Chapter XCIV (2)

The Baktrian leader Bessus, who had assumed the title of king, could muster no more than a small force, with which he laid waste the country, and then retired across the river Oxus into Sogdiana, destroying all the boats. Alexander overran Baktria with scarce any resistance; the chief places, Baktra (Balkh) and Aornos surrendering to him on the first demonstration of attack. Having named Artabazus satrap of Baktria, and placed Archelaus with a garrison in Aornos,[480] he marched northward towards the river Oxus, the boundary between Baktria and Sogdiana. It was a march of extreme hardship; reaching for two or three days across a sandy desert destitute of water, and under very hot weather, The Oxus, six furlongs in breadth, deep, and rapid, was the most formidable river that the Macedonians had yet seen.[481] Alexander transported his army across it on the tent-skins inflated and stuffed with straw. It seems surprising that Bessus did not avail himself of this favorable opportunity for resisting a passage in itself so difficult; he had however been abandoned by his Baktrian cavalry at the moment when he quitted their territory. Some of his companions, Spitamenes and others, terrified at the news that Alexander had crossed the Oxus, were anxious to make their own peace by betraying their leader.[482] They sent a proposition to this effect; upon which Ptolemy with a light division was sent forward by Alexander, and was enabled, by extreme celerity of movements, to surprise and seize Bessus in a village. Alexander ordered that he should be held in chains, naked and with a collar round his neck, at the side of the road along which the army were marching. On reaching the spot, Alexander stopped his chariot, and sternly demanded from Bessus, on what pretence he had first arrested, and afterwards slain, his king and benefactor Darius. Bessus replied, that he had not done this single-handed; others were concerned in it along with him, to procure for themselves lenient treatment from Alexander. The king said no more, but ordered Bessus to be scourged, and then sent back as prisoner to Baktra[483]—where we shall again hear of him.

[480] Arrian, iii. 29, 3; Curtius, vii. 5, 1.

[481] Arrian, iii. 29, 4; Strabo, xi. p. 509. Evidently Ptolemy
and Aristobulus were much more awe-struck with the Oxus, than
with either the Tigris or the Euphrates. Arrian (iv. 6, 13) takes
his standard of comparison, in regard to rivers, from the river
Peneius in Thessaly.

[482] Curtius, vii. 5, 19. The exactness of Quintus Curtius,
in describing the general features of Baktria and Sogdiana, is
attested in the strongest language by modern travellers. See
Burnes’s Travels into Bokhara, vol. ii. ch. 8. p. 211, 2nd edit.;
also Morier, Second Journey in Persia, p. 282.

But in the geographical details of the country, we are at fault.
We have not sufficient data to identify more than one or two
of the localities mentioned, in the narrative of Alexander’s
proceedings, either by Curtius or Arrian. That Marakanda is the
modern Samarkand—the river Polytimetus, the modern Kohik—and
Baktra or Zariaspa the modern Balkh—appears certain; but the
attempts made by commentators to assign the site of other places
are not such as to carry conviction.

In fact, these countries, at the present moment, are known
only superficially as to their general scenery; for purposes
of measurement and geography, they are almost unknown; as may
be seen by any one who reads the Introduction to Erskine’s
translation of the Memoirs of Sultan Baber.

[483] Arrian. iii. 30, 5-10. These details are peculiarly
authentic, as coming from Ptolemy, the person chiefly concerned.

Aristobulus agreed in the description of the guise in which
Bessus was exhibited, but stated that he was brought up in this
way by Spitamenes and Dataphernes. Curtius (vii. 24, 36) follows
this version. Diodorus also gives an account very like it,
mentioning nothing about Ptolemy (xvii. 83).

In his onward march, Alexander approached a small town, inhabited by the Branchidæ; descendants of those Branchidæ near Miletus on the coast of Ionia, who had administered the great temple and oracle of Apollo on Cape Poseidion, and who had yielded up the treasures of that temple to the Persian king Xerxes, 150 years before. This surrender had brought upon them so much odium, that when the dominion of Xerxes was overthrown on the coast, they retired with him into the interior of Asia. He assigned to them lands in the distant region of Sogdiana, where their descendants had ever since remained; bilingual and partially dis-hellenized, yet still attached to their traditions and origin. Delighted to find themselves once more in commerce with Greeks, they poured forth to meet and welcome the army, tendering all that they possessed. Alexander, when he heard who they were and what was their parentage, desired the Milesians in his army to determine how they should be treated. But as these Milesians were neither decided nor unanimous, Alexander announced that he would determine for himself. Having first occupied the city in person with a select detachment, he posted his army all round the walls, and then gave orders not only to plunder it, but to massacre the entire population—men, women, and children. They were slain without arms or attempt at resistance, resorting to nothing but prayers and suppliant manifestations. Alexander next commanded the walls to be levelled, and the sacred groves cut down, so that no habitable site might remain, nor any thing except solitude and sterility.[484] Such was the revenge taken upon these unhappy victims for the deeds of their ancestors in the fourth or fifth generation before. Alexander doubtless considered himself to be executing the wrath of Apollo against an accursed race who had robbed the temple of the god.[485] The Macedonian expedition had been proclaimed to be undertaken originally for the purpose of revenging upon the contemporary Persians the ancient wrongs done to Greece by Xerxes; so that Alexander would follow out the same sentiment in revenging upon the contemporary Branchidæ the acts of their ancestors—yet more guilty than Xerxes, in his belief. The massacre of this unfortunate population was in fact an example of human sacrifice on the largest scale, offered to the gods by the religious impulses of Alexander, and worthy to be compared to that of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, when he sacrificed 3000 Grecian prisoners on the field of Himera, where his grandfather Hamilkar had been slain seventy years before.[486]

[484] Curtius, vii. 23; Plutarch de Serâ Numinis Vindictâ, p.
557 B; Strabo xi. p. 518: compare also xiv. p. 634, and xvii. p.
814. This last-mentioned passage of Strabo helps us to understand
the peculiarly strong pious fervor with which Alexander regarded
the temple and oracle of Branchidæ. At the time when Alexander
went up to the oracle of Ammon in Egypt, for the purpose of
affiliating himself to Zeus Ammon, there came to him envoys from
Miletus, announcing that the oracle at Branchidæ, which had been
silent ever since the time of Xerxes, had just begun to give
prophecy, and had certified the fact that Alexander was the son
of Zeus, besides many other encouraging predictions.

