Post on 21-Feb-2023
Background Information
The death of Cleitus took place at the city Maracanda,
known to the Greeks as Samarkand, in Sogdiana, during the
year 328 B.C.E. Almost all of the sources place the
symposium during the summer of that year, except for Hammond
who claims it was autumn. Alexander was probably born on
July 20, 356, so the death of Cleitus probably happened
around his 28th birthday. By this time in his life he had
become the king of Persia, having defeated Darius twice. Two
years earlier he had Philotas and his father Parmenion
executed for supposedly being involved in a plot to kill
him. It could be argued that this made Alexander more wary
of plots against him. Also, he had lost an experienced
general in Parmenio. He was in the process of taking out the
scattered remnants of resistance that flared up in the
remote northern region of what was the Persian Empire, which
was taking a long time. The army was working under harsh
conditions, marching through a very mountainous region, at a
time when Alexander was hoping to be able to move on to
India. However, he could not do that until he was sure his
1
supply line would stay open, which meant defeating
resistance in the region.
Basic Undisputed Facts About the Death of Cleitus
What is certain about this episode is that Alexander
held a banquet or symposium for his friends in the city of
Maracanda/Samarkand, Sogdiana. People were drinking heavily,
most importantly both Alexander and Cleitus were drunk.
Something was said to offend Cleitus, at which point he said
something that offended Alexander. After an exchange of
words Alexander picked up a weapon and killed Cleitus.
Afterward Alexander seemed remorseful for what he had done
and went into seclusion, refusing to talk to anyone or eat
for one to four days. Something was said to Alexander that
convinced him to come out.
Ancient Secondary Sources
Although he is critical of Alexander’s anger, Plutarch
places the blame for this incident on Cleitus and claims
that Alexander’s actions were not premeditated, writing “we
find that it did not happen of set purpose, but through some
misfortune of the king, whose anger and intoxication
2
furnished occasion for the evil genius of Cleitus.”
(Plutarch, 1) He mentions that Cleitus stopped in the middle
of a sacrifice to the gods to respond to Alexander’s call
and that the sheep followed him, which Alexander’s
soothsayers interpreted as a bad omen. Alexander ordered a
sacrifice to protect Cleitus. This shows Cleitus to be
irreverent while Alexander was pious. He also records that
Alexander had a dream in which Cleitus appeared in black
robes with the sons of Parmenio, who were already dead. It
is doubtful that either of these things happened, even more
doubtful that they would have contributed to the death of
Cleitus, but they are useful tools for apologists to use in
shifting blame away from Alexander. Plutarch’s account of
the symposium where the conflict occurred says “verses were
sung… to shame and ridicule the generals who had lately been
defeated by the Barbarians.” (Plutarch, 1) The older guests
were bothered by this and criticized it, but Alexander and
those near him enjoyed it and told him to continue. “Then
Cleitus, who was already drunk and naturally of a harsh
temper and willful, was more than ever vexed…” (Plutarch, 2)
3
because it was wrong to insult Macedonians in the presence
of Barbarians since Macedonians are better men than those
laughing at them, “…even though they had met with
misfortune.” (Plutarch, 50) Here, Plutarch describes Cleitus
as drunk, having a bad temper and being willful, a negative
characterization. Then Alexander said “Cleitus was pleading
his own case when he gave cowardice the name of misfortune…”
(Plutarch, 2) Cleitus replied by reminding Alexander about
the time he saved his life in battle, mocking his claim to
be the son of Ammon, accusing him of turning his back on the
enemy, and of disowning his father Philip. Alexander
responds by accusing Cleitus of talking this way all the
time, trying to raise a faction of Macedonians against him
and asking if he thinks he will get away with it. Cleitus
counters that the Macedonians don’t have impunity now, and
that those who died in battle are better off, because they
“did not live to see us Macedonians thrashed with Median
rods, or begging Persians in order to get audience with our
king.” (Plutarch, 2) Those near Alexander spoke out against
Cleitus, while the older men tried to calm the situation.
4
Then Alexander turned to one of the Greek guests and said
“Do not the Greeks appear to you to walk about among
Macedonians like demi-gods among wild beasts?” (Plutarch, 2)
Cleitus then told Alexander that he should “speak out freely
what he wished to say, or else not to invite men who were
free and spoke their minds, but to live with Barbarians and
slaves, who would do obeisance to his white tunic and
Persian girdle.” (Plutarch, 2-3) After this Alexander was
“no longer able to restrain his anger…” (Plutarch, 3) He
threw an apple at Cleitus and looked for his sword, which
one of his body guards had hidden. His guards surrounded him
and begged him to stop, at which point he called out in the
Macedonian language for his “corps of guards (and this was a
sign of great disturbance), and ordered to trumpeter to
sound, and smote him with his fist because he hesitated and
was unwilling to do so.” (Plutarch, 3) The trumpeter was
later held in high regard because if he had sounded the
trumpet the camp would have been in chaos. Cleitus was
forced out of the banquet hall by his friends, but came back
and recited a line from Euripides’s play Andromache, “Alas!
5
In Hellas what an evil government!” (Plutarch, 3) At this
point Alexander grabbed a spear from one of his guards and
killed Cleitus. Plutarch is the only ancient source that has
Cleitus leave, and then come back to insult Alexander more,
at which point he was killed, a detail used by apologists to
make Cleitus look blameworthy. As soon as Cleitus had fallen
Alexander’s anger passed, and he grabbed the spear and tried
to kill himself with it, but his body guards stopped him and
carried him back to his tent. “Here he spent the night and
the following day in bitter lamentations, and at last lay
speechless, worn out with his cries and wailing, heaving
deep groans.” (Plutarch, 3) His friends tried to cheer him
up, but to no avail. “[T]hen Aristander the seeer reminded
him of the vision he had seen concerning Cleitus, and of the
omen, assuring him that all this had long ago been decreed
by fate, he seemed to be less obdurate.” (Plutarch, 4) Then
they brought in the philosophers Callisthenes and Anaxarchus
to try to ease Alexander’s guilt. Callisthenes tried gentle
and thougtful methods, in order “to avoid giving pain;” but
it was Anaxarchus’s argument that succeeded in lightening
6
his suffering. He said that the whole world was looking to
Alexander, who was “on the floor weeping like a slave, in
fear of the law and the censure of men, unto whom he himself
should be a law and a measure of justice, since he has
conquered the right to rule and mastery, instead of
submitting like a slave to the mastery of a vain opinion.
Knowest thou not… that Zeus has Justice and Law seated
beside him, in order that everything that is done by the
master of the world may be lawful and just?” (Plutarch, 4)
His argument is that he should not fear the laws and
opinions of other men because, as the great king and a
conqueror, he himself is the arbiter of justice and
everything he does is by definition just because of his
exalted position. Alexander is the master of the men as Zeus
is the master of the gods. However, Plutarch says that
Anaxarchus’s argument made Alexander more “vainglorious and
boastful; he also made himself wonderfully liked by the
king, and brought… Callisthenes… into additional disfavor.”
