The figure of Alexander the Great has always been at the border between myth and reality (Gómez Espelosín, 2015). His deeds have been the fruit of numerous legends that have sparked interest and curiosity among many historians and biographers (Navarro, 2013). So influential was his impact that after his death, it was established that the Macedonian monarch should be considered a deity within the pantheon. Nevertheless, various studies point to the fact that this process of deification may have occurred while the conqueror was still alive.
Due to Alexander's extensive life, in this work I will focus on analyzing the episode of Hephastion's death and the honors paid to him, because it is one of the moments used to defend the position that Alexander the Great was considered a god while still alive. For this purpose, I will rely on classical sources as well as the main current studies that have been carried out on this topic.
In 324 BC, one of the most tragic moments in the life of legendary Alexander the Great occurred: the death of his beloved general Hephastion. Some researchers argue that when Alexander bestowed elevated honors on his dear friend, he did so thinking that he wanted similar treatment (Stoneman, 2004, pp. 100-101) or perhaps even greater (Worthington, 2004, p. 282). Regarding Hephastion's death, Claudius Aelian recounts the following:
«When Hephastion died, Alexander threw his weapons onto the funeral pyre and burned gold, silver, and the garments that were highly esteemed among the Persians along with the body. He cut off his hair, giving free rein to a passion typical of Homer's Achilles and imitating the hero from the poem. But Alexander acted with greater violence and rage than that hero did, for he razed Ecbatana’s acropolis and demolished its walls. (…) He even changed his way of dressing, openly surrendering himself to anger, passion, and tears. (…) There is a story according to which all this was prepared for Hephastion's funeral but ended up serving Alexander at his own death. For he had not yet finished mourning the young man when death caught up with Alexander» (Claudius Aelian, 2006, pp. 172-173).
As a first reading shows, the comparison of Alexander's story with that of Achilles is evident, as there are more than obvious parallels established between Hephastion's death and Patroclus', and the heroes' subsequent actions. However, Alexander did not consider mourning and lamentation as acts to honor his friend’s memory, so he sent a request to the oracle of Siwa asking that honors be paid to him as if he were a hero.
«Alexander ordered sacrifices in honor of Hephastion, as if he were a hero; this is what most of his historians say at least, although some others claim that Alexander sent an embassy to ask the god Ammon whether it was proper to offer sacrifices to Hephastion as if he were a god; the oracle's answer was that it was not proper» (Arrian, 2001, p. 225).
«In the army flutes and all music ceased for a long time until an oracle of Ammon came saying that Hephastion should be honored and sacrifices made to him as if he were a hero» (Plutarch, 2010, 100).
As we can see in the works of Arrian and Plutarch, the type of cult given to the deceased general was heroic, with the difference that in the first case the oracle responded by Alexander's request, while in the second it is the same oracle who said what kind of honor should be paid to Hephastion. In contrast, we have Diodorus' account, which states that Alexander’s petition was not for hero worship but divine honors.
«(…) Consistent with this greatness and the other honors that occurred at the funeral, he finally ordered all to make sacrifices in honor of Hephastion as a god. For by chance Philip, one of his friends, brought an oracle from Ammon ordering sacrifices for Hephastion as a god» (Diodorus Siculus, 2011, p. 292).
This topic has been a matter of much debate among modern historians who have not reached an academic consensus. On one hand, Stoneman points out that from the moment Alexander asked his father Ammon to grant Hephastion heroic honors, the conqueror must have thought he was a god to dare make such a request (Stoneman, 2004, pp.102-103).
Despite this, converting an individual into a hero did not depend on personal requests even if they came from a monarch. A hero had to have performed great deeds that were recognized by the people. Therefore, it was the people themselves who through their prayers and oracles could request such honors (Parker, 2011, pp. 273-277). This leads to the fact that if a city is capable of requesting honors for an outstanding individual, Alexander's request would not give him divine status in any sense, so Stoneman’s assertion would be confusing. On the other hand, Worthington argues that if Alexander requested heroic honors for his friend, he himself, who was superior to Hephastion, should receive a higher consideration, i.e., divinity (Worthington, 2004, p. 283).
This assertion by Worthington is perhaps even more excessive. There is no evidence in the sources that show Alexander believed he was at a higher level than Hephastion. On the contrary, all data points to the fact that the monarch considered his beloved friend as the only one he could consider an equal. This can go so far as to cause confusion.
«And thus, the queens, believing the king was Hephastion, paid him their customary courtly respects and upon being told by some captured eunuchs who Alexander really was, Sisygambis threw herself at his feet as an excuse for it being her first time seeing the king. He helped her up and said: "Mother, you have not made a mistake; this too is Alexander"» (Quintus Curtius, 1986, p.124).
Observing these data, we can affirm that both Stoneman's and Worthington’s reasoning lack evidence in the texts. If we were to assume their hypotheses are real, i.e., Alexander saw himself as superior to Hephastion and therefore deserved divine treatment, this would only provide information about his own psychology and not what his allies and subjects thought; much less would it prove the existence of worship towards him (Badian, 1981, p. 55). Therefore, we can say that the episode of Hephastion's death does not provide any substantial evidence to confirm any kind of worship toward Alexander, whether as a hero or as a god (Badian, 2006, p. 256).
As a conclusion and after analyzing all relevant aspects, it is clear that there is no clear evidence affirming the existence of any kind of worship dedicated to Alexander during his lifetime. Many researchers have made hypotheses based on data suggesting adoration for the monarch before his death. However, these seem to be fundamentally based on suppositions drawn from confusing sources. It is possible that Alexander saw himself as more than a mere mortal but, as we have advanced in other works (López, 2021, pp. 121-134), making any further claims amounts to pure scientific speculation.
Bibliography
Arrian (2001). Anabasis of Alexander the Great. Books IV-VIII (India). Translated and annotated by Antonio Guzmán Guerra. Editorial Gredos.
Badian, E. (2006). Alexander the Great between the two thrones and Heaven: Variations on an old theme. In I. Worthington (Ed.), Alexander the Great: A Reader, (pp. 245-262). Routledge.
Claudius Aelian (2006). Curious Histories, introduction, translation and notes by Juan Manuel Cortés Copete. Editorial Gredos.
Diodorus Siculus (2012). Bibliotheca Historica. Books XV-XVII. Translated and annotated by Juan José Torres Esbarranch and Juan Manuel Guzmán Hermida. Editorial Gredos.
Gómez Espelosín, F.J. (2015). In search of Alexander: The history of an obsession. Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.
López Calero, S. (2021). The path to divinity: the death of Alexander the Great. In R. A. Barroso Romero & Castillo J. A. Lozano(Eds.), Discourse, space and power in ancient religions (pp. 121-134). Archaeopress Publishing.
Navarro, F. J. (2013). Alexander the Great: Hero, Leader and Conqueror. Rialp.
Parker, R. (2011). On Greek Religion. Cornell University Press.
Plutarch (2010). Parallel Lives: Alexander and Julius Caesar. Introduction and chronology by Carlos García Gual. Biblioteca Edaf.
Quintus Curtius (1986). The History of Alexander the Great. Introduction, translation and notes by Francisco Pejenaute Rubio. Editorial Gredos.
Stoneman, R. (2004). Alexander the Great. Routledge.
Worthington, I. (2004). Alexander the Great: Man and God. Pearson.
.jpg){kind=link}
Comments