The massacre of the Branchidæ by Alexander was described by
Diodorus, but was contained in that part of the seventeenth book
which is lost; there is a great lacuna in the MSS. after cap.
83. The fact is distinctly indicated in the table of contents
prefixed to Book xvii.

Arrian makes no mention of these descendants of the Branchidæ in
Sogdiana, nor of the destruction of the town and its inhabitants
by Alexander. Perhaps neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus, said
anything about it. Their silence is not at all difficult to
explain, nor does it, in my judgment, impeach the credibility
of the narrative. They do not feel under obligation to give
publicity to the worst acts of their hero.

[485] The Delphian oracle pronounced, in explaining the
subjugation and ruin of Krœsus king of Lydia, that he had thereby
expiated the sin of his ancestor in the fifth generation before
(Herodot. i. 91: compare vi. 86). Immediately before the breaking
out of the Peloponnesian war, the Lacedæmonians called upon the
Athenians to expel the descendants of those who had taken part
in the Kylonian sacrilege, 180 years before; they addressed this
injunction with a view to procure the banishment of Perikles, yet
still τοῖς θεοῖς πρῶτον τιμωροῦντες (Thucyd. i. 125-127).

The idea that the sins of fathers were visited upon their
descendants, even to the third and fourth generation, had great
currency in the ancient world.

[486] Diodor. xiii. 62. See Vol. X. Ch. lxxxi. p 413 of this
History.

Alexander then continued his onward progress, first to Marakanda (Samarcand), the chief town of Sogdiana—next, to the river Jaxartes, which he and his companions, in their imperfect geographical notions, believed to be the Tanais, the boundary between Asia, and Europe.[487] In his march, he left garrisons in various towns,[488] but experienced no resistance, though detached bodies of the natives hovered on his flanks. Some of these bodies, having cut off a few of his foragers, took refuge afterwards on a steep and rugged mountain, conceived to be unassailable. Thither however Alexander pursued them, at the head of his lightest and most active troops. Though at first repulsed, he succeeded in scaling and capturing the place. Of its defenders, thirty thousand in number, three fourths were either put to the sword, or perished in jumping down the precipices. Several of his soldiers were wounded with arrows, and he himself received a shot from one of them through his leg.[489] But here, as elsewhere, we perceive that nearly all the Orientals whom Alexander subdued were men little suited for close combat hand to hand,—fighting only with missiles.

[487] Pliny, H. N. vi. 16. In the Meteorologica of Aristotle (i.
13, 15-18) we read that the rivers Bahtrus, Choaspes, and Araxes
flowed from the lofty mountain Parnasus (Paropamisus?) in Asia;
and that the Araxes bifurcated, one branch forming the Tanais,
which fell into the Palus Mæotis. For this fact he refers to
the γῆς περιόδοι current in his time. It seems plain that by
the Araxes Aristotle must mean the Jaxartes. We see, therefore,
that Alexander and his companions, in identifying the Jaxartes
with the Tanais, only followed the geographical descriptions and
ideas current in their time. Humboldt remarks several cases in
which the Greek geographers were fond of supposing bifurcation of
rivers (Asie Centrale, vol. ii. p. 291).

[488] Arrian, iv. 1, 5.

[489] Arrian, iii. 30, 17.

Here, on the river Jaxartes, Alexander projected the foundation of a new city to bear his name; intended partly as a protection against incursions from the Scythian Nomads on the other side of the river, partly as a facility for himself to cross over and subdue them, which he intended to do as soon as he could find opportunity.[490] He was however called off for the time by the news of a wide-spread revolt among the newly-conquered inhabitants both of Sogdiana and Baktria. He suppressed the revolt with his habitual vigor and celerity, distributing his troops so as to capture five townships in two days, and Kyropolis or Kyra, the largest of the neighboring Sogdian towns (founded by the Persian Cyrus), immediately afterwards. He put all the defenders and inhabitants to the sword. Returning then to the Jaxartes, he completed in twenty days the fortifications of his new town of Alexandria (perhaps at or near Khodjend), with suitable sacrifices and festivities to the gods. He planted in it some Macedonian veterans and Grecian mercenaries, together with volunteer settlers from the natives around.[491] An army of Scythian Nomads, showing themselves on the other side of the river, piqued his vanity to cross over and attack them. Carrying over a division of his army on inflated skins, he defeated them with little difficulty, pursuing them briskly into the desert. But the weather was intensely hot, and the army suffered much from thirst; while the little water to be found was so bad, that it brought upon Alexander a diarrhœa which endangered his life.[492] This chase, of a few miles on the right bank of the Jaxartes (seemingly in the present Khanat of Kokand), marked the utmost limit of Alexander’s progress northward.

[490] Arrian, iv. 1, 3

[491] Arrian, iv. 3, 17; Curtius, vii. 6, 25.

[492] Arrian. iv. 5, 6; Curtius, vii. 9.

Shortly afterwards, a Macedonian detachment, unskilfully conducted, was destroyed in Sogdiana by Spitamenes and the Scythians: a rare misfortune, which Alexander avenged by overrunning the region[493] near the river Polytimêtus (the Kohik), and putting to the sword the inhabitants of all the towns which he took. He then recrossed the Oxus, to rest during the extreme season of winter at Zariaspa in Baktria, from whence his communications with the West and with Macedonia were more easy, and where he received various reinforcements of Greek troops.[494] Bessus, who had been here retained as a prisoner, was now brought forward amidst a public assembly; wherein Alexander, having first reproached him for his treason to Darius, caused his nose and ears to be cut off—and sent him in this condition to Ekbatana, to be finally slain by the Medes and Persians.[495] Mutilation was a practice altogether Oriental and non-Hellenic: even Arrian, admiring and indulgent as he is towards his hero, censures this savage order, as one among many proofs how much Alexander had taken on Oriental dispositions. We may remark that his extreme wrath on this occasion was founded partly on disappointment that Bessus had frustrated his toilsome efforts for taking Darius alive—partly on the fact that the satrap had committed treason against the king’s person, which it was the policy as well as the feeling of Alexander to surround with a circle of Deity.[496] For as to traitors against Persia, as a cause and country, Alexander had never discouraged, and had sometimes signally recompensed them. Mithrines, the governor of Sardis, who opened to him the gates of that almost impregnable fortress immediately after the battle of the Granikus—the traitor who perhaps, next to Darius himself, had done most harm to the Persian cause—obtained from him high favor and promotion.[497]

[493] Arrian, iv. 6, 11; Curtius, vii. 9, 22. The river, called
by the Macedonians Polytimetus (Strabo, xi. p. 518), now bears
the name of Kohik or Zurufshan. It rises in the mountains east of
Samarkand, and flowing westward on the north of that city and of
Bokhara. It does not reach so far as the Oxus; during the full
time of the year, it falls into a lake called Karakul; during the
dry months, it is lost in the sands, as Arrian states (Burnes’s
Travels, vol. ii. ch. xi. p. 299. ed. 2nd.).

