Chapter XCIV (4)

[590] Arrian, vii. 12, 1-7; Justin, xii. 12. Kraterus was
especially popular with the Macedonian soldiers, because he had
always opposed, as much as he dared, the Oriental transformation
of Alexander (Plutarch, Eumenes, 6).

Of the important edict issued this summer by Alexander to the Grecian cities, and read at the Olympic festival in July—directing each city to recall its exiled citizens—I shall speak in a future chapter. He had now accomplished his object of organizing a land force, half Macedonian, half Asiatic. But since the expedition of Nearchus, he had become bent upon a large extension of his naval force also; which was indeed an indispensable condition towards his immediate projects of conquering Arabia, and of pushing both nautical exploration and aggrandizement from the Persian Gulf round the Arabian coast. He despatched orders to the Phenician ports, directing that a numerous fleet should be built; and that the ships should then be taken to pieces, and conveyed across to Thapsakus on the Euphrates, from whence they would sail down to Babylon. At that place, he directed the construction of other ships from the numerous cypress trees around—as well as the formation of an enormous harbor in the river at Babylon, adequate to the accommodation of 1000 ships of war. Mikkalus, a Greek of Klazomenæ, was sent to Phenicia with 500 talents, to enlist, or to purchase, seamen for the crews. It was calculated that these preparations (probably under the superintendence of Nearchus) would be completed by the spring, for which period contingents were summoned to Babylon for the expedition against Arabia.[591]

[591] Arrian, vii. 19. He also sent an officer named Herakleides
to the shores of the Caspian sea, with orders to construct ships
and make a survey of that sea (vii. 16).

In the mean time, Alexander himself paid a visit to Ekbatana, the ordinary summer residence of the Persian kings. He conducted his army by leisurely marches, reviewing by the way the ancient regal parks of the celebrated breed called Nisæan horses now greatly reduced in number.[592] On the march, a violent altercation occurred between his personal favorite Hephæstion,—and his secretary Eumenes, the most able, dexterous, and long-sighted man in his service. Eumenes, as a Greek of Kardia, had been always regarded with slight and jealousy by the Macedonian officers, especially by Hephæstion; Alexander now took pains to reconcile the two, experiencing no difficulty with Eumenes, but much with Hephæstion.[593] During his stay at Ekbatana, he celebrated magnificent sacrifices and festivities, with gymnastic and musical exhibitions, which were farther enlivened, according to the Macedonian habits, by banquets and excessive wine-drinking. Amidst these proceedings, Hephæstion was seized with a fever. The vigor of his constitution emboldened him to neglect all care or regimen, so that in a few days the disease carried him off. The final crisis came on suddenly, and Alexander was warned of it while sitting in the theatre; but though he instantly hurried to the bedside, he found Hephæstion already dead. His sorrow for this loss was unbounded, manifesting itself in excesses suitable to the general violence of his impulses, whether of affection or of antipathy. Like Achilles mourning for Patroklus, he cast himself on the ground near the dead body, and remained there wailing for several hours; he refused all care, and even food, for two days; he cut his hair close, and commanded that all the horses and mules in the camp should have their manes cut close also; he not only suspended the festivities, but interdicted all music and every sign of joy in the camp; he directed that the battlements of the walls belonging to the neighboring cities should be struck off; he hung, or crucified, the physician Glaukias, who had prescribed for Hephæstion; he ordered that a vast funeral pile should be erected at Babylon, at a cost given to us as 10,000 talents (£2,300,000), to celebrate the obsequies; he sent messengers to the oracle of Ammon, to inquire whether it was permitted to worship Hephæstion as a god. Many of those around him, accommodating themselves to this passionate impulse of the ruler, began at once to show a sort of worship towards the deceased, by devoting to him themselves and their arms; of which Eumenes set the example, conscious of his own personal danger, if Alexander should suspect him of being pleased at the death of his recent rival. Perdikkas was instructed to convey the body in solemn procession to Babylon, there to be burnt in state when preparations should be completed.[594]

[592] Arrian, vii. 13, 2; Diodor. xvii. 110. How leisurely the
march was may be seen in Diodorus.

The direction of Alexander’s march from Susa to Ekbatana, along
a frequented and good road which Diodorus in another place
calls a royal road (xix. 19), is traced by Ritter, deriving
his information chiefly from the recent researches of Major
Rawlinson. The larger portion of the way lay along the western
side of the chain of Mount Zagros, and on the right bank of the
river Kerkha (Ritter, Erdkunde, part ix. b. 3. p. 329, West Asia).

[593] Arrian, vii. 13, 1; Plutarch, Eumenes, 2.

[594] Arrian, vii. 14; Plutarch, Alexand. 72; Diodor. xvii. 110.
It will not do to follow the canon of evidence tacitly assumed
by Arrian, who thinks himself authorized to discredit all the
details of Alexander’s conduct on this occasion, which transgress
the limits of a dignified, though vehement sorrow.

When Masistius was slain, in the Persian army commanded by
Mardonius in Bœotia, the manes of the horses were cut, as token
of mourning: compare also Plutarch, Pelopidas, 33; and Euripid.
Alkestis, 442.

Alexander stayed at Ekbatana until winter was at hand, seeking distraction from his grief in exaggerated splendor of festivals and ostentation of life. His temper became so much more irascible and furious, that no one approached him without fear, and he was propitiated by the most extravagant flatteries.[595] At length he roused himself and found his true consolation, in gratifying the primary passions of his nature—fighting and man-hunting.[596] Between Media and Persis, dwelt the tribes called Kossæi, amidst a region of lofty, trackless, inaccessible mountains. Brave and predatory, they had defied the attacks of the Persian kings. Alexander now conducted against them a powerful force, and in spite of increased difficulties arising from the wintry season, pushed them from point to point, following them into the loftiest and most impenetrable recesses of their mountains. These efforts were continued for forty days, under himself and Ptolemy, until the entire male population was slain; which passed for an acceptable offering to the manes of Hephæstion.[597]

[595] See the curious extracts from Ephippus the
Chalkidian,—seemingly a contemporary, if not an eye-witness (ap.
Athenæ. xii. p. 537, 538)—εὐφημία δὲ καὶ σιγὴ κατεῖχε πάντας ὑπὸ
δέους τοὺς παρόντας· ἀφόρητος γὰρ ἦν (Alexander) καὶ φονικός·
ἐδόκει γὰρ εἶναι μελαγχολικὸς, etc.