(Plutarch, 4) Although Plutarch does not blame Alexander for
causing the conflict with Cleitus, he does see the argument
7
of Anaxarchus in the aftermath as causing deterioration in
his character.
Arrian says that Cleitus deserved “severe censure for
his insolent behavior to his king…” (Arrian, 11) falling
short of saying he deserved to be killed, “while at the same
time I pity Alexander for his mishap, because on that
occasion he showed himself the slave of two vices, anger and
drunkenness, by neither of which is it seemly for a prudent
man to be enslaved.” (Arrian, 11) Arrian refers to it as an
accident, and that Alexander should be pitied, removing his
responsibility for being drunk and losing his temper as if
this were beyond his control. He also credits Alexander with
recognizing his mistake by possibly attempting to kill
himself, or at least staying in bed and lamenting his
actions. Arrian says most historians to not mention that he
tried to kill himself and he does not take a position on
whether it is true. Alexander felt terrible that he had
killed the brother of his former wet nurse. “He did not
cease calling himself the murderer of his friends; and for
three days rigidly abstained from food and drink, and paid
8
no attention whatever to his personal appearance. Some of
the soothsayers revealed that the avenging wrath of Dionysus
had been the cause of his conduct, because he had omitted
the sacrifice to that deity.” (Arrian, 12) He was convinced
to eat food and take care of himself, but Arrian does not
say exactly what made him do so. He then made proper
sacrifices to Dionysus, “since he was not at all unwilling
that the fatality should be attributed rather to the
avenging wrath of the deity than to his own depravity.”
(Arrian, 12) Arrain says that Alexander deserves praise for
this because “he did not obstinately persevere in evil, or
still worse become a defender and advocate of the wrong
which had been done, but confessed that he had committed a
crime…” (Arrian, 12) It is strange that Arrian interprets
the attribution of blame for the death of Cleitus to
Dionysus as a confession, when in actuality by making
Dionysus responsible Alexander is trying to absolve himself,
even though the act itself is admitted to be wrong. Next
Arrian mentions the argument Anaxarchus makes to console
Alexander, “Finding him lying down and groaning, he laughed
9
at him, and said that he did not know that the wise men of
old for this reason made Justice an assessor of Zeus,
because whatever was done by him was justly done; and
therefore also that which was done by the Great King ought
to be deemed just in the first place by the king himself,
and then by the rest of men.” (Arrian, 12-13) The meaning of
Anaxarchus’s speech is essentially the same in Arrian as it
is in Plutarch: that the king, like Zeus, decides what is
just for other men, and everything he does is inherently
just. Also like Plutarch, he is critical of Anaxarchus’s
line of argument, even though it consoled Alexander, because
it gave him the idea that whatever he did should be
considered just. He implies that Anaxarchus was one of the
many flatterers that Alexander was increasingly surrounding
himself with at court, as Alexander sought prostration from
his subjects and adopted more foreign styles of dress and
customs.
Curtius’s account of the death of Cleitus differs in
many ways from Plutarch and Arrian. Curtius, unlike Plutarch
and Arrian, mentions that Cleitus was recently given the new
10
assignment of governing the province of Bactira. Curtius
clearly blames Alexander, and has positive things to say
about Cleitus, describing him as “an old soldier of Philip
and distinguished by many exploits in war, who at the
Granicus… cut off the hand of Rhosaces, when it threatened
the king’s life.” (Curitus, 22-23) He mentions that
Cleitus’s sister was Alexander’s wet nurse, and that
Alexander loved her like his own mother. “It was for these
reasons that he entrusted to Clitus’ faith and protection
the strongest part of his empire.” (Curtius, 23) The fact
that Curtius refers to Cleitus’ new assignment in this way
is significant in regard to the way modern biographers
portray how Cleitus may have felt about it. At the banquet
where Cleitus was killed, Curtius says “when the king had
been heated by an abundance of wine, having an immoderate
opinion of himself, he began to boast of his exploits, to
the displeasure even of the ears of those who knew that what
he said was true.” (Curtius, 23) This statement is very
critical of Alexander, claiming that in his drunkenness and
arrogance he was bragging so much that even people who knew
11
that Alexander was being accurate were annoyed to hear him
gloat so much. Unlike Plutarch, Curtius claims that
Alexander put down his father Philip’s accomplishments.
Curtius says that Clitus had spoken many taunts, calling
them “ill advisedly and rashly uttered…” (Curtius, 23), but
mentioning only the one that bothered Alexander the most,
which was Cleitus’ praise of Parmenion, who had recently
been executed after his son Philotas was found guilty of
treason. Curtius seems to think that Cleitus should have
known better than to mock Alexander, but he says Alexander
“restrained his resentment, content with ordering Clitus to
leave the banquet.” (Curtius, 23) After ordering him to
leave, Alexander said that if Cleitus had spoken more he
would have teased him about the time he saved Alexander’s
life, as he had done many times before. As Cleitus was being
forced out, “anger also was added to his former drunkenness,
and he shouted that the king’s back had been protected by
his own breast, but that now, after the time of so great a
service had passed, even the memory of it was odious.”
(Curtius, 24) According to Curtius, Cleitus had lost control
12
of his anger first, and accused Alexander of cowardice by
saying he turned his back to the enemy. Cleitus goes on to
criticize the king for murdering Attalus, mock the oracle of
Jupiter and make fun of Alexander’s claim to be the son of
Jupiter. Alexander was overcome with anger so great “as he
could hardly have mastered when sober. In fact, his senses
having long since been overcome by wine, he suddenly leaped
from his couch.” (Curtius, 24) He attempted to kill Cleitus
with a lance he had taken from one of his guards, but was
stopped by Ptolemy and Perdiccas, and Lysimachus and
Leonnatus took the lance. Alexander shouted “that he was
being seized by his closest friends, as had lately happened
to Darius…” (Curtius, 25) and ordered the trumpeter to sound
the alarm to rally the troops. Ptolemy and Perdiccas begged
Alexander to stop and to deal with the issue tomorrow, but
Alexander would not listen. Alexander took a lance from a
guard outside his quarters and returned to where the banquet
had been which was now empty, except for Cleitus, and as he
came out the king asked who it was. “Even his voice clearly
indicated the ferocity of the crime which he meditated.”
13
(Curtius, 25) Cleitus answered him and was impaled with the
lance, as Alexander called out “Go now to Philip and
Parmenion and Attalus!” (Curtius, 26) In this account,
Alexander left and had time to think about what he was doing
after the argument, and then went back to the banquet to
kill Cleitus. This is a much more calculated killing than
what is described in Plutarch and Arrian. Then Curtius
mentions that Alexander remembered “that he had not paid the
annual sacrifice to Father Liber at the appointed time.”
(Curtius, 26) This lays the blame for the murder on the god
Dionysus, rather than Alexander. Rather than the soothsayers
coming up with this, as in Arrian, Alexander himself did.