[494] Arrian, iv. 7, 1; Curtius, vii. 10, 12.

[495] Arrian, iv. 7, 5.

[496] After describing the scene at Rome, when the Emperor
Galba was deposed and assassinated in the forum, Tacitus
observes—“Plures quam centum et viginti libellos præmia
exposcentium, ob aliquam notabilem illà die operam, Vitellius
posteà invenit, omnesque conquiri et interfici jussit: _non
honore Galbæ, sed tradito principibus more, munimentum ad
præsens, in posterum ultionem_” (Tacitus, Hist. i. 44).

[497] Arrian, i. 17, 3; iii. 16, 8. Curtius, iii. 12, 6; v. 1, 44.

The rude but spirited tribes of Baktria and Sogdiana were as yet but imperfectly subdued, seconded as their resistance was by wide spaces of sandy desert, by the neighborhood of the Scythian Nomads, and by the presence of Spitamenes as a leader. Alexander, distributing his army into five divisions, traversed the country and put down all resistance, while he also took measures for establishing several military posts, or new towns in convenient places.[498] After some time the whole army was reunited at the chief place of Sogdiana—Marakanda—where some halt and repose was given.[499]

[498] Curtius (vii. 10, 15) mentions six cities (oppida) founded
by Alexander in these regions; apparently somewhere north of the
Oxus, but the sites cannot be made out. Justin (xii. 5) alludes
to twelve foundations in Baktria and Sogdiana.

[499] Arrian, iv. 16, 4; Curtius, vii. 10, 1. “Sogdiana regio
magnâ ex parte deserta est; octingenta ferè stadia in latitudinem
vastæ solitudines tenent.”

Respecting the same country (Sogdiana and Baktria), Mr. Erskine
observes (Introduction to the Memoirs of Sultan Baber, p.
xliii.):—“The face of the country is extremely broken, and
divided by lofty hills; even the plains are diversified by great
varieties of soil,—some extensive districts along the Kohik
river, nearly the whole of Ferghana (along the Jaxartes), the
greater part of Kwarizm along the branches of the Oxus, with
the large portions of Balkh, Badakshan, Kesh, and Hissar, being
of uncommon fertility; while the greater part of the rest is a
barren waste, and in some places a sandy desert. Indeed the whole
country north of the Oxus has a decided tendency to degenerate
into desert, and many of its most fruitful spaces are nearly
surrounded by barren sands; so that the population of all these
districts still, as in the time of Baber, consists of the fixed
inhabitants of the cities and fertile lands, and of the unsettled
and roving wanderers of the desert, who dwell in tents of felt,
and live on the produce of their flocks.”

During this halt at Marakanda (Samarcand) the memorable banquet occurred wherein Alexander murdered Kleitus. It has been already related that Kleitus had saved his life at the battle of the Granikus, by cutting off the sword arm of the Persian Spithridates when already uplifted to strike him from behind. Since the death of Philotas, the important function of general of the Companion-cavalry had been divided between Hephæstion and Kleitus. Moreover, the family of Kleitus had been attached to Philip, by ties so ancient, that his sister, Lanikê, had been selected as the nurse of Alexander himself when a child. Two of her sons had already perished in the Asiatic battles. If, therefore, there were any man who stood high in the service, or was privileged to speak his mind freely to Alexander, it was Kleitus.

In this banquet at Marakanda, when wine, according to the Macedonian habit, had been abundantly drunk, and when Alexander, Kleitus, and most of the other guests were already nearly intoxicated, enthusiasts or flatterers heaped immoderate eulogies upon the king’s past achievements.[500] They exalted him above all the most venerated legendary heroes; they proclaimed that his superhuman deeds proved his divine paternity, and that he had earned an apotheosis like Herakles, which nothing but envy could withhold from him during his life. Alexander himself joined in these boasts, and even took credit for the later victories of the reign of his father, whose abilities and glory he depreciated. To the old Macedonian officers, such an insult cast on the memory of Philip was deeply offensive. But among them all, none had been more indignant than Kleitus, with the growing insolence of Alexander—his assumed filiation from Zeus Ammon, which put aside Philip as unworthy—his preference for Persian attendants, who granted or refused admittance to his person—his extending to Macedonian soldiers the contemptuous treatment habitually endured by Asiatics, and even allowing them to be scourged by Persian hands and Persian rods.[501] The pride of a Macedonian general in the stupendous successes of the last five years, was effaced by his mortification when he saw that they tended only to merge his countrymen amidst a crowd of servile Asiatics, and to inflame the prince with high-flown aspirations transmitted from Xerxes or Ochus. But whatever might be the internal thoughts of Macedonian officers, they held their peace before Alexander, whose formidable character and exorbitant self-estimation would tolerate no criticism.

[500] Arrian, iv. 8, 7.

[501] Plutarch, Alexand. 51. Nothing can be more touching than
the words put by Plutarch into the mouth of Kleitus—Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
νῦν χαίρομεν, Ἀλέξανδρε, τοιαῦτα τέλη τῶν πόνων κομιζόμενοι,
μακαρίζομεν δὲ τοὺς ἤδη τεθνηκότας πρὶν ἐπιδεῖν Μηδικαῖς ῥάβδοις
ξαινομένους Μακεδόνας, καὶ Περσῶν δεομένους ἵνα τῷ βασιλεῖ
προσέλθωμεν.

