Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

The aim of this article is to revisit the issue of Pompey the Great's imitatio Alexandri. Previous studies of the subject indicated that either the Roman general was involved in imitating the Macedonian king since youth or he was not doing it at all. Meanwhile, this article presents evidence indicating that the most likely scenario imply that the image of Pompey as the Roman Alexander was created during his eastern campaign against Mithridates. Moreover, it was probably Theophanes of Mytilene, Pompey's friend and trusted advisor, who developed this theme. Additionally, there is evidence indicating that Pompey tried to limit the use imitatio Alexandri primarily to the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire fearing that the ambiguous perception of Alexander in Rome would harm his image.

Pompey, was a character very much in the heart of the Roman World towards from the early first century to his murder at the hands of the Hellenistic Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy XIII. An ironic and rather lacklustre death for a man who had been a major part of Roman Politics for over a quarter of a century and in the Roman Military for even longer. Pompey is perhaps most famous for his defeat to Caesar in their civil war, this conflict however will not be touched on too heavily below as it draws away the focus from Rome and quickly becomes a history of ‘great men’. Pompey may be famous for his defeat, but as a military commander he was of one Rome’s greatest and the Greek East was one of the primary theatres for Pompey’s military actions. This dissertation paper looks at the role that the Greek East had on Pompey, and covers some, albeit not all of the issues that are raised in modern and classical sources.

This work attempts to combine detail from over a millennium into a manageable study of Pergamum, initially one of the most significant political and military role players in the Hellenistic World and thereafter a cultural leader in a world governed by Rome.

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great Edited by K.R. Moore leiden | boston For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Preface ix K.R. Moore List of Illustrations xii List of Contributors xiv part 1 Ancient Greek, Roman and Persian Receptions 1 Framing the Debate K.R. Moore 2 Attic Orators on Alexander the Great 41 Elias Koulakiotis 3 The Reception of Alexander’s Father Philip ii of Macedon 72 Sabine Müller 4 The Reception of Alexander in the Ptolemaic Dynasty 96 John Holton 5 Alexander after Alexander: Macedonian Propaganda and Historical Memory in Ptolemy and Aristobulus’ Writings 119 Giuseppe Squillace 6 The Reception of Alexander in Hellenistic Art 140 Olga Palagia 7 Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds 162 Shane Wallace 8 Alexander between Rome and Persia: Politics, Ideology, and History 197 Jacob Nabel 3 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV vi contents 9 Beyond Persianization: The Adoption of Near Eastern Traditions by Alexander the Great 233 James Mullen 10 Sons of Heracles: Antony and Alexander in the Late Republic 254 Kyle Erickson 11 The Ambivalent Model: Alexander in the Greek World between Politics and Literature (1st Century bc / beg. 1st Century ad) 275 Federicomaria Muccioli 12 The Latin Alexander: Constructing Roman Identity 304 Dawn L. Gilley 13 Alexander the Great in Seneca’s Works and in Lucan’s Bellum Civile 325 Giulio Celotto 14 Plutarch’s Alexander 355 Sulochana R. Asirvatham part 2 Later Receptions in the Near- and Far-East and the Romance Tradition 15 Alexander in the Jewish tradition: From Second Temple Writings to Hebrew Alexander Romances 379 Aleksandra Klęczar 16 Jews, Samaritans and Alexander: Facts and Fictions in Jewish Stories on the Meeting of Alexander and the High Priest 403 Meir Ben Shahar 17 The Reception of Alexander the Great in Roman, Byzantine and Early Modern Egypt 427 Agnieszka Wojciechowska and Krzysztof Nawotka 18 Byzantine Views on Alexander the Great 449 Corrine Jouanno For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV vii contents 19 Church Fathers and the Reception of Alexander the Great 477 Jaakkojuhani Peltonen 20 Medieval and Renaissance Italian Receptions of the Alexander Romance Tradition 503 Barbara Blythe 21 Syriac and Persian Versions of the Alexander Romance 525 Krzysztof Nawotka part 3 “Modern” and Postmodern Receptions 22 Alexander and Napoleon 545 Agnieszka Fulińska 23 The Men Who Would be Alexander: Alexander the Great and His Graeco-Bactrian Successors in the Raj 576 Rachael Mairs 24 Receptions of Alexander in Johann Gustav Droysen 596 Joseph Wiesehöfer 25 “The Unmanly Ruler”: Bagoas, Alexander’s Eunuch Lover, Mary Renault’s The Persian Boy, and Alexander Reception 615 Elizabeth Baynham and Terry Ryan 26 Alexander’s Image in German, Anglo-American and French Scholarship from the Aftermath of World War i to the Cold War Reinhold Bichler 27 Alexander as Glorious Failure: The Case of Robert Rossen’s Alexander the Great (1956) 675 Alastair J.L. Blanshard 28 Go East, Young Man: Adventuring in the Spirit of Alexander Margaret E. Butler 640 694 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV viii contents 29 The Great Misstep: Alexander the Great, Thais, and the Destruction of Persepolis 717 Alexander McAuley 30 Avoiding Nation Building in Afghanistan: An Absent Insight from Alexander 739 Jason Warren 31 The Artist as Art Historian: Some Modern Works on Alexander Ada Cohen 32 Alexander the Great Screaming Out for Hellenicity: Greek Songs and Political Dissent 795 Guendalina D.M. Taietti 33 The Conscience of the King: Alexander the Great and the Ancient Disabled 823 Alexandra F. Morris 754 Index 845 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV chapter 7 Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds* Shane Wallace Imitating Alexander Alexander is a product of later ages. The surviving literary sources—Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian, Justin—all wrote under the Roman Empire, from around the mid-first century bc to the start of the third century ad; almost all contemporary and Hellenistic historiography pertaining to Alexander is lost. Alexander, as we have him, is mostly a construct of the Roman world and is, therefore, open to continuous reinterpretation. By the late first century bc an alternate history had developed hypothesizing what would have happened had Alexander survived to invade Italy. Livy’s unsurprising conclusion was that like Pyrrhus and Hannibal he would have failed to conquer the Romans.1 Although his relevance in the Roman world has been doubted by some, Alexander exerted a strong influence on his Hellenistic and Roman successors. His afterlife in the Greek and Roman worlds has been much studied, but scholarship has generally focused on the importance of Alexander’s image for individual rulers or during specific historical periods and has invariably focused on imperial image making.2 In this chapter I challenge both these * I would like to thank to Andrew Erskine for his many useful comments and unhesitating willingness to read my work. Versions of this paper were presented as research seminars at Trinity College Dublin and the University of Newcastle. It has benefitted greatly from the input of both audiences. 1 Livy 9.16.19–19.17; Plut. Pyrrh. 19.2 Amm. Marc. 30.8.5; Flor. 1.23.2; cf. Julian. Ep. 47 [433c]; Hans Rudolf Breitenbach, “Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius”, Museum Helveticum 26 (1969); Ruth Morello, “Livy’s Alexander Digression (9.17–19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics”, Journal of Roman Studies 92 (2002); Nikolaus Overtoom, “A Roman Tradition of Alexander the Great Counterfactual History”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2012). 2 The bibliography is voluminous but see, in addition to the many relevant books and articles cited throughout this chapter, Dorothea Michel, Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius. Archäologische Untersuchungen (Brussels: Latomus, 1967); Otto © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359932_008 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 163 trends by examining Alexander’s reception thematically and by exploring the use of his name and image by subjects in their negotiations with ruling powers. By approaching the evidence from a different direction, this paper reveals new connections within the sources and new perspectives on Alexander’s ancient reception. My focus is on the role that receptions of Alexander the Great played in the interaction between rulers and subjects, kings and cities. I explore three aspects of Alexander’s reception. The first section, ‘Inventing Alexander’, examines invented or false claims to contact with Alexander. The second, ‘Localizing Alexander’, looks at Alexander’s local reception in three cities: Ephesus, Ilium, and Rome. The third, ‘Worshipping Alexander’, explores the afterlife of Alexander cults from the third century bc to the third century ad. Throughout each of these sections I examine the dynamics of Alexander’s reception in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, how it was local and adaptive, yet culturally and geographically diverse. My primary focus, however, is on its role in relations between ruler and subject. There are some methodological principles that need to be followed. In general terms we can distinguish between historic and historiographic imitation of Alexander, that is when an individual imitates or emulates Alexander and when an author makes a comparison between Alexander and an individual.3 Peter Green has expanded this picture somewhat by dividing engagement with Alexander into three types: imitatio, which is an imitation of a specific action, aemulatio, which is a general desire to rival or surpass, and comparatio, which is comparison between two individuals by an author.4 The suitability of such Latin terms, each with an English counterpart with its own specific meaning, to Weippert, Alexander-imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit (Augsburg: Augsburg: Julius-Maximilians-Universität, 1972); Claudia Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri im Hellenismus: Untersuchungen zum politischen Nachwirken Alexanders des Großen in hoch- und späthellenistischen Monarchien (Munich: Verlag V. Florentz, 1989); Jean-Michel Croisille, ed., Neronia iv: Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos (Brussels: Latomus, 1990); Diane Spenser, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2002); Elias Koulakiotis, Genese und Metamorphosen des Alexandermythos im Spiegel der griechischen nichthistoriographischen Überlieferung bis zum 3. Jh. n.Chr. (Konstanz: uvk Verlag, 2006); Angela Kühnen, Die Imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik (1. Jh. v. Chr.–3. Jh. n. Chr.) (Münster: Rhema Verlag, 2008). 3 A distinction made by J.S. Richardson, Review of Alexander-imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit, by Otto Weippert, Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974) and expanded in Peter Green, “Caesar and Alexander: aemulatio, imitatio, and comparatio”, American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978), though it is worth remembering that even historic imitatio is historiographic since our knowledge of it comes almost exclusively from written sources. 4 Green, “Caesar and Alexander”. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 164 wallace ancient Greek thought can be debated and Green’s classification can certainly be nuanced, but they offer useful ways of thinking about the evidence, provided they are not applied too rigorously.5 Receptions of Alexander were culturally adaptive and differed from the Hellenistic East to the Roman West. Republican generals such as Pompey and Caesar could not imitate or emulate Alexander in the same way as Hellenistic monarchs, who, for instance, often claimed direct descent from him. Alexander-imitatio also developed associated connections over time. Roman imitation of Alexander at Ilium developed alongside Roman kinship relations with the Trojans. Imitation of Alexander sometimes entailed imitation of his heroic predecessors, so when Caracalla sacrificed at Ilium he was both imitating Alexander and paralleling himself with Achilles.6 Scholarship has traditionally focused on how the ‘big men’ of history engaged with Alexander’s memory, but on a more local level cities and individuals took part in the same process. Cities such as Ilium and Ephesus had local traditions of benefactions made or actions undertaken by Alexander and so acted as lieux des mémoire for imitative behaviour by his successors. The local audience at such centres was important since Alexander-imitatio was a process of negotiation and the city’s local memory of Alexander could condition how a ruler acted. Inventing Alexander Connections or associations with Alexander were useful and were sought from the moment he died. Control of Alexander’s body, brother, child, wife, and army were sought and gained by Perdiccas in the immediate aftermath of Alexander’s death, though Ptolemy was able to gain control of Alexander’s body, which marked him as the king’s successor. Alexander’s body became an important feature of Hellenistic Alexandria, and was used by the city in its negotiations with the Roman emperors.7 Alexander’s Successors used his image widely on their coins, founded cities in his name, and in some cases named their children 5 Rowland Smith, “The Casting of Julian the Apostate ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander the Great. A Topos in Antique Historiography and its Modern echoes”, Histos 5 (2011): 48–49. 