Siwa? Why did he take a detour to what seemed to be an unimportant and non-strategic

country in his military campaign? There is a very interesting discussion about this, but only

those opinions that shed light to this dissertation's objective will be considered here.92

According to Arrian, it was a pothos that led the King to the oracle; a pothos to do the same

86
Arr. Anab. 3.4.5
87
Just. 11.11.7; Curt. 4.7.25; Diod. 17.51.1; Plut. Alex. 27.3-4
88
Just. 11.11.6
89
Just. 11.11.9-10; Diod. 17.51.2-4; Curt. 4.7.25-32; Plut. Alex. 27.3-6
90
Just. 11.11.11; Curt. 4.7.28
91
Tarn (1948) 347; Balsdon (1950) 371; Bosworth (1988) 282-3; Green (1991) 274-5; Wilcken (1967) 125-6,
128-9; Hammond (1980) 126; Stoneman (2004) 79; Fredricksmeyer (1974) 201-13; Hamilton (1999) 71-3;
Worthington (2004) 279.
92
For the wider discussion see: Bloedow (2004) 75-99; Hogarth (1915) 53-60.

20
trip as Heracles.93 Diodorus says briefly that Alexander just wanted to consult the oracle.94

Finally, Curtius stated that Alexander went to Siwa in order to be elevated from the mortal

level and be recognised as descendant of Zeus.95 Why did Curtius refer to Ammon as Zeus?

The response to this question can clarify Alexander's intentions. Greek religion had a

syncretistic feature: they were open to see foreign deities as local manifestations of their

own gods. In this particular case, the Egyptian god Ammon was considered by Greeks and

Macedonians as a Libyan byname for Zeus.96 Almost every historian on Alexander has

accepted this parallelism.97 Therefore, Alexander was not visiting a foreign and unknown

deity; he was making a trip to see Zeus himself, the origin of his bloodline. Again, much

discussion has arisen in modern scholarship regarding the King's reasons for this journey.98

The consequences are, however, the main issue here. After visiting the oracle, it became

commonplace among his subjects that Alexander was the son of Ammon.99 Because of this,

it is possible to assume that the consultation involved somehow this topic. It is also likely

that the idea of his sonship originated after the priest greeted him as 'son of the god'. In any

case, the sonship was instituted and everybody knew about it. Nonetheless, it is striking that

93
Arr. Anab. 3.3.1-2
94
Diod. 17.49.2
95
Curt. 4.7.8
96
This fact is firstly attested by Pindar. See: Pind. Pyth. 4.16; Arr. Ind. 35.8. Also see: Parker (2011) 67-70.
97
Badian (1981) 45-6; Bosworth (1988) 281-2, (1977) 52; Lane Fox (2004) 456; Green (1991) 272; Wilcken
(1967) 122; Hammond (1980) 125; Stoneman (2004) 50; Brunt (1976b) 474-5; Fredricksmeyer (1974) 200.
Tarn (1948) 348-54, is the only one, as far as I know, who has rejected the parallel between these two gods.
However, he is open to the idea that Alexander could have believed in Ammon as a foreign manifestation of
the Greek Zeus.
98
For this discussion see: Balsdon (1950) 371; Heckel (2004) 208; Edmunds (1971) 378-9; Badian (1981)
44; Tarn (1948) 347; Bosworth (1988) 281, (1977) 67; Cartledge (2004) 222; Worthington (2004) 279; Green
(1991) 273; Wilcken (1967) 121, 129; Hamilton (1973) 76; Stoneman (2004) 48-9; Bloedow (2004) 95-7.
99
Carney (2006) 101; Fredricksmeyer (1974) 199-200, (1990) 310; Badian (1981) 44, (2006) 250-1; Wilcken
(1967) 127; Bosworth (1977) 51-75; Bloedow (2004) 97. Contra Tarn (1948) 362-3, who states that
Alexander was never addressed as son of Zeus or Ammon. He regards the title as Callisthenes invention
which had no influence on the king. Strab. 17.1.43, attests other oracles that confirmed the sonship.

21
none of the sources specifies any sort of decision by Alexander to be recognised as such.100

This has led some historians to think that it was not Alexander who originated this idea, but

his flattering court.101

Is being a son of a god enough to be recognised as a god? Probably the most

relevant and closest example of Alexanders situation was his forefather Heracles. He was

not taken to heaven merely for being the son of Zeus. Based on his deeds, he was allowed

by the gods to become one of them.102 In the same way, no matter how strong and evident

is the connection between Alexander and Zeus or Ammon, the solely sonship does not

secure a place in heaven, not even recognition of such status among men. About this point

most modern biographers and historians of Alexander agree.103 Since Alexander minted

coins depicting himself with Ammon's horns and some sources attest he used to wear

Ammon's robes in parties, Bosworth entertains the idea that the King considered himself

not only as son, but also as incarnation of the Libyan god.104 Nevertheless, as Stewart

correctly asserts, "flattery with divine imagery in a poem or a painting is not the same as an

acknowledgement of divinity".105 Considering this, it is evident that the negative reaction of

the Macedonians against Alexander's filiation to Zeus was not because of religious

implications, but because it implied a dishonour to their former and beloved King Philip, as

100
Tarn (1948) 359; Wilcken (1967) 127-8. Bosworth (1977) 58-60, discuss the only reference from
Alexander to Zeus as his father (Plut. Alex. 33.1). However, he recognises the ambiguity of the passage and
the fact that it does not allow to draw a conclusion. He also analyse Curtius' statement (4.7.28-30) where
Alexander demands to be recognised as son of Zeus which, again, is unclear and unreliable. Hogarth (1915)
58, says that Alexander imposed a cult of himself as son of Ammon, but he fails to provide any source to
support his claim.
101
Hamilton (1953) 151, states that the sonship was not a true belief, but a political tool. Hammond (1980)
127-8, even entertains the idea that the sonship was a later invention.
102
Diod. 4.38, relates briefly Heracles' divinisation. For an ancient account on Heracles see: Eur. Her.
103
Stewart (1993) 95; Bosworth (1988) 282-3; Cartledge (2004) 222; Green (1991) 270; Hammond (1980)
122; Hamilton (1973) 14, 77. See also: Hdt. 6.67-70, for Damaratus' example.
104
For Alexander wearing Ammon's robes see: Athen. 537e-f. For Alexander as incarnated Ammon and the
coins he minted see: Bosworth (1988) 287, (1977) 51.
105
Stewart (1993) 95.

