Blood Pollution and Macedonian Rulers: Narratives between Character and Belief
p. 157-169
Note de l’auteur
This chapter stems from my doctoral dissertation at the Scuola Normale Superiore (2011). The elaboration of parts of this research has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) during my work at the University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 1136 Bildung und Religion, sub-project C01 Aufgeklärte Männer – abergläubische Frauen? Religion, Bildung und Geschlechterstereotypen im klassischen Athen.
Texte intégral
1. Polluted Murderers in the Hellenistic Period: A Short Introductory Note
1Mythical heroes haunted by the stain of blood pollution, and in need of ritual purification, dominate the scene of Attic tragedies in the Classical period. However, in the Hellenistic period, information on the social and legal management of homicide is sporadic. This is one of the reasons that led scholars to think that the figure of the polluted murderer disappeared after the fourth century BC. It has been argued that, if blood pollution were still an active belief, we would expect this to emerge more clearly from the ancient sources; and that the function of purification rituals—re-establishing social order and restoring normality through a public act—was gradually absorbed by the legal system. Thus, in this view, the murderer was to be treated as any other criminal, being judged and punished according to the law that manifests itself in the verdict of the trial.1
2Hellenistic literary and epigraphic evidence on polluted murderers is indeed scantier. However, there are elements of continuity in the representation of the religious dimension of homicide, while, at the same time, compared with the Archaic and Classical periods it is also possible to identify in the mentalities features of innovation. This chapter tries to substantiate these claims by bringing into focus two stories in which the problem of blood pollution seems to still play a role. The examples here discussed are take: first, from the very beginning of the rise of Macedonian power over the Greek world; second, from the other end of the temporal spectrum, when Rome starts affirming her influence in the East. Alexander the Great and Perseus of Macedon are the figures under scrutiny. Their social status does not allow us to generalize and infer wide-ranging considerations from the circumstances of those who were in power and detained decisional authority. Furthermore, as it is characteristic for the Hellenistic age, the literary sources at disposal are historiographical accounts from authors writing centuries later after the events.2 The problematic reliability of these texts, then, induces further caution.
3This selective choice makes no attempt to address the topic in an exhaustive manner. Its primary aim is to reassess the significance of well-known episodes in the lives of famous figures, and to highlight how these narratives feed into the rethinking of the historical development of pollution beliefs.
2. Alexander’s Worst Regret: The Murder of Cleitus
4In the autumn of 328 BC, at Marakanda (modern Samarakand, in Uzbekistan), Alexander killed his friend Cleitus, the brother of his nurse Lanike, and the commander who saved his life at the Battle of the Granicus six years before. The way in which this killing has been represented in ancient historiography and its effects on the portrait of Alexander reveal some aspects of the management of royal culprits. The sources mainly agree on the details about the manslaughter of Cleitus.3 Plutarch, in particular, offers a greater psychological characterization of the protagonists, which allows us to analyse whether the crime was perceived as polluting. The killing was committed in a state of drunkenness and after an outburst of rage during a quarrel.4 Immediately after it, Alexander felt regret for his actions and would have preferred killing himself with the same spear that killed his friend, avenging Cleitus with his suicide.5 In the following days, his mood did not improve: he was overwhelmed by grief and remorse,6 unable to eat or speak to anybody. Only Aristander, the seer, was able to slightly uplift his spirits, reminding him of a bad omen about Cleitus: his friend was predestined to die in any case.7 However, more influential were the words of the philosopher Anaxarchus about kingship as a status that permits an individual to embody the law (προσήκει νόμον εἶναι) and to define the limits of justice (ὅρον τῶν δικαίων), rather than being subject to state laws.8 Alexander finally abandoned his self-blame and grief, persuaded by the fact that he himself was the measure of law, and that there could be a supernatural justification for his violent act.9
5Any comment about the concept of pollution and the moral implications of homicide in this passage will be constrained by the awareness that it should be treated with extreme prudence. It is not a completely trustworthy source for more than one reason. Firstly, it is a later source from the Imperial period. Furthermore, Plutarch is more interested in exploring the typical features and nature of kingship and statesmen than in offering a detailed description of the ritual and legal issues surrounding the killing.10 The Hellenistic style of tragic-pathetic historiography may have determined the structure of the story, and certainly the historiographical filter has a significant weight. Cleitus’ death became a famous episode in Alexander’s biographical tradition, and Seneca later presented it in moralistic terms as a negative exemplum of the effects of anger and drunkenness.11 Moreover, the behaviour of a king cannot be considered indicative of the customs among ordinary people: law does not concern those who are in power and rule. Alexander was portrayed as the paradigm of the royal status. The Plutarchean source, then, constitutes a fictitious narrative rather than a piece of evidence for reconstructing a historical picture.12
6Nevertheless, the description of this particular episode has been considered credible,13 and therefore it is possible to disclose from it some data about the consequences of homicide. Even if this is the representation of a character, we can highlight several elements pertaining belief and practice around the shedding of blood. Compared to the Archaic and Classical periods, remarkable changes can be noticed in the attitude towards the crime. Firstly, the gravity of this homicide is scaled down because its author is considered the measure of justice, and consequently he himself can decide which actions are lawful or require punishment. In other sources, instead, it was the altered state of consciousness due to drunkenness that lowered the severity of the accusation. In the Homeric poems as well as in Athenian drama and oratory, killings committed because of intoxication or rage (thumo) fall within the category of involuntary homicide (phonos akousios).14 Drunkenness in a symposiastic context could have even entailed educational aims.15
7Secondly, the figure of the seer Aristander, who managed to grab the attention of the king completely isolated in his desperation, merits attention. While the seer remains a key religious officer, it is noteworthy how his role seems to have changed.16 If in Hesiod or in Herodotus, the mantis was competent in the performance of purification rituals, like Melampus who purified the daughters of Praetus,17 here the seer limited himself to making Alexander remember the inauspicious premonitions anticipating Cleitus’ death. It did not seem necessary to purify the homicide. The crime, instead, was framed within a pre-established order, and was deemed a justified event, since it was fated. Purification was redundant because the king was not directly responsible for the death of Cleitus, and he was therefore relieved from any legal and religious charge. Anaxarchus confirmed this response to the homicide.