Also, Curtius does not say that Alexander voluntarily went
into seclusion, but that “the king was still more disturbed
because he saw that the minds of all his friends were
terror-stricken, that no one would dare hereafter to
converse with him, but he must live in solitude like a
savage beast which now inspires terror in other beasts and
at other times is itself in fear of them.” (Curtius, 26)
This is very different from Plutarch and Arrian, who write
14
that he went into voluntary seclusion, and his friends try
to convince him to come out. Curtius describes a situation
in which Alexander and his men were afraid of each other and
did not know what kind of action to take. Then the
Macedonians declared that Cleitus had been lawfully put to
death in order to lessen the shame Alexander felt. Finally,
Curtius mentions that Alexander’s friends were ashamed that
Alexander chose a father in law (and of course a bride) from
among a conquered people, “but since after the murder of
Clitus freedom of speech had been banned, they pretended
assent by expression of their faces, which most readily play
the slave.” (Curtius, 27)
Justin gives a brief account of the events surrounding
the death of Cleitus. According to him one or more of
Alexander’s friends praised the achievements of Philip while
they were all drunk. Alexander “began to prefer himself to
his father, and to extol the vastness of his own exploits to
the skies, the greater part of the company agreeing with
him; and when Clitus, one of the older guests, trusting to
his hold on the king’s friendship, in which he held the
15
principal place, defended the memory of Philip, and praised
his acts, he so provoked Alexander, that he snatched a
weapon from one of the guards, and slew him with it in the
midst of the guests.” (Justin, 1) In Justin’s account,
Alexander is clearly the instigator of the argument, and
Cleitus is exercising his right to speak freely to Alexander
as a friend. “Exulting at the murder, too he scoffed at the
dead man for his defense of Philip… But when his mind,
satiated with bloodshed, grew calm, and reflection took the
place of passion, he began… to feel the deepest sorrow for
the deed; grieving that he had listened to his father’s
praises with more anger than he ought to have listened to
insults on his memory, and that an old and blameless friend
had been slain by him at a feast and carousal.” (Justin, 1)
Initially Alexander is happy that he killed Cleitus, but
when after he calms down and thinks about it he realizes
that Cleitus had done nothing to provoke him, but had only
praised Philip, which should not have offended Alexander.
The blame is entirely on Alexander in Justin’s account. Like
Arrian, Justin records that Alexander tried to kill himself
16
and was stopped by his friends. Alexander also laments that
he had killed the brother of his former wet nurse, and that
he had incurred the fear and dislike of his friends.
“Parmenio and Philotas, his cousin Amnytas, his murdered
stepmother and brothers, with Attalus, Eurylochus, Pausanias
and other slaughtered nobles of Macedonia, presented
themselves to his imagination.” (Justin, 2) This suggests
that Alexander was responsible for all of these deaths and
felt guilty about them. He refused to eat for four days
until the army convinced him to come out for their own sake,
because if he died he would leave them without a commander
and surrounded by enemies.
Modern Biographers
Lane Fox suggests that Cleitus was not one of
Alexander’s most trusted officers when he writes
“[Cleitus’s] promotion [to co-commander of the Companion
Cavelry] would steady a shaken high command, but it was a
reward not altogether of Alexander’s choosing.” (Lane Fox,
291) He describes this as a trying moment in Alexander’s
career due to the difficulties he was having trying to
17
defeat the Spitamenes, which was preventing him from going
on to India (Lane Fox, 309). The heavy drinking is explained
as necessary for survival in Sogdonia during the summer,
where “the few lasting water-springs are naturally brackish
and tainted with salt-petre.” (Lane Fox, 309) This seems to
be a plausible explanation for increased drinking. Lane Fox
is cautious when saying he is sure of what the exact details
of what happened are. What he is certain of is that “a
quarrel blew up from the heavy drinking, when wine persuaded
some men to boast and flatter, others to rebut what they did
not like to hear. The most argumentative was Cleitus… He and
the king began to shout at each other, made petulant by all
that they had drunk and there is no saying which of them did
more to fire the quarrel.” (Lane Fox, 309) Instead of simply
restating what some of the sources say as fact, Lane Fox
qualifies his statements, such as “[Alexander] is said to
have pelted Cleitus with an apple from the table…” (Lane
Fox, 309) Alexander looked for his sword, which had been
hidden by one of his guards, then he called for his guards,
but the trumpeter refused to sound a warning, so Alexander
18
punched him. Lane Fox states that there are two versions of
where Cleitus was the whole time, one in which he left and
came back, and one which he never left the room. Lane Fox
contends that “the tale of Cleitus’s re-entry, which even
claimed that only Cleitus was to blame, is a warning of the
lengths to which courtly excuses would go.” (Lane Fox, 310)
After the murder he planned to kill himself, but “at the
last moment, his nerve failed and he took to his bed…” (Lane
Fox, 310) Lane Fox does not explain why he says that
Alexander lost his nerve, even though sources say that he
was restrained to stop him from killing himself. He accepts
that Alexander stayed in bed for three days, as Arrian says,
refusing to eat, drink or take care of himself in any way,
as a way of punishing himself. According to Lane Fox, the
way they were able to get Alexander to come out was by
saying that “Alexander had not paid due sacrifice to
[Dionysus], but had made an offering to Castor and Pollux,
sons of Zeus, instead. Dionysus then had been offended and
had punished his neglecter through wine, his earthly agent.”
(Lane Fox, 310) Since the army “preferred their king to
19
Cleitus, [they] begged Alexander to forget his accident.”
(Lane Fox, 310) Lane Fox neglects to mention the argument of
Anaxarchus that justifies the king’s act, even though
Plutarch and Arrian thought it played an important role in
getting the king to end his mourning and changed the way he
behaved thereafter. In contrast with Hamilton, Milns, and
Green, Lane Fox argues against the view that this conflict
was politically motivated, crediting the Greeks who were far
away from this banquet hall with “idealiz[ing] the conflict
and cast[ing] Alexander as a tyrant, Cleitus as the champion
of freedom who persistently opposed all Oriental customs…”
(Lane Fox, 311) According to Lane Fox, the motivations
behind this conflict were highly personal. Cleitus had been
assigned to a satrapy in Bactria, a position far away from
court, where “Cleitus would live and grow old by the Oxus,
where a man’s one hope of distinction was the occasional
repulse of unknown nomads. Retired against his will, he took
to drinking, and heavy in his cups, he at last burst out
into abuse.” (Lane Fox, 311) While this was obviously a very
important job, Lane Fox characterizes this as a demotion.
20
Although he may have a point about this being an undesirable
position, I think it would be a stretch to call it a
demotion because it would give him an independent command.
