Alexander the Great: The Death of Cleitus

Raymond SolgaDecember 7, 2009

2

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