8The reality of the events seems to have been manipulated through reasoning and philosophical arguments, placing Alexander above legal and sacred norms. The king had committed manslaughter, one of the worst kinds of offences, and since he killed one of his banquet guests, he also violated the rules of hospitality (xenia). But, contrary to other mythical royal murderers such as Orestes, he was neither exiled nor forced to recognize his pollution. It is particularly interesting how the rhetorical manipulation of criminal guilt succeeded in suspending social values and religious beliefs. However, between the lines, this story seems to hint at the problematic nature of the killing committed by Alexander. Blood pollution appears to lurk in the background, as several clues indicate. A first clue is given by the fact that after the crime Alexander stayed isolated; he did not speak to anyone else, and did not participate in communal meals. Only a mantis broke this isolation. These elements recall the secluded condition of a polluted murder, a kind of quasi-death that needs an external intervention in order to be overcome.18 Furthermore, the philosopher Anaxarchus alludes to what others may think of the crime, and Alexander fears their blame (psogos, doxa). Homicide provoked moral reproach within the social community,19 and the mechanism of pollution would have involved people badmouthing about the accused culprit and socially excluding him.20 Finally, in the Greek mentality, the stain of pollution could be interpreted as a revengeful part of the punishment, and here it is construed an interlinked relationship between crime and retribution, since Alexander is portrayed as considering the murder committed under the fumes of alcohol a punishment sent from Dionysus in revenge for a failed sacrifice.21 This subtext acknowledges his culpability for the act, while at the same time inscribing it in a chain of divine rage and human frailty. In conclusion, judging how the facts have been historiographically characterised, it would be imaginable to think that to a certain extent this episode partly testifies to the persistence of the belief in blood pollution, although its discourse was exposed to negotiations and distortions aimed at protecting the image and power of Alexander the Great. A fluid definition of guilt is evident also in the next case study, where the pendulum between innocence and conviction was pushed towards the latter of these two poles.
3. The Consequences of the Murder of Demetrius: Perseus as hikesios in Samothrace
9Heated quarrels within the royal family marked the last years of the reign of Philip V of Macedon. Both sons, Demetrius and Perseus, aspired to the throne. The first was held hostage in Rome in the years 197 to 194 BC and later served as an ambassador there from 184 to 183 BC. The Romans favoured and trusted him. On his return to his home country, the Macedonians greeted the successes of Demetrius with great enthusiasm. This personal triumph was viewed askance, however, by both his brother and his father who feared that Demetrius intended to seize the Macedonian throne for himself with the help of the Romans.22
10The tension between the two brothers became even more acrimonious in 182 BC. The purification rites of the army called for a mock battle between the two armed groups, each of which was under the command of one of the king’s sons. The purification of the Macedonian army was performed annually on the 23rd of March during the festival in honour of the god Xanthos. It is worth opening a parenthesis on this ritual in order to delineate a more complete picture of the relationship between manslaughter and pollution in the environment of the Macedonian court.