6 Regarding the issue of Alexander’s own imitatio and aemulatio, see Sabine Müller, “Die Problematik der Nachahmung—imitatio und aemulatio bei Alexander iii. von Makedonien”, in Plagiate. Fälschungen, Imitate und andere Strategien aus zweiter Hand, ed. Jochen Bung et al. (Berlin: Trafo, 2009). 7 Perdiccas: Shane Wallace, “Court, Kingship, and Royal Style in the Early Hellenistic Period”, in The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, ed. Andrew Erskine, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Shane Wallace (Swansea: Classical Press of For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 165 after him.8 His wife Rhoxane made dedications at the Athenian Panathenaea, perhaps in 318 (ig ii2 1492, ll. 45–57; seg liii/1 172), while Craterus displayed himself hunting with Alexander, “Asia’s much-praised monarch”, in the lion monument at Delphi (fd iii (4) 137; Plut. Alex. 40.3–4). Connections with Alexander had practical consequences. Pyrrhus of Epirus was compared with Alexander, particularly in regards to his martial valour, which ensured his popularity with the Macedonian soldiers of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who merely copied Alexander’s dress and luxurious tastes (Plu. Pyrrh. 8.1; Demetr. 44). Lysimachus’ personal connection with Alexander, however, trumped Pyrrhus’ imitatio causing Pyrrhus’ troops to abandon him for one of the last survivors of Alexander’s Successors (Plu. Pyrrh. 12.6–7).9 Connections were also made at a non-royal level. In his delightful series of vignettes, the Characters, Theophrastus describes “the boastful man” (xxiii), who would regale his companion with stories of how he fought with and knew Alexander. Such personal connections are widely emphasized in dedications by or honours for those who knew or fought with Alexander.10 Cities too emphasized their connections with Alexander. Rhodes recorded his dedications to Athena Lindia (i.Lindos 2, ll. 103–109 [xxxviii]), while Priene (ghi 86b = ik.Priene 1), Colophon (Mauerbauinschriften 69, ll. 6–7), and Erythrae (ik.Erythrai 31, ll. 22–23) all cited his guarantees of freedom (eleutheria) and/or autonomy (autonomia) in later inscriptions; other cities remembered Alexander as a guarantor of democracy.11 Cilician Soli used its connection with Alexander to ensure the weakening of royal billeting by a Ptolemaic or Seleucid 8 9 10 11 Wales, 2017), §§2–6. Alexander’s body: Andrew Erskine, “Life after Death: Alexandria and the Body of Alexander”, Greece & Rome 49 (2002). Karsten Dahmen, The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins (London: Routledge, 2007). Antigoneia in the Troad was re-founded as Alexandria Troas by Lysimachus, see Getzl M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 145–148. Cassander, Lysimachus, and Perseus of Macedon all had sons named Philip and Alexander, see Daniel Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 1999), 54–57, 57–62, 187–189. Sulochana Asirvatham, “The Memory of Alexander in Plutarch’s Lives of Demetrius, Pyrrhus and Eumenes”, in Power, Kingship and Memory in Ancient Macedonian History, ed. Timothy Howe and Francesca Pownall (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, Forthcoming). Philonides of Crete: i.Olympia 276–277. Cavalry from Thespiae and Orchomenos: ap 6.344; ig vii 3206; cf. seg xxix 552. Gorgos of Iasos: ghi 90b; ig iv (2) 616–617; ik.Iasos 24+30. Antigonus son of Kallas: ise 113. Archon of Pella: ghi 92. Aenetus of Rhodes: Agora xvi 101. Thersippus of Nesus: ig xii (2) 645 = ik.Adramytteion 34. Antigonid officer on Samos: ig xii (6) 28. A Macedonian soldier in Egypt: p.Hibeh 30. Shane Wallace, “Alexander the Great and Democracy in the Hellenistic World”, in The Hel- For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 166 wallace king in the late third century bc.12 However, for cities that did not have some connection with Alexander the Great to draw upon—a visit, benefaction, dedication, or letter—the temptation to invent one must have been great. Decades or centuries after his death it would have been nearly impossible to disprove the authenticity of a letter or dedication claimed to have been sent or made by Alexander. There are a number of cases of invented traditions where a city’s claim that Alexander visited it is unlikely or can be proven false. A dedication from the Lycian city of Xanthus by “King Alexander” has been argued by Jean and Louis Robert to be an ancient fake (seg xxx 1533; bé (1980) num. 487). Citing the poor quality of the inscription and the appearance of Ἀλέξανδρος βασιλεὺς rather than the more expected βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος, they suggest that the dedication might have been invented by the Xanthians at a later date to recall the king’s earlier passage through Lycia, which took him close to Xanthus.13 For a later audience, a visit to or dedication at Xanthus by Alexander would have been eminently plausible. An ‘altar’ from the temple of Alexander at the Bahariya oasis, located roughly halfway between Siwah and Memphis, records a dedication by “King Alexander to his father Ammon”; it too might have been inscribed to record an invented visit.14 Josephus records that Alexander visited Jerusalem and made obeisance to the High Priest. The story is fiction, but it emphasized Jerusalem’s importance and would have been a precedent for negotiations with Alexander’s successors.15 The story has perhaps found 12 13 14 15 lenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Politics and Political Thought, ed. Mirko Canavaro and Benjamin Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Welles rc 30 = Austin hw 279; Biagio Virgilio, Le Roi Écrit. Le Correspondance du Soverain hellénistique, suivie de Deux Lettres d’Antiochos iii à Partir de Louis Robert et d’Adolf Wilhelm (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2011), 179–266; Wallace, “Alexander and democracy”, 66. Arr. An. 1.24.4; Paul Goukowsky, Essai sur les origins du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 avant J.C.). ii: Alexandre et Dionysos (Nancy: Université de Nancy, 1981), 113–117. The bronze plaque allegedly found at Xanthus and forecasting Alexander’s destruction of the Persian Empire is perhaps part of the same invented tradition (Plut. Alex. 17.4–5). seg lix 1764: Βασιλεὺς | Ἀλέξ⟨α⟩νδρος | Ἄμμωνι | τ̣[ῶ]ι π̣ ατρί. Alexander’s pharaonic titulature is also recorded in hieroglyphs, see Francisco Bosch-Puche, “L’‘autel’ du temple d’Alexandre le Grand à Bahariya retrouvé”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 108 (2008): 29–44. j. aj 11.8.4–7 (398); Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2003), 5–7; Seth Schwartz, The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 30–31. Pierre Briant, The First European. A History of Alexander in the Age of Empire (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2017), 61–67 traces later receptions of Josephus’ account. For Alexander in Jewish texts, see Aleksandra Klęczar in this volume. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 167 its way into the Jewish iconographic record. A recently discovered mosaic from the synagogue at Huqoq, Israel, has been suggested to depict just this meeting between a High Priest and Alexander, portrayed as a bearded ruler with purple cloak and diadem.16 The meeting also features on the reverse of a bronze medallion of Pope Paul iii from ad 1545/6 by Alessandro Cesati.17 Other examples of invented traditions abound. Mithridates gave one hundred talents to Apamea after a particularly devastating earthquake because he believed, almost certainly with the city’s persuasion, that Alexander had earlier acted similarly (Str. 12.8.18). In the Senatorial review of ad22 Sardis claimed asylia (sacred inviolability) through “a grant by the victorious Alexander” (Tac. Ann. 3.63), but according to Arrian (An. 1.17.4) Alexander granted Sardis eleutheria and “the use of the old Lydian customs” in 334. By ad22 such might have been taken to refer to asylia. In the third century ad numerous cities in the Roman east claimed to have been founded by Alexander.18 The claim that the Romans 16 17 18 The excavations at Huqoq, led by Prof. Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Capel Hill) brought to light in 2013 and 2014 a mosaic on the eastern aisle of the synagogue, more than 11 feet wide. It contains three bands of imagery: soldiers with shields and spear, war-elephants, aftermath of a battle. The top band shows two men meeting, one wearing a white robe, the other wearing armour, a purple cloak, and a diadem. An army with elephants is depicted in the background. “Huqoq—2013”, The Israeli Antiquities Authority, accessed May 25, 2016, http://www .hadashot‑esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=12648. “Explore This Mysterious Mosaic—It May Portray Alexander the Great”, National Geographic, accessed September 10th, 2016, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/mysterious‑mosaic‑alexander‑the‑ great‑israel/ “Press Reports”, Huqoq Excavtion Project, accessed May 25, 2016, http://huqoqexcavationproject.org/press‑2/. The birth and education of Alexander forms the theme of a recently discovered fourth century ad mosaic from Baalbek (seg lv 1594). John Graham Pollard, Italian Renaissance Medals in the Museo Nazionale of Bargello (Florence: Studio per Edizioni Scelte, Florence, 1984), 986–987 num. 524; Dahmen, Legend of Alexander, 155 pl. 29.1. Aegea in Cilicia: Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 355–357. Otrous in Phrygia: igrrp iv 692: Ἀλέξανδρον Μακεδόνα | κτίστην τῆς πόλεως; Philippe-Ernest Legrand and Joseph Chamonard, “Inscriptions de Phrygie”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 17 (1893): 277– 278; William Ramsey, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1897), 702–703; Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 422. Capitolias in Arabia: rpc iv 6564: αλεξ(ανδροσ) μακε(δων) γεναρ(χησ); Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 538–539 with n. 30. Apollonia Mordiaion in Pidasa: αλεξα(νδροσ) κτισ(τησ) απολλωνια(των); François Rebuffat, “Alexandre le Grand et Apollonia de Pisidie”, Revue Numisatique 28 (1986). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 168 wallace sent an embassy to Alexander in 324, made by both Greek and Roman authors, is plausible but impossible to prove.19 Amisus’ claim to Lucullus in 71 bc that Alexander had awarded the city democracy is also perhaps fictitious and may have been designed to exert moral force over Lucullus by compelling him to confirm the actions of his great predecessor.20 The process was reciprocal, ruler and city drew on Alexander’s memory but for different ends. Amisus used Alexander’s precedent to pressure Lucullus to act according to a civic model of Hellenistic kingship and grant the city a status benefaction, but in doing so Lucullus used Alexander’s example to assert his control over Amisus and reaffirm his right to grant status benefactions to subject cities.21 Each channelled Alexander’s example differently with each acting as the other’s audience. Alexander’s precedent offered a successful model for the interaction between ruler and city. A city could also invent a connection with Alexander for less overtly political reasons. When Pausanias visited Megalopolis in the late second century ad he was shown north of the river a stoa called the Philippeium, which “was not made by Philip, the son of Amyntas, but as a compliment to him the Megalopolitans gave his name to the building” (8.30.6). The stoa has been dated archaeologically to the third quarter of the fourth century bc and it appears that a statue of Philip with a consort of son stood outside it, in the agora 19 20 21 Gerasa (Jerash) in Jordan: αλεξ(ανδροσ) μακε(δων) κτισ(τησ) γερασων; Augusto Spijkerman, The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia (Franciscan Printing Press: Jerusalem, 1978), 164 nums. 29, 31; Smyrna: Paus. 7.5.2; Dietrich Klose, Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987), 36, 257–258, 308, 313. See, in general, Dahmen, Legend of Alexander, 123–134. Clitarch. FGrH 137 f31; Memn. FGrH 434 f1§18.2 (dating it to 334); Arr. An. 7.15.5–16 (dating it to 324); Plin. hn 3.57; Just. Epit. 12.13.1 (cf. d.s. 17.113.1–2). Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 1–10 claims that “ihre Historiztät hängt … mit der datierung des Kleitarchos zusammen”, whom we now know wrote in the late third century bc (P.Oxy. lxxi 4808). Diplomatic relations were opened between Rome and Ptolemaic Egypt by 273, see Livy. Per. 14; Just. Epit. 18.2.9; Val. Max. 4.3.9; Eutr. 2.15; d.h. 20.14; d.c. f41; Zonar. 8.6; Leslie Neatby, “Romano-Egyptian Relations during the Third Century bc”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 81 (1950). It now seems that Rome did indeed collaborate with the Rhodians to suppress piracy as early as the late fourth century bc, see Plb. 30.5.6–8 with Nathan Badoud, “Note sur trois inscriptions mentionnant des Rhodiens morts à la guerre. Contribution à l’étude des relations entre Rhodes et Rome à la fin du ive s. av. J.