dispute between callisthenes and anaxarchus.

but it is said that callisthenes the olynthian, who had studied philosophy under aristotle, and was somewhat brusque in his manner, did not approve of this conduct; and so far as this is concerned i quite agree with him. but the following remark of his, if indeed it has been correctly recorded, i do not think at all proper, when he declared that alexander and his exploits were dependent upon him and his history, and that he had not come to him to acquire reputation from him, but to make him renowned in the eyes of men;550 consequently that alexander’s participation in divinity did not depend on the false assertion of olympias in regard to the author of his birth, but on 224what he might report to mankind in his history of the king. there are some writers also who have said that on one occasion philotas forsooth asked him, what man he thought to be held in especial honour by the people of athens; and that he replied:—“harmodius and aristogeiton; because they slew one of the two despots, and put an end to the despotism.”551 philotas again asked:—“if it happened now that a man should kill a despot, to which of the grecian states would you wish him to flee for preservation?” callisthenes again replied:—“if not among others, at any rate among the athenians an exile would find preservation; for they waged war on behalf of the sons of heracles against eurystheus, who at that time was ruling as a despot over greece.”552 how he resisted alexander in regard to the ceremony of prostration, the following is the most received account.553 an arrangement was made between alexander and the sophists in conjunction with the most illustrious of the persians and medes who were in attendance upon him, that this topic should be mentioned at a wine-party. anaxarchus commenced the discussion554 by saying that he considered alexander much more worthy of being deemed a god than either dionysus or heracles, not only on account of the very numerous and mighty exploits 225which he had performed, but also because dionysus was only a theban, in no way related to macedonians; and heracles was an argive, not at all related to them, except that alexander deduced his descent from him. he added that the macedonians might with greater justice gratify their king with divine honours, for there was no doubt about this, that when he departed from men they would honour him as a god. how much more just then would it be to worship him while alive, than after his death, when it would be no advantage to him to be honoured.