[596] I translate here, literally, Plutarch’s expression—Τοῦ
δὲ πένθους παρηγορίᾳ τῷ πολέμῳ χρώμενος, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ θήραν καὶ
~κυνηγέσιον ἀνθρώπων~ ἐξῆλθε, καὶ τὸ Κοσσαίων ἔθνος κατεστρέψατο,
~πάντας ἡβηδὸν ἀποσφάττων~. Τοῦτο δὲ Ἡφαιστίωνος ἐναγισμὸς
ἐκαλεῖτο (Plutarch, Alexand. 72: compare Polyænus, iv. 3, 31).

[597] Arrian, vii. 15; Plutarch, Alex. 72; Diodor. xvii. 111.
This general slaughter, however, can only be true of portions of
the Kossæan name; for Kossæans occur in after years (Diodor. xix.
19.).

Not long afterwards, Alexander commenced his progress to Babylon; but in slow marches, farther retarded by various foreign embassies which met him on the road. So widely had the terror of his name and achievements been spread, that several of these envoys came from the most distant regions. There were some from the various tribes of Lybia—from Carthage—from Sicily and Sardinia—from the Illyrians and Thracians—from the Lucanians, Bruttians, and Tuscans, in Italy—nay, even (some affirmed) from the Romans, as yet a people of moderate power.[598] But there were other names yet more surprising—Æthiopians, from the extreme south, beyond Egypt—Scythians from the north, beyond the Danube—Iberians and Gauls, from the far west, beyond the Mediterranean Sea. Legates also arrived from various Grecian cities, partly to tender congratulations and compliments upon his matchless successes, partly to remonstrate against his sweeping mandate for the general restoration of the Grecian exiles.[599] It was remarked that these Grecian legates approached him with wreaths on their heads, tendering golden wreaths to him,—as if they were coming into the presence of a god.[600] The proofs which Alexander received even from distant tribes with names and costumes unknown to him, of fear for his enmity and anxiety for his favor, were such as had never been shown to any historical person, and such as entirely to explain his superhuman arrogance.

[598] Pliny, H. N. iii. 9. The story in Strabo, v. p. 232, can
hardly apply to Alexander the Great. Livy (ix. 18) conceives that
the Romans knew nothing of Alexander even by report, but this
appears to me not credible.

On the whole, though the point is doubtful, I incline to believe
the assertion of a Roman embassy to Alexander. Nevertheless,
there were various false statements which afterwards became
current about it—one of which may be seen in Memnon’s history
of the Pontic Herakleia ap. Photium, Cod. 224; Orelli Fragment.
Memnon, p. 36. Kleitarchus (contemporary of Alexander), whom
Pliny quotes, can have had no motive to insert falsely the name
of Romans, which in his time was nowise important.

[599] Arrian, vii. 15; Justin, xii. 13; Diodor. xvii. 113. The
story mentioned by Justin in another place (xxi. 6) is probably
referable to this season of Alexander’s career. A Carthaginian
named Hamilkar Rhodanus, was sent by his city to Alexander;
really as an emissary to acquaint himself with the king’s real
designs, which occasioned to the Carthaginians serious alarm—but
under color of being an exile tendering his services. Justin says
that Parmenio introduced Hamilkar—which must, I think, be an
error.

[600] Arrian, vii. 19, 1; vii. 23, 3.

In the midst of this exuberant pride and good fortune, however, dark omens and prophecies crowded upon him as he approached Babylon. Of these the most remarkable was, the warning of the Chaldean priests, who apprised him, soon after he crossed the Tigris, that it would be dangerous for him to enter that city, and exhorted him to remain outside of the gates. At first he was inclined to obey; but his scruples were overruled, either by arguments from the Greek sophist Anaxarchus, or by the shame of shutting himself out from the most memorable city of the empire, where his great naval preparations were now going on. He found Nearchus with his fleet, who had come up from the mouth of the river,—and also the ships directed to be built in Phenicia, which had come down the river from Thapsakus, together with large numbers of seafaring men to serve aboard.[601] The ships of cypress-wood, and the large docks, which he had ordered to be constructed at Babylon, were likewise in full progress. He lost no time in concerting with Nearchus the details of an expedition into Arabia and the Persian Gulf, by his land-force and naval force coöperating. From various naval officers, who had been sent to survey the Persian Gulf and now made their reports, he learned that though there were no serious difficulties within it or along its southern coast, yet to double the eastern cape which terminated that coast—to circumnavigate the unknown peninsula of Arabia—and thus to reach the Red Sea—was an enterprise perilous at least, if not impracticable.[602] But to achieve that which other men thought impracticable, was the leading passion of Alexander. He resolved to circumnavigate Arabia as well as to conquer the Arabians, from whom it was sufficient offence that they had sent no envoys to him. He also contemplated the foundation of a great maritime city in the interior of the Persian Gulf, to rival in wealth and commerce the cities of Phenicia.[603]

[601] Arrian, vii. 19, 5-12; Diodor. xvii. 112.

[602] Arrian, vii. 20, 15; Arrian, Indica, 43. To undertake this
circumnavigation, Alexander had despatched a ship-master of Soli
in Cyprus, named Hiero; who becoming alarmed at the distance
to which he was advancing, and at the apparently interminable
stretch of Arabia towards the south, returned without
accomplishing the object.

Even in the time of Arrian, in the second century after the
Christian era, Arabia had never been circumnavigated, from the
Persian Gulf to the Red Sea—at least so far as his knowledge
extended.

[603] Arrian, vii. 19, 11.

Amidst preparations for this expedition—and while the immense funeral pile destined for Hephæstion was being built—Alexander sailed down the Euphrates to the great dyke called Pallakopas, about ninety miles below Babylon; a sluice constructed by the ancient Assyrian kings, for the purpose of being opened when the river was too full, so as to let off the water into the interminable marshes stretching out near the western bank. The sluice being reported not to work well, he projected the construction of a new one somewhat farther down. He then sailed through the Pallakopas in order to survey the marshes, together with the tombs of the ancient Assyrian kings which had been erected among them. Himself steering his vessel, with the kausia on his head, and the regal diadem above it,[604] he passed some time among these lakes and swamps, which were so extensive that his fleet lost the way among them. He stayed long enough also to direct, and even commence, the foundation of a new city, in what seemed to him a convenient spot.[605]

[604] Arrian, vii. 22, 2, 3; Strabo, xvi. p. 741.