-C.”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 139–140 (2015–2016). App. Mith. 12.83 [373–374]; Wallace, “Alexander and democracy”, 66–68. For literary comparatio between Lucullus and Alexander, see Cic. Acad. 2.3. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 169 (seg xlviii 521).22 Bricks have also been found from this stoa inscribed with Philip’s name (ig v (2) 469, l. 6). South of the river, near the foundations of the bouleuterion, Pausanias was shown “the house of Alexander”, in front of which stood a herm of Ammon (8.32.1). Fredricksmeyer argued that this “house of Alexander” was a temple to Alexander that had survived since the 320s, but Calder has shown quite convincingly that it was a local forgery, an invention designed to attract and dupe tourists such as Pausanias.23 The phenomenon was widespread. Diogenes Laertius (6.88) claims that Alexander once stayed in the philosopher Crates’ house24 while Appian (Mith. 3.20 [76]) records that Mithridates spent the night in an inn in Phrygia that Alexander had once visited. In Gortys, just north of Megalopolis, Pausanias was shown a breastplate and spear that Alexander had “as the locals say” (λέγουσι δὲ οἱ ἐπιχώριοι) dedicated in the Temple of Asclepius (8.28.1).25 Plutarch records that even in his time there was an oak tree by the Cephisus River near Chaeronea by which, the locals claimed, Alexander pitched his tent (Plu. Alex. 9.2).26 Dio Cassius claims that Trajan visited the room in which Alexander had died in Babylon (68.30.1).27 There was a large and widespread audience for Alexander memorials in antiquity, and attributions such as these were local inventions designed to attract tourists, promote business, or give a small town a little bit of celebrity sparkle. They could also, at times, reflect earlier political relations. Megalopolis, for instance, had maintained close relations with Macedon throughout the 22 23 24 25 26 27 Hans Lauter and Theodoros Spyropoulos, “Megalopolis. 3, Vorbericht 1996–1997”, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1998); Hans Lauter, “Megalopolis: Ausgrabungen aus der Agora 1991– 2002”, in Ancient Arcadia, ed. Erik Østby (Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens, 2005). Christian Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (Munich: Beck, 1970), 29 n. 3 (“Es ist ungewiß”); Ernst Fredricksmeyer, “Three Notes on Alexander’s Deification”, American Journal of Ancient History 4 (1979); Nicholas G.L. Hammond and Frank W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 82 n. 3; William M. Calder, “Alexander’s House”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 23 (1982). The story is undoubtedly a literary fiction and perhaps echoes the claim that Alexander left Pindar’s house standing when Thebes was destroyed (Arr. An. 1.9.10; Plu. Alex. 11.12; D.Chr. 2.33). Arthur Darby Nock, review of Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, by Emma J. Edelstein and Levy Edelstein, Classical Philology 45 (1950): 49 n. 31: “that may be legend.” A site known as castra Alexandri existed in norther Sinai (Curt. 4.7.2) while a place known as ἥ τε Ἀλλεξανδρου παρεμβολὴ was located near the Siwa Oasis (Ptolemy 4.5.33). For the Alexander-motif in Cassius Dio, see now Christopher T. Mallan, “The Spectre of Alexander: Cassius Dio and the Alexander-motif,” Greece and Rome 64 (2017). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 170 wallace third century bc, a fact reflected in the numerous Argead-attributed monuments that Pausanias saw in and around the city.28 As with relics from the heroic past, artefacts from Alexander’s campaigns appeared throughout the Greek east and formed important links with the past for the states that housed them.29 Such artefacts were transportable so a dedication by Alexander could easily become a rededication by someone else. This is what happened when Augustus moved to Rome from Cyme in Aeolis spoils from the destruction of Thebes that Alexander had earlier dedicated (Plin. nh 34.14).30 Augustus placed Alexander’s dedication, a ceiling lamp with lights arranged to look like apples on a tree, in the temple of Apollo Palatinus in Rome, which Augustus himself dedicated in 28 bc. Alexander’s dedication from a medising Greek city had perhaps symbolized Cyme’s liberation from Persian control, but by moving the dedication to Rome Augustus emphasized his control over Cyme and other Greek cities.31 What might have symbolized Alexander’s liberation now symbolized Augustus’ control. The removal of Alexander’s dedication also removed a well-known tourist attraction and a bargaining tool that Cyme could have used in negotiations to show its privileged status under Alexander.32 The favouritism that Alexander had showed the city, which his dedication continually displayed, was gone. A similar situation existed at the temple of Artemis in Elymais in southern Iran which, as Josephus tell us, was full of rich dedications as well as weapons 28 29 30 31 32 Manuela Mari and John Thornton, “Città greche tra conservazione e modelli rivoluzionari. Megalopoli, Larisa e i re Macedoni nel iii secolo a.C.”, in Studi ellenistici xxx, ed. Basilio Virgilio (Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2016). On the relics and bones attributed to heroes, see Adrienne Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); John Boardman, The Archaeology of Nostalgia. How the Greeks Re-Created their Mythical Past (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), 33–43. Cyme on Euboea cannot be excluded, see Mogens Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Greek Poleis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 645. Alexander’s connection with Aeolic Cyme might also be apparent in a series of busts dating from c. 125–75bc that could have come from a statue group depicting Alexander, Hephaestion, and Rhoxane, see Andrew Stewart, Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 336–337, 426–427, with figs. 136–138. For the psychological effect that the removal of artworks had on subject peoples, see Cic. Verr. 2.1.59, cf. 2.2.87; Plb. 9.10. Monuments such as these mattered to small cities. According to Cicero (Verr. 4.4, 135), Praxiteles’ statue of Cupid was the only reason anyone visited Thespiae. The statue of Diana was a major attraction at Segesta (Cic. Verr. 4.74–79). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 171 and breastplates dedicated by Alexander (j. aj 12.9 [354–355]). Antiochus iv attacked the temple but was unsuccessful. For Josephus, Antiochus sought to take both its rich votives and the arms dedicated by Alexander, which had their own value.33 The symbolic power of such dedications was strong. After his defeat at the Battle of Pydna in 168 bc, Perseus of Macedon sought the return of some “gold plate of Alexander the Great” (Plu. Aem. 23.9) held by a group of Cretans—Diodorus Siculus (30.21.1–4) calls them “objects made from the spoils captured by Alexander”.34 These objects were obviously of financial and symbolic importance to Perseus, hence his concern with getting them back, but both Diodorus and Plutarch use them in moralizing digressions to compare Alexander’s generosity with Perseus’ frugality (apparent also at Plu. Aem. 12; Livy 44.26–27), Alexander’s success with Perseus’ failure. Similarly, Dio Cassius (20.24) and Livy (42.45.7, 52.11) compare Aemilius Paullus with Perseus and claim that in defeating Perseus Aemilius Paullus had also defeated Philip, Alexander, and the Macedonian empire they had left behind.35 Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors were fascinated by the spolia of Alexander’s campaigns, which could be put to use in pursuance of their own objectives, as when Eumenes employed what he claimed were Alexander’s throne, tent, and regalia to reinforce his control over the fragile satrapal alliance in Cilicia and Susiana in 318/7.36 The Romans, however, brought many items associated with Alexander back to Rome, where they assumed new importance within Roman imperial image-making. The two examples of Pompey and Caligula, recently treated by David Woods, are instructive. During his triumph of September 28th–29th 61 bc, Pompey wore what he claimed was the cloak of Alexander the Great, which he had found among Mithridates’ possessions on the island of Cos (App. Mith. 17.117 [577]).37 Almost a hundred years to the day later, on September 28th ad39, Caligula rode his horse across the 33 34 35 36 37 For Seleucid plundering of native temples, see now Michael Taylor, “Sacred Plunder and the Seleucid Near East”, Greece and Rome 61 (2014). For a fragment of a bronze shield dedicated at Dodona perhaps by a βασι[λέως | Ἀλεξάν]δ̣ρου, see Σωτηρίου i. Δάκαρη, “Ἀνασκαφὴ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Δωδώνης”, Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 125 (1973): 93–94 (with image); seg xliii 1276. Caracalla used weapons and cups that he believed had belonged to Alexander (d.c. 78.7– 8). Earlier Antigonids were also connected with Alexander. Apollophanes, a courtier of Antigonus Doson, used to say that when Antigonus was successful his fortune ‘Alexandrized’ (FGrH 81 f46 = Ath. Deip. 251d). d.s. 18.60.4–61.3, 19.15.3–4; Wallace, “Court, Kingship, and Royal Style”, §2. Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 84–86; Devon Martin, “Did Pompey Engage in imitatio Alexandri?”, in Studies in Latin History and Literature ix, ed. Carl Deroux (Brussels: Lato- For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 172 wallace Bay of Baiae wearing what was claimed to have been Alexander’s breastplate (d.c. 59.17.3). Woods suggests that Caligula was imitating Pompey, not Alexander, and that the breastplate and cloak worn by Caligula were the same as those worn by Pompey a hundred years earlier.38 Neither, he argues, had belonged to Alexander the Great, but to Ptolemy x Alexander i (or perhaps Ptolemy xi Alexander ii), whose effects had been stored on the island of Cos by his mother Cleopatra iii in the early first century bc. The relics used by Pompey and Caligula were, therefore, misattributions, not that it mattered for the purposes of historic aemulatio, and through their reuse by Pompey and Caligula they assumed new meanings within a Roman imperial context. Alexander’s false relics facilitated Pompey’s emulation of Alexander, already expressed through the epithet Magnus, and allowed Caligula to imitate Pompey emulating Alexander.39 Links with Alexander were also made by private individuals. In 192bc, in the build-up to Antiochus iii’s invasion of Greece, one Alexander of Megalopolis helped bring Amynander, the king of the Athamanians to Antiochus’ side. Appian records that this Alexander was a Macedonian who had been educated at Megalopolis and had become a naturalized citizen; he declared himself to be a descendant of Alexander the Great and named his children Philip, Alexander, and Apama.40 Both Livy and Appian doubt Alexander’s claims, but they seem to have been widely acknowledged. Alexander married his daughter Apama to the king of the Athamanians and hoped through Antiochus’ support to gain the Macedonian throne. The Delians recognized Alexander’s descent in an honorary decree, calling him “Alexander, son of Philip, a descendant of King Alexander” and recording that he had spent some time on the island.41 38 39 40 41 mus, 1998), 41; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 70–71, 146–147. On Mithridates’ emulation of Alexander, see Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri, 153–191. David Woods, “Caligula, Pompey, and Alexander the Great”, Eranos 104 (2006–2007); Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri, 134–147. Alfred Heuß, “Alexander der Große und das Problem der historischen Urteilsbildung”, Historische Zeitschrift 225 (1977): 86 suggests that Nero may have worn this same cloak—ueste purpurea distincta que stellis aureis chlamyde— during his triumphal return to Rome in (Suet. Nero 25.1). For Ptolemy’s Alexander-imitatio, particularly his use of the epithet Magnus, see Michel, Alexander als Vorbild, 35–66. Martin, “Pompey”, in contrast, argues that Pompey did not actively imitate Alexander. App. Syr. 3.13 [50–52]; Livy 35.47.5–8; Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri, 5–26 analyses the career of Alexander of Megalopolis within the context of Antiochus’ war with Rome. On Amynander, see Stewart Irvin Oost, “Amynander, Athamania, and Rome”, Classical Philology 52 (1957). ig xi (4) 750, ll. 3–4: Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου, ἀπόγο|νος ὢν βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδρου. The decree For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 173 The political context goes some way to explaining Alexander’s claims to Argead descent. Alexander facilitated the alliance between Amynander and Antiochus, so it was in their interests to acknowledge his Argead descent. Philip v of Macedon had recently been defeated by Rome at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 bc, so at a time of political upheaval Alexander’s claim to Argead descent and his alliance with Antiochus tempted a weakened kingdom with an echo of past glory. Interestingly, Philip v was the first known Antigonid ruler of Macedon to claim Argead descent and “was at great pains to prove that he was allied in blood to Alexander and Philip” (Plb. 5.10.10; cf. Livy 27.30.9).42 Also, both Alexander of Megalopolis