22
the sources indicate.106 Therefore, it is clear that Alexander's sonship concerning Ammon

did not grant him any kind of divine honours, and the evidence to state the opposite is

scarce and inconclusive.

Another consequence of the visit to Africa is that the King, having eliminated the

Persian threat in the country, apparently became the Pharaoh of Egypt. This title has been

used by some scholars to state that Alexander was deified in that place.107 Although there is

a scholarly debate among Egyptologists regarding the divinity of the Pharaoh, many of

them lean toward the idea that he was divine.108 However, none of the extant sources

mentions a ceremony of coronation where Alexander assumed the formal titles

corresponding to a king in Egypt.109 Therefore, it is not even clear that Alexander was

considered Pharaoh.110 Let us assume both scenarios. If Alexander was not crowned and

did not officially assume the title of King of Egypt, there is no reason to state that he was

worshipped as a divine ruler. On the other hand, if Alexander was enthroned as Pharaoh,111

the silence in the sources for what would have been a pompous event is suspicious. Also, if

acquiring this title implied becoming a god, the most likely reaction of Alexander was to

make the most of it and use it to promote his legitimacy. However, nothing like this is

mentioned in the sources, either within or outside Egypt. If Alexander was crowned, it did

106
For the problem of Alexander disavowing Philip due to his 'divine father' see: Arr. Anab. 4.9.9, 7.8.3; Curt.
4.10.3, 6.11.21-4; Diod. 17.108.3; Plut. Alex. 28.1-2. For comments see: Hamilton (1953) 151-7, (1999) 74;
Carney (2006) 92-103; Edmunds (1971) 380; Fredricksmeyer (1990) 309-312; Tarn (1948) 351 n. 3;
Bosworth (1977) 64-5, 71, (1988) 282-3; Wilcken (1967) 219.
107
Green (1991) 269-70; Stoneman (2004) 100; Cartledge (2004) 222-3; Worthington (2004) 278; Wilcken
(1967) 210; Hammond (1980) 122.
108
For discussion and bibliography about the divinity of the Pharaoh see: Wiedeman (1897) 175-7; Petrie
(1924) 16-8; Shafer (1997) 2-4; Hornung (1971) 140-2.
109
Green (1991) 269, has the audacity of giving an exact date: 14 November 332 BC and he, as expected,
fails to mention his source for his date.
110
Badian (1981) 45, (2006) 247.
111
Wilcken (1967) 114; Fredricksmeyer (2000) 146, believe it was crowned.

23
not mean anything important for him.112 In conclusion, the possible position of Alexander's

as Pharaoh in Egypt is not definitive proof to state his divinisation.

One last topic concerning Egypt still remains, namely, the foundation of Alexandria.

This fact is attested by all the sources with some minor differences among them.113 Due to

the great success and growth of the city, it is possible that Alexander received founder's or

hero cult. However, since there is no evidence to support this, no modern historian

considers it as serious material for stating the worship of Alexander.114

Considering all the evidence presented in this chapter, there is no reason to attest

that Alexander's presence in Egypt meant any kind of cult or worship for him. The

information contained in the sources is not completely clear and there are several gaps for

the modern historian to assume or speculate in the field. Ultimately, Worthington's

statement115 is merely speculative, as are the arguments of those authors who seek to find in

Egypt enough material to warrant Alexander's deification.

112
For this approach to the subject see: Badian (2006) 247-8, who also deals with Alexander's depiction as
Pharaoh in a temple at Luxor.
113
Plut. Alex. 26.2-6; Arr. Anab. 3.1.5-2.2; Curt. 4.8.1-2; Diod. 17.52.1-7. Plutarch alone mentions both
Alexander's dream about Pharos and the birds eating the city's delineation. For comments on this portents see:
Hamilton (1999) 66-8.
114
Badian (2006) 250, entertains the idea and discards it quickly.
115
See above n. 83

24
 Chapter 4: Proskynesis

In the spring of 327 BC, Alexander tried to introduce the Persian ceremonial salutation,

known by the Greek term proskynesis, into his court. This episode has been used by some

scholars to show that Alexander looked for his own deification among Greeks and

Asians.116 For these academics, proskynesis was "a logical vehicle for all of his subjects to

recognise his divine status".117 In this chapter, the extant sources for this passage will be

analysed in order to assert if it is possible to draw a conclusion about Alexander's

deification.

In their accounts, Alexander historians attest two different attempts to introduce this

protocol. Arrian relates both logoi: The first one took place in a large banquet. Being

Alexander present, Anaxarchus, renowned philosopher and member of the King's court,

spoke up and began eulogising Alexander's achievements. Eventually, he said that the time

had come to recognise Alexander's divinity through the performance of proskynesis.

Callisthenes, the King's historian and also member of the court reacted against the proposal

disagreeing with Anaxarchus' arguments and the excessive veneration he was trying to

generate around Alexander. His words provoked a relief among the Macedonians, who

were surprised by Anaxarchus' proposal. The King realised his attempt did not have the

effect he desired and desisted from it.118 The second attempt took place in a smaller feast.

Alexander sent around a golden cup from where people had to drink, perform proskynesis

and then be kissed by the King. When it was time for Callisthenes to do so he drank from

116
Bosworth (1988) 287, (1996) 109; Worthington (2004) 280; Stoneman (2004) 73; Edmunds (1971) 378.
117
Worthington (2004) 280.
118
Arr. Anab. 4.10.5-12.2. For a full analysis on the discussion between Anaxarchus and Callisthenes see:
Borza (1981) 73-86; Brown (1949) 225-48.

25
the cup, omitted proskynesis and tried to kiss Alexander who was distracted in a

conversation with Hephaestion. Demetrius, one of the Companions, warned the King that

the historian had not done proskynesis and Alexander refused Callisthenes' kiss, who then

remarked "I shall go away short of a kiss".119 After that the experiment was abandoned and

never attempted again. However, the Asian subjects continued performing it. Curtius relates

only the first logos, but he replaces Anaxarchus by a certain Cleon.120 Plutarch, on the other

hand, mentions only the second story.121 And finally, there is a lacuna in Diodorus' account,

and this episode is not mentioned. Of these narrations, which one really occurred? Both? If

so, which one took place first and which one second? These questions had been addressed

by many scholars and, though interesting, their theories are not entirely relevant for this

dissertation's aim.122 What is relevant is that Alexander tried to introduce a Persian

salutation into his own Macedonian court and failed.

