necessity or advantage, aggravated the offence already given to Alexander. He was more imprudent still, if we look simply to his own personal safety, in standing forward publicly to protest against the suggestion for rendering divine honours to that prince, and in thus creating the main offence which even in itself was inexpiable. But here the occasion was one serious and important, so as to convert the imprudence into an act of genuine moral courage. The question was, not about obeying an order given by Alexander, for no order had been given-but about accepting or rejecting a motion made by Anaxarchus; which Alexander, by a shabby preconcerted manoeuvre, affected to leave to the free decision of the assembly, in full confidence that no one would be found intrepid enough to oppose it. If one Greek sophist made a proposition, in itself servile and disgraceful, another sophist could do himself nothing but honour by entering public protest against it; more especially since this was done (as we may see by the report in Arrian) in terms noway insulting, but full of respectful admiration, towards Alexander personally. The perfect success of the speech is in itself a proof of the propriety of its tone'; for the Macedonian officers would feel indifference, if not contempt, towards a rhetor like Kallisthenes, while towards Alexander they had the greatest deference short of actual worship. There are few occasions 1 Arrian, iv. 12, 1. ἀνιᾶσαι μὲν μεγαλωστὶ ̓Αλέξανδρον, Μακεδόσι δὲ πρὸς θυμοῦ εἰπεῖν...... Curtius, viii. 5, 20. "Equis auribus Callisthenes velut vindex publica libertatis audiebatur. Expresserat non assensionem modo, sed etiam vocem, seniorum præcipuè, quibus gravis erat inveterati moris externa mutatio." CHAP. XCIV.] CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF KALLISTHENES. 297 on which the free spirit of Greek letters and Greek citizenship, in their protest against exorbitant individual insolence, appears more conspicuous and estimable than in the speech of Kallisthenes'. Arrian disapproves the purpose of Alexander, and strongly blames the motion of Anaxarchus; nevertheless such is his anxiety to find some excuse for Alexander, that he also blames Kallisthenes for unseasonable frankness, folly, and insolence, in offering opposition. He might have said with some truth, that Kallisthenes would have done well to withdraw earlier (if indeed he could have withdrawn without offence) from the camp of Alexander, in which no lettered Greek could now associate without abnegating his freedom of speech and sentiment, and emulating the servility of Anaxarchus. But being present, as Kallisthenes was, in the hall at Baktra when the proposition of Anaxarchus was made, and when silence would have been assent— his protest against it was both seasonable and dignified; and all the more dignified for being fraught with danger to himself. 、 Kallisthenes knew that danger well, and was quickly enabled to recognize it in the altered demea 1 There was no sentiment more deeply rooted in the free Grecian mind, prior to Alexander's conquests, than the repugnance to arrogant aspirations on the part of the fortunate man, swelling himself above the limits of humanity--and the belief that such aspirations were followed by the Nemesis of the Gods. In the dying speech which Xenophon puts into the mouth of Cyrus the Great, we find—“ Ye Gods, I thank you much, that I have been sensible of your care for me, and that I have never in my successes raised my thoughts above the measure of " (Cyropæd. viii. 7, 3). Among the most striking illustrations of this sentiment is, the story of Solon and Croesus (Herodot. i. 32–34). I shall recount in the next chapter examples of monstrous flattery on the part of the Athenians, proving how this sentiment expired with their freedom. man Kalli sthenes be comes odious to Alexander. Conspiracy of the royal nour of Alexander towards him. He was, from that day, a marked man in two senses: first, to Alexander himself, as well as to the rival sophists and all promoters of the intended deification,-for hatred, and for getting up some accusatory pretence such as might serve to ruin him; next, to the more freespirited Macedonians, indignant witnesses of Alexander's increased insolence, and admirers of the courageous Greek who had protested against the motion of Anaxarchus. By such men he was doubtless much extolled; which praises àggravated his danger, as they were sure to be reported to Alexander. The pretext for his ruin was not long wanting. Among those who admired and sought the conversation of Kallisthenes, was Hermolaus, one of the royal pages,-the band, selected from