There
are many varying accounts and interpretations, both historical and modern, as
to the reasoning behind Alexander the Great trying to introduce the Persian method
of proskynesis into his court. Some
argue that it was strictly a political maneuver; an attempt to bridge the gap
between Macedonian, Persian, and Greek and establish common ground and
practices, thus strengthening the empire under Alexander[1]. There are others that say that it was another
example of Alexander’s self-obsession and an attempt at progressing his own
deification[2].
Proskynesis
(προσκύνησις) is a Greek
word derived from the combining of the words πρός pros and κυνέω kuneo and means “to kiss towards”[3]. This
act when performed by the Greeks and the Romans was one of worship reserved for
the gods[4]. The Persians, however, used proskynesis as a
way of honouring, not worshipping, their king[5],
as has been the custom in the East from before Alexander until today. This slight difference in usage and
understanding of proskynesis could be part of the reason that Alexander was
unsuccessful in implementing the act into his court among the Greeks and the
Macedonians.
According
to one account[6] of
Alexander attempting to introduce proskynesis, the topic was broached at a
party by one of Alexander’s courtesans, Anaxarchus. Anaxarchus was among a group of people loyal
to Alexander who were privy to the information that Alexander was trying to
introduce proskynesis and were going to try and help persuade the Greeks and
the Macedonians to go along with this practice.
The recounting of this event by Arrian[7]
explains that Anaxarchus began trying to convince the court of Alexander that
offering him proskynesis was not only a good thing, but also that Alexander had
a divine right to being honoured in this way.
Referring to the claim that Alexander was descended from Hercules, and
that Hercules was only related to them[8]
by Alexander anyway, Anaxarchus proffered that Alexander was more deserving of
the honours of a god. The issue of
relationship to the people was also used to put Alexander’s claims at a more
legitimate angle than that of Dionysus, as she was just a Theban[9].
Anaxarchus
also continued his speech by illuminating the fact that once Alexander was
dead, he would be honoured and regarded as a god[10]. Using this line of reasoning, Anaxarchus
tried to explain that since Alexander would be recognised as a god and honoured
as such when dead, that it would be perfectly justified to honour him and
recognise him through proskynesis while he is alive and better able to enjoy
and benefit from it[11]. It is at this point that Callisthenes
interjects and begins a speech wherein he lauds Alexander and his conquests and
accomplishments, but at the same time marks a delineation between the honours
that are appropriate to give a god and those a living man[12].
Callisthenes’
pointed speech is quite well received by the older Macedonians and Greeks in
the court, as it reflects their own feelings on the matter of proskynesis[13]. While the elder Persians in the court
continued to give Alexander proskynesis at this point, Alexander also realises
that if he presses the matter on initiating the practice in his court, he could
drive a wedge between himself and the Macedonians and Greeks. It is then that Alexander decides to rescind
his request that proskynesis be practiced in his court by those that are
uncomfortable doing so, but allows the Persians and others that do not have an
issue with it being offered to a man, offer it.
This could reflect that Alexander was not as interested in his own
deification through instituting the act of proskynesis as he was in keeping his
court, and subsequently his empire, in a semblance of harmony.
There
is also a second account of Alexander trying to instigate proskynesis in his
court through a ‘set up’ by his close friends[14]. This account could be a retelling of the same
event from another persons’ perspective, or of another instance where it was
attempted to initiate proskynesis; however there is much debate on this topic
and a clear answer is not agreed on by all historians. What is agreed concerning this account is
that it is more credible than the first account due to the source being Chares,
the court chamberlain of Alexander[15]. In this account, there is another gathering
of Alexander’s court, but the introduction of the proskynesis was through what
appears to be a mixture of the Greek tradition of a toast and the Persian
honouring of the king’s daimon[16]. Through the course of the dinner, Alexander
offered a drink from his cup, to which the courtier would accept, then perform
proskynesis, and then receive[17]
a kiss from Alexander. When it came time
for Callisthenes to take part, Alexander was distracted talking to Hephaestion
and did not notice that Callisthenes did not perform the proskynesis. When this was brought to Alexander’s
attention publicly, Alexander had to act, and refused the kiss with
Callisthenes, whom then declared that he was going away only missing a kiss[18].
This
account also seems to lend itself to the idea that Alexander was using
proskynesis as a tool to try to unify the different people in his empire and
not just as a tool for his own self-absorbed notions of deification. The fact that Alexander was distracted during
the ceremony and that he did not notice the lack of proskynesis from
Callisthenes seem to indicate that he did not have a great deal of importance
placed on the entire affair. This can be
interpreted to mean that proskynesis was just being used in the Persian
fashion, as a way of paying a great respect and honour to the king, who is just
a man, as opposed to the Greek and Macedonia understanding of proskynesis,
which is reserved for the gods and the gods alone. The successful implementation of the Persian
form of proskynesis would have been able to be used by Alexander to give Greek,
Macedonian, and Persian courtiers all common ground in his court, thus unifying
them to a greater extent.
Bibliography
Austin, M. M. (2006).
The Hellenistic World from
Alexander to the Roman Conquest 2nd Ed.. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Badian, E. (1981). "The deification of Alexander the
Great" in Ancient Macedonian
Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson , Dell, Harry J., pg. 27-71
Heckel, W. (1978). "Leonnatos, Polyperchon and the
introduction of 'Proskynesis'" American
Journal of Philology, 99:4, pg. 459-461
Taylor, Lily Ross. (1927). "The 'Proskynesis' and the Hellenistic
ruler cult" Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 47: pg. 53-62
[1]
Heckel, Leonnatos…, p. 459-461
[2]
Badian, Ancient Macedonian Studies,
p. 52
[3]
Taylor, Proskynesis, p. 53
[4]
Ibid
[5]
Ibid
[6]
Austin, Hellenistic World, p. 40
[7]
Austin citing
Arrian, Ibid
[8]
The people of Greece and Macedonia
[9]
Ibid
[10]
Ibid
[11]
Ibid
[12]
Ibid
[13]
Ibid
[14]
Ibid
[15]
Ibid
[16]
Badian, Deification, p. 49-50
[17]
Or give, it is unclear which party was to instigate the kiss
[18]
Ibid