[605] Arrian, vii. 21, 11. πόλιν ἐξῳκοδόμησέ τε καὶ ἐτείχισε.

On returning to Babylon, Alexander found large reinforcements arrived there—partly under Philoxenus, Menander, and Menidas, from Lydia and Karia—partly 20,000 Persians, under Peukestes the satrap. He caused these Persians to be incorporated in the files of the Macedonian phalanx. According to the standing custom, each of these files was sixteen deep, and each soldier was armed with the long pike or sarissa wielded by two hands; the lochage, or front-rank man, being always an officer receiving double pay, of great strength and attested valor—and those second and third in the file, as well as the rearmost man of all, being likewise strong and good men, receiving larger pay than the rest. Alexander, in his new arrangement, retained the three first ranks and the rear rank unchanged, as well as the same depth of file; but he substituted twelve Persians in place of the twelve Macedonians who followed after the third-rank man; so that the file was composed first of the lochage and two other chosen Macedonians, each armed with the sarissa—then of twelve Persians armed in their own manner with bow or javelin—lastly, of a Macedonian with his sarissa bringing up the the rear.[606] In this Macedonico-Persian file, the front would have only three projecting pikes, instead of five, as the ordinary Macedonian phalanx presented; but then, in compensation, the Persian soldiers would be able to hurl their javelins at an advancing enemy, over the heads of their three front-rank men. The supervening death of Alexander prevented the actual execution of this reform, interesting as being his last project for amalgamating Persians and Macedonians into one military force.

[606] Arrian, vii. 23, 5. Even when performing the purely
military operation of passing these soldiers in review,
inspecting their exercise, and determining their array,—Alexander
sat upon the regal throne, surrounded by Asiatic eunuchs; his
principal officers sat upon couches with silver feet, near to him
(Arrian, vii. 24, 4). This is among the evidences of his altered
manners.

Besides thus modifying the phalanx, Alexander also passed in review his fleet, which was now fully equipped. The order was actually given for departing, so soon as the obsequies of Hephæstion should be celebrated. This was the last act which remained for him to fulfil. The splendid funeral pile stood ready—two hundred feet high, occupying a square area, of which the side was nearly one furlong, loaded with mostly decorations from the zeal, real and simulated, of the Macedonian officers. The invention of artists was exhausted, in long discussions with the king himself, to produce at all cost an exhibition of magnificence singular and stupendous. The outlay (probably with addition of the festivals immediately following) is stated at 12,000 talents, or £2,760,000 sterling.[607] Alexander awaited the order from the oracle of Ammon, having sent thither messengers to inquire what measure of reverential honor he might properly and piously show to his departed friend.[608] The answer was now brought back, intimating that Hephæstion was to be worshipped as a Hero—the secondary form of worship, not on a level with that paid to the gods. Delighted with this divine testimony to Hephæstion, Alexander caused the pile to be lighted, and the obsequies celebrated, in a manner suitable to the injunctions of the oracle.[609] He farther directed that magnificent chapels or sacred edifices should be erected for the worship and honor of Hephæstion, at Alexandria in Egypt,—at Pella in Macedonia,—and probably in other cities also.[610]

[607] Diodorus, xvii. 115; Plutarch, Alex. 72.

[608] Arrian, vii. 23, 8.

[609] Diodor. xvii. 114, 115: compare Arrian, vii. 14, 16;
Plutarch, Alexand. 75.

[610] Arrian, vii. 23, 10-13; Diod. xviii. 4. Diodorus speaks
indeed, in this passage, of the πυρὰ or funeral pile in honor
of Hephæstion, as if it were among the vast expenses included
among the memoranda left by Alexander (after his decease) of
prospective schemes. But the funeral pile had already been
erected at Babylon, as Diodorus himself had informed us.

What Alexander left unexecuted at his decease, but intended to
execute if he had lived, was the splendid edifices and chapels in
Hephæstion’s honor—as we see by Arrian, vii. 23, 10. And Diodorus
must be supposed to allude to these intended sacred buildings,
though he has inadvertently spoken of the funeral pile. Kraterus,
who was under orders to return to Macedonia, was to have built
one at Pella.

The Olynthian Ephippus had composed a book περὶ τῆς Ἡφαιστίωνος
καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου ταφῆς, of which there appear four or five
citations in Athenæus. He dwelt especially on the luxurious
habits of Alexander, and on his unmeasured potations—common to
him with other Macedonians.

Respecting the honors intended for Hephæstion at Alexandria, he addressed to Kleomenes, the satrap of Egypt, a despatch which becomes in part known to us. I have already stated that Kleomenes was among the worst of the satraps; having committed multiplied public crimes, of which Alexander was not uninformed. The regal despatch enjoined him to erect in commemoration of Hephæstion a chapel on the terra firma of Alexandria, with a splendid turret on the islet of Pharos; and to provide besides that all mercantile written contracts, as a condition of validity, should be inscribed with the name of Hephæstion. Alexander concluded thus: “If on coming I find the Egyptian temples and the chapels of Hephæstion completed in the best manner, I will forgive you for all your past crimes; and in future, whatever magnitude of crime you may commit, you shall suffer no bad treatment from me.”[611] This despatch strikingly illustrates how much the wrong doings of satraps were secondary considerations in his view, compared with splendid manifestations towards the gods and personal attachments towards friends.

[611] Arrian, vii. 23, 9-14. Καὶ Κλεομένει ἀνδρὶ κακῷ, καὶ πολλὰ
ἀδικήματα ἀδικήσαντι ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ἐπιστέλλει ἐπιστολήν.... Ἢν γὰρ
καταλάβω ἐγὼ (ἔλεγε τὰ γράμματα) τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καλῶς
κατεσκευασμένα καὶ τὰ ἡρῷα τὰ Ἡφαιστίωνος, εἴτε τι πρότερον
ἡμάρτηκας, ἀφήσω σε τούτων, καὶ τολοιπόν, ὁπήλικον ἂν ἁμάρτῃς,
οὐδὲν πείσῃ ἐξ ἐμοῦ ἄχαρι.—In the oration of Demosthenes against
Dionysodoras (p. 1285), Kleomenes appears as enriching himself by
the monopoly of corn exported from Egypt: compare Pseudo-Aristot.
Œconom. c. 33. Kleomenes was afterwards put to death by the first
Ptolemy, who became king of Egypt (Pausanias, i. 6, 3).