and Philip v named their daughters Apama, probably after Apama the wife of Seleucus i, who, by the late third century bc was considered by some to have been the daughter of Alexander the Great.43 It would appear that Alexander’s lineage was claimed by both Philip v of Macedon and Alexander of Megalopolis at the same time and for similar reasons of legitimacy. Alexander’s fictitious Argead descent was only one of a number of similar claims made during the second century bc. Alexander Balas of Smyrna claimed to be the son of Antiochus iv and Laodice iv and, after his claim was recognized by Rome and Ptolemy vi, who married his daughter Cleopatra Thea to him, he ruled the Seleucid Empire for the years 150–146 bc.44 At the same time one Andriscus, from Adramyttium in Aeolis, claimed to be Perseus of Macedon’s son and ruled Macedon as Philip vi in 149/8, before being defeated by Metellus Macedonicus.45 In times of political upheaval, such as the disintegration of the 42 43 44 45 was proposed by Callias son of Antipater, whose likely son, Antipater son of Callias, later put to the vote a motion in honour of Aristobulus son of Athenaeus of Thessalonica, an associate of Demetrius ii of Macedon and proxenos of the Delians (ig xi (4) 666). This Delian family appears to have had Macedonian connections. A third century bc Delian statue base for one “Alexander son of Philip” is too early to be identified with Alexander of Megalopolis (ig xi (4) 1092). A posthumous monument to Alexander the Great is more likely. Kenneth R. Jones, “Alcaeus of Messene, Philip v, and the Colossus of Rhodes. A ReExamination of Anth. Pal. 6.171”, Classical Quarterly 64 (2014): 144–145; Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri, 32–51. Note also Frank Walbank, “η τωμ ολων ελπισ and the Antigonids”, in Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, ed. Frank Walbank (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), esp. 132–135. William Woodthorpe Tarn, “Queen Ptolemais and Apama”, Classical Quarterly 23 (1929); The Greeks in Bactria in India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 446–451; Michael Rostovtzeff, “προγονοι”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 55 (1935): 63–66. App. Syr. 11.67 [354–355]; Bohm, Imitatio Alexandri, 105–116. Vell. Pat. 1.11.1–4; d.s. 32.9; Livy Per. 49, 50, 52. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 174 wallace old Hellenistic empires, false claims to kingship were not surprising. There were at least three people who claimed to be Nero between ad 69–96 and, according to St Augustine, there was a belief as late as the fifth century ad that Nero would return as the Antichrist (De civ. d. 20.19.3).46 Numerous individuals claimed Argead or Aeacid descent were made during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, some even alleged direct descent from Alexander. Nicocreon, king of Cypriot Salamis, made a dedication at Argos c. 321–311 in which he claimed that his father, Pnytagoras, was Αἰάκου ἐκ γενεᾶς (ig iv 583 = ise 38).47 A second century bc inscription from Teos records a “Dionysius son of Pytheas, descendant of Alexander” (seg ii 581, l. 9). From the first century bc, a funerary epigram from the village of Makriyialos, near ancient Pydna, claims that the deceased Alcimachus, son of Neoptolemus, was a descendant of Olympias (seg xii 340, l. 2: τῶν ἀπ’ Ὀλυνπιάδος) and presumably a member of the Aeacidae, like Nicocreon of Salamis. Edson connects this with another funerary epigram for one Neoptolemus that exhorted passersby to stay and see the tomb of Olympias, which was clearly visible nearby (seg xxxii 644).48 By the first century bc, therefore, a family in the area of ancient Pydna claimed descent from Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. At about the same time both Mithridates vi of Pontus (Just. Epit. 38.7.1) and Antiochus i of Commagene (IGLSyr i 24 = ogis 398) claimed descent from Alexander. Such claims regain prominence in the third century ad. An inscription records that a city, possibly Otrous, was founded by a man named Alexander “the Macedonian”. This is probably the same Alexander who appears on Otrous’ coinage; his Macedonian descent may signify a claim to descent from Alexander the Great.49 In the mid-third century ad Honoratiane Polycharmis of Athens explicitly claimed descent ἀπὸ Ἀλεξάν|δου [sic] (i.Eleusis 648 = ig ii2 3679). Her father, Honoratianus Polycharmus, was a Macedonian from Beroea who had moved to Athens and married into the Claudii of Melite, who themselves claimed descent from Pericles and Conon.50 Rowland Smith 46 47 48 49 50 Paul A. Gallivan, “The False Neros: A Re-Examination”, Historia 22 (1973). Panos Christodoulou, “Nicokréon, le dernier roi de Salamine de Chypre: discours idéologique et pouvoir politique”, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 39 (2009). Charles Edson, “The Tomb of Olympias”, Hesperia 18 (1949). The terminology is similar to that of Alexander’s lineage in the first century ad Chigi Shield (ig xiv 1296, ll. 7–8): εἰμὶ δ’ ἀφ’ Ἡρακλέος Διὸς ἔκγονος, υἱὸς Φιλίππου | Αἰακιδῶν γενεῆς, μητρὸς Ὀλυμπιάδος. See now David Petrain, “The Archaeology of the Epigrams from the Tabulae Italicae: Adaptation, Allusion, Alteration”, Mnemosyne 65 (2012): 600–614. igrrp iv 692: Ἀλέξανδρον Μακεδόνα | κτίστην τῆς πόλεως; above n. 18. Elias Kapetanopoulos, “An Athenian-Makedonian Marriage of Alexander’s Line”, Balkan For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 175 has recently argued that the fourth century ad Athenian historian Praxagoras of Athens (FGrH 219), who wrote a six-book history of Alexander, was a member of this extended family.51 Such claims continued into the second millennium ad. According to Marco Polo, the Mirs of Badakshan, a region covering what is today northeastern Afghanistan and southeastern Tajikistan, claimed descent from Alexander and a daughter of Darius (1.29).52 In Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King, Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnahan are identified by the natives of Kafiristan as sons of Alexander and Semiramis.53 Localizing Alexander Alexander-imitatio was both selective and culturally diverse. An individual obviously did not emulate Alexander in all aspects of his life, only in certain 51 52 53 Studies 31 (1990) [1992]; Sean G. Byrne, Roman Citizens of Athens (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 299–300; Kevin Clinton, “A Family of Eumolpidai and Kerykes Descended from Pericles”, Hesperia 73 (2004): 55–56; Rowland Smith, “A Lost Historian of Alexander ‘Descended from Alexander’, and Read by Julian? Praxagoras of Athens Reviewed in the Light of Attic Epigraphy”, Historia 56 (2007): 369–375. Honoratiane’s cousin claimed to be a twenty-first generation descendant of Pericles, see seg liv 307; Kevin Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (American Philosophical Society, 1974), 54. Other individuals claimed descent from Pericles (ig ii2 3546), Conon and Callimachus (ig ii2 3688), and Themistocles (Paus. 1.37.1; Plu. Them. 1.32.6). Earlier examples are the sixteen generations claimed by Hecataeus (Hdt. 2.143) and the fourteen by Heropythus of Chios (sgdi 5656), both in the early 5th century. For further examples of long genealogies, see Angelos Chaniotis, Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1988), 220–226 with n. 503. Similar elaborate genealogies existed in Roman Sparta for those who claimed descent from Heracles and the Dioscuri, extending to at least the forty-eight and forty-seventh generations respectively, as well as Poseidon, Rhadamanthys, Lysander, and Brasidas, and even local Argive heroes such as Inachus, Perseus, and Phoroneus, see Arthur M. Woodward, “Excavations at Sparta, 1924–28, i: The Theatre: Architectural Remains”, Annual of the British School at Athens 30 (1928–1929, 1929–1930): 222–225; Anthony Spawforth, “Families at Roman Sparta and Epidaurus: Some Prosopographical Notes”, Annual of the British School at Athens 80 (1985). Smith, “Lost Historian”, 372 also points out that the Macedonian writer Polyaenus refers to Philip and Alexander as his progonoi (praef. 4), perhaps suggesting a similar claim to Argead descent, though this is more likely a reference to his Macedonian heritage. The Travels of Marco Polo, trans Also Ricci (London: Routledge, 1931), 56. Phiroze Vasunia, The Classics and Colonial India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 77–89. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 176 wallace contexts and to promote a specific image or gain from association with specific actions of Alexander’s.54 One had to be careful not to become associated with the negative aspects of Alexander’s character. Pompey was mocked by some for his imitation of Alexander (Plu. Pomp. 2.2; Crass. 7.1), while Cicero, Seneca, and Lucan all cited Alexander as a model of cruelty and savagery.55 Plutarch refers to Alexander, like Cyrus and Caesar, as someone with an insatiable love of power (Ant. 6.3). Alexander was a Macedonian monarch and, as Kienast has shown, emulation of him could be contentious since it clashed with many of the traditional values of the Roman Republic.56 The situation became less complicated under the Roman Empire, when Rome was essentially a monarchy, but in general terms the dynamics and dangers of Alexander-imitatio differed in the Greco-Macedonian and the Roman worlds.57 Cities, likewise, had different images of Alexander which could, in the case of Hellenistic Athens at least, change depending on the political context.58 In Cilician Soli Alexander’s actions were a byword for excessive royal power (Welles rc 30 = Austin hw 279), but in Erythrae and Amisus they were the basis for the cities’ claims to freedom, autonomy, and democracy. Each city had a local tradition of Alexander—a dedication, benefaction, or letter— that it could use to pressure a state or king to act according to Alexander’s local precedent. Alexander-imitatio, therefore, played an important role in the relationship between ruler and city as well as in the construction of the ruler’s local and national image. I focus on three examples: Ephesus, Ilium, and Rome. When Alexander arrived at Ephesus in summer 334 he found the city racked by civil war as the pro-Persian tyrant Syrphax, his son Pelagon, and his brothers were dragged from the Temple of Artemis and killed (Arr. An. 1.17.10–12). As punishment, Alexander ordered the city to pay to the Temple of Artemis the tax 54 55 56 57 58 Kathryn Welch and Hannah Mitchell, “Revisiting the Roman Alexander”, Antichthon 47 (2013). Cic. Rep. 3.24; Off. 1.90; Tusc. 3.21; De Inv. rhet. 1.93; cf. Att. 13.28.3; Sen. Clem. 1.25; Luc. 10.20– 28; Martin, “Pompey”, 26. Dietmar Kienast, “Augustus und Alexander”, Gymnasium 76 (1969). Green, “Caesar and Alexander”; Erich Gruen, “Rome and the Myth of Alexander”, in Ancient History in a Modern University, ed. Tom Hillard et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, “Hero, God or Tyrant? Alexander the Great in the Early Hellenistic Period”, in Antimonarchical Discourses in Antiquity, ed. Börm Henning (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015), 90–95; Wallace “Alexander and democracy”, 52–63. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 177 (phoros) that it had paid to the Persians and he extended the temple’s sacred boundary.59 Strabo records how Alexander’s actions were later emulated by others (Str. 14.1.23 [c641]):60 The temple remains a place of refuge, the same as in earlier times, although the limits of the refuge have often been changed; for example, when Alexander extended them to a stade, and when Mithridates shot an arrow from the corner of the roof and thought it went a little farther than a stade, and when Antony doubled this distance and included within the refuge a part of the city. But this proved harmful and turned the city over to criminals, so it was nullified by Augustus Caesar. ἄσυλον δὲ μένει τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ νῦν καὶ πρότερον· τῆς δ’ ἀσυλίας τοὺς ὅρους ἀλλαγῆναι συνέβη πολλάκις, Ἀλεξάνδρου μὲν ἐπὶ στάδιον ἐκτείναντος, Μιθριδάτου δὲ τόξευμα ἀφέντος ἀπὸ τῆς γωνίας τοῦ κεράμου καὶ δόξαντος ὑπερβαλέσθαι μικρὰ τὸ στάδιον, Ἀντωνίου δὲ διπλασιάσαντος τοῦτο καὶ συμπεριλαβόντος τῇ ἀσυλίᾳ μέρος τι τῆς πόλεως· ἐφάνη δὲ τοῦτο βλαβερὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς κακούργοις ποιοῦν τὴν πόλιν, ὥστ’ ἠκύρωσεν ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ. Trans: h.l. jones, Loeb Classical Library (adapted) By extending the sacred boundary “a little farther than a stade”, the limit of Alexander’s original extension, and then “doubling this distance”, Mithridates and Marc Antony engaged in Alexander-imitatio, whereby each extension signified a reference to and an improvement on Alexander’s original action.61 By emu59 60 61 Arr. An. 1.17.10, 18.1–2; Panikos Stylianou, “The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the Years 323–301)”, Ἐπετηρίς— Annual of the Cyprus Reserch Centre 20 (1994): 28–29. Alexander had close connections with the temple of Artemis, which had burned down on the night of his birth (Plu. Alex. 3.5–9). He dedicated to Artemis a spear and a shield (a.p. 6.97, 128) while Apelles’ painting of Alexander wielding a thunderbolt hung in the temple (Pliny hn 35.92; cf. Ael. vh 2.3; Cic. Verr. 6.60; Plu. Alex. 4.3–4), which Alexander later offered to dedicate and finance (Str. 14.1.22 [c641]; Stylianou, “Pax Macedonica”, 29). Stylianou, “Pax Macedonica”, 27–29; Rigsby, Asylia, 385–393. Alexander respected the sacred boundary. Later in his reign he wrote to the priest of Artemis at Ephesus, Megabyzus, asking him to recapture a runaway slave, but not to violate the temple’s sanctity (Plu. Alex. 42.1). ik.Priene 16 (c. 296/5) honours Megabyzus for his role in rebuilding the temple. An Ephesian decree in honour of Euphronius of Acarnania (c. 302) records his successful embassy to Lysimachus’ general Prepelaus ὑπὲρ τοῦ σταθμοῦ τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ τῆς ἀτελεί||ας τῆι θεῶι, which might also relate to Alexander’s decision (ik.Ephesos 1449). For Marc Antony’s arrival at Ephesus in 41 bc, see Plu. Ant. 24. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 178 wallace lating a specific local gesture, each ruler presented himself as Alexander’s successor, by extending the boundary beyond Alexander’s original stadium, each claimed to have surpassed Alexander. After his victory at Actium, Augustus nullified all earlier extensions. Mithridates and Antony expressed their power by increasing Alexander’s extensions, though both violated the sacred boundary when it suited them.62 Augustus expressed his power by restoring the boundary under Alexander.63 In whose interests, however, were these extensions made? Mithridates and Antony must have learned of Alexander’s actions from the priests themselves, who had much to gain from prominent royal interest in the shrine, even if it did, as Strabo says, cause the city to fill up with criminals.64 Civic interests appear to have taken a backseat to royal emulation. Ephesus was, however, able to use these acts in its own interests during its negotiations with the Senate regarding its asylia in ad22. According to Tacitus (Ann. 3.61), Ephesus claimed that “the temple’s sacrosanctity had been enhanced by permission of Hercules when he was in control of Lydia … and its privileges had not been diminished under the Persian Empire, after which the Macedonians, and then we, kept them in force”. Alexander-imitatio at Ephesus saw Hellenistic and Roman rulers act according to a local tradition, which gave the city a powerful precedent to be used in later negotiations. Such imitatio also functioned within a deep history of mythical and historical precedents, stretching back to the birth of the gods Apollo and Artemis. Ilium was perhaps the most famous site of both Alexander-imitatio and Alexander-comparatio in the historic and historiographic traditions since his visit to the site in 334 “defined Ilium for the Hellenistic age”.65 Alexander 62 63 64 65 Mithridates ordered the execution of Romans who had taken refuge in the temple in 88 bc (App. Mith. 4.23 [88]) as Antony did the suppliant Arsinoe iv in 41 bc (j. aj 15.89; Ap. 2.57; App. bc 5.1.9; d.c. 48.24.2). ik.Ephesos 1520 records the temple’s sacred boundary under Augustus, on which see further Rigsby, Asylia, 388–393. Guy Rogers, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City (London: Routledge, 1991), 7–8. For recent studies of Ilium’s relations with the great powers of antiquity, see Andrew Erskine, Troy Between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and Imperial Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. 225–253 (228: quote); Charles Rose, The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 158–276; William Pillot, “Ilion, Athena Ilias et es Detroits, d’Alexandre le Grand a Antiochos iii”, in Identité régionale, identits civiques autour des Détroits des Dardanelles et du Bosphore (ve siècle av. J.-C.–Iie siècle apr. J.-C.), ed. Jacques Annequin et al. (Besancon-Cedex: Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2016). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 179 sacrificed to Athena, Achilles, and Priam (Arr. An. 1.11.8–12.1; Plu. Alex. 15.7– 8) and exchanged his armour for that surviving from the Trojan War (Arr. An. 1.11.7–8, 6.9.1, 10.2; d.s. 17.8.1). According to Strabo, he made numerous dedications at the Temple of Athena, gave Ilium the title of city, initiated a new building programme, declared it free and untaxed, and promised to build a large temple and found sacred games (13.1.26 [c593]).66 The scale of benefactions is exaggerated and simply reflects Alexander’s importance as a symbolic new founder for the city. Imitation of Alexander’s actions began soon after his death. Strabo records that Lysimachus built a temple with an enclosing wall forty stadia long, but this appears to be in error—Grote suggested that there is a lacuna in the text here67—as the archaeological evidence shows that the new precinct and Temple of Athena, the new Bouleuterion, and the new city wall were all started c. 250–230bc.68 Antiochus iii may have emulated Alexander when he sacrificed to Athena at Ilium before invading Europe in 192bc (Livy 35.43.3), though parallel with either Xerxes’ (Hdt. 7.43) or the Spartan general Mindarus’ (x. hg 1.1.4) sacrifices to Athena in 480 and 411 respectively is inescapable. Gaius Livius Salinator and Lucius Cornelius Scipio also sacrificed to Athena at Ilium in 190bc (Livy 37.9.7, 37.3) and during the civil wars Sulla granted the city its freedom, perhaps in emulation of Alexander.69 Caesar too granted Ilium freedom and tax-exemption because of his kinship with the Trojans and his wish to emulate Alexander (Str. 13.1.27 [c595]: φιλαλέξανδρος ὤν).70 It is possible that Caesar’s actions were motivated both by his wish to emulate Alexander and by some reference by Ilium to Alexander’s, Sulla’s, and others’ benefactions in an embassy to Caesar, as Amisus had done in its negotiations with Lucullus in 71bc. Strabo does not refer to local pressure from Ilium, but it is possible. Caesar’s benefactions to Ilium allowed later authors to weave a rich historiographic tapestry of Alexander-comparatio based around the city as a lieu de mémoire. In Lucan’s Pharsalia (9.511–586) Cato 66 67 68 69 70 Pillot, “Ilion, Athéna, et les Détroits”, 135–145. Alexander was also, apparently, offered Paris’ lyre, but he spurned it as weak and inferior to Achilles’ (Plu. Alex. 15.8; Moralia 331d–e). Gorge Grote, A History of Greece, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1872), 300 n. 2. The issue is still debated, Pillot, “Ilion, Athéna, et les Détroits”, 150–152. Rose, Archaeology, 175–185. For Lysimachus and Alexander, see Stewart, Faces of Power, 318–321; Helen S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (London: Routledge, 1992), 164, 167. App. Mith. 9.61 [250]; d.c. 35.104.7; Str. 13.2.27 [c594–595]. An earlier member of the family, Lucius Iulius Caesar, had confirmed the sacred land of Athena as tax-exempt (ik.Ilion 71), a status Claudius would later reconfirm (Suet. Claud. 25.3). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 180 wallace visits the oracle of Ammon at Siwah but refuses to engage in Alexander-imitatio by questioning it. Caesar, on the other hand, visits Ilium and is depicted as engaging in Alexander-imitatio by sacrificing to Athena and praying for his own success (9.966–999). Lucan then compares Caesar’s ambitions at Ilium with Alexander’s when he has Caesar rush to visit Alexander’s tomb in Alexandria. Describing Alexander as the “mad son of Macedonian Philip”, he makes him a model of savagery, destruction, and excessive ambition (10.14–52), a characterization also attributable to Caesar.71 Alexander-imitatio and comparatio at Ilium from at least the time of Caesar onwards became tied to Rome’s Trojan origins, but by transporting artefacts and monuments connected with Alexander back to Rome, the Romans created a new image of Alexander that was simultaneously within and outwith its Hellenistic context. What began as a private phenomenon in the late Republic developed into a key part of the imperial image.72 Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus moved to Rome from Dium Lysippus’ sculptural group of the twenty-five Macedonian horsemen who had fallen at Granicus.73 They were housed in the porticus Metelli, which also housed statues of Artemis and Asclepius by Cephisodotus and the Eros by Praxiteles from Thespiae. Metellus may have been presenting himself as a successor to, or superior of, Alexander. Pompey, as we have seen, wore what he claimed was Alexander’s cloak in his triumph of 61 bc (App. Mith. 17.117 [577]), which Caligula later emulated in ad 39 (d.c. 59.17.3; Suet. Calig. 52). Augustus rededicated in the Temple of Apollo Palatinus the tree-shaped ceiling lamp that Alexander had dedicated at Cyme. Nero possessed a famous bronze statue of Alexander by Lysippus which he had gilded, thus ruining its artistic value (Plin. hn 34.63). In the second century ad, Caracalla used weapons and cups that he believed had belonged to Alexander (d.c. 78.7–8). 71 72 73 Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 116–118; Otto Zwierlein, “Lucans Caesar in Troja”, Hermes 114 (1986); Erskine, Troy, 245–250; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 82. On the presence of Alexander artefacts in Rome, see Giovannella Marrone, “Alessandro fra ideologia e propaganda in età augustea”, Giornale Italiano di Filologia 9 (1978); “Imitatio Alexandri in età augustea (nota a Plin., nat. 35, 27 e 93–94)”, Atene e Roma 25 (1980); Ecumene Augustea: Una politica per il consenso (Rome: L’Erme di Bretschneider, 1993), esp. 12–30; Birte Poulsen, “Alexander the Great in Italy during the Hellenistic Period”, in Alexander the Great: Reality and Myth, ed. Jesper Carlsen et al. (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1993). Arr. An. 1.16.4; Vell. Pat. 1.11.3–5; Plin. hn 34.64; Giuliana Calcani, Cavalieri di bronzo: la torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1989). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 181 Interest in Alexander increased in Rome during the civil wars in the late first century bc as monuments and works of art associated with Alexander were transported en masse to Rome and rededicated.74 In many cases it appears that this was done by the emperor himself, which suggests increasing imperial control over Alexander’s image and its association with the emperor. Statius (Silv. 1.1.84–88) records that a statue of Alexander by Lysippus was placed in the Forum Julium, opposite the temple of Venus Genetrix, but that the head had been replaced with Julius Caesar’s.75 Pliny (hn 35.93–94) describes paintings of a victorious Alexander by Apelles that were rededicated by Augustus in the Forum Augustum but later altered by Claudius.76 He also records a large painting of Alexander by the Athenian Nicias, which was dedicated in the Porticus Pompeii (Plin. hn 35.132), as well as a series of full-size and miniature paintings by Antiphilus, both late fourth century bc artists, that were rededicated in the Porticus Octaviae and the Porticus Philippi (hn 35.114). It is not certain who dedicated these paintings, but Augustus is a good contender. Parts of what may have been Alexander’s tent found their way back to Rome, again probably on Augustus’ initiative. Pliny’s describes “four statues as tent-poles” (Plin. hn 34.48)—two placed outside the temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum, two placed in from of the Regium near the Temple of Vesta—but these may have come, as Paul Rehak suggests, not from Alexander’s tent but from his funeral carriage, which according to Diodorus (18.26.6) integrated statues of winged victories.77 Augustus emulated and was associated with Alexander. 74 75 76 77 For the following monuments, see Michel, Alexander als Vorbild, 15–18; Marrone, Ecumene Augustea, 38–49; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 120–123. Michel, Alexander, 102–104; Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 113–115; Richard Westall, “The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 103 (1996): 88, 93. Green, “Caesar and Alexander”, 13 and Welch and Mitchell, “Roman Alexander”, 94 argue that Caesar himself ordered the head replaced. Bernhard Schmaltz, “Ein triumphierender Alexander?”, Mitteilungen desDeutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 101 (1994), questioning the attribution of the Alexandro in curru triumphante to Apelles; Martin Spannagel, Exemplaria principis. Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums (Heidelberg, 1999), 28–30 with ns. 97–98, 315–316. Apelles’ famous painting from the temple of Artemis in Ephesus depicting Alexander with a thunderbolt was not, apparently, removed (Cicero Verr. 2.4.135; Plin. hn 35.92; Ael. vh 2.3). Paul Rehak, “The Statues of Alexander the Great in the Forum Augustum and the Regia”, American Journal of Archaeology 94 (1990); Spannagel, Exemplaria Principis, 203–204 with n. 772, 286. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 182 wallace Prophecies regarding his birth paralleled him with Alexander and Seleucus,78 he wore his hair like Alexander and his seal at one time bore an image of the king (Suet. Aug. 50; Plin. hn 37.10), Tiberius compared him with Alexander and Romulus (d.c. 56.36), and he visited Alexander’s tomb in Alexandria and crowned the dead king.79 By associating himself with Alexander Augustus claimed to be his legitimate successor, but by altering Alexander’s decisions, such as removing his dedication from Cyme, he presented himself as Alexander’s superior. Catherine Edwards has recently examined how Roman conquest was symbolized by the movement to Rome of the art of the defeated nation.80 In addition to three statues of Hannibal (Plin. hn 34.32) and one of Jugurtha (Plu. Sull. 6), the spoils of Augustus’ victory over Cleopatra were also dedicated throughout Rome, at the Temple of Minerva, the Curia Julia, the shrine of Julius, and to Jupiter Capitolinus, Juno, and Minerva. Apparently, all earlier dedications were removed to make room. “Thus,” says Dio, “Cleopatra, though defeated and captured, was nevertheless glorified, inasmuch as her adornments repose as dedications in our temples and she herself is seen in gold in the shrine of Venus” (d.c. 51.22.1–3). Dio is clear that by bringing so much of the spoils of his victories to Rome Augustus honoured the defeated Cleopatra. The transportation of so many images of Alexander to Rome served a similar purpose. It showed that Augustus has surpassed and, in a manner of speaking, defeated Alexander. Alexander himself became the spoils of war in Rome’s conquest of his successors. Worshipping Alexander Much has been written regarding Alexander’s divinity, mostly on whether he was worshipped in his lifetime and whether he ordered his own deification. 78 79 80 Alexander: Cic. Phil. 5.47; Suet. Aug. 94.5; Sid. Apoll. Carm. 2.121–126; David Wardle, Suetonius: Life of Augustus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2014), 514. Seleucus: Suet. Aug. 94.4; David Engels, “Prodigies and Religious Propaganda: Seleucus and Augustus”, in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History xv, ed. Carl Deroux (Brussels: Latomus, 2010). Suet. Aug. 18.1; d.c. 51.16.5; Wardle, Life of Augustus, 157–158. On Augustus and Alexander, see the useful overviews in Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 214–223; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 107–139; Lara O’Sullivan, “Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens”, Phoenix 70 (2016). Catherine Edwards, “Importing the Alien: The Art of Conquest”, in Rome the Cosmopolis, ed. Catherine Edwards and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 183 There is no reason to revisit these arguments, excellent overviews have recently been provided by Franca Ferrandini and Boris Dreyer and there is as yet no concrete evidence for Alexander’s deification during his lifetime, though it is likely.81 In this final section I examine the afterlife of a few of these cults and explore how they were used by cities and rulers to create links with Alexander and to facilitate diplomatic negotiations. The cults changed over time, some went through periods of decline and revival while others were augmented by the addition of festivals or cults in honour of other individuals or gods. Alexander’s cultic afterlife was dynamic and vibrant. Evidence for cults for Alexander the Great exists from Alexandria, Athens, Bargylia, Beroia, Ephesus, Erythrae, Iasus, Ilium, the Ionian League, Cos, Macedon, Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, Miletus, Mytilene, Pella, Priene, Rhodes, Teos, Thasus, and perhaps even Sparta.82 By as early as the late fourth century bc cults to Alexander began to be associated with other cults and festivals. A law from Thasus from c. 325–300 recording the days of public festivals names twenty, including side-by-side the Duodekatheia and the Alexandreia.83 It is tempting to see both festivals as associated, particularly since Alexander’s cult was elsewhere associated with the Dodekatheoi.84 In Rhodes, a series of decrees from the late second and first centuries bc show that sometime prior to 129 bc the festivals of the Alexandreia and the Dionysia were amalgamated, 81 82 83 84 Franca Ferrandini Troisi, “La divinizzazione di Alessandro Magno: testimonianze epigrafiche”, Epigraphica 67 (2005); Boris Dreyer, “Heroes, Cults, and Divinity”, in Alexander the Great: A New History, ed. Waldemar Heckel and Laurence A. Tritle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Dreyer, “Heroes, cults, and divinity”; Andrew Erskine, “Ruler Cult and the Early Hellenistic City”, in The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323– 276bc), ed. Hans Hauben and Alexander Meeus (Leuven: Peeters, 2014); cf. Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 17–28, 245–246, 251–252. seg xvii 415; lscg Suppl. 69; François Salviat, “Une nouvelle loi thasienne: institutions judiciaires et fêtes religieuses à la fin du ive siècle av. J.-C.”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 82 (1958): 244–248. Philip was depicted as a thirteenth Olympian at his daughter’s wedding at Aegae in 336 (d.s. 16.92.5), Demades proposed in 324 bc that Alexander be included as a thirteenth god (Ael. vh 5.12), and Lucian claimed that Alexander was added to the Dodekatheoi by a number of Greek cities (DMort 391). On the phenomenon of the thirteenth deity in GrecoRoman religion, see Otto Weinreich, “Zwölfgötter”, in Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, ed. Wilhelm Heinrich Roscher (Hildesheim: Teubner, 1937), col. 801–848; with additions in Antonio La Penna “Il tredicesimo altare”, Athenaeum 105 (2017). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 184 wallace for which tragic contests, a four-horse chariot race, and a priesthood of Alexander are attested.85 The context for the association of these festivals is, however, unknown. By the mid-third century bc cult honours for Alexander were closely associated with those for his Successors. Andrew Stewart has argued that an early third century statue of Pan-Alexander or Alexander-Panicus from Pella is evidence not only of cult for Alexander but of the association of that cult with the prominent use of Pan in the royal iconography of Antigonus Gonatas.86 This is not the only instance of Alexander being associated with Pan, both were painted together by Protogenes at the end of his life, sometime after 306/5 bc (Plin. hn 35.106). A fragmentary decree from Cos dating from c. 250 mentions two buildings, an Alexandreion and a Ptolemaieion.87 It is not certain what purpose these buildings served. They may have been cult buildings, such as existed in numerous other cities for other rulers, but we cannot be certain whether they were separate buildings or one building with two names. The Ptolemaieion, for instance, might have been the gymnasium, which in 150 bc arranged a procession in honour of Ptolemy iv (i.Cos ed 45). At Bargylia the gymnasium was the centre of the cult of Alexander, so it might be the case that at Cos the gymnasium, or different sections of it, were known as both the Ptolemaieion, in whose honour it was dedicated, and the Alexandreion, since it housed the cult of Alexander. Philip Gauthier has restored the text to show that the gymnasium housed the joint cult of Alexander and Ptolemy, but whatever the case it seems that cult honours for Alexander and Ptolemy were in some way associated on Cos.88 The earliest Greek oracles to recognize Alexander’s divinity, before even Zeus-Ammon at Siwah, were the Sibyl of Erythrae and the oracle of Apollo among the Branchidae.89 A cult of Alexander is confirmed for Erythrae by a decree from c. 300–260 bc recording the sale of priesthoods and mentioning a 85 86 87 88 89 ig xii (1) 57, 71; i.Lindos 233, ll. 8–9; igrrp 1116, ll. 6–7; Mario Segrè, “Il culto rodio di Alessandro e dei Tolomei”, Bulletin de la Société Royale d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie 34 (1941); Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 26–28. For the date of amalgamation, see Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 26 n. 7. Stewart, Faces of Power, 286–288 with fig. 99. Note seg xlvii 893, a third century bc epigram to Pan mentioning Antigonus Gonatas. Dmitrios Bosnakis and Klaus Hallof, “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos i”, Chiron 33 (2003): 226–228, num. 13. bé (2004) num. 237: [τῶι γυμνασίωι τῶι Ἀλεξα]νδρείωι καὶ Πτολεμαιείωι παρ[ὰ τὰς εἰκόνας (τοὺς βωμοὺς?) τοῦ τε Ἀλεξάνδρου | καὶ τοῦ (Σωτῆρος?) Πτολε]μαίου. Str. 17.1.43 (c814); Callisth. FGrH 124 f14. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 185 priest of “King Alexander” (ik.Erythrai 201, ll. a78–79).90 In the 260s Erythrae appears to have integrated the cult of the Seleukids with that of Alexander. In negotiations with Antiochus i in the 260s Erythrae cited Alexander’s grant of autonomia and aphorologesia (tax-exemption) to the city as a precedent for Antiochus’ reconfirmation of these status benefactions.91 An Erythraean honorary decree for Antiochos i from c. 270–260 was to be announced at the Alexandreia games.92 A decree of the Ionian League (ik.Erythrai 504), of which Erythrae was a member, from c. 268–262 institutes a festival in honour of Antiochus i, Antiochus ii, and Stratonice and makes mention of the Alexandreia festival, which we know from Strabo took place at the “sacred precinct of Alexander son of Philip” at Chalcideis, between Teos and Clazomenae (Str. 14.1.31 [c644]). This decree of the Ionian League is fragmentary, but it appears that the initiation of the Antiocheia festival was connected with the Alexandreia festival.93 Politics and religion were intertwined and the memory of Alexander’s benefactions and the cult in his honour were used by the city in its diplomatic relations with the Seleucid dynasty. A recently-published altar base from Iasus dating from c. 250–200 bc is more difficult to interpret. Dedicated to “Alexander and Olympias”, the altar was reused and contains illegible traces of an earlier inscription.94 Alexander and Olympias are already associated in iconography, but this is their first cult asso- 90 91 92 93 94 Syll.3 1014.111; lsam 25; see also ik.Erythrai 207, l. 90: Ἀλεξάνδρ[ωι]. A priest of Alexander existed as late as the third century ad (ik.Erythrai 64: Τ. Φλ. Αὐρή. Ἀλέξανδρον … ἱερέα θεοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου). Alexander’s plan to cut through the isthmus of Mount Mimas was not completed (Paus. 2.1.5; Plin. nh 5.116), but he did made Erythrae αὐτό|[ν]ομος ἦν καὶ ἀφορολόγητος (ik.Erythrai 31, ll. 22–23). ik.Erythrai 31, ll. 22–23 (post-261): ἐπί τε Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ἀντιγόνου αὐτό|[ν]ομος ἦν καὶ ἀφορολόγητος ἡ πόλις ὑμῶν. ik.Erythrai 30, ll. 22–23: [ἀναγορεῦσαι δὲ τοὺς ἀγωνοθέτας ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι] | τῶν Ἀλεξαν[δρείων]. ik.Erythrai 504, ll. 4–5: ὅσον καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἀλε|[ξάνδρου πομπὴν καὶ θυσ]ίαν δίδοται (?); ll. 25– 27 (ogis 222): [—τὴν θυ]σίαν τῶν Ἀλεξανδρείων | [παρακαλεῖν πάντας τοὺς δήμο]υς τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς | [θύσιας]. The runner Praxipppos won the παῖδας δόλιχον | Ἀλεξάνδρεια in the late third or early second century bc (ik.Erythrai 87, ll. 5–6); the boxer Lenaios won ἄνδρας δὲ Ἴσθμια [καὶ τὸν ἀχθέντα] | ὑπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἰώνων [Ἁλεξάνδρωι] | ἀγῶνα καὶ Ἡράκληα sometime after 31 bc (ik.Erythrai 89, ll. 5–7). seg lx 1110: Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ὄλυμπιάδος; Gianfranco Maddoli, “Epigrafi di Iasos: Nuovi suppplementi, i”, La parola del passato 62 (2007): 310–316; “Du nouveau sur les Hékatomnides d’après les inscriptions de Iasos”, in Hellenistic Karia, ed. Riet van Bremen and JanMathieu Carbon (Talence: Ausonius Éditions, 2010), 129–131; “Ara in onore di Alessandro ed Olimpiade”, Studi Classici e Orientali 61 (2015): 137–143. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 186 wallace ciation.95 It is tempting to assume that the altar refers to Alexander iii and his mother Olympias, but a context for a joint cult is not easy to find. The publisher Gianfranco Maddoli has suggested the restoration of Macedonian control in Caria under Antigonus Doson and Philip v in the 220s—Doson’s mother was a Thessalian named Olympias—or Augustan propaganda, a view supported by Anna Maria Biraschi.96 The altar may even refer to Alexander ii and Olympias ii of Epirus, husband and wife and half-sibling children of Pyrrhus. Cults to Alexander had a long afterlife and two examples from the third century ad show how they could be renewed under the Roman Empire. A third century ad statue base from Bargylia in Caria, but which might have come originally from Iasus, records a new statue for “God Alexander”.97 It would appear that the cult of Alexander in Bargylia was revived in the third century, perhaps as a result of Severan imitatio Alexandri and the increased popularity of Alexander at this time.98 Caracalla’s emulation of Alexander was legendary and saw him undertake a campaign against the Parthians in ad216/7 complete with a Macedonian-style phalanx.99 Severus Alexander was allegedly born in a temple of Alexander, assumed his name, and added his image to the deified emperors in his personal chapel.100 A marble plaque from the Roman agora of Beroia in Macedon and dating to ad252 mentions an Alexandreia festival. A further inscription connects the Alexandreia with the Olympia in Beroia, which Leschhorn has recently argued first took place in ad 243, under Gordian iii.101 A series of late second or third century ad inscriptions from Mygdonia, near 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Margarete Bieber, “The Portraits of Alexander the Great”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93 (1949): 378–379. Anna Maria Biraschi, “Alessandro ed Olimpiade a Iasos. Tradizioni greco-troiane fra Epiro ed Asia Minore da Alessandro ad