11A dog was cut in two halves, the head was placed on the right side of the street and the hind part on the left; the soldiers marched between the bisected animal.23 The sacrifice of a dog, performed also in initiation as well as birthing rituals,24 aimed to facilitate the transition towards a new state of purity. The choice of a dog as the sacrificial victim could have several levels of explanation. In cathartic sacrifices for other purposes, usually a puppy was preferred,25 although in the case of the purification of the army it seems more reasonable that an animal of bigger size was used. Moreover, the dog had an ambivalent representation in the collective imagination: a faithful companion in the domestic space or in hunting, but also sexually indecent and a corpse-eater.26 In the sacrifices to Hecate and in intiatic ceremonies, the dog acted as a pharmakos that averted evil from the participants in the rite.27 Finally, the canine species had probably a feminine grammatical gender in Greek language: the male/ female polarization was reflected in the animal realm, where species were treated as masculine or feminine according to their characteristics.28 Although it cannot be securely demonstrated, one might hypothesise that the use of a dog in the purification of the army was aimed at removing from the soldiers any feature of the she-dog: in particular, she-dogs and women were regarded as deceitful and cowardly.29 The soldiers, then, could be made free of any treachery against their fellow soldiers and of any cowardice in front of the enemy. After the ritual, they would have gained the qualities of the opposite of the dog, that is the wolf, which was considered a symbol of manliness (andreia).30 In this way, the annual ceremony reinforced the unity and solidarity among the soldiers. A similar intent prompted Xenophon’s purification of his army after a crime committed by some soldiers against a village.31
12In the case of the purification of the Macedonian army in 182 BC, however, the ritual did not achieve its goal of enhancing cohesion, but rather escalated the tensions between Perseus and Demetrius. After the ritual, Perseus accused Demetrius of plotting with the Romans.32 Philip decided to further scrutinize these allegations to establish if his son was negotiating with those against whom he was planning to go to war.33 The findings were not in favour of Demetrius,34 and Philip, though torn between reasons of state and paternal love, finally resolved to have his son murdered.35 According to Livy, he was first poisoned and then smothered as he cried out against the cruelty of his father and the role that his brother played in the crime.36 The imprecations of the victim had repercussions on subsequent events. Diodorus recalls the inescapability of divine vengeance: Philip succumbed to remorse and died the following year.37 This filicide was one more of his many other reported deeds of murder, injustice and acts of terror, impiety, and deceit.38 The Tyche lost no time in retaliating by destroying his person, family, and kingdom. Also Polybius emphasises the role of divine punishment, recalling the “eye of Justice” (Δίκης ὀφθαλμός) on the actions of mortal men.39 A similar fate fell on Perseus, culpable of fratricide. Although he gained the throne, he was defeated by Rome and was the last king of Macedonia. After the battle of Pydna in 168 BC, to avoid being captured by the Romans, he fled to Samothrace as a suppliant to the sanctuary of the Theoi Megaloi, the purest gods.40
13The reasons why Perseus decided to go to Samothrace can be traced back to the earlier relations between the island and Macedonia. The fame of the sanctuary and of the Mysteries celebrated there had spread over the entire Greek world. The period of peak intensity in cult activity was during the Hellenistic and Imperial periods.41 Hellenistic kings often visited the sanctuary at the centre of which stood a statue of Philip V himself.42 This statue epitomised the ties between both the sanctuary and Macedonia, and the sanctuary and Philip V, who seems to have been initiated into the Mysteries.43 Macedonian funds may have been used for the construction of some of the buildings of the sanctuary.44 Perseus, therefore, felt entitled to call upon the Great Gods of Samothrace for help.45 If he was an initiate as well, it was likely that he wished to seek refuge with those divinities whose task was to protect their initiates in case of peril.46
14Nevertheless, Perseus’ plan did not succeed. Livy and Diodorus report the rejection by the sanctuary of the Theoi Magaloi of the Macedonian king’s plea. Livy relates that the Romans respected the authority of the sanctuary: they would not have attempted to capture Perseus by force but rather with threats and promises.47 Hence, they decided to appeal to the popular assembly in Samothrace, pointing out that the sanctuary was sheltering a man contaminated by his participation in the attempted murder of king Eumenes II at Delphi.48 The man in question was Evander of Crete, a companion of Perseus. Evander was the man who carried out the assassination that was devised by Perseus.49 The Samothracians informed Perseus that Evander was accused of murder: in accordance with ancestral customs, anyone who approached the sanctuary with unclean hands was obliged to stand trial and leave the sacred place if guilty.50 To avoid a certain conviction, Perseus sought to persuade Evander to commit suicide. Since Evander intended to flee, Perseus murdered him and staged a suicide to cover up the shedding of blood inside the sanctuary.51 However, after this crime, even Perseus’ inner circle abandoned him,52 and, finding himself alone, he was obliged to capitulate to the Romans.53
15Diodorus’s series of events differs slightly, though the final result is the same. When Perseus was seeking protection and appealed to the sanctuary as a suppliant, he was not even accepted within the sacred space.54 His supplication was considered invalid because of the monstrosity of the foul deed he committed against his brother, Demetrius. Diodorus exploited the story of Perseus, together with that of Philip V, in order to show how the gods justly punish human wickedness.55 Perseus’ plotting of fratricide made his entry into the sanctuary impossible. Although the narrative of Diodorus is telegraphic,56 this source implies that the administration of the sanctuary summoned the Macedonian king to stand a trial, in which it was sentenced to reject his request. The adjective ἄκυρος most often appears in legal contexts to connote a law, a decree or a trial that has lost its legal authority or validity.57 In this case, the expression seems to suggest that the supplication of Perseus was subjected to judicial examination, and then was considered not to be valid because of the crime committed in the past.
16The accounts of Livy and Diodorus deserve an analytical comparison. In both cases, we find strongly emphasised the necessity to stand trial for those entering or being within the sacred space to prove their state of purity. Both historians underline and take as granted the incompatibility of the holiness of the place with an impure presence. Just having planned a homicide suffices to provoke defilement: in Livy this means the liability of Perseus in the assassination of Eumenes, while in Diodorus his role in his brother’s death. Moreover, legal terms are included to uphold the decision of the sanctuary.58 This leads us to interpret the management of Perseus’ polluting presence in Samothrace, on the whole of its historiographical treatment, on three further levels.