There is one more question to ask: What are the meanings and implications of

proskynesis? This Greek word is usually translated as 'obeisance', but the verb

literally means 'to blow a kiss'.123 Greeks used this concept to refer to the Persian

ceremonial salutation that the subjects performed before the Great King. There are two

ways in which it could be done: it could be simply a slight stooping forward and the

simultaneous blowing of a kiss, or it could imply a complete prostration before the

monarch.124 In both ancient and modern times it is a sign of deep respect for the individual

119
Arr. Anab. 4.12.3-7
120
Curt. 8.5.5-24. For Cleon see: Heckel (2006) 89.
121
Plut. Alex. 54.3-4
122
For this discussion see: Balsdon (1950) 371-9; Badian (1981) 28-32; Bosworth (1988) 285-6; Green
(1991) 374-6; Hammond (1980) 198; Hamilton (1973) 105-6; Edmunds (1971) 386-90; Brown (1949) 243-5;
Taylor (1927) 57-61; Wilcken (1967) 169.
123
Balsdon (1950) 374. For proskynesis as 'obeisance' see Brunt's translation: Arr. Anab. 4.10.5-12.7
124
Bosworth (1988) 284; Hammond (1980) 178; Stoneman (2004) 73.

26
receiving it.125 As of its meaning, in the Persian world proskynesis was a social protocol

where the 'lower-status' person does obeisance before the 'higher-status' person. For

example, a court member performed it before a Satrap or a Satrap before the King. It was

an Achaemenid tradition found at every level of the Persian society and practiced for

centuries before Alexander's arrival to Asia.126 However, in the Greek world this act had a

strict religious meaning. They performed proskynesis only before the gods, and to do so

before a mortal would have been seen as both impious and undignifying.127 Also, since they

saw the Persian subjects as slaves of the Great King, to perform this before him or any

other mortal would have been against their freedom (eleutheria).128 This seems to be the

origin of a certain Greek misconception about obeisance. Since they reserved it only for

deities, when seeing Persians performing proskynesis before the King, some ancient authors

associated this protocol with a form of worship and, therefore, gave a divine status to a

monarch who, in his own culture, did not hold.129 Nowhere in the sources is mentioned that

the King of Asia was divine. Moreover, the fact that he was offered this salutation, which in

other culture the Greek was reserved strictly for gods, did not mean that he was divine.130

Furthermore, the extant sources show that Alexander's Companions did not object to

125
Marti (1936) 272-82, remains the most complete study available about this concept and its development
through the Greek and Roman worlds.
126
Hdt. 1.134, attests its existence and modus operandi. See also: Wilcken (1967) 210-11.
127
Various ancient authors testify this: Diog. Laert. 6.37-8; Arist. Rhet. 1361a; Xen. Hell. 4.1.35-36. See also:
Bosworth (1988) 284, (1996) 109; Cartledge (2004) 222-3; Balsdon (1950) 375; Green (1991) 372-3;
Hamilton (1973) 105; Stoneman (2004) 73; Tarn (1948) 359-60.
128
Bosworth (1996) 110. Hdt. 7.136, attests Spartans ambassadors who refused to do obeisance before the
Persian Monarch.
129
Aeschylus is the main exponent of this mistake. See: Aesch. Per. 619-56 . For Aeschylus' use of the term
proskynesis see: Couch (1931) 316-8. For further analysis see: Balsdon (1950) 375-6; Wilcken (1967) 168;
Hammond (1980) 262; Green (1991) 373.
130
Balsdon (1950) 375; Badian (2006) 253; Bosworth (1988) 284; Cartledge (2004) 222-3; Green (1991) 372;
Hamilton (1973) 105; Tarn (1948) 359; Brown (1949) 243. Contra Taylor (1927) 53-62; McEwan, (1934) 1-
34, who seem to be the only ones that attaches a divine status to the Great King and a religious meaning in
doing obeisance before him.

27
Persians doing proskynesis; they only laughed at them because they considered the act

ridiculous and humiliating, not blasphemous.131

Why, then, the Macedonian King attempted to introduce a ceremony that had high

chances to be rejected by the Greeks and Macedonians who were following him? The

scholars who stated that Alexander was looking for divine recognition through this protocol

seem to agree that, taking advantage of this confusion about the meaning of proskynesis,

Alexander attempted to send a subtle message to his court signalling that he deserved

divine honours, but he did it disguised under the Persian obeisance.132 Nevertheless, this is

not the only answer to this question. Other scholars propose another plausible explanation

for the Macedonian King's introduction of obeisance. A common feature on Alexander was

to try to be recognised as the legitimate King of Asia. This aspiration is attested in what has

been called the 'orientalising policy'.133 Alexander allowed the conquered governors to

continue exercising their ruling,134 included Asian troops in his army,135 treated those

conquered respectfully,136 wore Median clothes,137 and arranged marriages between Asians

and Macedonians, among other measures.138 Consequently, to introduce a Persian

salutation in his court seems to be one more step in his schedule as King of Persia. If he

wanted to create a united kingdom where Greeks, Macedonians, and Asians could live in

131
Arr. Anab. 2.12.6, 4.12.2; Diod. 17.37.5; Curt. 8.5.22; Plut. Alex. 74.2. See also: Bosworth (1988) 286;
Green (1991) 373; Balsdon (1950) 376; Brown (1949) 241.
132
See above n. 117, especially Worthington.
133
For this policy see: Hammond (1980) 262.
134
Mithrenes in Sardis (Arr. Anab. 1.17.4); Calas in Phrygia and Sabictas in Cappadocia (Arr. Anab. 2.4.2);
Abulites in Susiana (Arr. Anab. 3.16.9); Oxydates in Media (Arr. Anab. 3.20.3); Menon in Arachosia (Arr.
Anab. 3.28.1); and Porus in India (Arr. Anab. 5.21.5) are some examples.
135
Arr. Anab. 6.6.1; Plut. Alex. 47.3
136
Arr. Anab. 1.17.4, 2.12.3-6; Plut. Alex. 21.1
137
Arr. Anab. 4.7.4; Plut. Alex. 45.1
138
Arr. Anab. 7.7.4; Plut. Alex. 70.2

28
peace, he could not afford to treat them in different ways. Hence, to have one single court

protocol seems to be appropriate in his plan.139

Although both interpretations of this passage are plausible, the one that holds that

Alexander was looking for divine honours falls short. As seen above, proskynesis had no

religious implications in the Persian world, and the Great King was not believed to be a

divine being. Therefore, in my opinion, if Alexander was in pursuit of deification by doing

so, he was looking in the wrong place; proskynesis was not a road leading to divinisation.