The intense sorrow felt by Alexander for the death of Hephæstion—not merely an attached friend, but of the same age and exuberant vigor as himself—laid his mind open to gloomy forebodings from numerous omens, as well as to jealous mistrust even of his oldest officers. Antipater especially, no longer protected against the calumnies of Olympias by the support of Hephæstion,[612] fell more and more into discredit; whilst his son Kassander, who had recently come into Asia with a Macedonian reinforcement, underwent from Alexander during irascible moments much insulting violence. In spite of the dissuasive warning of the Chaldean priests,[613] Alexander had been persuaded to distrust their sincerity, and had entered Babylon, though not without hesitation and uneasiness. However, when, after having entered the town, he went out of it again safely on his expedition for the survey of the lower Euphrates, he conceived himself to have exposed them as deceitful alarmists, and returned to the city with increased confidence, for the obsequies of his deceased friend.[614]

[612] Plutarch, Alex. 74; Diodor. xvii. 114.

[613] Arrian, vii. 16, 9; vii. 17, 6. Plutarch, Alex. 73. Diodor.
xvii. 112.

[614] Arrian, vii. 22, 1. Αὐτὸς δὲ ~ὡς ἐξελέγξας δὴ~ τῶν Χαλδαίων
μαντείαν, ὅτι οὐδὲν πεπονθὼς εἴη ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἄχαρι (ἀλλ᾽ ἔφθη γὰρ
ἐλάσας ἔξω Βαβυλῶνος πρίν τι παθεῖν) ἀνέπλει αὖθις κατὰ τὰ ἕλη
~θαῤῥῶν~, etc.

The uneasiness here caused by these prophecies and omens, in the
mind of the most fearless man of his age, is worthy of notice as
a psychological fact, and is perfectly attested by the authority
of Aristobulus and Nearchus. It appears that Anaxarchus and
other Grecian philosophers encouraged him by their reasonings
to despise all prophecy, but especially that of the Chaldæan
priests; who (they alleged) wished to keep Alexander out of
Babylon in order that they might continue to possess the large
revenues of the temple of Belus, which they had wrongfully
appropriated; Alexander being disposed to rebuild that ruined
temple, and to re-establish the suspended sacrifices to which its
revenues had been originally devoted (Arrian, vii. 17; Diodor.
xvii. 112). Not many days afterwards, Alexander greatly repented
of having given way to these dangerous reasoners, who by their
sophistical cavils set aside the power and the warnings of
destiny (Diodor. xvii. 116).

The sacrifices connected with these obsequies were on the most prodigious scale. Victims enough were offered to furnish a feast for the army, who also received ample distributions of wine. Alexander himself presided at the feast, and abandoned himself to conviviality like the rest. Already full of wine, he was persuaded by his friend Medius to sup with him, and to pass the whole night in yet farther drinking, with the boisterous indulgence called by the Greeks Kômus or Revelry. Having slept off his intoxication during the next day, he in the evening again supped with Medius, and spent a second night in the like unmeasured indulgence.[615] It appears that he already had the seeds of fever upon him, which was so fatally aggravated by this intemperance that he was too ill to return to his palace. He took the bath, and slept in the house of Medius; on the next morning, he was unable to rise. After having been carried out on a couch to celebrate sacrifice (which was his daily habit), he was obliged to lie in bed all day. Nevertheless he summoned the generals to his presence, prescribing all the details of the impending expedition, and ordering that the land-force should begin its march on the fourth day following, while the fleet, with himself aboard, would sail on the fifth day. In the evening, he was carried on a couch across the Euphrates into a garden on the other side, where he bathed and rested for the night. The fever still continued, so that in the morning, after bathing and being carried out to perform the sacrifices, he remained on his couch all day, talking and playing at dice with Medius; in the evening, he bathed, sacrificed again, and ate a light supper, but endured a bad night with increased fever. The next two days passed in the same manner, the fever becoming worse and worse; nevertheless Alexander still summoned Nearchus to his bedside, discussed with him many points about his maritime projects, and repeated his order that the fleet should be ready by the third day. On the ensuing morning the fever was violent; Alexander reposed all day in a bathing-house in the garden, yet still calling in the generals to direct the filling up of vacancies among the officers, and ordering that the armament should be ready to move. Throughout the two next days, his malady became hourly more aggravated. On the last day of the two, Alexander could with difficulty support the being lifted out of bed to perform the sacrifice; even then, however, he continued to give orders to the generals about the expedition. On the morrow, though desperately ill, he still made the effort requisite for performing the sacrifice; he was then carried across from the garden-house to the palace, giving orders that the generals and officers should remain in permanent attendance in and near the hall. He caused some of them to be called to his bedside; but though he knew them perfectly, he had by this time become incapable of utterance. One of his last words spoken is said to have been, on being asked to whom he bequeathed his kingdom, “_To the strongest_;” one of his last acts was, to take the signet ring from his finger, and hand it to Perdikkas.[616]

[615] Arrian, vii. 24, 25. Diodorus states (xvii. 117) that
Alexander, on this convivial night, swallowed the contents of a
large goblet called the cup of Herakles, and felt very ill after
it; a statement repeated by various other writers of antiquity,
and which I see no reason for discrediting, though some modern
critics treat it with contempt. The royal Ephemerides, or Court
Journal, attested only the general fact of his long potations and
the long sleep which followed them: see Athenæus, x. p. 434.

To drink to intoxication at a funeral, was required as a token of
respectful sympathy towards the deceased—see the last words of
the Indian Kalanus before he ascended the funeral pile—Plutarch,
Alexander, 69.

[616] These last two facts are mentioned by Arrian (vii. 26, 5)
and Diodorus (xvii. 117), and Justin (xii. 15): but they found
no place in the Court Journal. Curtius (x. v. 4) gives them with
some enlargement.