17Firstly, this is a case of a forced but legal rejection of suppliants from a sanctuary. A comparable case is offered by the so-called “verdict of Mantinea”.59 The puzzling text of this inscription does not guarantee a secure reconstruction of the events, but, plausibly, a group of men and a girl were murdered in the sanctuary of Athena Alea in Arcadia.60 The oracle of the goddess decreed the punishments for the culprits, and possibly declared that the criminals who sought refuge at her altar had to be banished.61 Furthermore, the Arcadian text is structured in alternative options that recall the obligation imposed on Evander to face trial or leave the temple. The stay of Evander and Perseus depended on their acquittal in trial. Likewise, the twelve suppliants of Mantinea would have been obliged to immediately leave the sanctuary of Athena Alea if found guilty of homicide by the oracle. In Mantinea as in Samothrace, the banishment of suppliant culprits could be achieved only with the civic and religious authorities working together. The difference between the two cases lay in the way in which the proceedings were conducted: the oracle of the goddess gave the response on the twelve suppliants of Mantinea, whereas a court was the body that stated the judgment in Samothrace. This discrepancy can be hypothetically attributed to changes across time and regions in the procedures to reject the supplication of unwelcome elements.
18On a second level of analysis, concerning the Sanctuary of Samothrace, there is a problematic testimony of Hesychius about the κοίης, a priest who purified homicides after listening to their confession of sins.62 Raffaele Pettazoni suggests that the island was the only Greek community that practiced the confession of sins.63 Although the processes implemented by the priest for granting access to the Mysteries are uncertain,64 ritual purity must have been a religious concern. In the case of Perseus, his strong ties with the sanctuary of the Theo Megaloi might have helped him in finding a secure shelter in Samothrace. However, notwithstanding the fact that he was an initiate into the mysteries, a financial backer of building works, and a suppliant, belief in the contamination of bloodshed proved to be more potent. To what extent this belief was compelling cannot be fully assessed without bringing into the picture diplomatic reasons as well. The sanctuary could have politically exploited the contamination caused by homicide, as it had every right and was quite legally entitled to do, to keep away a personage who could have created further problems in the future, as it will be shown in what follows.
19A third aspect that needs to be highlighted is indeed the historical and geopolitical context of the events. Samothrace has been identified as the closest, if not the only, pan-Hellenic sanctuary that fell under Macedonian influence.65 It was also an island that created a bridge between East and West, between Greeks and Romans.66 The capture of Perseus prompted the start of a shift westwards of the Samothracian deference towards a political authority. Welcoming an enemy of the Romans could possibly mean risking the hostility of a state which was becoming increasingly more powerful. The decision to reject Perseus’ supplication, therefore, was motivated by the intent to protect the sanctuary not only from contamination by bloodshed but also from any possible reprisals on the part of Rome. It is undeniable that, starting from the second century BC, the ties between Rome and Samothrace had intensified.67 A mythological tradition records the passage of Aeneas by Samothrace where he carried the Penates: the Trojan gods were converted into Samothracian divine powers.68 On the level of cult, the profound significance of the identification of the Theoi Megaloi with the Penates is evident in the considerable number of votive inscriptions dedicated by important Roman figures. Many Roman citizens were initiated into the Mysteries of Samothrace, as the epigraphic evidence testifies.69 The habitual presence of Romans and the popularity of the cult of the Theoi Megaloi in a non-hellenophone milieu may also be demonstrated by the bilingual regulation posted in the sanctuary: Deorum sacra qui non acceperunt non intrant, ἀμύητον μὴ εἰσιέναι.70
20The contamination of Perseus was thus used for political aims in a relation between states that were destined to become increasingly closer. As in the case of Alexander the Great, responsibility for murder was dissected and turned around, and in this episode as well, belief in pollution, though essentially continuing to exercise a force as in the Classical period, was subject to manipulation. Furthermore, when observed in its complexity, the story of Perseus seems to show that, still in the Hellenistic period, the miasma generated by murder could act as a vector for a chain of revenge and punishments, if it was not ritually contained and averted by cathartic measures. Demetrius was assassinated for reasons of state, and for the same reasons of state Perseus had no other option but to hand himself over to the Romans and finish his days in the dark prisons of Alba Fucens.71
Conclusions
21In the two stories explored here, the belief in blood pollution seems not to have simply died away. Rather, the concept was subject to negotiation. The religious concern could be put aside when more compelling political reasons were pressing, as in the case of Alexander, or pollution could be treated as an expedient for achieving another objective, as in the case of Perseus. If we come back to the point recalled at the beginning of this paper, we tried to gather some elements of reflection to assess whether in the post-classical period a more sophisticated legal system absorbed the functions of blood pollution and rites of purification, as stated by previous scholars. In other words, the mainstream view that treats religion and law in opposition, and that interprets the belief in pollution as typical of a pre-legal society, needs to be questioned and nuanced.72 Even in communities in which laws and courts of justice regulated crimes, pollution maintained its consistency and its effects at local and international level. Nonetheless, it is possible to notice that the polluting force of homicide could be perceived as a milder inescapable element. It is true that neither in the sources on Alexander nor in those on Perseus there is an explicit mention of a potential ritual of purification. This absence is probably due to the fact that, in the first case, the final aim was to negate ab origine the stain that defiled the king; in the second case, the possibility to ritually remove Perseus’ fault would have been counterproductive for the Samothracian sanctuary, which needed an unquestionable motive for the banishment of a suppliant. In the Archaic and Classical periods, one of the primary social functions of the cathartic rites was to contribute to the resolution of the conflicts in an automatic and authoritative way.73 In later times, before the rite could even play a role, events and circumstances could be manipulated in order to achieve a politically expedient solution. From how ancient historians depict the fortunes and misfortunes of Hellenistic kings, we can infer, to a certain extent, the persistence and alterations of a belief that has a history which is as complicated as it is intriguing. The discourse of blood pollution could be left aside, used, or ultimately abused.