Renault shares Lane Fox’s view that Cleitus may not have
wanted his new appointment, but Renault does not consider it
a motive. Lane Fox says that there must have been a reason
for Cleitus’s fall, but he only speculates in regard to what
that might be, “Perhaps he had been wounded; perhaps he had
been rude to Hephaistion…” (Lane Fox, 311) He goes on to
discuss the taunts that Cleitus used before he was killed,
saying that “the gist of the taunts which caused Cleitus’s
murder can still be recovered, but their details remain
obscure…” (Lane Fox, 312), a cautious reading of the sources
considering that some explicitly state what was said. He
thinks Alexander was listening to a “ballad which mocked the
generals whom Spitamenes had destroyed a year before…” was
more plausible than “that Alexander was decrying his father
Philip or approving flatterers who did the same.” (Lane Fox,
312) He also calls Alexander’s outburst “unforgivably
horrific”, based on what Aristotle, his teacher, said that
21
“the man who sins when drunk should be punished twice over,
once for sinning, once for being drunk.” (Lane Fox, 312) and
calls his behavior Homeric. He sees the seclusion of
Alexander after the murder as entirely sincere because of
his Homeric world view, the seclusion being analogous to
Achilles in the Illiad.
Milns relies primarily on Plutarch’s account of the
Cleitus affair because it is the most detailed, and because
Plutarch draws on Chares, the court chamberlain, who was
present at the time. He depicts the political climate as one
of opposition by the older officers to Alexander’s adoption
of Persian ways and his “growing conviction that he was
something more than a mere mortal being…” (Milns, 189) He
begins by stating that the Macedonians were performing their
annual sacrifice to Heracles prior to the banquet, which is
an error because according to Plutarch Alexander was
sacrificing to the Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux. He then
characterized the Macedonian banquets as “immense drinking-
orgies at which the barbarism that lurked in every
Macedonian noble often manifested itself… so that bitter,
22
and sometimes deadly, quarrels came to the surface. This has
already been seen at the wedding of Philip and Cleopatra…”
(Milns, 189) The comparison between the Cleitus affair and
the argument between Philip and Alexander at Philip’s
wedding to a relative of Attalus is made by several authors.
Milns uses Plutarch’s account that a poem was read at the
banquet satirizing of commanders who had been defeated in
battle, which offended the older guests and delighted
Alexander and those around him. “The King must have realized
that his malicious approbation could only infuriate the
elder officers all the more, and his instructions to proceed
may well have been given with the intention of provoking
some outburst from that quarter.” (Milns, 190) Milns is the
first to suggest that the conflict was a result of a
calculated move on the part of Alexander. He describes
Cleitus’ response, in which he criticizes the poet on the
grounds that those Macedonians were better men than the
barbarians who were laughing at them, “‘even though they had
met with misfortune’. In Cleitus’ outburst we can see
clearly the expressed attitude of the older, more
23
conservative Macedonians both towards the conquered race and
towards the attitude the King had adopted towards them.”
(Milns, 190) Not only was Alexander acting out a political
strategy, Cleitus was expressing political opinions in
Milns’ view. Alexander responds that Cleitus was pleading
his own case by calling cowardice misfortune. “The remark
was meant to hurt; Cleitus sprang to his feet in a blind
fury and forgetting where he was and that it was the Lord of
all Asia he was addressing, roared out…” (Milns, 190)
Cleitus reminded Alexander that he once saved his life when
he had turned his back on the enemy, mocked his claim to be
the son of a god, reminded him that he owed his greatness to
Macedonian blood, and accused him of renouncing his father
Philip in favor of Ammon. “Cleitus spoke from the heart and
every word was true. But no autocrat likes to be reminded of
his debts to others, especially in front of an audience…”
(Milns, 191) Milns makes it clear that he agrees with
Cleitus’ criticism of Alexander, and the supposed political
faction Cleitus represents. Alexander accuses Cleitus of
talking this way all the time and of splitting the
24
Macedonians into factions, asking if he thinks he will get
away with it. “Straightway came back the reply of Cleitus:
‘But we don’t get away with it, Alexander,’ he said – and
the simple ‘Alexander’ without the title of ‘King’ was a
deliberate insult…” (Milns, 191) This notion that Cleitus
called him Alexander is simply untrue, as it does not say
this in Plutarch, and even if it did it would not have been
and insult for one of Alexander’s inner circle to call him
by his name. Cleitus continues by saying that those
Macedonians who have died are lucky because they did not
live to see Macedonians beaten by barbarians or begging
Persians for access to their own king. A riot nearly breaks
out, the elder men trying to calm the disturbance. “…
Alexander, restrainng his fury for the moment – and thereby
all the more deadly – turned to two of his Greek friends…”
(Milns, 191) and compared the Greeks to demigods among the
Macedonians who seemed like wild beasts. Milns calls this a
brutal remark that would have angered any Macedonian from
Philip’s generation, driving home his point that the
argument represented a generational split. Cleitus did not
25
hear the whole remark, but responded that Alexander say what
he meant openly or he should not invite free men to dinner,
but rather surround himself with barbarians and slaves “who
would grovel before his Persian girdle and lilly-white tuic.
Alexander was furious, and he threw a pomegranate at Cleitus
and looked for his sword, which was hidden to prevent
bloodshed. This made Alexander even angrier, and “he called
out in the Macedonian dialect, just as an Englishman from
the ‘provinces’ will often betray his origin in times of
great emotional strain, for the trumpeters to sound the
alarm…” (Milns, 192) Whether this is true or not of
Englishmen the real reason Alexander called out in the
Macedonian dialect was probably because the rank and file
soldiers spoke that language and would not have understood
Greek. Milns’ comparison is anachronistic. The trumpeter
refused to sound and was struck by Alexander. Cleitus’
friends removed Cleitus from the banquet, but he returned to
taunt Alexander with a line from Euripides: “Alas what evil
custom there prevails in Greece!” (Milns, 192) Then
Alexander killed him, immediately “the King’s fury left him,
26
as he realized, with horror, what he had done. He had
intended to provoke a quarrel, perhaps with Cleitus
personally, certainly with the other officers in general,
that would make them disclose any treasonable thoughts
towards himself.” (Milns, 192) Milns states this theory as
if it were a fact evident in the sources, rather than a
speculation of his own invention. However, Milns does see
Alexander’s remorse as genuine, arguing that his attempt to
kill himself was not an act. He uses Arrian’s account that
Alexander stayed in bed for three days, refusing food and
drink, and lamenting that he had killed the brother of his
wet nurse. Then he switches back to Plutarch to report that
Aristander’s statement that Cleitus’ death had been
predestined by fate convinced Alexander to eat and care for
himself. He does not credit Anaxarchus’ speech with cheering
up Alexander, as Plutarch and Arrian do, but does cite
Plutarch and Arrian’s criticism of Anaxarchus’ speech as
making Alexander “even more arrogant and lawless;” (Milns,
193) Then Milns claims that Cleitus’ death was officially
proclaimed to be due to the anger of Dionysus, “because the
27
regular sacrifice had been overlooked.” (Milns, 193) This is
a distortion of the sources because none of them say that
Dionysus was officially blamed. “The soldiers and
superstitious peasants, may have been satisfied with this
explanation; the same can hardly be said for the great
nobles and senior officials at court. All who had been
present at the banquet knew that Cleitus had been murdered
because he had opposed the ideas of the monarch and had
dared speak his mind…” (Milns, 193) He seems to be drawing
on Arrian, who implies that Alexander liked the Dionysus
explanation because of its propaganda value. That Cleitus
was murdered for opposing the king ties into Milns’ theory
about a faction that was opposed to Alexander at court. The
death of Cleitus meant that a leader of this faction was
removed, “but opposition remained and spread to other
quarters, as was seen a year or two later with the affair of
Callisthenes.” (Milns, 194)
Peter Green’s portrayal of Alexander is very critical,
and is derivative of Milns’ description of two rival
factions at court. He starts to paint the death of Cleitus
28
as a murder early, on page 41 when he writes “… Cleitus…
saved Alexander’s life at the Granicus, and was afterwards
murdered by him during a drunken quarrel in Samarkand.”