At the banquet of Marakanda, this long suppressed repugnance found an issue, accidental indeed and unpremeditated, but for that very reason all the more violent and unmeasured. The wine, which made Alexander more boastful and his flatterers fulsome to excess, overpowered altogether the reserve of Kleitus. He rebuked the impiety of those who degraded the ancient heroes in order to make a pedestal for Alexander. He protested against the injustice of disparaging the exalted and legitimate fame of Philip; whose achievements he loudly extolled, pronouncing them to be equal, and even superior to those of his son. For the exploits of Alexander, splendid as they were, had been accomplished, not by himself alone, but by that unconquerable Macedonian force which he had found ready made to his hands;[502] whereas those of Philip had been his own—since he had found Macedonia prostrate and disorganized, and had had to create for himself both soldiers, and a military system. The great instruments of Alexander’s victories had been Philip’s old soldiers, whom he now despised—and among them Parmenio, whom he had put to death.

[502] Arrian, iv. 8, 8. οὔκουν μόνον γε (Ἀλέξανδρον) καταπρᾶξαι
αὐτὰ, ἀλλὰ τὸ γὰρ πολὺ μέρος Μακεδόνων εἶναι τὰ ἔργα, etc.

Remarks such as these, poured forth in the coarse language of a half-intoxicated Macedonian veteran, provoked loud contradiction from many, and gave poignant offence to Alexander; who now for the first time heard the open outburst of disapprobation, before concealed and known to him only by surmise. But wrath and contradiction, both from him and from others, only made Kleitus more reckless in the outpouring of his own feelings, now discharged with delight after having been so long pent up. He passed from the old Macedonian soldiers to himself individually. Stretching forth his right hand towards Alexander, he exclaimed—“Recollect that you owe your life to me; this hand preserved you at the Granikus. Listen to the outspoken language of truth, or else abstain from asking freemen to supper, and confine yourself to the society of barbaric slaves.” All these reproaches stung Alexander to the quick. But nothing was so intolerable to him as the respectful sympathy for Parmenio, which brought to his memory one of the blackest deeds of his life—and the reminiscence of his preservation at the Granikus, which lowered him into the position of a debtor towards the very censor under whose reproof he was now smarting. At length wrath and intoxication together drove him into uncontrollable fury. He started from his couch, and felt for his dagger to spring at Kleitus; but the dagger had been put out of reach by one of his attendants. In a loud voice and with the Macedonian word of command, he summoned the body guards and ordered the trumpeter to sound an alarm. But no one obeyed so grave an order, given in his condition of drunkenness. His principal officers, Ptolemy, Perdikkas and others, clung round him, held his arms and body, and besought him to abstain from violence; others at the same time tried to silence Kleitus and hurry him out of the hall, which had now become a scene of tumult and consternation. But Kleitus was not in a humor to confess himself in the wrong by retiring; while Alexander, furious at the opposition now, for the first time, offered to his will, exclaimed, that his officers held him in chains as Bessus had held Darius, and left him nothing but the name of a king. Though anxious to restrain his movements, they doubtless did not dare to employ much physical force; so that his great personal strength, and continued efforts, presently set him free. He then snatched a pike from one of the soldiers, rushed upon Kleitus, and thrust him through on the spot, exclaiming, “Go now to Philip and Parmenio”.[503]

[503] Arrian, iv. 8; Curtius, viii. 1; Plutarch, Alexand. 50, 51;
Justin, xii. 6.

The description given by Diodorus was contained in the lost
part of his seventeenth book; the table of contents, prefixed
thereunto, notes the incident briefly.

All the authors describe in the same general way the
commencement, progress, and result, of this impressive scene in
the banqueting hall of Marakanda; but they differ materially
in the details. In giving what seems to me the most probable
account, I have borrowed partly from all, yet following mostly
the account given by Arrian from Ptolemy, himself present. For
Arrian’s narrative down to sect. 14 of c. 8 (before the words
Ἀριστόβουλος δὲ) may fairly be presumed to be derived from
Ptolemy.

Both Plutarch and Curtius describe the scene in a manner more
dishonorable to Alexander than Arrian; and at the same time
(in my judgment) less probable. Plutarch says that the brawl
took its rise from a poet named Pierion singing a song which
turned into derision those Macedonians who had been recently
defeated in Sogdiana; that Alexander and those around him greatly
applauded this satire; that Kleitus protested against such an
insult to soldiers, who, though unfortunate, had behaved with
unimpeachable bravery; that Alexander then turned upon Kleitus
saying, that he was seeking an excuse for himself by extenuating
cowardice in others; that Kleitus retorted by reminding him of
the preservation of his life at the Granikus. Alexander is thus
made to provoke the quarrel by aspersing the courage of Kleitus,
which I think noway probable; nor would he be likely to encourage
a song of that tenor.

Curtius agrees with Arrian in ascribing the origin of the
mischief to the extravagant boasts of Alexander and his
flatterers, and to their depreciation of Philip. He then tells
us that Kleitus, on hearing their unseemly talk, turned round
and whispered to his neighbor some lines out of the Andromachê
of Euripides (which lines Plutarch also ascribes to him, though
at a later moment); that Alexander, not hearing the words,
asked what had been said, but no one would tell him; at length
Kleitus himself repeated the sentiment in language of his own.
This would suit a literary Greek; but an old Macedonian officer
half intoxicated, when animated by a vehement sentiment, would
hardly express it by whispering a Greek poetical quotation to his
neighbor. He would either hold his tongue, or speak what he felt
broadly and directly. Nevertheless Curtius has stated two points
very material to the case, which do not appear in Arrian. 1. It
was Alexander himself, not his flatterers, who vilipended Philip;
at least the flatterers only did so after him, and following his
example. The topic would be dangerous for them to originate, and
might easily be carried too far. 2. Among all the topics touched
upon by Kleitus, none was so intolerable as the open expression
of sympathy, friendship, and regret for Parmenio. This stung
Alexander in the sorest point of his conscience; he must have
known that there were many present who sympathized with it; and
it was probably the main cause which worked him up to phrenzy.
Moreover we may be pretty sure that Kleitus, while expatiating
upon Philip, would not forget Philip’s general in chief and his
own old friend, Parmenio.

I cannot believe the statement of Aristobulus, that Kleitus was
forced by his friends out of the hall, and afterward returned
to it of his own accord, to defy Alexander once more. It seems
plain from Arrian that Ptolemy said no such thing. The murderous
impulse of Alexander was gratified on the spot, and without
delay, as soon as he got clear from the gentle restraint of his
surrounding friends.