Notes de bas de page
1 Parker (1996) [1983], p. 322. See further bibliography in Harris (2015b), p. 13. I have examined the historical developments of blood pollution and their interconnection with vengeance in Salvo (2011) and (2018).
2 See Walbank (1993), pp. 13-28, on the kind of sources available for the Hellenistic period.
3 Plu. Alex. 50-52; Arr. An. 4.8.1-9; Curt. Alex. 8.1.20-52; Just. 12.6.
4 On Cleitus’ dissatisfaction and criticism of Alexander, see Heckel (2003), p. 219-222.
5 Cf. Garrison (1995) for an overview on the ethical dimension of suicide in ancient Greek mentality, in particular in Attic tragedies.
6 See Fulkerson (2013), p. 97-113, for an analysis of Alexander’s remorse, of what he learnt from the killing, and of how the public display of remorse increased his control over the army (see p. 113: “by blaming himself so vehemently, Alexander might be able to avoid censure by others”).
7 Plu. Alex. 52.1: ἐπεὶ δὲ τήν τε νύκτα κακῶς κλαίων διήνεγκε καὶ τήν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν ἤδη τῷ βοᾶν καὶ θρηνεῖν ἀπειρηκὼς ἄναυδος ἔκειτο, βαρεῖς ἀναφέρων στεναγμούς, δείσαντες οἱ φίλοι τήν ἀποσιώπησιν εἰσῆλθον βίᾳ. καὶ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων οὐ προσίετο τοὺς λόγους, Ἀριστάνδρου δὲ τοῦ μάντεως ὑπομιμνῄσκοντος αὑτὸν τήν τε ὄψιν ἣν εἶδε περὶ τοῦ Κλείτου, καὶ τὸ σημεῖον, ὡς δὴ πάλαι καθειμαρμένων τούτων, ἔδοξεν ἐνδιδόναι, “There he spent the night and the whole of the following day sobbing in an agony of remorse. At last, he exhausted by his grief, uttering deep groans but unable to speak a word, until his friends, alarmed at his silence, forced their way into his room. He paid no attention to what any of them said, except that when Aristander the seer reminded him of the dream he had seen concerning Cleitus, and its significance, assuring him that these events had long ago been decreed by fate, he seemed to relax” (trans. Scott-Kilvert 2012, slightly modified). See Plu. Alex. 50.3-6 on the bad omen: Cleitus left a sacrifice unfinished, and Alexander dreamt of Cleitus and the son of Parmenio both in dark clothes and dead.
8 Plu. Alex. 52.2-4: “οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀλέξανδρος, εἰς ὃν ἡ οἰκουμένη νῦν ἀποβλέπει ὁ δὲ ἔρριπται κλαίων ὥσπερ ἀνδράποδον, ἀνθρώπων νόμον καὶ ψόγον δεδοικώς, οἷς αὑτὸν προσήκει νόμον εἶναι καὶ ὅρον τῶν δικαίων, ἐπείπερ ἄρχειν καὶ κρατεῖν νενίκηκεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ δουλεύειν ὑπὸ κενῆς δόξης κεκρατημένον. οὐκ οἶσθα,” εἶπεν, “ὅτι τήν Δίκην ἔχει πάρεδρον ὁ Ζεὺς καὶ τήν Θέμιν, ἵνα πᾶν τὸ πραχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος θεμιτὸν ᾖ καὶ δίκαιον;” “Here is Alexander, whom the whole world now looks to for an example, and he lies on the floor weeping like a slave, terrified of the law and of what men will say of him. And yet all the time it should be he who represents the law and sets up the criterion of justice, since he has conquered the right to govern and command, and need never submit like a slave to the foolish opinions of others. Do you not know,” said he, “that Zeus has Justice and Law seated beside him to prove that everything that is done by the ruler of the world is lawful and just?” (trans. Scott-Kilvert 2012, partly modified). Previously, Callisthenes tried to tactfully speak with Alexander to soothe his despair. On rivalry between the philosopher Anaxarchus and the historian Callisthenes, Aristotle’s nephew, see Borza (1981).
