Re: Litrature of a different kind

[marcus]

Yeah, I don't get the logic, either.

[yiannis]

I believe that the logic is that Herodotus mentioned Ptah as the most ancient and revered Egyptian god. The Apis bull was considered to be the incarnation of the god on earth.

[jona]

"Could you elaborate on this a little?"Ahem, I was indeed very brief.Let's assume that you conquer the USA. What will you do to show that you are the new boss? I think you go to Capitol Hill and address the House and Senate; you start living in the White House; you will visit the Pentagon. These are symbols of military, presidential and congressal power; showing yourself next to them is an act any American will understand.What you don't do, at least not during your first days, is pay a visit to, say, the Alamo in Texas, or the Grand Canyon, the Playboy Mansion, the Coca Cola factory, or the first McDonald's. These are of course symbols of the country you just subdued, but they are not the symbols of real power.Yet this is, in my view, what Alexander did. If he wanted to show that he had conquered Egypt and if he wanted to be accepted as a ruler by the native population, he should have sacrificed to the Ra-Atum of Heliopolis, the protector of the Egyptian state and kingdom.As far as we know, Alexander did not sacrifice to Ra-Atum. What he did do, on the other hand, was visiting a rival sanctuary, Memphis. The priesthood of Ptah (and the Apis bull) was well-respected in Egypt, but it was definitely not a sanctuary of the same importance as Heliopolis. Of the four major cosmogonical myths (Hermopolis, Thebes, Memphis, Heliopolis), the myth of Ra-Atum was most famous. No pharaoh had ever placed himself under the protection of Ptah; they all preferred Ra-Atum.Sacrifice to the Apis bull was meant as a kind gesture, but it was something like a visit to the Alamo. It might have won the hearts of the Egyptians, certainly, but they must have made jokes. It was like a modern politician laying a wreath on the wrong tomb.Why did Alexander consider a sacrifice to the Apis among his most important duties? No Egyptian can have given him this advise, but it was a direct response to the Cambyses of Herodotus. In fact, Alexander was posing like an anti-Cambyses: the Persian had been an impious madman, but Alexander knew his duties.In my view, Alexander's mistake proves that he knew Herodotus.Jona

[Phil]

Thank you, Jona. Would you then agree that Alexander was not acting like a conqueror when he entered Egypt (since he did not do normal conqueror-like things) but was rather acting like a liberator since he did tourist-like things instead?Or do you think that Alexander did not have advisors who were capable of explaining these things to him?Regards
Phil

[jona]

I think that he was welcomed as a liberator; the Egyptians hated the Persians. After all, they had only recently been subjected by Artaxerxes III, and had -even more recently- revolted under a man named Chababash.Now that you mention it, not sacrificing at Heliopolis may indeed have been a conscious attempt to suggest that the Egyptians might dream again of some sort of independence. After all, when Alexander left Egypt, he appointed an Egyptian (Peteese) in a high office.Yet, I suppose that Alexander was simply ill-advised. But I have no real proof for this idea.Jona

[marcus]

Thanks for all the explanation, Jona. It makes much more sense now.I'll have to take your word for the hierarchy of Egyptian shrines etc. because I simply don't know; but what you say certainly supports the "Alexander knew Herodotus" concept.I rather like Phil's idea that Alexander did "touristy" things rather than "conquerer" things in Egypt - from that point of view, perhaps we shouldn't necessarily think of him as being "ill" advised - he might have been extremely well advised, and decided on a course of action that would be best accepted by the Egyptians.All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hello,Yes I would certainly be inclined to say that in Mieza- Aristotle may have selected the work of Herodotus. And it is purely hypothetical but maybe also Callisthenes as the king's "historian" could have discussed with Alexander, the writings of Herodotus.Alexander's inquisitiveness, as seen in Plutarch when there are delegates from Asia Minor whom he must entertain in the absence of his father, would certainly direct him to such works to "know his enemy" and read Herodotus. (Plutarch Parallel lives- Alexander part 5)Best wishes,
Dean.

[smittysmitty]

Hi Marcus,yes sounds like a good article to read, next time I'm at the Library I'll have to see if I can chase it up. Thanks for the reference.