(Green, 41) Green’s discussion of the event begins on page
360. He describes an atmosphere of “hatred and jealousy
between Philip’s old guard and the king’s Graeco-Oriental
courtiers…” (Green, 360) combined with heavy drinking by
everyone, which led to the argument between Alexander and
Cleitus. He relies in part on Curtius’s description of the
incident, stating that “Alexander, more than half-tipsy…
began to boast immoderately of his own achievements.”
(Green, 361) and belittling the deeds of Philip. Green uses
Plutarch’s description of Alexander’s attitude change after
Anaxarchus’s speech, as more vainglorious, as a description
of his behavior at the banquet, suggesting it was
“calculated to provoke the old guard.” (Green, 361) This
theory comes directly from Milns. He also uses Plutarch’s
account of the event, but rather than presenting them as two
alternative descriptions of what took place, he claims that
Plutarch’s version took place after Curtius’s: Alexander
29
gave the floor to the singer that ridiculed Macedonian
generals who had been defeated by barbarians after he had
already provoked the older Macedonians with his boasting. He
gives no justification for combining the two accounts, which
are contradictory, so it appears as though he just fudged
the evidence to conform to his speculation that Alexander
had “deliberately provoked this kind of outburst to learn
what old guard officers such as Cleitus were really thinking
and feeling.” (Green, 362) This was exactly what Milns
argued, and he used a similarly flawed technique. Green also
argues that the division that showed itself in this conflict
“was not merely one of youth and age; it was fundamental,
irreconcilable – nationalism against the orientalizing
policy, simplicity against sophistication, blunt free speech
against sedulous conformism.” (Green, 362) This is where he
differs from Milns, because Green takes it a step further by
making it more than about a generational difference to one
of values. For Green the conflict was the result of
underlying political differences, rather than an unintended
consequence of too much alcohol. The fact that it was so
30
disorganized, with both Cleitus and Alexander being
restrained, Alexander’s weapon being hidden and his
trumpeter refusing to sound the alarm, suggests that this
was not a calculated political move. He also mentions “the
omission of a sacrifice to Dionysus, which sounds like an
attempt to divest himself of responsibility for his murder
by laying it at the door of an angry god.” (Green, 364)
Though this may be true it was not necessarily Alexander who
came up with the idea, as Curtius says, but possibly his
soothsayers, as Arrian says. Green also implies that his
grief over Cleitus was an act, “Struck by sudden
overwhelming remorse, the king plucked the spear from his
old comrade’s dead body and tried (not very energetically,
it would seem) to impale himself on it.” (Green, 364) This
is different from Milns’ interpretation, since Milns thought
his remorse was genuine. He assumes that because the king
did not kill himself that he was only pretending to want to
die, offering no other evidence than the fact that he did
succeed. He goes on to say “The point at which genuine grief
began to merge into calculated play-acting is very hard to
31
determine… We can only judge by results…” (Green, 365) The
result he is referring to is the argument of Anaxarchus,
which justified the king’s actions on the ground that “the
king stood above mere human laws.” (Green, 365), the
Macedonian declaration “that Cleitus had been justly put to
death…” (Green, 365) and the blaming of Dionysus for the
death of Cleitus. Just because the king’s power authority
was increased in the aftermath of this event does not mean
that it was calculated to produce that effect. In fact,
since it is agreed that he was restrained by his friends and
that he retreated to his tent in mourning it would have been
easier to kill him at this time if his men had decided to do
so because he was not on his guard.
Alexander’s drinking plays the major role in O’Brien’s
biography, which argues that his increased alcohol use
contributed to change in his personality. O’Brien places the
date for the symposium around the mid to late summer of 328
B.C.E. He seems to trust Plutarch’s account of this event,
which “is probably based on the recollections of Chares, an
eyewitness to the events.” (O’Brien, 133) Unlike many of the
32
other modern biographers he mentions the story in Plutarch
that Alexander had invited Cleitus to his quarters to share
with him some Greek fruit which had been brought from the
coast (O’Brien, 133). Cleitus was in the process of
performing sacrifices and had poured libations on some
sheep, which then followed him to Alexander’s tent.
Alexander had recently had a dream in which Cleitus was
dressed in black with Parmenio’s dead sons. Alexander’s
soothsayers agreed that these were bad signs, so Alexander
ordered sacrifices for Cleitus, but he arrived before this
was done. Also, Alexander had neglected to sacrifice to
Dionysus, which was required for that time of year, but
instead honored Castor and Polydeuces. O’Brien speculates
that “Perhaps because Alexander’s flatterers had informed
him that he had passed the outer limits of Dionysus’ travels
while chasing the Scythians, the king thought he could
neglect the god he had outdistanced, and elect to honor
divinities more in keeping with his heroic image.” (O’Brien,
134) On the symposium O’Brien favors Plutarch’s version,
which says that “some verses were recited that satirized the
33
Macedonian officers involved in the debacle at the hands of
Spitamenes during the preceding year.” (O’Brien, 134)
O’Brien contends, although it is not mentioned in the
ancient sources, that “Considering the audience, it is
highly unlikely that any poet would have risked the reprisal
of those in attendance without first receiving royal
approval for such a reading.” (O’Brien, 134) I think it is
possible that there was royal approval, however to say that
it is highly unlikely that it would have been done without
approval seems a bit of an overstatement. The criticism of
the generals has been interpreted as a way of relieving the
king of any blame for the defeats, which may have made the
poets think they were doing something that they would be
rewarded for even without approval. O’Brien also mentions
the possibility that Cleitus was not pleased by his
appointment at satrap of Bactria, which would have separated
him from his friends. “Drunk and angry…”Cleitus spoke out
against the poet because he thought it was wrong for
Macedonians to be made fun of in front of barbarians because
they were better men than those who were laughing at them,
34
“even if the they had met with misfortune.” (O’Brien, 135)
Alexander, also drunk, said “if Cleitus was trying to
disguise cowardice as misfortune, he must be pleading his
own case…” (O’Brien, 135) To this Cleitus replied by
mentioning how he saved Alexander’s life, accused him of
turning his back on the enemy, mocked his claim to divine
parentage, and accused him of disowning his real father
Philip. O’Brien’s account is faithful to Plutarch’s. He
discusses Cleitus’s quote from Euripides’ Andromache “Alas,
what evil customs reign in Greece” (O’Brien, 136), saying
Alexander surely knew the lines that followed, “which
proclaim it a pity that only one man wielding a sword among
ten thousand others received the credit for a victory on the
battlefield.” (O’Brien, 137) Then Alexander killed him,
after which, according to O’Brien he immediately sobered up.