By having Persians in his court I reckon Alexander was aware of this. Furthermore, the

mere fact of looking for divinisation through obeisance does not imply ipso facto its

acquisition. If some Greeks adopted the Persian salutation and practised it before him, it is

not proof enough that he was deified during his lifetime. Hence, the question about his

intention to introduce proskynesis can be answered in two opposite ways but the simple

proposal of including a court salutation seems to be more likely. In conclusion, this episode

does not bring definitive information to state that Alexander was deified during his lifetime.

It may shed light on the King's self-image and ego, but a huge ego does not suffice to turn

mortals into gods.

139
This interpretation is proposed by many scholars: Balsdon (1950) 376-8; Badian (2006) 254; Hammond
(1980) 262; Cartledge (2004) 222-4; Green (1991) 373-4; Wilcken (1967) 168-9; Hamilton (1973) 105-6;
Tarn (1948) 361-2; Brown (1949) 240.

29
 Chapter 5: Cults

This chapter will analyse the evidence for the alleged cults of Alexander in the last years of

his life. The first part will discuss the order of deification that Alexander supposedly sent

from Susa in 324 BC to the continental Greeks and the discussion this decree aroused in

Athens and Sparta. Many scholars have used this order from the King to attest that

Alexander was, in fact, deified and worshipped during his lifetime.140 In the next lines the

extant sources will be analysed to clarify the matter and see whether the modern scholars'

claim has basis or not. The second part will explore possible cults in Asia Minor, notably,

in Ephesus in order to know if such cults were real and supported in the sources. Finally,

Hephaestion's death will be explored to find whether the honours the King asked to be

bestowed upon him can lead to conclusive arguments about Alexander's deification.

Order of deification

Alexander's order to the Greeks is not attested in the main sources. It is Aelian, the third

century Roman writer, who attested its existence:

When Alexander had defeated Darius and taken over the Persian empire he was very proud

of his achievement. Feeling himself raised to the level of divinity by the good fortune which
141
had now overtaken him, he sent an instruction to the Greeks to vote him divine honours.

140
Heckel (2004) 221; Bosworth (1996) 131-2, (1988) 288; Fredricksmeyer (1990) 312; Tarn (1948) 370;
Green (1991) 452; Wilcken (1967) 210-2; Hammond (1980) 253; Stoneman (2004) 99.
141
Ael. VH. 2.19

30
Plutarch, in his Moralia, also made a reference to it:

Damis (in Sparta), with reference to the instructions sent from Alexander that they should

pass a formal vote deifying him, said 'we concede to Alexander that, if he so wishes, he may

be called a god'.142

Nevertheless, both accounts arouse several problems. Together with this order, Alexander

sent another decree, which has been known as "exiles' decree", in which the Macedonian

King allowed at least twenty thousand exiles to return to their cities in Greece, costing him

many problems.143 Since the relevance of this decree was considerable, anyone would

expect to find it in all the sources, together with the deification decree. However, only

Curtius and Diodorus mention it.144 Arrian and Plutarch omit both decrees; therefore, the

absence of the order of deification in their accounts is not surprising. Nonetheless, the fact

that Diodorus and Curtius only mention the exiles' decree and omit the other, which in

practice was of the same or even more importance, raises suspicions about its very

existence. Why would these two authors only refer to one decree and not to the other? Was

the exiles' decree so important as to deserve to be mentioned alone? Anyone with some

formation in the history of Ancient Greece would know that the exiles' decree was a

violation by Alexander of the inherent freedom of the Greek cities. Also, anyone would

also know that an order of deification from a Macedonian King, who was also being

questioned by his orientalisation and barbaric practices, represents a revolution in the

religious and theological traditions of the Ancient Greek world. Therefore, there is no

142
Plut. Mor. 219d
143
For a complete study of this decree and its repercussions see: Bosworth (1998) 220-228.
144
Diod. 18.8.2; Curt. 10.2.4.

31
reason to think that the exiles' decree was more relevant than the order of deification,

consequently, provoking the omission of the latter. The conclusion seems to be evident:

such deification decree was never issued. Moreover, Plutarch's account in the Moralia is

vague. It is not clear if he is stating that there was such a decree or if he is only reporting

what Damis remarked when referring to it. In other words, it is not clear whether he is

reporting a rumour or a fact. This clarity comes from his account on the life of Alexander.

If Plutarch omitted this order of deification in his biography of Alexander, where the

pursuit of divinisation is a transversal topic, it might be because he did not know about its

existence or because he thought it was false.145 Therefore, the true existence of this decree

is far from being reliable and certain and, in Cartledge words, "there is no unimpeachable

positive evidence that Alexander ever ordered his own deification from anybody".146

Why, then, some scholars insist on the veracity of this order? There are four main

pieces of evidence which attest the discussion of the divinity of Alexander in mainland

Greece and that led these modern historians to believe this. The first one is a motion put

forward in the assembly by an Athenian orator called Demades to make Alexander the

thirteenth god.147 The motion was strongly defeated and the enthusiast orator was fined ten

talents.148 Moreover, Demades' reasons for proposing such an impious idea are not

mentioned. Additionally, it is worth noting that this passage is not attested in the main

sources. It cannot be stated, then, that he did this at Alexander's own request. Furthermore,

since the motion was openly rejected, it is evident that it did not lead to a cult for the

145
See Balsdon (1950) 384-7; Cawkwell (2006) 263-4, who make a very good analysis of these and other
considerations regarding the problems aroused by the authenticity of this decree.
146
Cartledge (2004) 224-5. For this approach to the subject see also: Balsdon (1950) 384-7; Lane Fox (2004)
441; Cawkwell (2006) 263-4; Hamilton (1973) 139; Badian (2006) 258. Even Worthington (2004) 281, who
is eager to prove systematically that Alexander was crazy because of his alleged search of deification
recognises the falseness of this passage.
147
Ael. VH. 5.12; Athen. 251b. For Demades see: Heckel (2006) 106-7.
148
Athenaeus attests ten talents, while Aelian gives the unlikely sum of a hundred talents.