9 Plu. Alex. 52.4 continues: τοιούτοις τισὶ λόγοις χρησάμενος ὁ Ἀνάξαρχος τὸ μὲν πάθος ἐκούφισε τοῦ βασιλέως, τὸ δὲ ἦθος εἰς πολλὰ χαυνότερον καὶ παρανομώτερον ἐποίησεν. By using arguments such as these Anaxarchus certainly succeeded in relieving the suffering of the king, but he made him in many ways more proud and lawless, (trans. Scott-Kilvert 2012, partly modified).
10 I thank Christos Kremmydas for inspiring these remarks; in a personal communication, he adds that “the portrayal of Alexander together with the involvement of Anaxarchus and Callisthenes prepare the reader for and look forward to the divinity debate later on in the biography” (e-mail, October 2014).
11 Sen. Ira 3.17.1; Ep. 83.19. See Grafton – Most – Settis (2010), s.v. Alexander the Great, p. 28: in Seneca’s perspective, “Alexander was a victim of the intemperance of excesses and passions and thus incapable of mastering his extraordinary fortune”. Cf. also Shakespeare’s mention of this episode in Henry IV IV 7.12-53. See Bosworth (1995), on 4: 8 for an overview of the traditions.
12 As it is well-known, modern scholars debate over the use of Plutarch as a reliable source, and much ink has been spilled on this topic, see, among other works, Stadter (1992); Pérez Jiménez – Titchener (2005).
13 See Hammond (1993), p. 89-94: a contemporary witness seems to be Plutarch’s source, and it was probably Aristobulus of Cassandreia; in the case of Curtius the source was perhaps Chares, Hammond (1983), p. 146. On Curtius, see also BAynham (1998), p. 22, 185-190: he used various sources, adding rhetoric and drama in order to deal with themes like licentia regni, superbia, fides, and libertas.
14 See Pepe (2009-2010), p. 80; (2012), p. 134; cf. Hom. Il. 23.88; Od. 22.8-30; S. fr. 929; Lys. 3.43; Dem. 21.73.
15 Pl. Lg. 1.641b-d. In particular on Alexander’s and Macedonian soldiers’ drinking habits, see Tritle (2003), who interprets alcohol abuse as one of the symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), within which the murder of Cleitus can be inscribed. On Alexander’s lack of self-control due to drunkenness, see also Roisman (2003), p. 288.
16 Cf. Flower (2008), p. 179f.: the philosophers partly have usurped the role of the seer, or, perhaps, the sources did not mention the performance of the cathartic rite by the mantis.
17 See Hes. fr. 37; B. Ep. 11.37-39; Hdt. 2.49.
18 For references to the isolation of the culprit, see Salvo (2012a), p. 140 n. 91; p. 149 n. 160.
19 On the moral aspects of pollution and purity, see Petrovic – Petrovic (2016).
20 Cf. S. Ant. 758f. On the psogos of Haemon towards Creon who is about to kill Antigone. Jason verbally insults Medea after the killing of their children, E. Med. 1329. In Salvo (2012a), p. 149, I compared this scene with the silence requested by the heralds to the bystanders when the ritual procession for a homicide proceeds across the city in Lindos and Cyrene (SEG 39, 729; SEG 9, 72).
21 See Plu. Alex. 13.4; Arr. An. 4.8.1; Curt. Alex. 8.2.6.
22 See Plb. 23.1-2.4 (16); 23.7-8.9 (5-7); Liv. 39.47.53.
23 See also Curt. Alex. 10.9.12; Hsch. s.v. Ξανθικά. Cf. Plu. Quaes. Rom. 111 (Mor. 290d). See Kendrick Pritchard (1974), p. 197-202 (with other examples of military purification); Mainoldi (1984), p. 53-54; Robert (1993); De Grossi Mazzorin (2008), p. 73.
24 See Mainoldi (1984), p. 54; De Grossi Mazzorin (2008), p. 73; Franco (2014), p. 112.
25 Georgoudi (2013), see e.g. the περισκυλακισμός ritual involving puppies described in Plu. Comp. Thes. Rom. 21.8. See also Georgoudi in this volume.
26 See Zografou (2010), p. 249-254; Georgoudi (2013).
27 Zografou (2010), p. 272.
28 Franco (2014), and in particular p. 148-153: on one side, a “marked feminine character of the negative elaborations on the dog theme in Greece” (p. 121) can be noted, and on the other, “dogs are charged with a host of defects” for which “women are also reproached” (p. 150).
29 On the parallels between women and dogs, see Franco (2014).
30 On the wolf/dog opposition see Franco (2014), p. 51, 153.
31 Xen. An. 5.7.12-35: when finally they reached the shore of the Black Sea, a small group of soldiers tried to raid a village, Cerasus (Girasun, in modern Turkey), which had commercial exchanges with the Greek army. When three ambassadors from the village wanted to discuss with the army about this failed attempt of plundering, they were stoned to death. In order to remedy this unlawful homicide, Xenophon purified the army and punished the offenders. On this episode, see Parker (1996) [1983], p. 23; (2004), p. 142.