Plutarch says he tried to kill himself with the same spear
he used to kill Cleitus, but his guards stopped him. O’Brien
says that Alexander was “probably mindful of the striking
similarity between his own drunken behavior and that of
Philip nine years before at the wedding feast…” (O’Brien,
35
137) where he had mocked his father’s drunkenness. To
console him, “Aristander reminded him about the dream in
which Cleitus had appeared dressed in black…” (O’Brien, 137)
to show that even Alexander was powerless over fate. O’Brien
also mentioned Anaxarchus’s philosophical argument, which
“offered a rationale for claiming divine right should he be
confronted with other unpalatable realities of this type in
the future.” (Obrien, 137) He also agrees with Plutarch’s
argument that Anaxarchus’s speech made him more proud and
autocratic (O’Brien, 138). O’Brien also uses Arrian’s
account, which mentions that Cleitus “spoke up in favour of
Philip’s achievements, making little of Alexander and his”
(O’Brien, 138) O’Brien mentions that Arrian blames
Alexander’s drunkenness and anger, but commends him for
admitting his mistake. O’Brien questions whether Alexander
actually admits his mistake because the murder of Cleitus is
blamed on Dionysus in the official explanation. He also
mentions Aristotle’s writing on anger as an insight into the
king’s reaction. He argues that when people criticize us
about things which we care about the most it causes us the
36
most anger, especially if we “‘think we are, lacking
completely or to any effective extent in the qualities in
question.’… Cleitus was unfortunate enough to identify
publicly areas in which Alexander was less than secure.”
(O’Brien, 139) According to O’Brien, this incident marked
the end of liberty at the Macedonian court because of the
danger anyone who questioned Alexander was in. “Public
criticism of Alexander appears rarely in the extant sources
from this point on.” (O’Brien, 140)
Favoring Plutarch’s account, Hamilton acknowledges that
by all accounts both Alexander and Cleitus were drunk and
Alexander killed Cleitus. He briefly mentions variations in
Arrian and Curtius, writing that “Arrian recounts a
conversation in which Alexander’s achievements were compared
to those of the deified heroes, the Diosurri, Castor and
Pollux, and even of Heracles himself – an unlikely theme at
this time – while in Curtius’ version Alexander behaves
exactly like a stage tyrant.” (Hamilton, 103) He does not
say why it would be unlikely that Alexander would be
compared to the deified heroes at this time. Possibly
37
because Alexander had not sought deification, as many people
believed because of his later desire for prostration from
Macedonians. His criticism of Curtius is based on his
negative view of tyrants. Hamilton considers Plutarch’s
account the most likely story because it gives attention to
detail and absence of a bias, and is derived from Chares,
Alexander’s court chamberlain, who was present at the event.
He summarizes Plutarch’s account, and argues that “Its
importance lies chiefly in the insight it gives us into the
various stresses in Alexander’s headquarters and the
resentment felt by some at least of the leading Macedonian
at Alexander’s policies: for it was not simply a personal
quarrel.” (Hamilton, 104) To Hamilton, although alcohol led
Cleitus to speak his mind, and his concerns about the
orientalizing of Alexander’s court were shared by other
Macedonians, making this a political conflict. However, as
he acknowledges, “there is no indication that the Macedonian
leaders were much affected by it.” (Hamilton, 104) which
begs the question, if there this was more than a personal
conflict where were the supporters of Cleitus and why did
38
they not speak up? It is not hard to believe that there were
others who shared Cleitus’ concerns, but since they didn’t
do anything about it wouldn’t that make this a personal
conflict?
Mary Renault is an apologist for Alexander, putting her
at the other end of the spectrum from Green and Milns. On
page 167 she makes a strange assertion that because
Alexander had known Cleitus when Alexander was a child he
had “subconscious associations of which he himself was
unaware.” (Renault, 167) This is pure speculation, as there
is no source that supports this statement. Her account of
the death of Cleitus is brief and as a defender of Alexander
she tries to gloss over the event. She mentions Cleitus’s
appointment as Satrap of Bactria, suggesting that he did not
want it, as Lane Fox did. However she does not explicitly
say that this was one of the motives for his outburst. That
Cleitus was appointed to the satrapy was reported in
Curtius, but Curtius makes it sound like an important
position, rather than a possible source of frustration. She
mentions the anger of Dionysus for Alexander’s failure to
39
sacrifice to him on his feast day as a possible cause of
Cleitus’ death, never mentioning the possibility that this
was a later invention of Alexander’s inner circle. Her
account of the banquet is a combination of Plutarch and
Arrian, without differentiating or explaining the two
separate versions. All were drunk, she says, and “Someone
sang a lampoon on the commanders who had failed to relieve
the city; a tasteless black joke, seeing they had been
killed, but countenanced by Alexander who had succeeded
where they had failed.” (Renault, 179) This part comes from
Plutarch. Then Renault says that Alexander’s friends exalted
him higher than Castor and Pollux, which comes from Arrian.
Then she says Alexander’s friends “turned to the still more
explosive theme of how Alexander had surpassed his father.”
(Renault, 179) Nowhere does it say this in the sources.
Curtius does say that Alexander belittled his father’s
deeds, while claiming credit for himself, but that is not
what Renault claims. Then she says that “Cleitus noisily
disagreed. Having lived so close to the royal family through
Alexander’s lifetime, he must have been dense not to know,
40
even when in liquor, that he was playing with fire. He would
have been safe with Alexander the King of Persia, whom he so
resented. Fatally, he had aroused instead the furious youth
who had hurled a goblet at his father’s wedding.” (Renault,
179) This paragraph sums up Renault’s judgment of the
Cleitus affair, and her general approach to Alexander.