noble Macedonian families, who did duty about the person of the king. It had happened that this young man, one of Alexander's companions in the no one else: chase, on seeing a wild boar rushing up to attack they are put the king, darted his javelin, and slew the animal. Alexander, angry to be anticipated in killing the boar, ordered Hermolaus to be scourged before all the other pages, and deprived him of his horse'. Thus humiliated and outraged for an act not merely innocent, but the omission of which, if Alexander had sustained any injury from the boar, might have been held punishable-Hermolaus became resolutely bent on revenge. He enlisted in the project his intimate friend Sostratus, with several others among the pages; and it was agreed among pages against Alexander's life-it is divulgedthey are put to torture, but implicate death. 1 Plutarch, Alexand. 54. He refers to Hermippus, who mentions what was told to Aristotle by Stroebus, the reader attendant on Kallisthenes. 2 Arrian, iv. 13; Curtius, viii. 6, 7. CHAP. XCIV.] CONSPIRACY OF THE PAGES. 299 them to kill Alexander in his chamber, on the first night when they were all on guard together. The appointed night arrived, without any divulgation of their secret; yet the scheme was frustrated by the accident, that Alexander continued till daybreak drinking with his officers, and never retired to bed. On the morrow, one of the conspirators, becoming alarmed or repentant, divulged the scheme to his friend Charikles, with the names of those concerned. Eurylochus, brother to Charikles, apprised by him of what he had heard, immediately informed Ptolemy, through whom it was conveyed to Alexander. By Alexander's order, the persons indicated were arrested and put to the torture'; under which they confessed that they had themselves conspired to kill him, but named no other accomplices, and even denied that any one else was privy to the scheme. In this denial they persisted, though extreme suffering was applied to extort the revelation of new names. They were then brought up and arraigned as conspirators before the assembled Macedonian soldiers. There their confession was repeated. It is even said that Hermolaus, in repeating it, boasted of the enterprise as legitimate and glorious; denouncing the tyranny and cruelty of Alexander as having become insupportable to a freeman. Whether such boast was actually made or not, the persons brought up were pronounced guilty, and stoned to death forthwith by the soldiers 2. Arrian, iv. 13, 13. 2 Arrian, iv. 14, 4. Curtius expands this scene into great detail; composing a long speech for Hermolaus, and another for Alexander (viii. 6, 7, 8). He says that the soldiers who executed these pages, tortured them first, in order to manifest zeal for Alexander (viii. 8, 20). Kallisthenes is arrested as an accom fested by Alexander against him, and against Aristotle also. The pages thus executed were young men of good Macedonian families, for whose condemnation plice-anti- accordingly, Alexander had thought it necessary to pathy mani- invoke-what he was sure of obtaining against any one-the sentence of the soldiers. To satisfy his hatred against Kallisthenes-not a Macedonian, but only a Greek citizen, one of the surviving remnants of the subverted city of Olynthus-no such formality was required'. As yet, there was not a shadow of proof to implicate this philosopher; for obnoxious as his name was known to be, Hermolaus and his companions had, with exemplary fortitude, declined to purchase the chance of respite from extreme torture by pronouncing it. Their confessions,-all extorted by suffering, unless confirmed by other evidence, of which we do not know whether any was taken—were hardly of the least value, even against themselves; but against Kallisthenes, they had no bearing whatever; nay, they tended indirectly, not to convict, but to absolve him. In his case, therefore, as in that of Philotas before, it was necessary to pick up matter of suspicious tendency from his reported remarks and conversations. was alleged to have addressed dangerous and inflammatory language to the pages, holding up Alexander to odium, instigating them to conspiracy, and pointing out Athens as a place of refuge; he was moreover well known to have been often in conversation with Hermolaus. For a man of the violent temper and omnipotent authority of Alexander, such He "Quem, si Macedo esset (Callisthenem), tecum introduxissem, dignissimum te discipulo magistrum: nunc Olynthio non idem juris est (Curtius, viii. 8, 19-speech of Alexander before the soldiers, addressing Hermolaus especially). Plutarch, Alexand. 55; Arrian, iv. 10, 4. |