For two nights and a day he continued in this state, without either amendment or repose. Meanwhile, the news of his malady had spread through the army, filling them with grief and consternation. Many of the soldiers, eager to see him once more, forced their way into the palace, and were admitted unarmed. They passed along by the bedside, with all the demonstrations of affliction and sympathy: Alexander knew them, and made show of friendly recognition as well as he could; but was unable to say a word. Several of the generals slept in the temple of Serapis, hoping to be informed by the god in a dream whether they ought to bring Alexander into it, as a suppliant to experience the divine healing power. The god informed them in their dream, that Alexander ought not to be brought into the temple—that it would be better for him to be left where he was. In the afternoon he expired—June 323 B. C.—after a life of thirty-two years and eight months—and a reign of twelve years and eight months.[617]

[617] The details, respecting the last illness of Alexander,
are peculiarly authentic, being extracted both by Arrian and by
Plutarch, from the Ephemerides Regiæ, or short Court Journal;
which was habitually kept by his secretary Eumenes, and another
Greek named Diodotus (Athenæ. x. p. 434): see Arrian, vii. 25,
26; Plutarch, Alex. 76.

It is surprising that throughout all the course of this malady
no mention is made of any physician as having been consulted. No
advice was asked; if we except the application to the temple of
Serapis, during the last day of Alexander’s life. A few months
before, Alexander had hanged or crucified the physician who
attended Hephæstion in his last illness. Hence it seems probable
that he either despised or mistrusted medical advice, and would
not permit any to be invoked. His views must have been much
altered since his dangerous fever at Tarsus, and the successful
treatment of it by the Akarnanian physician Philippus.

Though the fever (see some remarks from Littré attached to
Didot’s Fragm. Script. Alex. Magn. p. 124) which caused
Alexander’s death is here a plain fact satisfactorily made out,
yet a different story was circulated some time afterwards, and
gained partial credit (Plutarch De Invidiâ, p. 538), that he
had been poisoned. The poison was said to have been provided
by Aristotle,—sent over to Asia by Antipater through his son
Kassander,—and administered by Iollas (another son of Antipater),
Alexander’s cupbearer (Arrian, vii. 27, 2; Curtius, x. 10, 17;
Diodor. xvii. 118; Justin, xii. 13). It is quite natural that
fever and intemperance (which latter moreover was frequent with
Alexander) should not be regarded as causes sufficiently marked
and impressive to explain a decease at once so unexpected and so
momentous. There seems ground for supposing, however, that the
report was intentionally fomented, if not originally broached,
by the party-enemies of Antipater and Kassander—especially by
the rancorous Olympias. The violent enmity afterwards displayed
by Kassander against Olympias, and all the family of Alexander
helped to encourage the report. In the life of Hyperides in
Plutarch, (Vit. X. Oratt. p. 849) it is stated, that he proposed
at Athens public honors to Iollas for having given the poison to
Alexander. If there is any truth in this, it might be a stratagem
for casting discredit on Antipater (father of Iollas), against
whom the Athenians entered into the Lamian war, immediately after
the death of Alexander.

The death of Alexander, thus suddenly cut off by a fever in the plenitude of health, vigor, and aspirations, was an event impressive as well as important, in the highest possible degree, to his contemporaries far and near. When the first report of it was brought to Athens, the orator Demades exclaimed:—“It cannot be true: if Alexander were dead, the whole habitable world would have smelt of his carcass.”[618] This coarse but emphatic comparison illustrates the immediate, powerful, and wide-reaching impression produced by the sudden extinction of the great conqueror. It was felt by each of the many remote envoys who had so recently come to propitiate this far-shooting Apollo—by every man among the nations who had sent these envoys—throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa, as then known,—to affect either his actual condition or his probable future.[619] The first growth and development of Macedonia, during the twenty-two years preceding the battle of Chæroneia, from an embarrassed secondary State into the first of all known powers, had excited the astonishment of contemporaries, and admiration for Philip’s organizing genius. But the achievements of Alexander, during his twelve years of reign, throwing Philip into the shade, had been on a scale so much grander and vaster, and so completely without serious reverse or even interruption, as to transcend the measure, not only of human expectation, but almost of human belief. The Great King (as the king of Persia was called by excellence) was, and had long been, the type of worldly power and felicity, even down to the time when Alexander crossed the Hellespont. Within four years and three months from this event, by one stupendous defeat after another, Darius had lost all his Western Empire, and had become a fugitive eastward of the Caspian Gates, escaping captivity at the hands of Alexander only to perish by those of the satrap Bessus. All antecedent historical parallels—the ruin and captivity of the Lydian Crœsus, the expulsion and mean life of the Syracusan Dionysius, both of them impressive examples of the mutability of human condition,—sank into trifles compared with the overthrow of this towering Persian colossus. The orator Æschines expressed the genuine sentiment of a Grecian spectator, when he exclaimed (in a speech delivered at Athens shortly before the death of Darius):—“What is there among the list of strange and unexpected events, that has not occurred in our time? Our lives have transcended the limits of humanity; we are born to serve as a theme for incredible tales to posterity. Is not the Persian king—who dug through Athos and bridged the Hellespont,—who demanded earth and water from the Greeks,—who dared to proclaim himself, in public epistles, master of all mankind from the rising to the setting sun—is not _he_ now struggling to the last, not for dominion over others, but for the safety of his own person?”[620]

[618] Plutarch, Phokion, 22; Demetrius Phaler. De Elocution.
s. 300. Οὐ τέθνηκεν Ἀλέξανδρος, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι—ὦζε γὰρ ἂν ἡ
οἰκουμένη τοῦ νεκροῦ.

[619] Dionysius, despot of the Pontic Herakleia, fainted away
with joy when he heard of Alexander’s death, and erected a statue
of Εὐθυμία or Comfort (Memn. Heracl. Fragm. ap. Photium, Cod.
224. c. 4).

[620] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 524. c. 43. Τοιγάρτοι τί τῶν
ἀνελπίστων καὶ ἀπροσδοκήτων ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν οὐ γέγονεν! οὐ γὰρ βίον
γ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἀνθρώπινον βεβιώκαμεν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς παραδοξολογίαν τοῖς
ἐσομένοις μεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἔφυμεν. Οὐχ ὁ μὲν τῶν Περσῶν βασιλεὺς, ὁ τὸν
Ἄθων διορύξας καὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ζεύξας, ὁ γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ τοὺς
Ἕλληνας αἰτῶν, ὁ τολμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς γράφειν ὅτι δεσπότης
ἐστὶν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου ἀνιόντος μέχρι δυομένου, νῦν οὐ
περὶ τοῦ κύριος ἑτέρων εἶναι διαγωνίζεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη περὶ τῆς τοῦ
σώματος σωτηρίας;

Compare the striking fragment, of a like tenor, out of the lost
work of the Phalerean Demetrius—Περὶ τῆς τύχης—Fragment. Histor.
Græcor. vol. ii. p. 368.