Cleitus is called noisy and dense, implying that he was
wrong to raise his voice in objection to Alexander. How does
she know how noisy Cleitus was? Her reference to Alexander’s
anger at his father’s wedding is an interesting parallel,
which O’Brien also uses. But why would Cleitus have been
safe with Alexander king of Persia? Are they not the same
person? If anything, the sources support the notion that
Alexander became more autocratic after becoming king of
Persia. Renault calls Alexander’s response to Cleitus
“wholly Macedonian.” (Renault, 179) Alexander was insulted
so he argued back, and when Cleitus continued to insult him
he attacked. “This common bar room brawl ended as so many
have done among lesser men. Cleitus came bursting in again
with a new insult he had just thought of…” (Renault, 179-
41
180) so Alexander killed him. She uses Plutarch’s version
because it makes it look like Cleitus would not stop
provoking Alexander. Renault goes on to criticize unnamed
historians who invariably refer to this episode as “‘the
murder of Cleitus.’ Today, with equivalent evidence of drink
and provocation, it would receive a sentence of tow or three
years, with remission for good conduct.” (Renault, 180) She
uses a modern analogy, which is an anachronism, as a way to
defend Alexander’s actions, basically implying that what he
did was no big deal. “No judgement on it has been harsher
than Alexander’s own. He had killed Parmenion as a king,
responsibly. This time he had killed as a man, who could not
hold his drink or keep his temper.” (Renault, 180) He had
killed illegally, and had killed a guest and supporter,
“aspects whose enormity we can scarcely now assess. His
shame was proportioned to his pride; for a time he found
himself intolerable.” (Renault, 180) She uses Arrian and
Plutarch for her description of Alexander’s remorse, saying
that it is possible that Alexander tried to kill himself, as
Plutarch says, and that he would not eat or drink for three
42
days, as Arrian says. She does not discuss what the
philosophers Callisthenes and Anaxarchus said to try to
cheer him up, saying only that “philosophers offered
rational or soothing words.” (Renault, 180) This is a
glaring omission which demonstrates her preconceived notions
of Alexander, completely neglecting what all the sources see
as a negative transformation in Alexander. She mentions that
the Macedonians officially condemned Cleitus for treason and
notified Alexander that the killing was legalized, adding
that “he did not yet forgive himself, and met comfort with
cries of self-reproach.” (Renault, 180) I cannot find
justification for this statement in any of the sources. She
claims that the argument that Dionysus had caused Alexander
to kill Cleitus because he was angry that Alexander had
neglected to sacrifice to him was more effective than
anything else for Alexander to regain his self respect,
which comes from Arrian. Renault’s version dismisses any
negative change in Alexander’s character while highlighting
his religious piety.
43
Bosworth states that the “three principal sources for
the affair give different accounts of the conversation,
which in the very nature of things must have been
imperfectly recollected by participants after they regained
sobriety.” (Bosworth, 114) However, he contends that there
is agreement in the sources that there were two types of
flattery of Alexander, one that claimed that he was the son
of Zeus Ammon, and the other putting down the generals who
were killed by Spitamenes, which implied that Alexander was
solely responsible for Macedonian success. This is a
distortion of the sources because Plutarch says that there
was a poet who mocked the defeated generals and Curtius says
that Alexander boasted of his accomplishments and belittled
Philip’s. Bosworth makes it seem as if other people were
putting down Philip and praising Alexander, when in fact
Curtius says that Alexander did this himself. Also, he
writes as if both Plutarch’s and Curtius’ accounts were both
true without justifying it. In any case, Bosworth says that
what was said at the symposium was resented by the older
Macedonians, and that Cleitus acted as their spokesman,
44
which is a factional divide that is taken seriously by
Hamilton, Milns and Green. However, he then qualifies this
by saying “Whether there were motives at work deeper than
inebriation and exasperation we cannot say.” (Bosworth, 114)
But that does not stop him from saying anyway, remarking
that according to the sources “Cleitus had been alienated by
the increasing trend to oriental despotism at court and that
on this occasion, his combativeness fortified by alcohol, he
gave expression to the general disquiet.” (Bosworth, 114)
This is a glaring contradiction of his previous statement.
He also considers the possibility that Cleitus saw his
recent appointment as satrap of Bactria as a demotion,
something Renault believed, but there is no evidence he was
out of favor. He goes on to mention Cleitus’ use of a quote
from Euripides to taunt Alexander, which comes from
Plutarch. Then he says that Cleitus praised Philip at the
expense of Alexander and “harped on his own merits in saving
Alexander’s life at the Granicus.” (Bosworth, 115) This
account of Cleitus’ words is inaccurate in more ways than
one. First of all, Plutarch is the only one who has Cleitus
45
quoting Euripides to Alexander, and according to him it was
the last thing he said before Alexander killed him.
Secondly, Justin is the only one who says that Cleitus
praised Philip at all, which Bosworth never cites, and
Justin does not say that it was at the expense of Alexander.
Finally, Bosworth combines the eulogizing of Philip from
Justin and the bragging about saving Alexander’s life from
Plutarch as if they both necessarily happened, without any
sort of explanation. Bosworth goes on to say that Alexander
called for his guards, who were “commendably slow to react
to their native tongue, and the king was physically
restrained by his bodyguards, complaining that he was
another Darius, betrayed by his court.” (Bosworth, 115) This
is a misunderstanding of Curtius, who says that Alexander
was restrained by his friends, not his guards. Bosworth
dismisses the account that says Cleitus had been led out but
then came back because he sees it as an attempt to absolve
the king. Bosworth speculates that “the kin’s fury was such
that they feared for their own lives if they crossed him
further or their concern for Cleitus may have just been a
46
front. All that is clear is that the king was free to act
when his temper was most uncontrollable, and Cleitus died
almost instantaneously.” (Bosworth, 115) Then he mentions
the accounts that say Alexander tried to kill himself after
he killed Cleitus, but does not venture an opinion on
whether it was true. “All sources agree that he spent three
days in seclusion without food or water, prostrated by
paroxysms of self-reproach.” (Bosworth, 115) This is
another example of Bosworth’s inaccurate reading of the
sources. Plutarch says it was only the night and the
following day, Arrian that it was three days, and Curtius
and Justin do not specify how long it was. How he was
consoled Bosworth does not specify. He considers the
argument made by Anaxarchus, drawing parallels to Xenophon
and Aristotle, and suggesting that it might not have
happened, but it was consistent with other kinds of court
flattery and could not be ruled out. He also claims that
“There was no lasting resentment for the death of Cleitus as
there had been for Parmenion. Indeed the army condemned his
contumacy and was apparently prepared to deny him burial.”
47
(Bosworth, 115) Bosworth does not mention the possibility
that people were afraid to voice their resentment after this
point, which others have said.
Describing the role of the Macedonian king, Hammond
says “He was himself the government. Because the safety of
the realm depended upon him, any step taken to safeguard his
life was justified… Whatever the rights and wrongs of the
quarrel between Alexander and Cleitus, once Alexander
thought his life was threatened, no Macedonian questioned
his right to defend himself by killing Cleitus on the spot.”
(Hammond, 15) Early on the reader is prejudiced in favor of
Alexander. He places the banquet where Cleitus was killed in
Samarcand in autumn 328 B.C.E. He describes this kind of
event as one where traditionally there was heavy drinking
and uninhibited speech. On the sources he says that accounts
of these kinds of parties are “always far from dependable,
and in this case we have mainly much later accounts in which
elaboration and invention have played their parts.”