32 Liv. 40.6.1-6. On the quarrel between Perseus and Demetrius, see Meloni (1953), p. 29-55; Walbank (1967), p. 240-252; Gruen (1974); Will (1982), p. 253-255; Hammond and Walbank (1988), p. 471.
33 See Gruen (1974), p. 222, n. 2 and 3, on the scholarly debate on Philip’s planning of the Third Macedonian War.
34 Liv. 40.20: Philip sends ambassadors to Rome to investigate the relations between Demetrius and the Roman senate. Liv. 40.23.7-8: The ambassadors return with a letter from Titus Quintius Flamininus containing damaging information on Demetrius. On the authenticity of this letter, see Walbank (1967), p. 251; Gruen (1974), p. 243-245.
35 Demetrius was assassinated in 180 BC. See Plb. 22.7.10-11; Liv. 40.24; D.S. 29.25; Just. 32.2-3; Plu. Arat. 54; Aem. 8; Zon. 9.22.
36 Liv. 40.24.5-8.
37 D.S. 29.25: οἱ τὰ δεινὰ τολμήσαντες καὶ τὸν Δημήτριον ἀνελόντες οὐκ ἐξέφυγον τὴν τοῦ δικαίου δαιμονίου τιμωρίαν. See also Liv. 40.54-56.
38 See Walbank (1957-1979), III, commenting ad Plb. 23.10.2, on Philip’s wrongdoings, in particular on how the Macedonian king treated Ptolemy V.
39 Plb. 23.10.1-4. On the Polybian description of the Tyche of the Macedonian royal family, see Walbank (2002), p. 102f.; in general, on the role of fortune and chance in Polybius’ work, see Walbank (1957-1979), I, p. 16-26; (2007).
40 D.S. 29.25; Liv. 45.4.3: amisso exercitu, extorris regno, in parvam insulam conpulsus, supplex, fani religione, non viribus suis tutus esset.
41 Cole (1984), p. 21.
42 See Blakely (2012), p. 54: the sanctuary was “a locus for competitive display”.
43 Cole (1984), p. 23. See Mccredie (1979), p. 16, pl. 8a: inscribed marble base of a bronze statue: βασιλέα Φίλιππον βασιλέως Δημητρίου Μακεδόνες Θεοῖς Μεγάλοις. The monument, dated around 200 BC, was placed on the foundations in front of the Stoa. See also Lehmann (1998), p. 163, fig. 80.
44 Cole (1984), p. 23.
45 See Plb. 29.8.8 on Perseus’ authority over Samothrace.
46 See Cole (1984), p. 23, p. 88.
47 Liv. 45.5.1.
48 On this episode, dated to the 172 BC, see Liv. 42.15.3-10; 42.16.1-9; RDGE 40.29-33. Matyszak (2009), p. 127, thinks that Perseus was not involved in this plot, but, as Day (2011) has noted, there is no reason why one should not trust the version of the ancient sources.
49 Liv. 45.5.3-4: ‘utrum nos, hospites Samothraces, vere accepimus an falso sacram hanc insulam et augusti totam atque inviolati soli esse?’ cum creditae sanctitati adsentirentur omnes, ‘cur igitur’ inquit ‘polluit eam homicida, sanguine regis Eumenis violavit? et, cum omnis praefatio sacrorum eos, quibus non sint purae manus, sacris arceat, vos penetralia vestra contaminari cruento latronis corpore sinetis?’. This paragraph seems to suggest that the territory of the island was sacred and inviolable, but an explicit declaration of its territorial inviolability (asylum) is not attested in the Hellenistic period, see Rigsby (1996), p. 397.
50 Anyone unwilling to submit to the law had to leave the sanctuary immediately and fend for himself. See Liv. 45.5.5-8.
51 Liv. 45.5.9-12, and especially par. 11: ab illo Delphis volneratum Eumenen, ab se Samothracae Euandrum occisum, ita duo sanctissima in terris templa se uno auctore sanguine humano violata.
52 Liv. 45.6.1.
53 Liv. 45.6.2-12.
54 On rejected suppliants see Naiden (2006), p. 129-169, although he confuses Perseus with Philip V, p. 141: “The same also happens to King Philip V of Macedon. When he took refuge in the Shrine of the Great Gods at Samothrace, his supplication was ‘invalid’ because he had murdered his brother” (p. 141). He usefully collects more examples of rejected suppliant murderers in myth and history (Naiden [2006], p. 141): Neleus rejects Herakles because of the killing of his guest Iphitus (Apollod. 2.6.2); Poemander, having killed a son, did not manage to find refuge until another of his sons took care of the supplication on his behalf (Plu. Mor. 299d; P.Oxy. 2463, 6-20); Orestes rejects Clytemnestra’s supplication (A. Ch. 904-929); Circe purified Medea, but did not guarantee her a place of refuge (A.R. 4.698f.; Apollod. 1.9.24); the Spartan commander Pausanias, guilty of Cleoniche’s death, sought purification from Zeus Phyxios without fortune (Paus. 3.17.9).
55 See Scuderi (2005), p. 383, and Ambaglio (1995), p. 97-107, for an analysis of divine interventions in human events in Diodorus.
56 D.S. 29.25: ὁ δὲ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἀρχιτέκτων Περσεὺς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων καταπολεμηθεὶς καὶ φυγὼν εἰς Σαμοθρᾴκην, ἄκυρον ἔσχε τὴν τῶν ἁγνοτάτων θεῶν ἱκεσίαν διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς εἰς τὸν ἀδελφὸν τετολμημένης ἀσεβείας.
57 See e.g. And. 1.8; Is. 1.21; Lys. 18.15; Pl. Lg. 12.954e.
58 D.S. 29.25: ἄκυρον. Liv. 45.5: iudicium; innoxius rei capitalis; venire ad causam dicendam; crimen.
59 IPArk 8, dated about to the 460-450 BC. On the limitation of asylia and of the right of sheltering in a sanctuary, see Chaniotis (1996), p. 72-75 on ritual purity, with previous bibliography; see also Chaniotis (2007), p. 237-42.
60 See the commentary in Thür and Taeuber on IPArk 8, with MAFFi (2007).
61 See Chaniotis (1996), p. 75-78.
62 Hsch. s.v. κοίης· ἱερεὺς Καβείρων, καθαίρων ϕονέα. See also Ps.-Plu. Apophth. Lac., 217d, 229d.
63 Pettazoni (1936), p. 162-185; (1937), p. 11-14. He interpreted this practice as an import from an Anatolian tradition and as a relic of the ‘Pelasgian’ substratum; noting that term κοίης recalls the Lydian kavés, ‘priest’, he quotes Hdt. 1.35, where it is said that Greeks and Lydians had similar rites of purification in case of homicide.
64 On the praefatio sacrorum at Samothrace and its problems, see Cole (1984), p. 31.
65 Burkert (1993), p. 185.
66 Kowalzig (2005), p. 66-69, in particular p. 67: “the island’s mythical connotations served their ambiguous status between Greek and non-Greek and offered crucial capital in their attempt to link East and West.” See also Rutherford (2014), p. 284: “an intermediate zone.”
67 See Cole (1984), p. 88-89: “The arbitration about the disposal of Perseus is an example of diplomacy and tact on both sides. It was important for the Romans not to offend a popular Greek sanctuary, but it was equally important that the Samothracian administrators not to offend the representatives of a power with which they would have to deal in the future.”
68 Serv. 1.378; 2.296, 325; 3.12, 119, 148; schol. Veron. 2.717; Arnob. 3.40; Macrob. Sat. 3.4.6-13. A reexamination of the epigraphic and literary evidence on the cognatio between Rome and Samothrace in Battistoni (2010), p. 128-137. See also Burkert (1993), p. 187.
69 Registration of Romans in the lists of mystae piei/μύσται εὐσεβεῖς and of the ἐπόπται: Dimitrova (2008), nos. 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 49, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64-116; ILLRP I2 209-214, II2 1271b; Samothrace 2.1 nos. 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 50, 53; IG XII.8 232.
70 Samothrace 2.1 no. 63, perhaps dated to the first or the second century AD. On regulations of access to sanctuaries and sacred space, see I. and A. Petrovic in this volume.
71 Plb. 36.10.3; D.S. 31.9.1-5; Liv. 45.42.4-5; Plu. Aem. 37. On Perseus’ incarceration and his death in jail, see Urso (1995).
72 As the works cited above demonstrate (Salvo [2011]; Harris [2015b]; Salvo [2018]), this shift in scholarship has now started.
73 On the historical development of ritual purity from automatism to morality, see Chaniotis (2012).
Auteur
isalvo@uni-goettingen.de
A Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Göttingen in the Collaborative Research Centre 1336 ‘Education and Religion in Cultures of the Mediterranean and its Environment from Antiquity to the Middle Ages and Classical Islam’ sub-project C01 ‘Enlightened Men - Superstitious Women? Religion, Education, and Stereotypes of Gender in Classical Athens’. She is also completing the manuscript for the book Unclean Hands. Homicide, Revenge, and Civic Purification in the Ancient Greek World.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods
Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens and the European Cultural Centre of Delphi (Delphi, 16-18 Novembre 1990)
Robin Hägg (dir.)
1992
Entre Asclépios et Hippocrate
Étude des cultes guérisseurs et des médecins en Carie
Cécile Nissen
2009
The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period
Gunnel Ekroth
2002
Opera inedita
Essai sur la religion grecque & Recherches sur les Hymnes orphiques
Jean Rudhardt
2008
La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne
Actes du XIIe colloque international du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007)
Pierre Brulé (dir.)
2009
Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse
Systèmes votifs des sanctuaires de déesses dans le monde grec
Clarisse Prêtre (dir.)
2009
Héros et héroïnes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs
Actes du colloque organisé à l’Université de Valladolid, du 26 au 29 mai 1999
Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge et Emilio Suárez de la Torre (dir.)
2000
Le Bestiaire d’Héraclès
IIIe Rencontre héracléenne
Corinne Bonnet, Colette Jourdain-Annequin et Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge (dir.)
1998