Such were the sentiments excited by Alexander’s career even in the middle of 330 B. C., more than seven years before his death. During the following seven years, his additional achievements had carried astonishment yet farther. He had mastered, in defiance of fatigue, hardship, and combat, not merely all the eastern half of the Persian empire, but unknown Indian regions beyond its easternmost limits. Besides Macedonia, Greece, and Thrace, he possessed all that immense treasure and military force which had once rendered the Great King so formidable. By no contemporary man had any such power ever been known or conceived. With the turn of imagination then prevalent, many were doubtless disposed to take him for a god on earth, as Grecian spectators had once supposed with regard to Xerxes, when they beheld the innumerable Persian host crossing the Hellespont.[621]

[621] Herodot. vii. 56.

Exalted to this prodigious grandeur, Alexander was at the time of his death little more than thirty-two years old—the age at which a citizen of Athens was growing into important commands; ten years less than the age for a consul at Rome;[622] two years younger than the age at which Timour first acquired the crown, and began his foreign conquests.[623] His extraordinary bodily powers were unabated; he had acquired a large stock of military experience; and what was still more important, his appetite for farther conquest was as voracious, and his readiness to purchase it at the largest cost of toil or danger, as complete, as it had been when he first crossed the Hellespont. Great as his past career had been, his future achievements, with such increased means and experience, were likely to be yet greater. His ambition would have been satisfied with nothing less than the conquest of the whole habitable world as then known;[624] and if his life had been prolonged, he would probably have accomplished it. Nowhere (so far as our knowledge reaches) did there reside any military power capable of making head against him; nor were his soldiers, when he commanded them, daunted or baffled by any extremity of cold, heat, or fatigue. The patriotic feelings of Livy dispose him to maintain[625] that Alexander, had he invaded Italy and assailed Romans or Samnites, would have failed and perished like his relative Alexander of Epirus. But this conclusion cannot be accepted. If we grant the courage and discipline of the Roman infantry to have been equal to the best infantry of Alexander’s army, the same cannot be said of the Roman cavalry as compared with the Macedonian Companions. Still less is it likely that a Roman consul, annually changed, would have been found a match for Alexander in military genius and combinations; nor, even if personally equal, would he have possessed the same variety of troops and arms, each effective in its separate way, and all conspiring to one common purpose—nor the same unbounded influence over their minds in stimulating them to full effort. I do not think that even the Romans could have successfully resisted Alexander the Great; though it is certain that he never throughout all his long marches encountered such enemies as they, nor even such as Samnites and Lucanians—combining courage, patriotism, discipline, with effective arms both for defence and for close combat.[626]

[622] Cicero, Philippic. v. 17, 48.

[623] See Histoire de Timour-Bec, par Cherefeddin Ali, translated
by Petit de la Croix, vol. i. p. 203.

[624] This is the remark of his great admirer Arrian, vii. 1, 6.

[625] Livy, ix. 17-19. A discussion of Alexander’s chances
against the Romans—extremely interesting and beautiful, though
the case appears to me very partially set forth. I agree with
Niebuhr in dissenting from Livy’s result; and with Plutarch in
considering it as one of the boons of fortune to the Romans, that
Alexander did not live long enough to attack them (Plutarch de
Fortunâ Romanor. p. 326).

Livy however had great reason for complaining of those Greek
authors (he calls them “levissimi ex Græcis”) who said that
the Romans would have quailed before the terrible reputation
of Alexander, and submitted without resistance. Assuredly his
victory over them would have been dearly bought.

[626] Alexander of Epirus is said to have remarked, that he, in
his expeditions into Italy, had fallen upon the ἀνδρωνῖτις or
chamber of the men; while his nephew (Alexander the Great), in
invading Asia, had fallen upon the γυναικωνῖτις or chamber of the
women (Aulus Gellius, xvii. 21; Curtius, viii. 1, 37).

Among all the qualities which go to constitute the highest military excellence, either as a general or as a soldier, none was wanting in the character of Alexander. Together with his own chivalrous courage—sometimes indeed both excessive and unseasonable, so as to form the only military defect which can be fairly imputed to him—we trace in all his operations the most careful dispositions taken beforehand, vigilant precaution in guarding against possible reverse, and abundant resource in adapting himself to new contingences. Amidst constant success, these precautionary combinations were never discontinued. His achievements are the earliest recorded evidence of scientific military organization on a large scale, and of its overwhelming effects. Alexander overawes the imagination more than any other personage of antiquity, by the matchless development of all that constitutes effective force—as an individual warrior, and as organizer and leader of armed masses; not merely the blind impetuosity ascribed by Homer to Ares, but also the intelligent, methodized, and all-subduing compression which he personifies in Athênê. But all his great qualities were fit for use only against enemies; in which category indeed were numbered all mankind, known and unknown, except those who chose to submit to him. In his Indian campaigns, amidst tribes of utter strangers, we perceive that not only those who stand on their defence, but also those who abandon their property and flee to the mountains, are alike pursued and slaughtered.