Augusto”, Studi Classici e Orientali 61 (2015): 145–161. ik.Iasos 620 = ogis 3: Θεὸν | Ἀλέξανδρον | ἡ πόλις | ἀνενεώσατο. Andrew Stewart, “Alexander in Greek and Roman Art”, in Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, ed. Joseph Roisman (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 61–66; Dahmen, Legend of Alexander, 123–151. Hdn. 4.8; d.c. 78.7–9; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 176–186. Nero had earlier renamed a legion “the phalanx of Alexander the Great”, see Suet. Nero 19.2; David Woods, “Three Notes on Military Affairs under Nero”, Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 3 (2006): 148–150. Antiochus iv Epiphanes of Commagene had a unit of ‘Macedonians’ who were trained, dressed, and equipped in Macedonian style (Joseph. bj 5.460–465). sha Alex. Sev. 5.1–2, 13.1–4, 25.9, 30.3, 31.4–5, 35.1–4, 50.4–5; Dahmen, Legend of Alexander, 135 with pl. 20. seg xlix 815, l. 6 (see also i.Beroia 68, ll. 10–11, 69, ll. 6–7); i.Perinthos-Herakleia 31, ll. 6– 7; Wolfgang Leschhorn, “Griechische Agone in Makedonien und Thrakien. Ihre Verbreitung und politisch-religiöse Bedeutung in der römischen Kaiserzeit”, in Stephanos nomis- For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 187 Thessaloniki, record dedications to Alexander the Great, his son Alexander iv, and his sister Thessalonice (seg xlvii 960; ig x.2 (1), 275–277); one mentions a priest of Alexander, the son of Zeus (ig x.2 (1) 278, ll. 1–3: ἱε|ρεὺς· Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺ· ἀ|πὸ Διός). We cannot associate any of these cults with the Severans directly, but Caracalla’s and his successors’ fixation with Alexander the Great must have stimulated many Greek cities to renew or reemphasise their cults to Alexander in the early third century ad, as the Tarsus and Aboukir medallions suggest.102 The cults to Alexander at Bargylia, Beroia, and indeed at Erythrae, where a priest of Alexander is attested in the third century ad,103 reveal the continued prominence of Alexander. As with the evidence from Pella, Cos, and Erythrae, where cults of Alexander facilitated diplomatic connections with the Antigonid, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid dynasties, so too might the cults of Alexander at Bargylia and Beroia have facilitated such contacts with the Roman emperors and reflected royal propaganda under the Severans. Conclusion Alexander imitatio, aemulatio, and comparatio were adaptive and could have very local characteristics. Each city had its own Alexander, which influenced a ruler’s engagement with Alexander’s memory at a local level. At Ephesus, Mithridates, Antony, and Augustus all imitated Alexander’s earlier extension of the temple’s sacred boundary. At Amisus, Lucullus played Alexander’s local role as guarantor of freedom and democracy, as Sulla, Caesar, and others did at Ilium. At Rome Alexander became the spoils of war, and his dedications, paintings, and monuments assumed new meanings in that context. These local Alexanders were, at times, highly original. Echoes of a uniquely Arcadian Alexander could be found at Megalopolis: a descendant of Alexander was invented in the second century bc, just as a “house of Alexander” had been invented by the second century ad—might the “house of Alexander” that Pausanias saw originally have belonged to Alexander of Megalopolis?—and dedications by Alexander were presented to tourists at nearby Gortys. Coupled with the statues in the agora and renamed Stoa of Philip, there is a deeply inventive local history here of Argead connection with the city. 102 103 matikos. Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrike Peter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 402. The Ὀλύμπια ἐν Βεροίᾳ is also mentioned in ig ii2 3169/70, l. 19. On which, see Dahmen, Legend of Alexander, 144–152 with pls. 25.3–27.7. ik.Erythrai 64: Τ. Φλ. Αὐρή. Ἀλέξανδρον … ἱερέα θεοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 188 wallace Since imitation or emulation of Alexander was in many cases locallygrounded, it frequently operated within the repertoire of techniques that a ruler had for engaging with a subject city or community. Engagement with the memory of Alexander’s actions was part of the negotiation of statuses and the balance of power between ruler and city, and Alexander’s precedent lasted well into the Roman period. Cities promoted local variations of Alexander in order to pressure rulers to act in certain ways, while rulers themselves engaged in Alexander-imitatio or aemulatio in order to present and legitimise their power over the city. The afterlife of Alexander’s cults shows how his memory could be employed in negotiations with Hellenistic kings, as at Erythrae in the 260s bc, or in response to imperial promotions of royal imagery, as with Caracalla in the third century ad. But as Alexander’s afterlife moved from the Hellenistic Greek to the Roman imperial world, the nature of his reception changed and its associations were rethought as new audiences appeared. Roman imitatio may have begun in the republican period with the intense elite rivalry and movement towards sole rule seen during the civil wars, but it was expanded and monopolised by the emperors in the imperial period. Alexander’s literary popularity never waned and the surviving literary sources for his reign—Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian, Justin—span the mid-first century bc to the early third century ad. But, by the third century ad there was a perceptible increase in Alexander cults and claims to descent which perhaps reflect Severan emulation of Alexander and increased royal interest in Alexander as model. Imitation was undertaken for various reasons—to justify local precedents, to display status or military victory, to make claims to legitimate rule in the Greek east—but historic imitatio allowed historiographic comparatio. By imitating Alexander, Roman generals and emperors left themselves open to negative association with the worst aspects of his character. Greco-Macedonian engagement with the memory of Alexander may have been different from Roman, but the memory of his actions remained important within the relationship between ruler and subject throughout Greek and Roman history. Bibliography Asirvatham, Sulochana. “The Memory of Alexander in Plutarch’s Lives of Demetrius, Pyrrhus and Eumenes”. In Power, Kingship and Memory in Ancient Macedonian History, edited by Timothy Howe and Francesca Pownall. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, Forthcoming. Badoud, Nathan. “Note sur trois inscriptions mentionnant des Rhodiens morts à la For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 189 guerre. Contribution à l’étude des relations entre Rhodes et Rome à la fin du ive s. av. J.-C.”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 139–140 (2015–2016): 237–246. Bieber, Margarete. “The Portraits of Alexander the Great”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 93 (1949): 373–426. Biraschi, Anna Maria. “Alessandro ed Olimpiade a Iasos. Tradizioni greco-troiane fra Epiro ed Asia Minore da Alessandro ad Augusto”. Studi Classici e Orientali 61 (2015): 145–161. Boardman, John. The Archaeology of Nostalgia. How the Greeks Re-Created their Mythical Past. London: Thames and Hudson, 2002. Bohm, Claudia. Imitatio Alexandri im Hellenismus. Munich: Verlag V. Florentz, 1989. Bosch-Puche, Francisco. “L’‘autel’ du temple d’Alexandre le Grand à Bahariya retrouvé”. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 108 (2008): 29–44. Bosnakis, Dmitrios and Klaus Hallof. “Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos i”. Chiron 33 (2003): 203–262. Briant, Pierre. The First European. A History of Alexander in the Age of Empire. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2017. Breitenbach, Hans Rudolf. “Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius”. Museum Helveticum 26 (1969): 146–152. Byrne, Sean G. Roman Citizens of Athens. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Calder, William M. “Alexander’s House”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 23 (1982): 281–287. Calcani, Giuliana. Cavalieri di bronzo: la torma di Alessandro opera di Lisippo. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1989. Chaniotis, Angelos. Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Epigraphische Beiträge zur griechischen Historiographie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1988. Christodoulou, Panos. “Nicokréon, le dernier roi de Salamine de Chypre: discours idéologique et pouvoir politique”. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 39 (2009): 235–258. Clinton, Kevin. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries. American Philosophical Society, 1974. Clinton, Kevin. “A Family of Eumolpidai and Kerykes Descended from Pericles”. Hesperia 73 (2004): 39–57. Cohen, Getzl M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Croisille, Jean-Michel, ed. Neronia iv: Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos. Brussels: Latomus, 1990. Dahmen, Karsten. The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins. London: Routledge, 2007. Δάκαρη, Σωτηρίου i. “Ἀνασκαφὴ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Δωδώνης”. Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 125 (1973): 87–98. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 190 wallace Dreyer, Boris. “Heroes, Cults, and Divinity”. In Alexander the Great: A New History, edited by Waldemar Heckel and Laurence A. Tritle, 218–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Edson, Charles. “The tomb of Olympias”. Hesperia 18 (1949): 84–95. Edwards, Catherine. “Importing the Alien: The Art of Conquest”. In Rome the Cosmopolis, edited by Catherine Edwards and Greg Woolf, 44–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Engels, David. “Prodigies and Religious Propaganda: Seleucus and Augustus”. In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History xv, edited by Carl Deroux, 153–177. Brussels: Latomus, 2010. Erskine, Andrew. “Life after Death: Alexandria and the Body of Alexander”. Greece & Rome 49 (2002): 163–179. Erskine, Andrew. Troy Between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and Imperial Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Erskine, Andrew. “Ruler Cult and the Early Hellenistic City”. In The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276bc), edited by Hans Hauben and Alexander Meeus, 579–597. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Ferrandini Troisi, Franca. “La divinizzazione di Alessandro Magno: testimonianze epigrafiche”. Epigraphica 67 (2005): 23–34. Fredricksmeyer, Ernst. “Three Notes on Alexander’s Deification”. American Journal of Ancient History 4 (1979): 1–3. Gallivan, Paul A. “The False Neros: A Re-Examination”. Historia 22 (1973): 364–365. Goukowsky, Paul. Essai sur les origins du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 avant J.-C.). ii: Alexandre et Dionysos. Nancy: Université de Nancy, 1981. Green, Peter. “Caesar and Alexander: aemulatio, imitatio, and comparatio”. American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978): 1–26. Grote, George. A History of Greece, vol. 1. London: John Murray, 1872. Gruen, Erich. “Rome and the Myth of Alexander”. In Ancient History in a Modern University, edited by Tom Hillard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E.V. Nixon, 178–191. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Habicht, Christian. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. Munich: Beck, 1970. Michel, Dorothea. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius. Archäologische Untersuchungen. Brussels: Latomus, 1967. Hammond, Nicholas G.L. and Frank W. Walbank. A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Hansen, Mogens, and Thomas Heine Nielsen. An Inventory of Archaic and Greek Poleis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Heuß, Alfred, “Alexander der Große und das Problem der historischen Urteilsbildung”. Historische Zeitschrift 225 (1977): 29–64. Huqoq Excavtion Project. “Press Reports”. Accessed May 25, 2016. http://huqoqexcavationproject.org/press‑2/. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 191 Israeli Antiquities Authority. “Huqoq—2013”. Accessed May 25, 2016. http://www.hadashot‑esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=12648. Jones, Kenneth R. “Alcaeus of Messene, Philip v, and the Colossus of Rhodes. A ReExamination of Anth. Pal. 6.171”. Classical Quarterly 64 (2014): 136–151. Kapetanopoulos, Elias. “An Athenian-Makedonian Marriage of Alexander’s Line”. Balkan Studies 31 (1990) [1992]: 259–267. Kienast, Dietmar. “Augustus und Alexander”. Gymnasium 76 (1969): 430–455. Klose, Dietrich. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987. Koulakiotis, Elias. Genese und Metamorphosen des Alexandermythos im Spiegel der griechischen nichthistoriographischen Überlieferung bis zum 3. Jh. n.Chr. Konstanz: uvk Verlag, 2006. Kühnen, Angela. Die Imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik (1. Jh. v. Chr.–3. Jh. n. Chr.). Münster: Rhema Verlag, 2008. La Penna, Antonio. “Il tredicesimo altare”. Athenaeum 105 (2017): 248–249. Lauter, Hans. “Megalopolis: Ausgrabungen aus der Agora 1991–2002”. In Ancient Arcadia, edited by Erik Østby, 235–248. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens, 2005. Lauter, Hans, and Theodoros Spyropoulos. “Megalopolis. 