32
King.149 The second piece is an apophthegm attributed to Demosthenes, in which he

remarked that Alexander could be the son of Zeus if he wanted, or even of Poseidon for

what he was concerned.150 There are two comments to make about this. Demosthenes, if he

ever pronounced such words, was being clearly ironic about the issue. He said, in modern

words, that he did not care what Alexander believed or aspirated to be.151 Furthermore, the

title involved is the King's claim to be the son of Zeus, not a god in his own right. A few

centuries later the Greek historian Polybius quoted another historian called Timaeus who

praised Demosthenes and other Athenian orators of this period for rejecting Alexander's

claims of divinity.152 This proves that in the annals of history Demosthenes was against the

deification of Alexander and this, knowing the orator's attitude towards the Macedonian

hegemony, represented no surprise. The third piece related to the discussion of Alexander's

divinity in Greece is to be found in Hyperides, an Athenian orator and contemporary of

Demosthenes. He, referring to the difficulties that the Athenians had to endure under the

Macedonian hegemony, remarked, "sacrifices are made to men, and while statues, altars,

and temples to the gods are neglected, those to men are carefully cultivated. We ourselves

are forced to honour their slaves as heroes".153 He seems to be referring to Alexander and

his "slave" Hephaestion.154 However, no direct mention is made about him. Also, it could

be said that Alexander was worshipped in these 'temples, altars, and statues', however, there

is no archaeological evidence to support it. If these temples supposedly existed, and if they

149
For comments see: Badian (1981) 54; Balsdon (1950) 383; Tarn (1948) 363, 373; Bosworth (1988) 288-9;
Hamilton (1973) 138-9; Stoneman (2004) 99. Also, a plausible response to this penalty is given in a later
source: Val. Max. 7.2 ext. 13, states that Demades said to his fellows Athenians "take care that in guarding the
heavens you don't lose the earth".
150
Hyper. Dem. 31
151
For comments on Demosthenes' remark see: Badian (1981) 54, (2006) 257; Balsdon (1950) 383-5; Green
(1991) 464.
152
Polyb. 12.12b.3
153
Hyper. Epitaph. 21
154
Hephaestion's honours will be analysed later in this chapter.

33
were dedicated to Alexander, which kind of honours did he receive? Were they divine,

heroic, or as ruler? Hyperides' remark attests that men acquired more relevance in the

religious field in that period, not that Alexander was deified and worshipped as a god, in

Athens, during his lifetime.155 The final piece of evidence is attested by Arrian. He relates

that Alexander, being at Babylon in 324 BC, received several embassies from all places,

and that "embassies too came from Greece at this juncture and their envoys, crowned

themselves, came forward and crowned Alexander with golden crowns, as if actually come

on a sacred embassy to honour a god".156 This passage has been used by some scholars to

attest both the existence of Alexander's decree of deification and the positive answer from

the Greek cities.157 However, Arrian's language is evidently rhetorical; he is trying to

enhance the fact that these embassies from Greece treated Alexander with great pomposity

and flattery, which was commonplace among his subjects. Why did they do that? Were they

trying to persuade Alexander not to apply the exiles' decree? Were they looking for benefits

to their cities? Which cities were present in this embassy? Is this proof that Alexander

issued the order of deification? Unfortunately, Arrian does not provide enough information

to answer these questions. However, if they really meant recognition of divinity, it is

plausible to think that Arrian, in his summary of Alexander's life and characteristics at the

end of his work, would have mentioned that Alexander was deified by the Greeks before

his death, but nothing like this is mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that the very existence of

155
Cawkwell (2006) 265-6, analysed the topic in deep and built a strong argument against Hyperides' words.
Badian (2006) 257-8; Parker (2011) 281, state correctly that simple honours do not imply deification, not
even if this honours are similar to those given to the gods.
156
Arr. Anab. 7.23.2
157
Wilcken (1967) 214; Hamilton (1973) 139; Badian (1981) 55-9.

34
the deification decree and its recognition by the Greeks are both very implausible, and that

they can not be used to state Alexander's divinity.158

Asia Minor

The second group of evidence that has been used to attest possible cults to the Macedonian

King are the events and data related to Asia Minor, specifically Ephesus. Several scholars

have taken the evidence for these cults as true and have stated that Alexander was

worshipped in this place as liberator and benefactor.159 The first piece is Pliny's account of

a painting by the prominent Greek painter Apelles in which Alexander is depicted holding a

thunderbolt. This depiction was located in the city's temple of Artemis.160 There are some

considerations to make regarding this portrayal. First, this account was written at least four

centuries after Alexander's death, and this piece is not mentioned in any of the sources

within that period. How did Pliny manage to get access to this information if nobody before

him attested it, not even, as far as we know, the vulgate tradition? Second, the account of

the Roman writer is very incomplete and unclear; it does not state the period when this

statue was dedicated or who commissioned it, let alone the meaning and context in which

was set up at the temple. And thirdly, assuming that there was indeed a statue of Alexander

holding a thunderbolt inside Artemis' temple, does this mean ipso facto a divine worship of

the Macedonian King? A more elaborated description of the statue concerning the materials

used, function, and the date of dedication would help to clarify the issue. However, as this

information is not present in Plinys account, Apelles' work is far from constituting

158
For this approach see: Balsdon (1950) 385; Bosworth (1988) 288; Cawkwell (2006) 268; Stoneman (2004)
100.
159
Cartledge (2004) 225; Lane Fox (2004) 439; Hammond (1980) 253.
160
Plin. NH. 35.92. For Apelles see: Heckel (2006) 39-40.

35
accurate evidence for a cult of Alexander.161 There is another passage in Strabo involving

the Ephesians. When Alexander was in the city, he intended to make an offering to the

gods, but the local people rejected it saying that it was inappropriate for a god referring to

Alexander to make offerings to other gods.162 The problems with this passage are similar.