Apart from the transcendent merits of Alexander as a soldier and a general, some authors give him credit for grand and beneficent views on the subject of imperial government, and for intentions highly favorable to the improvement of mankind. I see no ground for adopting this opinion. As far as we can venture to anticipate what would have been Alexander’s future, we see nothing in prospect except years of ever-repeated aggression and conquest, not to be concluded until he had traversed and subjugated all the inhabited globe. The acquisition of universal dominion—conceived not metaphorically, but literally, and conceived with greater facility in consequence of the imperfect geographical knowledge of the time—was the master-passion of his soul. At the moment of his death, he was commencing fresh aggression in the south against the Arabians, to an indefinite extent;[627] while his vast projects against the western tribes in Africa and Europe, as far as the pillars of Herakles, were consigned in the orders and memoranda confidentially communicated to Kraterus.[628] Italy, Gaul, and Spain, would have been successively attacked and conquered; the enterprises proposed to him when in Baktria by the Chorasmian prince Pharasmanes, but postponed then until a more convenient season, would have been next taken up, and he would have marched from the Danube northward round the Euxine and Palus Mæotis against the Scythians and the tribes of Caucasus.[629] There remained moreover the Asiatic regions east of the Hyphasis, which his soldiers had refused to enter upon, but which he certainly would have invaded at a future opportunity, were it only to efface the poignant humiliation of having been compelled to relinquish his proclaimed purpose. Though this sounds like romance and hyperbole, it was nothing more than the real insatiate aspiration of Alexander, who looked upon every new acquisition mainly as a capital for acquiring more.[630] “You are a man like all of us, Alexander—except that you abandon your home (said the naked Indian to him[631]) like a meddlesome destroyer, to invade the most distant regions; enduring hardship yourself, and inflicting hardship upon others.” Now, how an empire thus boundless and heterogeneous, such as no prince has ever yet realized, could have been administered with any superior advantages to subjects—it would be difficult to show. The mere task of acquiring and maintaining—of keeping satraps and tribute-gatherers in authority as well as in subordination—of suppressing resistances ever liable to recur in regions distant by months of march[632]—would occupy the whole life of a world-conqueror, without leaving any leisure for the improvements suited to peace and stability, if we give him credit for such purposes in theory.

[627] Arrian, vii. 28, 5.

[628] Diodor. xviii. 4.

[629] Arrian, iv. 15, 11.

[630] Arrian, vii. 19, 12. Τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖ,
ἄπληστος ἦν τοῦ κτᾶσθαί τι ἀεὶ Ἀλέξανδρος. Compare vii. 1, 3-7;
vii. 15, 6, and the speech made by Alexander to his soldiers on
the banks of the Hyphasis, when he was trying to persuade them
to march forward, v. 26 _seq._ We must remember that Arrian
had before him the work of Ptolemy, who would give, in all
probability, the substance of this memorable speech from his own
hearing.

[631] Arrian, vii. 1, 8. σὺ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὢν, παραπλήσιος τοῖς
ἄλλοις, πλήν γε δὴ, ὅτι πολυπράγμων καὶ ἀτάσθαλος, ἀπὸ τῆς
οἰκείας τοσαύτην γῆν ἐπεξέρχῃ, πράγματα ἔχων τε καὶ παρέχων
ἄλλοις.

[632] Arrian, vii. 4, 4, 5.

But even this last is more than can be granted. Alexander’s acts indicate that he desired nothing better than to take up the traditions of the Persian empire; a tribute-levying and army-levying system, under Macedonians, in large proportion, as his instruments; yet partly also under the very same Persians who had administered before, provided they submitted to him. It has indeed been extolled among his merits that he was thus willing to re-appoint Persian grandees (putting their armed force however under the command of a Macedonian officer)—and to continue native princes in their dominions, if they did willing homage to him, as tributary subordinates. But all this had been done before him by the Persian kings, whose system it was to leave the conquered princes undisturbed, subject only to the payment of tribute, and to the obligation of furnishing a military contingent when required.[633] In like manner Alexander’s Asiatic empire would thus have been composed of an aggregate of satrapies and dependent principalities, furnishing money and soldiers; in other respects, left to the discretion of local rule, with occasional extreme inflictions of punishment, but no systematic examination or control.[634] Upon this, the condition of Asiatic empire in all ages, Alexander would have grafted one special improvement: the military organization of the empire, feeble under the Achæmenid princes, would have been greatly strengthened by his genius, and by the able officers formed in his school, both for foreign aggression and for home control.[635]

[633] Herodot. iii. 15. Alexander offered to Phokion (Plutarch,
Phok. 18) his choice between four Asiatic cities, of which (that
is, of any one of them) he was to enjoy the revenues; just
as Artaxerxes Longimanus had acted towards Themistokles, in
recompense for his treason. Phokion refused the offer.

[634] See the punishment of Sisamnes by Kambyses (Herodot. v. 25).

[635] The rhetor Aristeides, in his Encomium on Rome, has some
good remarks on the character and ascendancy of Alexander,
exercised by will and personal authority, as contrasted with the
systematic and legal working of the Roman empire (Orat. xiv. p.
332-360, vol. i. ed. Dindorf).

The Persian empire was a miscellaneous aggregate, with no strong feeling of nationality. The Macedonian conqueror who seized its throne was still more indifferent to national sentiment. He was neither Macedonian nor Greek. Though the absence of this prejudice has sometimes been mounted to him as a virtue, it only made room, in my opinion, for prejudices yet worse. The substitute for it was an exorbitant personality and self-estimation, manifested even in his earliest years, and inflamed by extraordinary success into the belief in divine parentage; which, while setting him above the idea of communion with any special nationality, made him conceive all mankind as subjects under one common sceptre to be wielded by himself. To this universal empire the Persian king made the nearest approach,[636] according to the opinions then prevalent. Accordingly Alexander, when victorious, accepted the position and pretensions of the overthrown Persian court as approaching most nearly to his full due. He became more Persian than either Macedonian or Greek. While himself adopting, as far as he could safely venture, the personal habits of the Persian court, he took studied pains to transform his Macedonian officers into Persian grandees, encouraging and even forcing intermarriages with Persian women according to Persian rites. At the time of Alexander’s death, there was comprised, in his written orders given to Kraterus, a plan for the wholesale transportation of inhabitants, both out of Europe into Asia, and out of Asia into Europe, in order to fuse these populations into one by multiplying intermarriages and intercourse.[637] Such reciprocal translation of peoples would have been felt as eminently odious, and could not have been accomplished without coercive authority.[638] It is rash to speculate upon unexecuted purposes; but, as far as we can judge, such compulsory mingling of the different races promises nothing favorable to the happiness of any of them, though it might serve as an imposing novelty and memento of imperial omnipotence.

[636] Xenoph. Cyropæd. viii. 6, 21; Anabas. i. 7, 6; Herodot.
vii. 8, 13: compare Arrian, v. 26, 4-10.

[637] Diodor. xviii. 4. Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πόλεων συνοικισμοὺς
καὶ σωμάτων μεταγωγὰς ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας εἰς τὴν Εὐρώπην, καὶ κατὰ
τοὐναντίον ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ὅπως τὰς μεγίστας
ἠπείρους ταῖς ἐπιγαμίαις καὶ ταῖς οἰκειώσεσιν εἰς κοινὴν ὁμόνοιαν
καὶ συγγενικὴν καταστήσῃ.

