Taphoi wrote:marcus wrote:I would also say that the context of the Curtius and the Metz quote leaves a lot to be desired when presented as evidence of the Alexandrian's actually referring to Alexander as Zeus-born. Irrespective of the Latin being a direct and, I agree, incontrovertible translation of "Diogenes", as this is reported speech of a bunch of flattering Indians, it isn't at all the same as even Cleitarchus referring to Alexander as "Zeus-born" as a commonly used epithet.
If you think about it, Marcus, I hope you will realise that this cannot be terminology originated by the Indians. Apart from anything else, it is most unlikely that they spoke Greek. What is surely happening is that the Indians have heard rumours about the approaching conqueror, Alexander, and his purpose of emulating the conquests of his Zeus-born ancestors, being Zeus-born himself. As you say, they have decided it would be a smart move to flatter the conqueror by saying something that fitted in with these rumours. But, crucially, the actual terminology “Zeus-born” must be being applied by the source of this story to align the Indian rendering with Greek court-speak.
And yet I still don't understand why you believe this supports your argument. The text says that Alexander was "the third son of Jupiter to have reached them, but, whereas they knew of Father Liber and Herakles only by report, Alexander had come in person and was before their eyes." What the biographer(s) are actually telling us is that Alexander (and/or his friends) encouraged, or at the very least didn't discourage, being described as a son of Zeus. This is something we all knew already. What the text
isn't telling us is that Alexander used Diogenes as a
name, independent of his own.
Taphoi wrote: The argument that the use of “Zeus-born” joined to Alexander’s name means that it was not used in isolation is the same as arguing that references to Her Majesty as “Queen Elizabeth” mean that she cannot be called just “The Queen”. In fact, however, as has been said, Curtius 8.10.1 is a clear instance of Alexander being referred to as a Diogenes, along with Heracles and Dionysus, decoupled from his actual name.
No it's not the same. The reasoning about Queen Elizabeth is logical. If anyone in A's army called him just "The King" then we know they are talking about Alexander, for obvious reasons. If any source writer refers to Alexander as just "The King" then we also know who they are talking about because we're reading a bio of Alexander. Same thing applies to your argument about Curtius' reference. We
know the the Indians are talking to Alexander. This, however, is not something which applies to the use of Zeus-born as a name by itself. One of your arguments throughout this thread has been that the people in Alexandria commonly referred to Alexander as just "Diogenes", so presumably if someone said they were going to the temple of Diogenes, everyone would know they meant "Alexander". I fervently disagree.
Some epithets can stand alone. If an ancient Greek, talking about the gods, said "cow-eyed" everyone would have known he meant Hera. Same thing with "twice-born" which can only mean Dionysos, and "earthshaker" for Poseidon. The same does not apply to "Zeus-born". I'll begin with the gods. Athena and Dionysos come immediately to mind again, but if you look at Zeus' family on
Theoi.com there's a list of Zeus-born gods as long as my arm. The god or goddess has to be specified. Then we come to mortal offspring (on the same page) and the list is even longer, including a good number of kings. In addition - and you've already referred to the use of the epithet in Homer - Ken Dowden in his book
Zeus has this to say about the kingly epithet:
(Page 72) Homer would agree with Hesiod that 'kings are from Zeus' just as bards are from the Muses and Apollo (Theogony 94-6). That is why kings or princes such as Patroclus, Ajax, Agamemnon, Menelaus and, most frequently, Odysseus are described by Homer as Zeus-born (diogenes). Herakles on the other hand is described as 'Zeus-born' because he is. In the case of kings, you can if you wish explain this by the supposition that the king's line goes back to Zeus, but that only re-expresses what the epithet amounts to: kings rule with an authority that comes from Zeus. And as his managers, they are also subject to surprise audits, as we will see below. A king is also Diotrephes - nourished by Zeus, reared and made into who he is by Zeus. These are quite emphatic epithets and we must not think that they just mean vaguely 'divinely favoured' - the word for 'god' in Greek is theos and the Greeks do not have any of the Latin di or deus-shaped words that I think we sometimes subconsciously and wrongly hear in these Greek epithets. Dio- means Zeus.