(Hammond, 197) He describes the dispute as being between the
older and younger men “over the comparative achievements of
48
Philip and Alexander and over some aspects of Alexander’s
policy in Asia, especially perhaps in the matter of court
ceremonial.” (Hammond, 197) There are no sources that say
that this happened at the banquet. As for the conflict
between Cleitus and Alexander, Hammond doesn’t give
specifics other than that they abused each other and that
Alexander called for his guard and ordered the trumpeter to
call for the military. The trumpeter disobeyed and was
struck by Alexander. “Fear of conspiracy can never have been
far from his mind, and the combination of drink and anger
brought that fear to the surface. When neither order was
obeyed, his fear seemed to be confirmed.” (Hammond, 197) He
is making the case that Alexander was right to be afraid
under the circumstances. Ptolemy forcibly moved Cleitus
outside of the citadel, “But Cleitus went back. He came in
just as Alexander was shouting ‘Cleitus, Cleitus,’ and he
said ‘Here am I, Cleitus, Alexander.’” (Hammond, 197-198)
Then Alexander killed him. This version is a combination of
Plutarch and Curtius’ accounts. Plutarch had Ptolemy forcing
Cleitus out of the banquet, only to return and insult
49
Alexander, who immediately killed him. Curtius has Alexander
shouting for Cleitus after Alexander had left the banquet
only to return with a spear and kill Cleitus. Hammond blames
Cleitus for coming back to the banquet, which otherwise
would not have occurred. This argument is similar to
Renault’s in that blame is placed on Cleitus rather than
Alexander. “As soon as Alexander struck him down, he saw he
was not armed. He realized that Cleitus had not come back to
kill him.” (Hammond, 198) Alexander showed remorse for
killing the brother of his former nurse, and Hammond
mentions that some reports say he attempted suicide. Hammond
also mentions that he refused to eat or drink, and after he
recovered he made sacrifice to Dionysus to make up for the
one he had failed to make.
My Version of the Death of Cleitus
Since his account is based closely on Chares, the court
chamberlain who was present at the banquet when Cleitus was
killed, Plutarch can be relied upon for many of the details.
Justin is generally considered unreliable, and his account
gives few details, so I don’t think it’s very useful.
50
However, I think the account he gives about Cleitus stopping
in the middle of sacrifices and Alexander having a vision of
Cleitus dressed in black with the dead sons of Parmenio may
not have happened. Plutarch relies on Chares for his
account, and although Chares was the court chamberlain and
was probably present at the symposium, being so close to
Alexander he may have made up these details to make
Alexander look better. Arrian implies that Alexander wanted
people to believe that Dionysus caused the event out of
anger for Alexander’s failure to make sacrifice to him,
which makes sense. Plutarch reports that there was a
performance of poetry making fun of fallen generals, which
angered Cleitus. But Arrian, Curtius and Justin say that
Alexander boasted immoderately of his own accomplishments,
and that he belittled those of Philip. I doubt Alexander
would publicly disparage Philip because it would reflect
badly him, but then again there are several sources that say
this. I think Plutarch’s version is more likely, since he
relies on Chares, but it could be that Chares did not report
Alexander’s boasting because it would make him look bad.
51
What is certain is that something was said that offended
Cleitus and he spoke out against it. Alexander responded by
either calling him a coward, as Pluarch says, or calmly
telling him to leave, as Curtius says. Cleitus angrily
responds, mocking Alexander using topic that were sore
subjects for him, namely the time Cleitus saved his life,
Alexander’s claim to be the son of a god, and accusing him
of disowning Philip. This is where the argument turned
physical in Curtius’ description, however Plutarch is more
detailed, so I favor his version from this point. Plutarch
says that Alexander asked Cleitus if he spoke this way about
him all the time and asks if he is raising a faction against
him with impunity. Cleitus responds that Macedonians enjoy
no such impunity, and that dead Macedonians are lucky
because they did not live to see Macedonians beaten by
barbarians and begging them for audience with their own
king. Alexander, in an aside, tells some Greeks that the
Macedonians appear like beasts among the Greeks, who appear
like demi-gods. Then Cleitus told Alexander he should speak
freely or not invite free men to dinner, but dine with
52
barbarians and slaves who will bow to him. Alexander threw
an apple at him and looked for his sword. Both men were
restrained at this point, and Cleitus was being forced out
of the banquet, but he came back and taunted Alexander with
a line from Euripides. Curtius claims that both men left the
banquet and that Alexander went looking for him after
returning to his quarters. I agree with Lane Fox’s argument
that the story of Cleitus leaving and coming back may have
been invented by apologists. Then Alexander grabbed a weapon
and killed Cleitus. In the aftermath Alexander felt remorse
for what he did, and laid in his bed for a period of one to
four days, depending which source you believe. The exact
number is not very important. What is important is that he
was consoled, first by the argument that Cleitus’ death was
determined by fate, or by the anger of Dionysus, and then by
the Philosopher Anaxarchus, who argued that whatever a king
does is inherently just because he is, like Zeus, the master
of the world. The speech of Anaxarchus are recorded in
Plutarch and Arrian, worded differently but with the same
meaning. Though not all of the modern biographers mention
53
this, the fact that both Plutarch and Arrian do means it
deserves mention.
How the Death of Cleitus Compares to Other Episodes
Several of the modern biographers draw parallels
between this event and the dispute that erupted at Philip’s
wedding, when Alexander was offended by Attalus and Philip
went after Alexander with his sword in a drunken rage. It
seems as if he had become what he had criticized his father
for, a belligerent drunk.
There are also connections between the death of Cleitus
and the fall of Callisthenes. Plutarch mentions them
together because he considers “them very intimately
connected with each other.” (Plutarch, 21) I think that they
both are evidence of change in Alexander. Plutarch and
Arrian say that the speech of Anaxarchus had an impact on
Alexander, and I think the treatment of Callisthenes is
evidence of an increasingly autocratic Alexander. Plutarch
says that after the speech of Anaxarchus, Callisthenes lost
favor with the king, and that Anaxarchus’ speech made
Alexander more “vainglorious and lawless”, which I think is
54
evident in his treatment of Callisthenes. Curtius says that
after the death of Cleitus free speech was banned, which
would explain how Callisthenes was dealt with.
What the Episode Tells Us About Alexander
One thing the episode tells us about Alexander is that
he took his reputation very seriously. Every source agrees
that at the symposium Alexander and his achievements were a
topic of discussion. When Cleitus says something about
Alexander that does not like it makes Alexander so furious
that he kills him. There is no question that he was vain.
Another thing this episode shows is that Alexander had a
temper. Soon after he had killed Cleitus he felt very badly
about it, which shows that if he had been in control of his
emotions he would not have done it. This probably also had
something to do with the fact that he was drunk, which leads
me to believe he was an angry drunk. This leads to another
conclusion, which is that he drank heavily. This was not the
only time he is reported to have held a symposium, and
Macedonians were noted for drinking large quantities of
unmixed wine. I am not trying to say that he drank an
55
unusual amount in the context of his culture, but if you
compare his behavior to how he reacted to his father’s
behavior at the wedding, it illustrates that there was a
change that took place at some point. He had once been a
person who drank little or not at all, and had become a
heavy drinker.
Lessons About Biography as History
I have learned that there are many ways to look at the
same evidence. Both the ancient sources and modern
biographers give very different descriptions of the same
events. They use interpretation, inference, and their own
biases to piece together events that happened long ago using
fragmentary evidence. They all believe what they are saying
and have varying degrees of accuracy. It is important to
remember that there is no definitive history of Alexander
the great, or most other subjects, because one cannot be
sure of the evidence. It is also important to be skeptical
about everything that one reads because there is always more
than one way of looking at things. One has to go beneath the
surface to uncover biases and agendas.
56