No sooner was the deed perpetrated, than the feelings of Alexander underwent an entire revolution. The spectacle of Kleitus, a bleeding corpse on the floor,—the marks of stupefaction and horror evident in all the spectators, and the reaction from a furious impulse instantaneously satiated—plunged him at once into the opposite extreme of remorse and self-condemnation. Hastening out of the hall, and retiring to bed, he passed three days in an agony of distress, without food or drink. He burst into tears and multiplied exclamations on his own mad act; he dwelt upon the name of Kleitus and Lanikê with the debt of gratitude which he owed to each, and denounced himself as unworthy to live after having requited such services with a foul murder.[504] His friends at length prevailed on him to take food, and return to activity. All joined in trying to restore his self-satisfaction. The Macedonian army passed a public vote that Kleitus had been justly slain, and that his body should remain unburied; which afforded opportunity to Alexander to reverse the vote, and to direct that it should be buried by his own order.[505] The prophets comforted him by the assurance that his murderous impulse had arisen, not from his own natural mind, but from a maddening perversion intentionally brought on by the god Dionysus, to avenge the omission of a sacrifice due to him on the day of the banquet, but withheld.[506] Lastly, the Greek sophist or philosopher, Anaxarchus of Abdera, revived Alexander’s spirits by well-timed flattery, treating his sensibility as nothing better than generous weakness; reminding him that in his exalted position of conqueror and Great King, he was entitled to prescribe what was right and just, instead of submitting himself to laws dictated from without.[507] Kallisthenes the philosopher was also summoned, along with Anaxarchus, to the king’s presence, for the same purpose of offering consolatory reflections. But he is said to have adopted a tone of discourse altogether different, and to have given offence rather than satisfaction to Alexander.

[504] Arrian, iv. 9, 4; Curtius, viii. 2, 2.

[505] Curtius, viii. 2, 12. “Quoque minus cædis puderet, jure
interfectum Clitum Macedones decernunt; sepulturâ quoque
prohibituri, ni rex humari jussisset.”

In explanation of this monstrous verdict of the soldiers, we must
recollect that the safety of the whole army (now at Samarcand,
almost beyond the boundary of inhabited regions, ἔξω τῆς
οἰκουμένης) was felt to depend on the life of Alexander. Compare
Justin, xii. 6, 15.

[506] Arrian, iv. 9, 6. Alexander imagined himself to have
incurred the displeasure of Dionysus by having sacked and
destroyed the city of Thebes, the supposed birth-place and
favorite locality of that god (Plutarch, Alex. 13).

The maddening delusion brought upon men by the wrath of Dionysus
is awfully depicted in the Bacchæ of Euripides. Under the
influence of that delusion, Agavê, mother of Pentheus, tears her
son in pieces and bears away his head in triumph, not knowing
what is in her hands. Compare also Eurip. Hippolyt. 440-1412.

[507] Arrian, iv. 9, 10; Plutarch. Alex. 52.

To such remedial influences, and probably still more to the absolute necessity for action, Alexander’s remorse at length yielded. Like the other emotions of his fiery soul, it was violent and overpowering while it lasted. But it cannot be shown to have left any durable trace on his character, nor any effects justifying the unbounded admiration of Arrian; who has little but blame to bestow on the murdered Kleitus, while he expresses the strongest sympathy for the mental suffering of the murderer.

After ten days,[508] Alexander again put his army in motion, to complete the subjugation of Sogdiana. He found no enemy capable of meeting him in pitched battle; yet Spitamenes, with the Sogdians and some Scythian allies, raised much hostility of detail, which it cost another year to put down. Alexander underwent the greatest fatigue and hardships in his marches through the mountainous parts of this wide, rugged, and poorly supplied country, with rocky positions, strong by nature, which his enemies sought to defend. One of these fastnesses, held by a native chief named Sisymithres, seemed almost unattackable, and was indeed taken rather by intimidation than by actual force.[509] The Scythians, after a partial success over a small Macedonian detachment, were at length so thoroughly beaten and overawed, that they slew Spitamenes and sent his head to the conqueror as a propitiatory offering.[510]

[508] Curtius, viii. 2, 13—“decem diebus ad confirmandum pudorem
apud Maracanda consumptis”, etc.

[509] Curtius, viii. 2, 20-30.

[510] Arrian, iv. 17, 11. Curtius (viii. 3) gives a different
narrative of the death of Spitamenes.

After a short rest at Naütaka during the extreme winter, Alexander resumed operations, by attacking a strong post called the Sogdian Rock, whither a large number of fugitives had assembled, with an ample supply of provision. It was a precipice supposed to be inexpugnable; and would seemingly have proved so, in spite of the energy and abilities of Alexander, had not the occupants altogether neglected their guard, and yielded at the mere sight of a handful of Macedonians who had scrambled up the precipice. Among the captives, taken by Alexander on this rock, were the wife and family of the Baktrian chief Oxyartes; one of whose daughters, named Roxana, so captivated Alexander by her beauty that he resolved to make her his wife.[511] He then passed out of Sogdiana into the neighboring territory Parætakênê, where there was another inexpugnable site called the Rock of Choriênes, which he was also fortunate enough to reduce.[512]

[511] Arrian, iv. 18, 19.

[512] Arrian, iv. 21. Our geographical knowledge does not enable
us to verify these localities, or to follow Alexander in his
marches of detail.

From hence Alexander went to Baktra. Sending Kraterus with a division to put the last hand to the reduction of Parætakênê, he himself remained at Baktra, preparing for his expedition across the Hindoo-Koosh to the conquest of India. As a security for the tranquillity of Baktria and Sogdiana during his absence, he levied 30,000 young soldiers from those countries to accompany him.[513]

[513] Curtius, viii. 5, 1; Arrian, iv. 22, 2.

It was at Baktra that Alexander celebrated his marriage with the captive Roxana. Amidst the repose and festivities connected with that event, the Oriental temper which he was now acquiring displayed itself more forcibly than ever. He could no longer be satisfied without obtaining prostration, or worship, from Greeks and Macedonians as well as from Persians; a public and unanimous recognition of his divine origin and superhuman dignity. Some Greeks and Macedonians had already rendered to him this homage. Nevertheless to the greater number, in spite of their extreme deference and admiration for him, it was repugnant and degrading. Even the imperious Alexander shrank from issuing public and formal orders on such a subject; but a manœuvre was concerted, with his privity, by the Persians and certain compliant Greek sophists or philosophers, for the purpose of carrying the point by surprise.

During a banquet at Baktra, the philosopher Anaxarchus, addressing the assembly in a prepared harangue, extolled Alexander’s exploits as greatly surpassing those of Dionysus and Herakles. He proclaimed that Alexander had already done more than enough to establish a title to divine honors from the Macedonians; who, (he said) would assuredly worship Alexander after his death, and ought in justice to worship him during his life, forthwith.[514]

[514] Arrian, iv. 10, 7-9. Curtius (viii. 5, 9-13) represents
the speech proposing divine honors to have been delivered, not
by Anaxarchus, but by another lettered Greek, a Sicilian named
Kleon. The tenor of the speech is substantially the same, as
given by both authors.

This harangue was applauded, and similar sentiments were enforced, by others favorable to the plan; who proceeded to set the example of immediate compliance, and were themselves the first to tender worship. Most of the Macedonian officers sat unmoved, disgusted at the speech. But though disgusted they said nothing. To reply to a speech doubtless well-turned and flowing, required some powers of oratory; moreover, it was well known that whoever dared to reply stood marked out for the antipathy of Alexander. The fate of Kleitus, who had arraigned the same sentiments in the banqueting hall of Marakanda, was fresh in the recollection of every one. The repugnance which many felt, but none ventured to express, at length found an organ in Kallisthenes of Olynthus.

This philosopher, whose melancholy fate imparts a peculiar interest to his name, was nephew of Aristotle, and had enjoyed through his uncle an early acquaintance with Alexander during the boyhood of the latter. At the recommendation of Aristotle, Kallisthenes had accompanied Alexander in his Asiatic expedition. He was a man of much literary and rhetorical talent, which he turned towards the composition of history—and to the history of recent times.[515] Alexander, full of ardor for conquest, was at the same time anxious that his achievements should be commemorated by poets and men of letters;[516] there were seasons also when he enjoyed their conversation. On both these grounds, he invited several of them to accompany the army. The more prudent among them declined, but Kallisthenes obeyed, partly in hopes of procuring the reconstitution of his native city Olynthus, as Aristotle had obtained the like favor for Stageira.[517] Kallisthenes had composed a narrative (not preserved) of Alexander’s exploits, which certainly reached to the battle of Arbela, and may perhaps have gone down farther. The few fragments of this narrative remaining seem to betoken extreme admiration, not merely of the bravery and ability, but also of the transcendent and unbroken good fortune, of Alexander—marking him out as the chosen favorite of the gods. This feeling was perfectly natural under the grandeur of the events. Insofar as we can judge from one or two specimens, Kallisthenes was full of complimentary tribute to the hero of his history. But the character of Alexander himself had undergone a material change during the six years between his first landing in Asia and his campaign in Sogdiana. All his worst qualities had been developed by unparalleled success and by Asiatic example. He required larger doses of flattery, and had now come to thirst, not merely for the reputation of divine paternity, but for the actual manifestations of worship as towards a god.

[515] Kallisthenes had composed three historical works—1.
Hellenica—from the year 387-357 B. C. 2. History of the
sacred war—from 357-346 B. C. 3. Τὰ κατ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον.
His style is said by Cicero to have been rhetorical; but the
Alexandrine critics included him in their Canon of Historians.
See Didot, Fragm. Hist. Alex. Magn. p. 6-9.

[516] See the observation ascribed to him expressing envy towards
Achilles for having been immortalized by Homer (Arrian, i. 12, 2).

[517] It is said that Ephorus, Xenokrates, and Menedemus, all
declined the invitation of Alexander (Plutarch, De Stoicorum
Repugnantiis, p. 1043). Respecting Menedemus, the fact can hardly
be so: he must have been then too young to be invited.

To the literary Greeks who accompanied Alexander, this change in his temper must have been especially palpable and full of serious consequence; since it was chiefly manifested, not at periods of active military duty, but at his hours of leisure, when he recreated himself by their conversation and discourses. Several of these Greeks—Anaxarchus, Kleon, the poet Agis of Argos—accommodated themselves to the change, and wound up their flatteries to the pitch required. Kallisthenes could not do so. He was a man of sedate character, of simple, severe, and almost unsocial habits—to whose sobriety the long Macedonian potations were distasteful. Aristotle said of him, that he was a great and powerful speaker, but that he had no judgment; according to other reports, he was a vain and arrogant man, who boasted that Alexander’s reputation and immortality were dependent on the composition and tone of _his_ history.[518] Of personal vanity,—a common quality among literary Greeks,—Kallisthenes probably had his full share. But there is no ground for believing that _his_ character had altered. Whatever his vanity may have been, it had given no offence to Alexander during the earlier years, nor would it have given offence now, had not Alexander himself become a different man.

[518] Arrian, iv. 10, 2; Plutarch, Alex. 53, 54. It is
remarkable that Timmæus denounced Kallisthenes as having in
his historical work flattered Alexander to excess (Polybius,
xii. 12). Kallisthenes seems to have recognized various special
interpositions of the gods, to aid Alexander’s successes—see
Fragments 25 and 36 of the Fragmenta Callisthenis in the edition
of Didot.

In reading the censure which Arrian passes on the arrogant
pretensions of Kallisthenes, we ought at the same time to
read the pretensions raised by Arrian on his own behalf as an
historian (i. 12, 7-9)—καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε οὐκ ἀπαξιῶ ἐμαυτὸν τῶν
πρώτων ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῇ Ἑλλάδι, εἴπερ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος τῶν ἐν τοῖς
ὅπλοις, etc. I doubt much whether Kallisthenes pitched his
self-estimation so high. In this chapter, Arrian recounts, that
Alexander envied Achilles for having been fortunate enough to
obtain such a poet as Homer for panegyrist; and Arrian laments
that Alexander had not, as yet, found an historian equal to his
deserts. This, in point of fact, is a reassertion of the same
truth which Kallisthenes stands condemned for asserting—that the
fame even of the greatest warrior depends upon his commemorators.
The boastfulness of a poet is at least pardonable, when he
exclaims, like Theokritus, Idyll. xvi. 73—

Ἔσσεται οὗτος ἀνὴρ, ὃς ἐμεῦ κεχρήσετ᾽ ἀοιδοῦ,
Ῥέξας ἢ Ἀχιλεὺς ὅσσον μέγας, ἢ βαρὺς Αἴας
Ἐν πεδίῳ Σιμόεντος, ὅθι Φρυγὸς ἠρίον ῎Ιλου.

On occasion of the demonstration led up by Anaxarchus at the banquet, Kallisthenes had been invited by Hephæstion to join in the worship intended to be proposed towards Alexander; and Hephæstion afterwards alleged, that he had promised to comply.[519] But his actual conduct affords reasonable ground for believing that he made no such promise; for he not only thought it his duty to refuse the act of worship, but also to state publicly his reasons for disapproving it; the more so, as he perceived that most of the Macedonians present felt like himself. He contended that the distinction between gods and men was one which could not be confounded without impiety and wrong. Alexander had amply earned,—as a man, a general, and a king,—the highest honors compatible with humanity; but to exalt him into a god would be both an injury to him, and an offence to the gods. Anaxarchus (he said) was the last person from whom such a proposition ought to come, because he was one of those whose only title to Alexander’s society was founded upon his capacity to give instructive and wholesome counsel.[520]

[519] Plutarch, Alex. 55.

[520] Arrian, iv. 11. ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ τε καὶ παιδεύσει Ἀλεξάνδρῳ
συνόντα.

Kallisthenes here spoke out, what numbers of his hearers felt. The speech was not only approved, but so warmly applauded by the Macedonians present, especially the older officers,—that Alexander thought it prudent to forbid all farther discussion upon this delicate subject. Presently the Persians present, according to Asiatic custom, approached him and performed their prostration; after which Alexander pledged, in successive goblets of wine, those Greeks and Macedonians with whom he had held previous concert. To each of them the goblet was handed, and each, after drinking to answer the pledge, approached the king, made his prostration, and then received a salute. Lastly, Alexander sent the pledge to Kallisthenes, who, after drinking like the rest, approached him, for the purpose of receiving the salute, but without any prostration. Of this omission Alexander was expressly informed by one of the Companions; upon which he declined to admit Kallisthenes to a salute. The latter retired, observing, “Then I shall go away, worse off than others as far as the salute goes.”[521]

[521] Arrian, iv. 12, 7. φιλήματι ἔλαττον ἔχων ἄπειμι.

Kallisthenes was imprudent, and even blamable, in making this last observation, which without any necessity or advantage, aggravated the offence already given to Alexander. He was more imprudent still, if we look simply to his own personal safety in standing forward publicly to protest against the suggestion for rendering divine honors to that prince, and in thus creating the main offence which even in itself was inexpiable. But here the occasion was one serious and important, so as to convert the imprudence into an act of genuine moral courage. The question was, not about obeying an order given by Alexander, for no order had been given—but about accepting or rejecting a motion made by Anaxarchus; which Alexander, by a shabby, preconcerted manœuvre, affected to leave to the free decision of the assembly, in full confidence that no one would be found intrepid enough to oppose it. If one Greek sophist made a proposition, in itself servile and disgraceful, another sophist could do himself nothing but honor by entering public protest against it; more especially since this was done (as we may see by the report in Arrian) in terms no way insulting, but full of respectful admiration, towards Alexander personally. The perfect success of the speech is in itself a proof of the propriety of its tone;[522] for the Macedonian officers would feel indifference, if not contempt towards a rhetor like Kallisthenes, while towards Alexander they had the greatest deference short of actual worship. There are few occasions on which the free spirit of Greek letters and Greek citizenship, in their protest against exorbitant individual insolence, appears more conspicuous and estimable than in the speech of Kallisthenes.[523] Arrian disapproves the purpose of Alexander, and strongly blames the motion of Anaxarchus; nevertheless, such is his anxiety to find some excuse for Alexander, that he also blames Kallisthenes for unseasonable frankness, folly, and insolence, in offering opposition. He might have said with some truth, that Kallisthenes would have done well to withdraw earlier (if indeed he could have withdrawn without offence) from the camp of Alexander, in which no lettered Greek could now associate without abnegating his freedom of speech and sentiment, and emulating the servility of Anaxarchus. But being present, as Kallisthenes was, in the hall at Baktra when the proposition of Anaxarchus was made, and when silence would have been assent—his protest against it was both seasonable and dignified; and all the more dignified for being fraught with danger to himself.

[522] Arrian, iv. 12, 1. ἀνιᾶσαι μὲν μεγαλωστὶ Ἀλέξανδρον,
Μακεδόσι δὲ πρὸς θυμοῦ εἰπεῖν....

Curtius, viii. 5, 20. “Æquis auribus Callisthenes velut vindex
publicæ libertatis audiebatur. Expresserat non assensionem modo,
sed etiam vocem, seniorum præcipuè quibus gravis erat inveterati
moris externa mutatio.”

[523] There was no sentiment more deeply rooted in the free
Grecian mind, prior to Alexander’s conquests, than the repugnance
to arrogant aspirations on the part of the fortunate man,
swelling himself above the limits of humanity—and the belief
that such aspirations were followed by the Nemesis of the gods.
In the dying speech which Xenophon puts into the mouth of Cyrus
the Great, we find—“Ye gods, I thank you much, that I have
been sensible of your care for me, and that I have never in my
successes raised my thoughts above the measure of man” (Cyropæd.
viii. 7, 3). Among the most striking illustrations of this
sentiment is, the story of Solon and Crœsus (Herodot. i. 32-34).

I shall recount in the next chapter examples of monstrous
flattery on the part of the Athenians, proving how this sentiment
expired with their freedom.

Kallisthenes knew that danger well, and was quickly enabled to recognize it in the altered demeanor of Alexander towards him. He was, from that day, a marked man in two senses: first, to Alexander himself, as well as to the rival sophists and all promoters of the intended deification,—for hatred, and for getting up some accusatory pretence such as might serve to ruin him; next, to the more free-spirited Macedonians, indignant witnesses of Alexander’s increased insolence, and admirers of the courageous Greek who had protested against the motion of Anaxarchus. By such men he was doubtless much extolled; which praises aggravated his danger, as they were sure to be reported to Alexander. The pretext for his ruin was not long wanting.