Peter Green in
Alexander of Macedon refers to the Macedonian royalty being Zeus-born in Alexander's time. (Plus we should never ignore the direct influence of Homer on Alexander and his family).
(Page5)The Argeads themselves, as we have seen, headed their pedigree with Heracles, and could thus (since Heracles was the son of Zeus) style themselves 'Zeus-born' like any Mycenaean dynast: both Zeus and Heracles appear regularly on Philip's coinage.
It follows then that Philip was also Zeus-born, as was Arridaeus and also Alexander's son, and, if you believe that Ptolemy was Philip's son (something which you have argued previously), then Ptolemy could also style himself Zeus-born. He certainly promoted the association. In
Imagination of a monarchy: studies in Ptolemaic propaganda R.A. Hazzard tells us"
(Page 9)Ptolemy I struck silver tetradrachms bearing the portrait of Alexander wearing the horn of Ammon, the aegis of Zeus, and the elephant's skin. Goukowsky saw no sign of association here between Alexander on the one hand and Dionysos on the other. Ptolemy I worshippped Dionysos, a Macedonian favourite, just as he worshipped the other deities - Athena, Aphrodite, Alexander, and Sarapis - but Zeus had received the greatest attention. Zeus had allegedly saved the future monarch at birth, and on silver tetradrachms struck after 300, Ptolemy I wore the aegis, symbol of Zeus, while the eagle of Zeus blazoned the reverse side. By the time that Ptolemy II held the great pageant, however, Dionysos had taken a much greater role in the king's propaganda than Zeus had taken under Ptolemy I. The Dionysiac section of the pageant carried the greatest amount of gold and silver, while the float entitled 'The Return of Dionysos from India' identified Dionysos with Alexander. Dionysos had conquered India in legend, whereas Alexander had conquered it in fact. Goukowsky observed how the two conquerors had merged into a single myth by the time of the grand procession.
Not only does the above show the connection between Ptolemy and Zeus, it also demonstrates that, as time went by, Alexander's association with Dionysos
increased and his association with Zeus decreased. I don't have time (or space) to transcribe any more regarding Alexander and Dio, but what Hazzard is illustrating is that the connection was primarily an
Alexandrian thing, making it even less credible, IMO, that the Alexandrians' common name for Alexander was 'Diogenes'.
I did want to refer to system1988's example of the number of people who bore the name Diogenes. (Thank you, system1988 for that. I tried to find similar info via Google but the search engine wouldn't cooperate.) One thing is for certain, we have no examples of Alexander calling himself the same. Yes there are references to him being the son of Zeus (including derisive ones), but he never used 'Zeus-born' himself. He didn't sign his letters to Darius as Diogenes. He didn't issue any edicts as Diogenes. He didn't address his troops as Diogenes. His statues and paintings - even the ones where he is portrayed as Zeus - do not bear the name Diogenes. So why would I accept that the Diogenes on the votive is Alexander?
One last thing to lighten this up a little. Some years ago I saved a web page with an ancient joke but lost the url in a computer crash and have never been able to find it since. I still remember the gist of it though, and it's necessary to understand that when the ancients cursed or swore, they swore by the gods, and the strongest curse would have been to invoke the name of the most powerful god, Zeus. I'm pretty certain that all current Pothosians know this, but thought I should mention it anyway. The joke goes thus:
A traveler from outside of the mainland was visiting Athens and being escorted around the city by an Athenian acquaintance. As the day progressed the visitor became increasingly shocked by the swearing he heard from Athen's citizens. He asked his friend, "Why is it that so many of you swear
by Zeus". His friend replied, "Because so many of us ARE 'by Zeus'!"
Done now. Hope that the couple of vodkas I've consumed since experiencing my first earthquake (while writing this) haven't affected my spelling and grammar
too much.
Best regards,