Why is this episode not attested in any other source? How did Strabo come to know of this

reply? Who were 'the Ephesians' who rejected the offering? Was it the whole town? Were

they just the priests? At most, ignoring the problems with the authenticity of the passage, it

can be said that some Ephesians entertained the idea that Alexander was a god, but there is

no evidence at all that he was worshipped as such or that an official cult was introduced at

the city.163

Honours to Hephaestion

The final evidence for a possible cult of Alexander is related to Hephaestions death in 324

BC. Some scholars hypothesise the idea that, when Alexander requested honours for his

beloved friend, he did so by thinking he deserved equal treatment,164 or even more than

that.165 As shown in chapter 2, when Hephaestion passed away, a great sorrow took hold of

Alexander and he mourned his friend in an 'achillean' manner.166 But grieving was not

enough for the King to honour the memory of his friend so he sent a request to the oracle at

161
Badian (1981) 63 n.59; (2006) 256, agrees with this conclusion.
162
Strab. 14.1.22. See also: Bosworth (1988) 290.
163
Badian (2006) 256, considers Artemidorus as the source for this passage and regards it as true. However,
he recognises that it is inconclusive and that does not allow drawing a conclusion about Alexander's divinity.
164
Stoneman (2004) 100-1.
165
Worthington (2004) 282.
166
For accounts other than those in n. 73-75, see: Ael. VH. 7.8; Luc. Cal. 17. For modern analysis of
Alexander's measures after Hephaestion death see: Lane Fox (2004) 457-8; Green (1991) 465-6; Bosworth
(1996) 129.

36
Siwa to give Hephaestion the honours of a hero, which is attested by many sources.167

Among these accounts, only Justin and Diodorus mention that Alexander did not request

heroic but divine honours.168 Modern historians have been discussing the issue without

reaching an agreement.169 Regardless of which historian gives the right account, the

outcome is the same for this work. Stoneman's reasoning is that since Alexander requested

from his father Ammon to bestow honours upon Hephaestion as hero, he must have thought

that he was already in the category of a god to make such a demand.170 As showed in the

Introduction, the making of a hero did not depend on personal petitions. A hero must have

performed great actions, which must be recognised by the people. Also, it was the people

who, through prayers and oracles, would ask the gods for such honours.171 Since any city

was capable of asking for hero honours for a certain remarkable person, the mere fact of

doing this does not say anything about the divine category of the one making the petition.

Therefore, Stoneman's reasoning is wrong in every sense. Worthington, on the other hand,

asserts that Alexander requested hero honours and, considering himself superior to

Hephaestion, he was implying that the honours fitted to him should be superior, namely,

divine.172 Nowhere in the sources there exists any piece of evidence suggesting that

Alexander thought himself to be in a higher level than Hephaestion. On the contrary, all the

evidence indicates that the King considered his friend as the only one worthy of being

167
Arr. Anab. 7.14.7; Plut. Alex. 72.2. There is evidence that this cult was also instituted in Athens: Hyper.
Epitaph. 21
168
Diod. 17.115.6; Just. 12.12.12
169
For this discussion see: Bosworth (1988) 288; Badian (2006) 257; Worthington (2004) 288, who state that
Alexander requested only hero honours. Contra Green (1991) 466; Hammond (1980) 247, 253.
170
See above n. 164.
171
See also: Parker (2011) 273-77.
172
See n. above 165.

37
called his equal.173 Both Worthington's and Stoneman's reasoning, lacks of sense and

evidence to support it. And, in the event their assumptions were correct, that is, that

Alexander thought to be greater than Hephaestion and that the honours he deserved were

divine, it would only provide information about the King's psychology and self-image, but

it does not say anything about what really happened among his subjects and allies, and

much less about cults towards him.174 Therefore, the passage about Hephaestion's death

does not provide any substantial information to attest any type of cult of Alexander, either

as hero or god.

To conclude, the extant evidence related to alleged cults of Alexander does not

clearly prove that he was deified or that he received divine honours in any place during his

life. To make sense of this evidence, many assumptions have to be made, and many

concessions must be accepted. At the most, it can be said that Alexanders divinity was

discussed, and it is highly likely that Alexander himself thought that he was more than a

simple mortal, but any other assertion is not based on firm ground. There is a gap between

the evidence and a confident statement of the existence of cults worshipping Alexander,

and serious scholars, despite their own inclinations and opinions about the historical figure

under study, are obliged to recognise it.

173
The most famous passage is when Sisygambis, Darius' mother, confused them at Babylon: Curt. 3.12.17;
Diod. 17.37.5-6.
174
Badian (1981) 55, shares this conclusion.

38
 Conclusion

The aim of this dissertation was to analyse last century's widespread statement about

the divinisation of Alexander the Great during his lifetime. The most relevant ancient

evidence and modern works were examined to see whether this belief was strongly

supported. The first chapter dealt with models and lineage with which Alexander grew up.

Conclusions showed that although it would be plausible to think that these stimulated

Alexander to conceive himself more than a simple mortal, they are not enough to

substantiate the claim of his deification.

The second chapter examined the systematic emulation that the Macedonian King

displayed towards Achilles and Heracles, proving that the mere fact of emulating a hero did

not turn Alexander into one. The third chapter studied the visit of Alexander to the oracle at

Siwa and the status of Son of Zeus he acquired there. However, it was shown that,

regardless of how positive his self-image was, the title of being the son of a god is far from

constituting evidence about his own deification. The fourth chapter dealt with the

introduction of proskynesis in Alexander's court. It was proven that this salutation did not

imply recognition of divinity, and to say otherwise is a mistake based on Greek traditions

and protocols. And finally, the fifth chapter analysed the evidence for possible cults of

Alexander and the alleged order of deification he sent to Greece in 324 BC. It was

concluded, however, that the evidence is scarce and unclear to prove both, that this decree

ever existed, and that the Greek cities accepted and embraced this petition. Also, it was

shown that the scarce sources are not conclusive regarding the existence of a cult of

Alexander in Ephesus. And finally, it was also demonstrated that the honours Alexander

39
requested for Hephaestion after his death may speak up about his own image, but they are

far from constituting a solid proof of his own deification.

Some scholars have criticised and rejected the approach I have used in this

dissertation, namely, to analyse each passage separately. In their view, the deification of

Alexander must be understood as a process, from Siwa to Susa, from the sonship of Zeus to

the order of deification, and only through this it would be possible to understand the

problem and Alexander's self-image as a god.175 However, my aim here was not to clarify

the obscure and erratic world of Alexander's psychology, nor to understand the

development of his self-image as a god. To say that Alexander truly and strongly believed

himself to be a god does not preclude the possibility that this conviction was never

materialised in a formal cult.