Among those who admired and sought the conversation of Kallisthenes, was Hermolaus, one of the royal pages—the band, selected from noble Macedonian families, who did duty about the person of the king. It had happened that this young man, one of Alexander’s companions in the chase, on seeing a wild boar rushing up to attack the king, darted his javelin, and slew the animal. Alexander, angry to be anticipated in killing the boar, ordered Hermolaus to be scourged before all the other pages, and deprived him of his horse.[524] Thus humiliated and outraged—for an act not merely innocent, but the omission of which, if Alexander had sustained any injury from the boar, might have been held punishable—Hermolaus became resolutely bent on revenge.[525] He enlisted in the project his intimate friend Sostratus, with several others among the pages, and it was agreed among them to kill Alexander in his chamber, on the first night when they were all on guard together. The appointed night arrived, without any divulgation of their secret; yet the scheme was frustrated by the accident, that Alexander continued till daybreak drinking with his officers, and never retired to bed. On the morrow, one of the conspirators, becoming alarmed or repentant, divulged the scheme to his friend Charikles, with the names of those concerned. Eurylochus, brother to Charikles, apprised by him of what he had heard, immediately informed Ptolemy, through whom it was conveyed to Alexander. By Alexander’s order, the persons indicated were arrested and put to the torture;[526] under which they confessed that they had themselves conspired to kill him, but named no other accomplices, and even denied that any one else was privy to the scheme. In this denial they persisted, though extreme suffering was applied to extort the revelation of new names. They were then brought up and arraigned as conspirators before the assembled Macedonian soldiers. There their confession was repeated. It is even said that Hermolaus, in repeating it, boasted of the enterprise as legitimate and glorious; denouncing the tyranny and cruelty of Alexander us having become insupportable to a freeman. Whether such boast was actually made or not, the persons brought up were pronounced guilty, and stoned to death forthwith by the soldiers.[527]

[524] Plutarch, Alexand. 54. He refers to Hermippus, who mentions
what was told to Aristotle by Strœbus, the reader attendant on
Kallisthenes.

[525] Arrian, iv. 13; Curtius, viii. 6, 7.

[526] Arrian, iv. 13, 13.

[527] Arrian, iv, 14, 4. Curtius expands this scene into great
detail; composing a long speech for Hermolaus, and another for
Alexander (viii. 6, 7, 8).

He says that the soldiers who executed these pages, tortured them
first, in order to manifest zeal for Alexander (viii. 8, 20).

The pages thus executed were young men of good Macedonian families, for whose condemnation accordingly, Alexander had thought it necessary to invoke—what he was sure of obtaining against any one—the sentence of the soldiers. To satisfy his hatred against Kallisthenes—not a Macedonian, but only a Greek citizen, one of the surviving remnants of the subverted city of Olynthus—no such formality was required.[528] As yet, there was not a shadow of proof to implicate this philosopher; for obnoxious as his name was known to be, Hermolaus and his companions had, with exemplary fortitude, declined to purchase the chance of respite from extreme torture by pronouncing it. Their confessions,—all extorted by suffering, unless confirmed by other evidence, of which we do not know whether any was taken—were hardly of the least value, even against themselves; but against Kallisthenes, they had no bearing whatever; nay, they tended indirectly, not to convict, but to absolve him. In his case, therefore, as in that of Philotas before, it was necessary to pick up matter of suspicious tendency from his reported remarks and conversations. He was alleged[529] to have addressed dangerous and inflammatory language to the pages, holding up Alexander to odium, instigating them to conspiracy, and pointing out Athens as a place of refuge; he was moreover well known to have been often in conversation with Hermolaus. For a man of the violent temper and omnipotent authority of Alexander, such indications were quite sufficient as grounds of action against one whom he hated.

[528] “Quem, si Macedo esset (Callisthenem), tecum introduxissem,
dignissimum te discipulo magistrum: nunc Olynthio non idem
juris est” (Curtius. viii. 8, 19—speech of Alexander before the
soldiers addressing Hermolaus especially).

[529] Plutarch, Alexand. 55; Arrian, iv. 10, 4.

On this occasion, we have the state of Alexander’s mind disclosed by himself, in one of the references to his letters given by Plutarch. Writing to Kraterus and to others immediately afterwards, Alexander distinctly stated that the pages throughout all their torture had deposed against no one but themselves. Nevertheless, in another letter, addressed to Antipater in Macedonia, he used these expressions—“The pages were stoned to death by the Macedonians; but I myself shall punish the sophist, as well as those who sent him out here, and those who harbor in their cities conspirators against me.”[530] The sophist Kallisthenes had been sent out by Aristotle, who is here designated; and probably the Athenians after him. Fortunately for Aristotle, he was not at Baktra, but at Athens. That he could have had any concern in the conspiracy of the pages, was impossible. In this savage outburst of menace against his absent preceptor, Alexander discloses the real state of feeling which prompted him to the destruction of Kallisthenes; hatred towards that spirit of citizenship and free speech, which Kallisthenes not only cherished, in common with Aristotle and most other literary Greeks, but had courageously manifested in his protest against the motion for worshipping a mortal.

[530] Plutarch, Alex. 55. Καίτοι τῶν περὶ Ἑρμόλαον οὐδεὶς
οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀνάγκης Καλλισθένους κατεῖπεν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ
Ἀλέξανδρος ~αὐτὸς εὐθὺς γράφων~ Κρατερῷ καὶ Ἀττάλῳ καὶ Ἀλκέτᾳ
φησὶ τοὺς παῖδας βασανιζομένους ὁμολογεῖν, ὡς αὐτοὶ ταῦτα
πράξειαν, ~ἄλλος δὲ οὐδεὶς συνειδείη~. Ὕστερον δὲ γράφων πρὸς
Ἀντίπατρον, καὶ τὸν Καλλισθένην συνεπαιτιασάμενος, Οἱ μὲν παῖδές,
φησιν, ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων κατελεύσθησαν, ~τὸν δὲ σοφιστὴν ἐγὼ
κολάσω~, καὶ ~τοὺς ἐκπέμψαντας αὐτὸν~, καὶ τοὺς ὑποδεχομένους
ταῖς πόλεσι τοὺς ἐμοὶ ἐπιβουλεύοντας ... ἄντικρυς ἔν γε τούτοις
ἀποκαλυπτόμενος πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην, etc.

About the hostile dispositions of Alexander towards Aristotle,
see Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 64. de Fortunâ, p. 598.