[638] See the effect produced upon the Ionians by the false
statement of Histiæus (Herodot. vi. 3) with Wesseling’s note—and
the eagerness of the Pæonians to return (Herod. v. 98; also
Justin, viii. 5).

Antipater afterwards intended to transport the Ætolians in
mass from their own country into Asia, if he had succeeded in
conquering them (Diodor. xviii. 25). Compare Pausanias (i.
9, 8-10) about the forcible measures used by Lysimachus, in
transporting new inhabitants, at Ephesus and Lysimacheia.

In respect of intelligence and combining genius, Alexander was Hellenic to the full; in respect of disposition and purpose, no one could be less Hellenic. The acts attesting his Oriental violence of impulse, unmeasured self-will,[639] and exaction of reverence above the limits of humanity—have been already recounted. To describe him as a son of Hellas, imbued with the political maxims of Aristotle, and bent on the systematic diffusion of Hellenic culture for the improvement of mankind[640]—is, in my judgment, an estimate of his character contrary to the evidence. Alexander is indeed said to have invited suggestions from Aristotle as to the best mode of colonizing; but his temper altered so much, after a few years of Asiatic conquest, that he came not only to lose all deference for Aristotle’s advice, but even to hate him bitterly.[641] Moreover, though the philosopher’s full suggestions have not been preserved, yet we are told generally that he recommended Alexander to behave to the Greeks as a leader or president, or limited chief—and to the Barbarians (non-Hellenes) as a master;[642] a distinction substantially coinciding with that pointed out by Burke in his speeches at the beginning of the American war, between the principles of government proper to be followed by England in the American colonies, and in British India. No Greek thinker believed the Asiatics to be capable of that free civil polity[643] upon which the march of every Grecian community was based. Aristotle did not wish to degrade the Asiatics below the level to which they had been accustomed, but rather to preserve the Greeks from being degraded to the same level. Now Alexander recognized no such distinction as that drawn by his preceptor. He treated Greeks and Asiatics alike, not by elevating the latter, but by degrading the former. Though he employed all indiscriminately as instruments, yet he presently found the free speech of Greeks, and even of Macedonians, so distasteful and offensive, that his preferences turned more and more in favor of the servile Asiatic sentiment and customs. Instead of hellenizing Asia, he was tending to asiatize Macedonia and Hellas. His temper and character, as modified by a few years of conquest, rendered him quite unfit to follow the course recommended by Aristotle towards the Greeks—quite as unfit as any of the Persian kings, or as the French Emperor Napoleon, to endure that partial frustration, compromise, and smart from free criticism, which is inseparable from the position of a limited chief. Among a multitude of subjects more diverse-colored than even the army of Xerxes, it is quite possible that he might have turned his power towards the improvement of the rudest portions. We are told (though the fact is difficult to credit, from his want of time) that he abolished various barbarisms of the Hyrkanians, Arachosians, and Sogdians.[644] But Macedonians as well as Greeks would have been pure losers by being absorbed into an immense Asiatic aggregate.

[639] Livy, ix. 18. “Referre in tanto rege piget superbam
mutationem vistis, et desideratas humi jacentium adulationes,
etiam victis Macedonibus graves, nedum victoribus: en fœda
supplicia, et inter vinum et epulas cædes amicorum, et vanitatem
ementiendæ stirpis. Quid si vini amor in dies fieret acrior? quid
si trux et præfervida ira? (_nec quidquam dubium inter scriptores
refero_) nullane hæc damna imperatoriis virtutibus ducimus?”

The appeal here made by Livy to the full attestation of these
points in Alexander’s character deserves notice. He had doubtless
more authorities before him than we possess.

[640] Among other eulogists of Alexander, it is sufficient
to name Droysen—in his two works, both of great historical
research—Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen—and Geschichte des
Hellenismus oder der Bildung des Hellenischen Staaten Systemes
(Hamburg, 1843). See especially the last and most recent work, p.
27 _seqq._, p. 651 _seqq._—and elsewhere _passim_.

[641] Plutarch, Alex. 55-74.

[642] Plutarch, Fortun. Alex. M. p. 329. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ
ἔργον παρέσχεν· οὐ γὰρ, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης συνεβούλευεν αὐτῷ, τοῖς
μὲν Ἕλλησιν ἡγεμονικῶς, τοῖς δὲ βαρβάροις δεσποτικῶς χρώμενον
... ἀλλὰ κοινὸς ἥκειν θεόθεν ἁρμοστὴς καὶ διαλλακτὴς τῶν ὅλων
νομίζων, οὓς τῷ λόγῳ μὴ συνῆγε, τοῖς ὅπλοις βιαζόμενος, εἰς τὸ
αὐτὸ συνενεγκὼν τὰ παντάχοθεν, etc.

Strabo (or Eratosthenes, see Strabo, i. p. 66) and Plutarch
understand the expression of Aristotle erroneously—as if that
philosopher had meant to recommend harsh and cruel treatment of
the non-Hellenes, and kind treatment only towards Greeks. That
Aristotle could have meant no such thing, is evident from the
whole tenor of his treatise on Politics. The distinction really
intended is between a greater and a less measure of extra-popular
authority—not between kind and unkind purposes in the exercise
of authority. Compare Tacitus, Annal. xii. 11—the advice of the
Emperor Claudius to the Parthian prince Meherdates.

[643] Aristot. Politic. i. 1, 5; vii. 6, 1. See the memorable
comparison drawn by Aristotle (Polit. vii. 6) between the
Europeans and Asiatics generally. He pronounces the former to be
courageous and energetic, but wanting in intelligence or powers
of political combination; the latter to be intelligent and clever
in contrivance, but destitute of courage. Neither of them have
more than a “one-legged aptitude” (φύσιν μονόκωλον); the Greek
alone possesses both the courage and intelligence united. The
Asiatics are condemned to perpetual subjection; the Greeks might
govern the world could they but combine in one political society.

[644] Plutarch, Fortun. Alex. M. p. 328. The stay of Alexander
in these countries was however so short, that even with the best
will he could not have enforced the suppression of any inveterate
customs.