Many questions have remained open. Apparently, the deification of Alexander

became a real fact only during the first decades of his Successors who used Alexander's

image to legitimate their own positions as monarchs. It would be interesting to extend this

work to include this period to see whether my thesis' argument remains the same or if the

relevant evidence refutes it. It would be equally appealing to study and analyse to which

extent Alexander's example influenced Roman Emperors to think of themselves as gods,

deserving recognition and cult.

175
Badian (1981) 63-4, followed by Bosworth, is the main expositor of this posture.

40
 Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Anonymous (1991) The Greek Alexander Romance. Trans. Stoneman, R. Penguin. London
Aelian (1997) Historical Miscellany. Trans. Wilson, N. Loeb Classical Library. London
Aeschylus (2008) Persians. Trans. Sommerstein, A. Loeb Classical Library. London
Aristotle (1994) Rhetoric. Trans. Freese, J. Loeb Classical Library. London
Arrian. (1976) Anabasis of Alexander. Vol. I. Trans. Brunt, P. Loeb Classical Library.
London
_____ (1983) Anabasis of Alexander and Indica. Vol. II. Trans. Brunt, P. Loeb Classical
Library. London
Athenaeus (1943) The Deipnosophists. Vol. V. Trans. Burton, C. Loeb Classical Library.
London
Clement of Alexandria (1919) Exhortation to the Greeks. Trans. Butterworth, G. Loeb
Classical Library. London
Diodorus Siculus (1963) Library of History. Vol. VIII. Trans. Bradford, C. Loeb Classical
Library. London
_____ (1967) Library of History. Vol. II. Trans. Oldfather, C. Loeb Classical Library.
London
_____ (1980) Library of History. Vol. VII. Trans. Sherman, C. Loeb Classical Library.
London
Diogenes Laertius (1995) Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. II. Trans. Hicks, R. Loeb
Classical Library. London
Euripides (1996) Heracles. Trans. Barlow, S. Aris & Phillips. Warminster, England
_____ (2002) Bacchae. Trans. Kovacs, D. Loeb Classical Library. London
Herodotus (1969) The History. Trans. Grene, D. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago
and London
Hyginus (1993) Fabulae. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum. Stuttgart
Hyperides (2001a) Against Demosthenes. Trans. Worthington, I. University of Texas Press.
Austin

41
_____ (2001b) Funeral Oration. Trans. Worthington, I. University of Texas Press.
Austin
Isocrates (1928) Oration to Philip. Trans. Norlin, G. Loeb Classical Library. London
_____ (1998) Letter to Philip, II. Trans. Van Hook, L. Loeb Classical Library. London
Justin (1994) Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Trans. Yardley, J.
American Philological Association. Atlanta
Lucian (1913) Calumniae non temere credendum. Trans. Harmon, A. Loeb Classical
Library. London
Pausanias (1977) Description of Greece. Vol. II. Trans Jones, W. Loeb Classical Library.
London
Pindar (1915a) The Nemean Odes. Trans. Sandys, J. Loeb Classical Library. London
_____ (1915b) The Pythian Odes. Trans. Sandys, J. Loeb Classical Library. London
Pliny (1961) Natural History. Trans. Rackman, H. Loeb Classical Library. London
Plutarch (1949) Sayings of Spartans. Trans. Babbitt, F. Loeb Classical Library. London
_____ (1961) Alexander's life. Trans. Perrin, B. Loeb Classical Library. London
_____ (1972) On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander. Trans. Cole, F. Loeb Classical
Library. London
Polybius (2000) The Histories. Vol. IV. Trans. Paton, W. Loeb Classical Library. London
Quintus Curtius Rufus (2004) The History of Alexander. Trans. Yardley, J. Penguin.
London
Strabo (1949) Geography. Vol. VIII. Trans. Jones, H. Loeb Classical Library. London
_____ (1960) Geography. Vol. VI. Trans. Jones, H. Loeb Classical Library. London
Thucydides (1956) History of the Peloponnesian War. Vol. I. Trans. Forster, Ch. Loeb
Classical Library. London
Valerius Maximus (2000) Memorable Doings and Sayings. Trans. Shackleton, D. Loeb
Classical Library. London
Virgil (1916) Aeneid. Vol. I. Trans. Rushton, H. Loeb Classical Library. London
Xenophon (1947) Hellenica. Vol. I. Trans. Brownson, C. Loeb Classical Library. London

42
Modern Works

Antela, B. (2007) "Alejandro Magno o la demostracin de la divinidad", in Faventia. Vol.

29. Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona. Barcelona. 89-103
Badian, E. (1981) "The deification of Alexander the Great", in Dell, H. ed. Ancient
Macedonian Studies in Honour of Charles F. Edson. Institute for Balkan Studies.
Thessaloniki. 27-71
_____ (2006) "Alexander the Great between two thrones and heaven: variations on and Old
theme", in Worthington, I. Alexander the Great. A reader. 1st. ed. Routledge. New
York. 245-262
Balsdon, J. (1950) "The 'Divinity' of Alexander", in Historia: Zeitschrift fr alte
Geschichte. Vol. 1. 363-388
Bellinger, A. (1963) Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great. The American
Numismatic Society. New York
Bloedow, E. (2004) "Egypt in Alexander's scheme of things", in Quaderni Urbinati di
Cultura Classica. Vol. 77. No. 2. 75-99
Borza, E. (1981) "Anaxarchus and Callisthenes. Academic intrigue at Alexander's court", in
Dell, H. ed. Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honour of Charles F. Edson. Institute
for Balkan Studies. Thessaloniki. 73-86
Bosworth, A. (1977) "Alexander and Ammon", in Kinzl, K. ed. Greece and the eastern
Mediterranean in ancient history and prehistory. W. de Gruyter. Berlin. 5175.
_____ (1980) A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander. Vol. 1.
Clarendon Press. Oxford
_____ (1988) Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge
_____ (1996) Alexander and the East. The tragedy of triumph. Clarendon Press. London
Brown, T. (1949) "Callisthenes and Alexander", in The American Journal of Philology.
Vol. 70. No. 3. 225-248
Brunt, P. (1976a) "Alexander and the heroes", in Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander. Vol. 1.
Loeb Classical Library. London. 464-466

43
_____ (1976b) "The visit to Siwa", in Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander. Vol. 1. Loeb
Classical Library. London. 467-80
_____ (1983) "Dionysus, Heracles, and India", in Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander and
Indica. Vol. 2. Trans. Brunt, P. Loeb Classical Library. London. 435-42
Carney, E. (1992) "The politics of polygamy: Olympias, Alexander, and the murder of
Philip", in Historia: Zeitschrift fr alte Geschichte. Vol. 41. 169-189
_____ (2000a) "The initiation of Cult for Royal Macedonian Women", in Classical
Philology. Vol. 95, N1. 21-43
_____ (2000b) "Artifice and Alexander's History", in Bosworth, A. and Baynham, E. eds.
Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 263-85
_____ (2006) Olympias. Mother of Alexander the Great. Routledge. New York and
London
Cartledge, P. (2004) Alexander the Great. The Hunt for a new past. Macmillan. London
Cawkwell, G. (2006) The deification of Alexander the Great: A note, in Worthington, I.
Alexander the Great. A reader. 1st. ed. Routledge. New York. 263-272
Cohen, A. (1995) "Alexander and Achilles", in Carter, J. and Morris, S. eds. The Ages of
Homer. University of Texas Press. Austin. 483-505
Couch, H. (1931) "Proskynesis and Abasement in Aeschylus", in Classical Philology. Vol.
23. No. 3. 316-8
Edmunds, L. (1971) "The religiosity of Alexander the Great", in Greek, Roman, and
Byzantine Studies. N 12. 363-91
Ehrenberg, V. (1963) "Pothos", in Griffith, G. ed. Alexander the Great. The Main
Problems. Heffer. Cambridge. 74-83
Ekroth, G. (2007) "Heroes and Hero-Cults", in Ogden, D. ed. A Companion to Greek
Religion. Blackwell. Oxford. 100-114
Farnell, L. (1970) Greek Hero Cults. Clarendon Press. Oxford
Fredricksmeyer, E. (1974) "Divine Honours for Philip II", in Transactions of the American
Philological Association. Vol. 109. 39-61
_____ (1990) "Alexander and Philip: emulation and resentment", in The Classical Journal
85, N4. 300-315

44
_____ (1997) "The origin of Alexander's Royal Insignia", in Transactions of the American
Philological Association. Vol. 127. 97-109
_____ (2000) "Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia", in Bosworth, A. and
Baynham, E. eds. Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford University
Press. Oxford. 136-166
_____ (2003) "Alexander's religion and divinity", in Brill's Companion to Alexander the
Great. Brill. Boston. 251-278
Fuller, J. (1998) The Generalship of Alexander the Great. Wordsworth. London
Green, P. (1991) Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography. University
of California Press. Los Angeles and London
_____ (1993) Alexander to Actium. The Hellenistic Age. Thames and Hudson. London
Hamilton, J. (1953) "Alexander and his 'so-called' father", in Classical Quarterly. Vol. 3.
151-7
_____ (1973) Alexander the Great. Hutchinson University Library. London
_____ (1999) Plutarch. Alexander. 2nd. ed. Bristol Classical Press. London
Hammond, N. and Griffith, G. (1979) A History of Macedonia. Vol. 2. Oxford University
Press. Oxford
Hammond, N. (1980) Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman. Chatto &
Windus. London
_____ (1994) Philip of Macedon. Duckworth. London
Heckel, W. and Yardley, J. (2004) Alexander the Great. Historical sources in translation.
Blackwell. Oxford
Heckel, W. (2006) Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Blackwell. Oxford
Hogarth, D. (1915) "Alexander in Egypt and some consequences", in The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology. Vol. 2. No. 2. 53-60
Hornblower, S. (1983) The Greek World. 479-323 BC. Methuen. London and New York
Hornung, E. (1971) Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. Trans. Baines, J. Routledge.
London
Kearns, E. (1989) "The Heroes of Attica", in Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies.
Sup. 57. London
Kernyi, C. (1959) The Heroes of the Greeks. Thames and Hudson. London

45
King, K. (1987) Achilles. Paradigms of the war hero from Homer to the Middle Ages.
University of California Press. Los Angeles and London.
Lane Fox, R. (2004) Alexander the Great. Penguin. London
Lapatin, K (2001) Chryselephantine statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford
University Press. Oxford
Larson, J. (2007) Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. Routledge. New York and London
Malkin, I. (1987) Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. E.J. Brill. New York
Marti, B. (1936) "Proskynesis and Adorare", in Language. Vol. 12. No. 4. 272-282
McEwan, C. (1934) "The Oriental origin of Hellenistic Kingship", in Studies in Ancient
Civilization. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. University of Chicago
Press. 1-34
Mikalson, J. (2005) Ancient Greek Religion. Blackwell. Oxford
Mrkholm, O. (1991) Early Hellenistic coinage. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
Nock, A. (1928) "Notes on Ruler Cult I-IV", in The Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. 48.
Part 1. 21-43
Oikonomides, A. (1981) The coins of Alexander the Great. Are Publishers. Chicago
Parke, H. (1967) The oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia, Ammon. Blackwell. Oxford
Parker, R. (2011) On Greek Religion. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London
Perrin, B. (1985) "Genesis and growth of an Alexander Myth", in Transactions of the
American Philological Association. N 26. 56-68
Petrie, F. (1924) Religious life in Ancient Egypt. Constable & Company Ltd. London and
Sydney
Shafer, B. (1997) Temples of Ancient Egypt. Cornell University Press. London and New
York
Stewart, A. (1993) Faces of power. Alexander's image and Hellenistic politics. University
of California Press. Los Angeles
Stoneman, R. (2004) Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. Routledge. New York
_____ (2010) Alexander the Great. A life in legend. Yale University Press. New Haven and
London
_____ (2012) Legends of Alexander the Great. I.B. Tauris. New York and London

46
Tarn, W. (1948) Alexander the Great. Sources and Studies. Vol. 2. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge
Taylor, L. (1927) "The 'Proskynesis' and the Hellenistic Ruler Cult", in The Journal of
Hellenic Studies. Vol. 47. Part 1. 53-62
Tod, M. (1948) A selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Vol. II. 1st. ed. Clarendon
Press. Oxford
Wiedeman, A. (1897) Religion of the Ancient Egyptians. H. Grevel & Co. London
Wilcken, U. (1967) Alexander the Great. Trans. Richards, G. WW Norton. New York and
London
Worthington, I (2004) Alexander the Great. Man and God. Pearson. London
Wycherley, R. (1978) The Stones of Athens. Princeton University Press. Princeton

47