3, Vorbericht 1996–1997”. Archäologischer Anzeiger (1998): 415–451. Legrand, Philippe-Ernest, and Joseph Chamonard. “Inscriptions de Phrygie”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 17 (1893): 241–293. Leschhorn, Wolfgang. “Griechische Agone in Makedonien und Thrakien. Ihre Verbreitung und politisch-religiöse Bedeutung in der römischen Kaiserzeit”. In Stephanos nomismatikos. Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Ulrike Peter, 399– 408. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998. Lund, Helen S. Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship. London: Routledge, 1992. Maddoli, Gianfranco. “Du nouveau sur les Hékatomnides d’après les inscriptions de Iasos”. In Hellenistic Karia, edited by Riet van Bremen and Jan-Mathieu Carbon, 123– 131. Talence: Ausonius Éditions, 2010. Maddoli, Gianfranco. “Ara in onore di Alessandro ed Olimpiade.” Studi Classici e Orientali 61 (2015): 137–143. Mallan, Christopher T. “The Spectre of Alexander: Cassius Dio and the Alexandermotif.” Greece and Rome 64 (2017): 132–144. Mari, Manuela and John Thornton. “Città greche tra conservazione e modelli rivoluzionari. Megalopoli, Larisa e i re Macedoni nel iii secolo a.C.”. In Studi ellenistici xxx, edited by Basilio Virgilio, 139–196. Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2016. Marrone, Giovannella. “Alessandro fra ideologia e propaganda in età augustea”. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 9 (1978): 245–259. Marrone, Giovannella. “Imitatio Alexandri in età augustea (nota a Plin., nat. 35, 27 e 93– 94)”. Atene e Roma 25 (1980): 35–41. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 192 wallace Marrone, Giovannella. Ecumene Augustea: Una politica per il consenso. Rome: L’Erme di Bretschneider, 1993. Martin, Devon. “Did Pompey Engage in imitatio Alexandri?”. In Studies in Latin History and Literature ix, edited by Carl Deroux, 23–51. Brussels: Latomus, 1998. Mayor, Adrienne. The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Morello, Ruth. “Livy’s Alexander Digression (9.17–19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics”. Journal of Roman Studies 92 (2002): 62–85. Müller, Sabine. “Die Problematik der Nachahmung—imitatio und aemulatio bei Alexander iii. von Makedonien”. In Plagiate. Fälschungen, Imitate und andere Strategien aus zweiter Hand, edited by Jochen Bung, Malte-Christian Gruber, and Sebastian Kühn, 73–83. Berlin: Trafo, 2009. National Geographic. “Explore This Mysterious Mosaic—It May Portray Alexander the Great”. Accessed September 10th, 2016. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/ 09/mysterious‑mosaic‑alexander‑the‑great‑israel/ Neatby, Leslie. “Romano-Egyptian Relations during the Third Century bc”. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 81 (1950): 89–98. Nock, Arthur Darby. Review of Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, by Emma J. Edelstein and Levy Edelstein. Classical Philology 45 (1950): 45–50. O’Sullivan, Lara. “Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens”. Phoenix 70 (2016): 339– 360. Ogden, Daniel. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 1999. Oost, Stewart Irvin. “Amynander, Athamania, and Rome”. Classical Philology 52 (1957): 1–15. Overtoom, Nikolaus. “A Roman Tradition of Alexander the Great Counterfactual History”. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2012): 203–212. Petrain, David. “The Archaeology of the Epigrams from the Tabulae Italicae: Adaptation, Allusion, Alteration”. Mnemosyne 65 (2012): 597–635. Pillot, William. “Ilion, Athena Ilias et es Detroits, d’Alexandre le Grand a Antiochos iii”. In Identité régionale, identits civiques autour des Détroits des Dardanelles et du Bosphore (ve siècle av. J.-C.–Iie siècle apr. J.-C.), edited by Jacques Annequin, Laurène Leclercq, and Antonio Gonzales, 133–170. Besancon-Cedex: Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2016. Pollard, John Graham. Italian Renaissance Medals in the Museo Nazionale of Bargello. Florence: Studio per Edizioni Scelte, Florence, 1984. Poulsen, Birte. “Alexander the Great in Italy during the Hellenistic Period”. In Alexander the Great: Reality and Myth, edited by Jesper Carlsen, Birte Poulsen, Otto Due, and Bodil Due, 161–170. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1993. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 193 Ramsey, William. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1897. Rehak, Paul. “The Statues of Alexander the Great in the Forum Augustum and the Regia”. American Journal of Archaeology 94 (1990): 312. Ricci, Also, trans. The Travels of Marco Polo. London: Routledge, 1931. Richardson, J.S. Review of Alexander-imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit, by Otto Weippert. Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974): 238. Rigsby, Kent. J. Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Rogers, Guy. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London: Routledge, 1991. Rose, Charles. The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Rostovtzeff, Michael. “προγονοι”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 55 (1935) 56–66. Rebuffat, François. “Alexandre le Grand et Apollonia de Pisidie”. Revue Numisatique 28 (1986): 65–71. Salviat, François. “Une nouvelle loi thasienne: institutions judiciaires et fêtes religieuses à la fin du ive siècle av. J.-C.”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 82 (1958): 193– 267. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2003. Schmaltz, Bernhard. “Ein triumphierender Alexander?”. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 101 (1994): 121–129. Schwartz, Seth. The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Segrè, Mario. “Il culto rodio di Alessandro e dei Tolomei,” Bulletin de la Société Royale d’Archéologie d’Alexandrie 34 (1941): 29–39. Smith, Rowland. “A Lost Historian of Alexander ‘Descended from Alexander’, and Read by Julian? Praxagoras of Athens Reviewed in the Light of Attic Epigraphy”. Historia 56 (2007): 356–380. Smith, Rowland. “The Casting of Julian the Apostate ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander the Great. A Topos in Antique Historiography and its Modern echoes”. Histos 5 (2011): 44–106. Spannagel, Martin. Exemplaria principis. Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums. Heidelberg, 1999. Spawforth, Anthony. “Families at Roman Sparta and Epidaurus: Some Prosopographical Notes”. Annual of the British School at Athens 80 (1985): 191–258. Spenser, Diane, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002. Spijkerman, Augusto. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Franciscan Printing Press: Jerusalem, 1978. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 194 wallace Stewart, Andrew. Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Stewart, Andrew. “Alexander in Greek and Roman Art”. In Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great, edited by Joseph Roisman, 31–66. Brill: Leiden, 2003. Stylianou, Panikos. “The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the Years 323–301)”. Ἐπετηρίς—Annual of the Cyprus Reserch Centre 20 (1994): 1–84 Tarn, William Woodthorpe, “Queen Ptolemais and Apama”. Classical Quarterly 23 (1929): 138–141. Tarn, William Woodthorpe, The Greeks in Bactria in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951. Taylor, Michael. “Sacred Plunder and the Seleucid Near East”. Greece and Rome 61 (2014): 222–241. Vasunia, Phiroze. The Classics and Colonial India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Virgilio, Biagio. Le Roi Écrit. Le Correspondance du Soverain hellénistique, suivie de Deux Lettres d’Antiochos iii à Partir de Louis Robert et d’Adolf Wilhelm. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2011. Walbank, Frank. “η τωμ ολων ελπισ and the Antigonids”. In Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, edited by Frank Walbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wallace, Shane. “Court, Kingship, and Royal Style in the Early Hellenistic Period”. In The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, edited by Andrew Erskine, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Shane Wallace, 1–30. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2017. Wallace, Shane. “Alexander the Great and Democracy in the Hellenistic World”. In The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Politics and Political Thought, edited by Mirko Canavaro and Benjamin Gray, 45–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Wardle, David. Suetonius: Life of Augustus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2014. Weippert, Otto. Alexander-imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit. Augsburg: Julius-Maximilians-Universität, 1972. Weinreich, Otto. “Zwölfgötter”. In Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, edited Wilhelm Heinrich Roscher. Hildesheim: Teubner, 1937. Welch, Kathryn, and Hannah Mitchell. “Revisiting the Roman Alexander”. Antichthon 47 (2013): 80–100. Westall, Richard. “The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar”. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 103 (1996): 83–118. Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. “Hero, God or Tyrant? Alexander the Great in the Early Hellenistic Period”. In Antimonarchical Discourses in Antiquity, edited by in Börm Henning, 85–112. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV metalexandron 195 Woods, David. “Three Notes on Military Affairs under Nero”. Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes 3 (2006): 131–150. Woods, David. “Caligula, Pompey, and Alexander the Great”. Eranos 104 (2006–2007): 120–133. Woodward, Arthur Maurice. “Excavations at Sparta, 1924–28. The Theatre: Architectural Remains”. Annual of the British School at Athens 30 (1928–1929, 1929–1930): 151–240. Zwierlein, Otto. “Lucans Caesar in Troja”. Hermes 114 (1986): 460–478. List of Abbreviations Austin hw Austin, Michel. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. bé Bulletin Épigraphique; in Revue des Études Grecques FGrH Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin, 1923–. ghi Rhodes, Peter and Robin Osborne. Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404– 323bc. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. i.Beroia Gounaropoulou, Lucretia, and Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos. Επιγραφές Κάτω Μακεδονίας: μεταξύ του Βερμίου όρους και του Αξιού ποταμού: τεύχος Α´ Επιγραφές Βέροιας. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard, 1998. i.Cos Segrè, Mario. Iscrizioni di Cos, 2 vols. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1993. i.Eleusis Clinton, Kevin. Eleusis: The Inscriptions on Stone, 2 vols. Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens, 2005–2008. Blinkenberg, Christian. Lindos. Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. Vol. ii, i.Lindos Inscriptions. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1941. i.Olympia Dittenberger, Wilhelm and Karl Purgold. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin: A. Asher, 1896. i.Perinthos-Herakleia Sayar, Mustafa Hamdi. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 1998. ig Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1873–. IGLSyr i Jalabert, Louis, and René Mouterde. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, i. Commagène et Cyrrhestique. Paris: Geuthner, 1929. igrrp Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes, 3 vols. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux, 1911–1927. ik. Adramytteion (ik 50–51) Staube, Josef. Die Bucht von Adramytteion, 2 vols. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1996. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 196 wallace ik.Ephesos (ik 11.1–2, 12–16, 17.1–4) Wankel, Hermann, et al. Die Inchriften von Ephesos, 10 vols. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1979–1981. ik.Erythrai (ik 1) Engelmann, Helmut, and Reinhold Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai, 2 vols. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1972–1973. ik.Iasos (ik 28.1–2) Blümel, Wolfgang. Die Inschriften von Iasos, 2 vols. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1985. ik.Ilion (ik 3) Frisch, Peter. Die Inschriften von Ilion. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 1975. ik.Priene (ik 69) Blümel, Wolfgang, and Reinhold Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Priene. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 2014. ise Moretti, Luigi. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, 2 vols. Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1967–1975. lsam Sokolowski, Franciszek. Lois Sacrées de l’Asie Mineure. Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1955 lscg Sokolowski, Franciszek. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1969. Mauerbauinschriften Maier, Franz Georg. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, 2 vols. Heidelberg: Vestigia, 1959–1961. ogis Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–1905. P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–. rpc Roman Provincial Coinage. London: The British Museum Press, 1992–. seg Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden: Brill, 1923–. sgdi Collitz, Hermann, and Friedrich Brechtel, Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 4 vols. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1884– 1915. Welles rc Welles, Charles Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS