Lecture 1: Alexander the Great: his career and achievements. Extra Materials: Contact details and Bibliography.
Lecture 2: Alexander's motives: propaganda, mythology, wanderlust and logistics.
      Extra Materials: The Alexander Sources and Lecture 2 Bibliography.
      Extra Materials: Sources for Alexander: an interactive diagram.
Tutorial: Course structure and requirements. General discussion.
Week 1's Tutorial time will be used for a discussion of the nature and requirements of the Unit.

    For each succeeding week, you will find a number of questions on the document(s) set, and an overall interpretative question. All of these ought to be prepared for the weekly Tutorial. When you decide to hand in a short paper based on a particular week's topic, you should write on the overall interpretative question, using the individual questions as a guide as to what ought to be discussed.

Week 2, beginning Monday August 6th.

Lecture 3: Three major interpretations of Alexander. Extra Materials
Lecture 4: Alexander the God?    Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 3 and Arrian I.11 (compare briefly Arrian 7.8-9). Why did Alexander set out to invade Persian territory?

1. What information does Arrian give us about his methods as an historian in the first few sentences of his account of Alexander? (Use the Penguin translation: this brief passage is not in Austin.) What light does this throw on the questions below?
2. How consistent are the figures in the various sources for the numbers in the army at the time of the original invasion? How might we explain the level of inconsistency?
3. What information does Arrian give us about the time of year the invasion began? (You may want to read around the set passage a little.)
4. How credible is the incident reported by Diodorus about Alexander being the first to come ashore on Persian-held territory, and claiming it as a "spear-won prize"?
5. What can we tell about Alexander's financial position at the time of the invasion? Compare Plutarch in Austin doc. 3(a), Quintus Curtius 10.2.24 (not in Austin: use the Penguin or Loeb edition) and Arrian 7.8-9.
6. Does Alexander's giving away of large amounts of "crown property" (Austin Doc. 3) fit into this picture? Why is Alexander doing this?
7. Particularly given that Alexander had already realised the proceeds of the selling of the 30,000 Thebans (440 talents according to Diodorus 17.14 = Austin Doc. 2b), how can we explain his financial situation at this point?
8. Likewise, given his financial situation, how can we explain the timing of the invasion?
9. Supplementary Question: What can we tell from Diodorus 17.7 and Polyaenus 5.44.5 about the strategic situation on the eve of the invasion? To what extent does this change our assessment of Alexander's aims?

Week 3, beginning Monday August 13th.

Lecture 5: Alexander's Death, his Will and "Last Plans". Extra Materials.
Lecture 6: The succession crisis and the Diadochoi. Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin Docs. 2, 4 and 5.

1. Thebes, Austin doc. 2 (a) and (b), cf. Arrian 1.9. Plutarch's account clearly implies that Alexander was personally responsible for the destruction of Thebes, whereas Diodorus explicitly states that this decision was made by an official meeting of Greek delegates (though he does not say how they were called together or how representative a group they were). Can these differing versions be reconciled? If so, how? If not, which seems more plausible to you, and why?
2. Aspendus, Arrian 1.26-27; note the two stages of Alexander's dealings with this town. What parallels can be drawn between Alexander's treatment of Thebes and Aspendus? (Note that the Apendus incident, though placed here for thematic reasons, actually comes after the dealings with Sardis, Ephesus and Chios.)
3. Sardis and Ephesus, Austin doc. 4.
1. Note Alexander's treatment of Mithrenes, the Persian governor of Sardis: Arrian 3.16 tells us he was later made governor of Armenia. Why is he so well treated?
2. What is the significance of Alexander granting the people of Sardis "their ancestral laws" and their freedom?
3. At Ephesus, it should be noted that there had been several changes of government. Ephesus had staged a democratic revolution at the approach of Philip's advance force under Parmenio; at a later stage a pro-Persian oligarchy had staged a counter-coup and conducted purges. Alexander now re-instates the democracy. Why a democracy?
4. What is the significance of Alexander diverting the tribute Ephesus used to pay to the Persians to the goddess Artemis? What was his normal practice?
5. Why does Alexander cut short the violence of his reinstated democracy against the pro-Persian oligarchs? Arrian claims this action "brought him as much credit as anything else he did". Why? With whom?
4. Chios, Austin doc. 5. Note that Austin's introductory comments tell a story of coup and counter-coup similar to that at Ephesus.
1. See Arrian 2.2: why does Alexander ask for a small naval force as part of this agreement?
2. Can you tell precisely who is allowed to come back from exile?
3. See Arrian 3.3: what really happened to the Chian oligarchs?

Week 4, beginning Monday August 20th.

Lecture 7: The rise of Monarchy. Extra Materials.
Lecture 8: Monarchy and Religion: the ruler cult. Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 11: the Persian habit of prostration (proskynesis).

1. Note that there are two different accounts of the introduction of proskynesis in the passage of Arrian set for today. Can we treat them as two events in a sequence of attempts by Alexander? If so, in what order? If not, which is likely to be the more reliable account?
2. Dealing with "account 1", the first and longer account in Arrian,
1. what can we deduce about the sources of this account from Arrian's introduction?
2. what is the issue over proskynesis, according to Arrian's contextualising of the story?
3. who was "in" on the plot to introduce the practice?
4. what are the reasons given, in Anaxarchus' speech, for introducing the practice? Are they the reasons one might have expected?
5. what are Callisthenes' objections? Do they seem to fit the context?
6. what questions are raised by the fact that all the details to do with deification in this account are reported as speeches?
7. why did Alexander decide to abandon the attempt to introduce the practice?
3. Now, dealing with the shorter "second account" in Arrian:
1. what do we know about the sources of this account (cf. Plutarch, Life of Alexander 54)?
2. what, aside from its brevity, is the main difference of emphasis from the first account?
3. Does it seem likely that this account describes Alexander's "second attempt" to introduce proskynesis? Does anything suggest that the two accounts might instead be out of chronological order, or varying retellings of the one underlying event?
4. How can we decide between a "maximalist" interpretation of these stories, which makes them an attempt to deify Alexander, and a "minimalist" interpretation, which makes them merely an attempt to "level out" the status of the different ethnic groups in Alexander's court?

Week 5, beginning Monday August 27th.

Lecture 9: The new institutions of the Hellenistic kings and the decline of democracy.  Extra Materials.
Lecture 10: The Seleucid Kings. Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin Doc. 14, Arrian 7.4.4-5: The Marriages at Susa.

1. The elite marriages. What were Alexander's intentions here, and how did the officers in question respond? N.B. for more, and very colourful information, see Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, 538b.
1. Why might Persian wedding ceremonial have been used?
2. "More than any action of Alexander this seemed to show a popular and comradely spirit." Who might have thought so, about what specifically, and why? Compare Arrian 7.6, where the grudges of some are detailed.
3. How is it that, though the army had only recently arrived in Susa, each man then took his new wife back "to his own home"?
2. The "marriages" of the common Macedonian soldiers
1. We might well have guessed that soldiers would pick up "girlfriends" along the march, but it is worth noting that a large "camp", including complete families as well as "service industries", followed the army through even some of its toughest marches. See Arrian 6.26, Quintus Curtius 8.4.
2. Why might Alexander have used this opportunity to "formalise" the "marriages" of these men?
3. The debts of the army.
1. How can we explain the unwillingness of the soldiers to come forward? Is there a breakdown of trust in Alexander? If so, why?
2. Note Arrian's editorial comments about Alexander's reaction, and compare his comments on the reliability of Ptolemy's history in Arrian 1.1. Why does Arrian take this to be such a matter of principle?
3. Note the total figure given here: 20,000 talents! Quintus Curtius 10.2.9-11 and Plutarch, Life of Alexander 70 both give a total of 9870 talents. In either case, this is a huge sum of money. Can you find any clues as to how many soldiers are involved, so as to estimate the average level of indebtedness?
4. To whom might the soldiers have been in debt?
5. How can we explain these extraordinary figures?
6. Why does Alexander pay these debts?
4. Note that this section of Arrian's narrative ends with special gifts and honours for those who had given notable service on the Indian campaign. Is there a common theme across these four differing incidents? If so, what do you think it is?

Week 6, beginning Monday September 3rd.

Lecture 11: The Ptolemies. Extra Materials.
Lecture 12: The Antigonids. Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 15, Arrian 7.12: The mutiny and banquet at Opis.

(For interest, compare Plutarch, Life of Alexander 71, and / or Diodorus 17.109 and / or Quintus Curtius 10.2.12ff.)

1. Note first of all that the Opis demobilisation is closely linked, both chronologically and logically, with the arrival of the 30,000 "Epigonoi". We do not know the precise time-frame, but Arrian gives the impression that only a few weeks or at the most a month separated the events. From Susa, where the marriages had been celebrated and the debts of the army paid, after the arrival of the Epigonoi, Alexander takes his river-cruise to the Persian gulf, and then the whole army marches to Opis.
2. The Mutiny and its immediate consequences.
1. Who were actually discharged from service at Opis? What were the conditions of discharge?
2. What does Arrian list as the main causes of discontent? (You might like to compare Arrian 4:13-14.)
3. How do the Macedonians respond to Alexander's demobilisation? How does Alexander react to this? Do you think he was expecting such a reaction from the troops?
4. By what stages does Alexander put pressure on the "mutineers"? At what point do you think his apparent fury before the troops gives way to cool manipulation?
5. What, in your view, was the emotional root of the Macedonian unrest? How does Alexander manage to defuse it? How successfully does he defuse it?
3. The Banquet: you might like to look over your notes from Lecture 3.
1. Who was invited? Who sat where? Who sat with Alexander?
2. Who drank from Alexander's cup?
3. What are we to make of the wording of Alexander's prayer?
4. What is Alexander's intention in holding the banquet?
4. The Aftermath: for this read Arrian 7.12, which follows immediately after the extract in Austin.
1. What happens about the original demobilisation, which caused the mutiny in the first place?

Week 7, beginning Monday September 10th.

Lecture 13: The Hellenistic Polis (1).    Extra Materials.
Lecture 14: The Hellenistic Polis (2).    Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Documents on Kingship (Athenaeus 6.253 (provided), and Austin Doc. 56(a) and 199).

Note that we have for this week three very different documents to do with the ideology of Hellenistic monarchy: the account from Athenaeus of the arrival of Demetrius Poliorcetes in Athens, and the hymn sung to him there; a description of Cleomenes of Sparta and his "royal style" (Austin doc. 56a), and an obituary to Attalus I of Pergamon (Austin doc. 199).

1. Demetrius Poliorcetes (see below)
1. In the same way that Arrian's editorialising "framed" his account of the attempted introduction of proskynesis, interpreting it as deification, Athenaeus "frames" his discussion of Demetrius and the Athenians. What is the theme under which he discusses the incident? How reasonable is his understanding?
2. The incidents mentioned occurred in 291/0. Demetrius was first given divine honours in Athens in 307, when he threw out Cassander's puppet, Demetrius of Phaleron (Plutarch, Life 8-12); he returned a year or two later and spent the winter in the Parthenon at the invitation of the Athenian people (Plutarch, Life 23-27), besieged the city in 294 (Plutarch, Life 33-4), received the honours above in 291/0, and was back again as an aggressor in 287. Cf. Plutarch, Life, 46. It is particular political considerations that determine the reaction in each case.
3. What particular standard forms of cult honours are mentioned here? What features most amaze the author? What, according to the author, most amazed Demetrius himself? What aspects seem to you to be most indicative of a changed attitude to great men?
4. What appears to be the point of the comparison of Demetrius with Demeter in the Hymn itself? We know how Demetrius came to be in Athens: how did Demeter "come to be there"? What does this suggest about the parade in the second extract quoted by Athenaeus?
5. In general: how do we understand the instances of ruler-cult described here? Is Athenaeus correct that they are essentially outrageous flattery? If this is not a sufficient explanation, what is?
2. Cleomenes of Sparta (Austin doc. 56a)
1. Why is Plutarch agreeably impressed with Cleomenes' lifestyle? With whom does he contrast Cleomenes?
2. What aspects of Cleomenes' behaviour appeal to him most?
3. What is the point of Plutarch's comment on the "hunt for men" engaged in by many kings?
3. Attalus I of Pergamon (Austin doc. 199)
1. What was it about Attalus' use of his wealth that most impresses Polybius?
2. What qualities of kingship does Polybius most admire in Attalus? Why are these selected as the qualities of a "good king"?

Even the Athenian populace became notorious for flattery. At any rate, Demochares, a relative of Demosthenes the orator, tells a story in the twentieth book of his Histories of the flattering conduct of the Athenians towards Demetrius Poliorcetes, and says that it was not to his liking. He writes as follows:

"Some of these things, it is plain, annoyed him, but other acts were downright disgraceful and humiliating, such as temples to Aphrodite Leaena and Aphrodite Lamia, and also altars, shrines and libations to Burichus, Adeimantus and Oxythemis, parasites¹ of his. Paeans were chanted to every one of the above, so that even Demetrius himself was amazed at these actions, and declared that not a single Athenian of his time had shown himself to be great and fine of soul."

The Thebans also, in their adulation of Demetrius, founded a temple of Aphrodite Lamia, as Polemon says in his work On the Painted Porch in Sicyon. Lamia was a mistress of Demetrius, as was Leaena. What is there, then, surprising in what the Athenians, flatterers among flatterers, did in composing paeans and processional hymns in honour of Demetrius himself? Demochares, at any rate, writing in his twenty-first book, says:

"When Demetrius returned from Leucas and Corcyra to Athens, not only did the Athenians welcome him with offerings of incense and crowns and libations, but processional hymns as well; mummers with the elevated phallus met him with dancing and song; and as they took their places in the crowds they sang and danced, repeating the refrain that he (Demetrius) was the only true god, while all the others were asleep or making a journey or non-existent; he, however, was sprung from Poseidon and Aphrodite, pre-eminent in beauty and embracing all within his benevolence."

They begged and entreated him, Demochares says, and offered prayers to him. This is the amazing account of Athenian flattery that Demochares has given. And Duris of Samos cites the mummers' song itself in the twenty-second book of his Histories:

"For the highest and dearest of the gods have come to our city. Here the time has brought together Demeter and Demetrius. She comes to celebrate the solemn mysteries of the daughter, but he, as is appropriate for a god, is here in gladness, fair and smiling. Majestic he appears, surrounded by his friends, he himself in the centre like the sun among the stars. O son of the most mighty god Poseidon and of Aphrodite, greetings! For other gods are either far away, or have no ears, or do not exist, or ignore our prayers; but we can see your very presence, not in wood or stone, but in truth. And so we pray to you. First bring peace, beloved, for you have the power. I cannot fight the Sphinx, who crushes not merely Thebes but the whole of Greece, the Aetolian who sits upon the cliff like the ancient Sphinx, and snatches up and carries off all our men. For it is the Aetolian way to carry off their neighbours' property, and now even more distant things. The best would be for you to punish him yourself; but if not, find some Oedipus either to cast him down or turn him to stone."

This was the song sung by the victors of Marathon, not merely in public, but even in their homes - the very people who had put to death one who bowed down to the King of Persia, the heroes who had slaughtered countless tens of thousands of barbarians! Alexis, at least, in his The Apothecary, or Crateias, puts on the stage a character drinking the health of one of his companions in the symposium, and represents him as saying the following:

"Slave! Hand me the large beaker, but first ladle into it four measures for my companions here, in the name of friendship; I'll give three as an offering to the Saviour gods. One for King Antigonus' victory - happy omen! - one for the sturdy lad Demetrius … Bring the third for Aphrodite Phila. Greetings, fellow drinkers; how full of blessings is the cup from which I'll drink!"

This is what the Athenians had become at that time, when Flattery, like a ravening beast, had injected its madness into the city …

Back to main text.

Week 8, beginning Monday October 1st.

Lecture 15: Hellenistic Art.    Extra Materials.
                                            Visuals from Lecture (opens in a new window).
Lecture 16: Hellenistic Philosophy and Political Protest.   Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 124,125, 126: Health and miraculous cures.

The spectrum of medical services in antiquity extended all the way from "tertiary-trained" professional doctors, through local "wise men / women", herbal medicine (which, of course, the "professionals" used too) "faith-healing" to sheer magic. In these three documents we have the opposite ends of the spectrum in modern scientific terms, though in social prestige, the doctors commemorated here and the shrine of Asclepius were both at the top of the scale.

If you wish to read further in this area, see, on ancient technical medicine, G. Majno, The Healing Hand: Man and Wound in the Ancient World (Harvard, 1975), E.D. Phillips, Greek Medicine (London, 1973), R. Jackson, Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire, (London, 1988) and S.M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos, (Gottingen, 1978). On the cult of Asclepius see L. & N. Edelstein, Asclepius: a Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Baltimore, 1945, and H.C. Kee, "Self Definition in the Asclepius Cult", in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, ed. E.P. Sanders, (London, 1980).

1. Austin Doc. 124: An Honorary Inscription for a doctor leaving service.
1. Who, where, what for? Who is setting up this inscription? In honour of whom? Where is it being set up? What actions are being commemorated? Why are the cities of Gortyn and Cnossus (as well as Cos) involved?
2. What can we tell from this inscription about the basis and terms on which doctors were being hired by cities in this period? Is this doctor being particularly honoured, or is the commendation here "standard"?
3. Compare Doc. 99, where it appears a special tax supports a "town doctor". Would this seem likely to pay wages, a retainer fee, or what?
2. Austin Doc. 125:
1. In this document it is reported that the doctor in question "distributed his services equally to all". Does this impress you as being typical, or exceptional?
2. Like the doctor in Doc. 124, his services to non-citizens are particularly noted. Are there any special circumstances here that might explain this case?
3. What is the significance (direct and indirect) of the fact that the doctor sometimes treats patients "from his own means"?
3. Austin Doc. 126:
1. Read through the documents. What is a historian meant to do with documents (such as these) which from a modern scientific point of view range from the potentially explicable to the utterly bizarre? Is it legitimate to simply write this kind of material off as "superstitious nonsense", or would you have a bad (historical) conscience doing so? How should an historian deal with evidence which radically contradicts his or her own world-view?
2. The documents come from the Temple of the healer-god Asclepius. The normal practice at the temple was to undergo preliminary purification ceremonies, and then sleep the night in the temple itself. The god would reveal the requirements for a cure in a dream, or, in some cases, effect a cure directly. Does this throw any light on any particular cases?
3. What do we know about who wrote these documents, who set them up, and where they were on display? What was the purpose of their location likely to be?
4. Can you find "reasonable" explanations for any of these stories? What do you think about the ones you cannot explain?

Week 9, beginning Monday October 8th.

Lecture 17: The Hellenisation Process (1).    Extra Materials.
Lecture 18: The Hellenisation Process (2).    Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 162, 163: Antiochus IV "Epiphanes".

1. Doc. 162.
1. Once again, the questions are: Who, where, what for? Who is setting up this inscription? In honour of whom? Where is it being set up? What actions are being commemorated? (Make sure you read Austin's introduction, or, for more detail, O. Mørckholm's Antiochus IV of Syria, catalogued under Moerkholm.)
2. In what ways did the Attalids assist Antiochus? What were their likely motives? What do we learn about perceptions and ideologies of Kingship?
3. How do we understand the multiplication of reasons to praise the royal persons in question in the latter part of the inscription?
2. Doc. 163
1. Polybius
1. What was it that people found puzzling or offensive about Antiochus' behaviour, according to Polybius? Once again, what do we learn about perceptions and ideologies of Kingship? (Note that the term translated "embarrassment" by Austin in the fifth-last line might better be translated "bafflement".)
2. Can you detect a pattern or patterns in Antiochus' behaviour which might explain his apparent eccentricity?
3. You might like to turn to a copy of Polybius and read a page or two further for more examples of Antiochus' behaviour.
2. Livy
1. What, Livy's view, are the marks of "a truly royal spirit"? How was this expressed in the case of Antiochus IV?
2. In what areas were Antiochus' actions traditional, and in what areas innovative? Once again, can a pattern be detected?

Week 10, beginning Monday October 15th.

Lecture 19: Anti-Hellenic Reaction in Egypt.       Extra Materials.
Lecture 20: Anti-Hellenic Reaction in Palestine.   Extra Materials. Map.
Tutorial: Hellenistic Judaism and Reaction (Documents provided below).

1. Excerpts from 1 Maccabees 1.10-57.
1. Who might the "set of renegades" mentioned in the first paragraph be? The most important clues are in what they were able to do.
2. According to the author, what was the cause of the "renegades'" dissatisfaction?
3. The third paragraph claims that Antiochus' action against the Jews was part of a wider campaign for what we might call "cultural uniformity". There is no other evidence to suggest this, and it's probably best to see this as exaggeration by the author. As far as we know, only the Jews and Samaritans were asked to alter their customs.
4. What precisely did Antiochus ban? (Give details.) With what did he replace it? What were the punishments?
5. The "Appalling Horror" (often translated more literally, "The Abomination of Desolation") is also mentioned in the Biblical book of Daniel, 8.13; cf. also 7.24ff., and the image is re-used in another context by Jesus in the Gospels. It was, in its original context, an altar to Zeus Olympios set up in place of the altar of burnt offerings to the God of Israel, in the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Josephus, A.J. 12.253, a pig was sacrificed on it.
6. Can you find any clues as to what proportion of the population might have been actively involved in the "reforms", first, at the early stage (para. 1), and secondly, in the enforcing of the King's decree (para. 3)? What proportion of the population might have "gone along with" the reform? What proportion might have been actively involved in resistance? (Try hard to separate out the rhetoric of the author from the clues about details.)
2. 2 Maccabees chapter 6.
1. Note that "an old man" from Athens might equally well be translated "an Athenian elder" or "a man named Geron, from Athens".
2. Once again, attempt to separate out concrete details from the powerful rhetoric of the author. What does this passage add to the information of the previous passage about the details of the religious reforms instituted by Antiochus?
3. Is there any evidence to suggest that ruler-cult was a prominent feature of the reform?
4. How geographically widespread was the reform?
5. In the second paragraph the author gives us a detailed "editorial comment" on the narrative. How does he interpret the events for his readers? What is he trying to suggest, and why?
6. How do you respond to the "martyrdom story" of Eleazar? How might we decide to what extent this vivid report is really historical, and to what extent a "typical" martyrdom story, formulated out of standard elements? For those particularly interested, compare this story with the "Martyrdom of Polycarp", an early Christian leader c. 110-155 A.D. It can be found in the Penguin translation, Early Christian Writings, trans. M. Staniforth, and in a number of other translations in the Library. What features do these two narratives have in common? What do you make of the similarities?

Antiochus Epiphanes … became king in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. It was then that there emerged from Israel a set of renegades who led many people astray. "Come", they said, "let us reach an understanding with the nations surrounding us, for since we separated ourselves from them many misfortunes have overtaken us." This proposal proved acceptable, and a number of the people eagerly approached the king, who authorised them to practise the foreign observances. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, such as the nations have, disguised their circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant, joining themselves to the Gentiles as willing slaves of impiety.

… After his conquest of Egypt, in the year one hundred and forty-three (of the Seleucid era), Antiochus returned and marched with a strong force against Israel and Jerusalem. In his arrogance he entered the Sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lamp-stand with all its fittings, the table for the Bread of the Presence, the vessels for drink-offerings, the golden censers, the curtain and the crowns. He also stripped all the gold plating from the Temple facade. He took the silver, the gold and the precious vessels, and found the hidden treasures as well, and took everything with him when he returned to his own country. He had caused much destruction, and spoke arrogantly about it all …

… Then the king issued a decree to his entire kingdom: all were to become a single people, each abandoning their own customs. All the nations conformed to the King's decree, and many Israelites accepted the foreign form of worship, sacrificing to idols and profaning the Sabbath. The king also sent messengers with written orders to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah directing them to adopt customs foreign to the land. He ordered the banning of whole burnt offerings, sacrifices and drink-offerings from the Temple, the profaning Sabbaths and Feast-days, and the defiling of the Temple and its ministers. He ordered the setting up of altars, idols and sacred precincts, and the sacrificing of pigs and other unclean animals. People were to leave their sons uncircumcised, and prostitute themselves to all kinds of impurity and abomination, so that they would forget the Law and the observances. Anyone who did not obey was to be put to death …

… On the fifteenth of Kislev, 145, the king had the Appalling Horror set up on the altar. Altars were also built in towns all around Judah, and incense was offered at the doors of houses and in the streets. If any scrolls of the Law were found they were torn up and burned. If anyone was found to have a copy of the book of the Covenant, or to be practising the Law, they were sentenced to death by the terms of the decree. Month by month these wicked men (Israelite collaborators) acted against any who broke the terms of the decree in their towns. On the twenty-fifth of the month they offered sacrifices on the altar which had been erected over the altar of whole burnt offerings. Women who had had their children circumcised were put to death under the terms of the royal decree, with their babies hung around their necks. Their families and those who circumcised the babies were executed at the same time. Yet their were many in Israel who stood firm, and took a stand against eating unclean food. They chose to die rather than to defile themselves and profane the Covenant, and they were killed. A time of great wrath came upon Israel.

2 Maccabees, Ch. 6.

Shortly afterwards, the king sent an old man from Athens to compel the Jews to forsake the customs of their ancestors and to live no longer by the laws of God, and to profane the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and the temple on Mt. Gerizim to Zeus the Friend of Strangers, as the inhabitants had requested. The imposition of this evil was oppressive and altogether intolerable. The Temple was filled with debauchery and revelling by the foreigners, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, introducing other indecencies besides. The altar was loaded with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws. People could neither keep the Sabbath nor observe the traditional feasts, nor even confess themselves to be Jews. At the monthly celebration of the King's birthday people were driven by harsh compulsion to partake of the sacrifices, and when a festival of Dionysus was celebrated, they were forced to wear ivy wreaths and walk in the Dionysiac procession. At the suggestion of the people of Ptolemais a decree was issued to the neighbouring Greek cities, enforcing the same conduct on the Jews there, obliging them to share in the sacrificial meals, and ordering the execution of those who did not choose to conform to Greek customs. The disaster that had come upon them was obvious. For example, two women were brought in for having circumcised their children. They were publicly paraded around the town, with their babies hung at their breasts, and then hurled down from the top of the city wall. Others who had assembled in the caves to keep the seventh day without attracting attention were betrayed to Philip and all burned together, because their consciences would not permit them to defend themselves, out of respect for the holiness of the day.

Now I urge anyone who may read this book not to be depressed by these calamities, but to recognise that these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our nation. Indeed, it is a sign of great benevolence when evil-doers are not left for long to their own devices, but are punished immediately. In the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently until they have reached the full measure of their sins before he punishes them. But he does not deal this way with us, so as not to have to punish us later, when our sins have come to a head. He never completely withdraws his mercy from us. Although he may discipline us with disasters, he does not desert his own people. Let this be said as a reminder; we must go back to our story without more ado.

Eleazar, one of the foremost teachers of the Law, a man already advanced in years and of most noble appearance, was being forced to open his mouth to eat pig's flesh. But he, welcoming death with honour rather than living with pollution, went to his death of his own accord, spitting the meat out, as anyone who has the courage to reject what it is not lawful to taste ought to do, even despite a natural love of life.

Those who were in charge of the unlawful sacrifice took the man aside because of their long-standing friendship with him, and urged him to bring meat for himself, of a kind he could eat, and only pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal that had been commanded by the king. This way he would be saved from death, by taking advantage of an act of kindness prompted by his long-standing friendship with them. But making a noble decision worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age, and the well-earned distinction of his grey hairs, and his impeccable conduct from boyhood, and above all, according to the holy Law given by God himself, he publicly stated his convictions, telling them to send him to Hades.

"Such pretence is not worthy of our time of life," he said, "for many young people might suppose that Eleazar at the age of ninety had gone over to an alien way, and through my pretence, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they would be led astray because of me; I would only bring defilement and disgrace on my old age. Even if, for the moment, I avoid the punishment by mortals, living or dead I can never escape the hands of the Almighty. Therefore, by bravely giving up my life now I shall prove myself worthy of my old age, and leave the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws."

With these words he went straight to the place of execution. His escorts, so recently well disposed towards him, turned against him after what he had said, which they regarded as sheer madness. Just as he was dying under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: "It is clear to the Lord in His holy knowledge that though I might have escaped death, whatever terrible sufferings I am enduring under this beating, in my soul I am glad to suffer, because I fear him." In this way he died, leaving his death as an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only for the young, but for the great body of his nation.

Week 11, beginning Monday October 22nd.

Lecture 21: Rome and the Greek States (1).    Extra Materials.
Lecture 22: Rome and the Greek States (2).    Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Austin 68, extracts from Polybius 18.44-46: Flamininus and the "Freedom of the Greeks".

The general issue for today is to try to understand the aims of Roman policy in Greece, particularly in their settlement of the Second Macedonian War against Philip V. Note that the passage from Polybius describes two quite different sets of events: (a) the arrival of the Roman commission to actually make a settlement, and its publication, and (b) the (very) public announcement of the actual withdrawal of Roman forces.

1. Dealing, first of all, with the treaty:
1. From whom were the Greeks in "Europe" declared to be free? What about the Greeks of "Asia"? N.B. the significance of "their own laws". Cf. Austin Doc. 4, from Week 3.
2. What kinds of places are to be handed over to the Romans?
3. What "strategic arms limitations" are imposed on Philip?
4. What is the point about the handing over of deserters?
5. How serious is the indemnity?
6. What is the significance of these provisions for Macedonia? for the rest of Greece?
7. Why the very positive reaction, given the possible truth of what the Aetolians are saying? Why are the Aetolians so extraordinarily negative?
8. What will Antiochus III think about the treaty?
2. The second section of the extract deals with the full public announcement of Roman withdrawal, made, dramatically, at a great Pan-Hellenic festival at Isthmia.
1. The reaction, as you can read, is overwhelming. Why? What is announced here that had not been said already above?
2. Locate as many of the places which are being left independent here as you can. How serious is the loss of territory for Macedon?
3. Are there any limits on the "freedoms" announced here? See, for an example, the rest of Polybius 18.45.
4. What, as far as we can see, might be Rome's intentions in this very generous settlement? Is their motive war weariness? Genuine altruism (as Polybius clearly believes) or philhellenism? Or is this a strategy of "Divide and conquer"? Are they simply remove all major threats to their own position? i.e. both Macedon and Antiochus? Is this a propaganda victory making lots of friends and thus balancing the greater powers further away? i.e. a friendly buffer zone? Or what?
5. How might we explain Polybius' totally positive reaction to the Roman settlement, given that scholars are seriously divided about Rome's intentions?

Week 12, beginning Monday October 29th.

Lecture 23: Rome and the Greek states (3).    Extra Materials.
Lecture 24: Judaism, Hellenistic and other.     Extra Materials.
Tutorial: Egyptian nationalism: The "Potter's Oracle" (provided below).

This extraordinary document, probably dating (in this form) from the 130's B.C., claims that it originated more than a thousand years earlier. It presents itself as the prophecies of an otherwise unknown potter of the high New Kingdom period, as to what will happen in Egypt "in the far future". In fact this is a literary fiction: it was clearly written under the Ptolemies, and has been through several versions. Part of its "predictions" are therefore fraudulent retellings of recent history to simulate prophecy; part of it, however, is clearly genuinely predictive. All of it is written in strange and (to our minds) extravagant imagery, almost a kind of code. The work has many similarities to Jewish "apocalyptic" writings.

1. The overall question here is simply: to whom is this document written, and what is its message to them? To answer it, however, we need to understand the document itself better.
2. What would be the significance of "the river will flow without enough water", in the first lines, to an Egyptian?
3. "the Typhonians" mentioned throughout this document, apparently identical with "the Girdle-wearers", seem to be named after Typhon, the Greek primeval chaos-monster usually identified with the Egyptian god Seth (or Soutek). Seth was a destructive god, often personifying the random violence of the forces of nature. What can you find out about "the Typhonians", purely from this document?
4. Note how the human-level violence and disorder described in the document is mirrored at the cosmic level. Compare the Shakespearian idea of a "great chain of being", such that events at the human level and events at "higher levels" all reflect one another.
1. what human level and social level disorder is going on?
2. how is the climate "going wrong"?
3. what cosmological changes are taking place?
4. how does the writer link these different changes?
5. What general social picture might these vivid if obscure references be describing? In other words, what is this "about"?
6. The "tale of two cities" in this document appears to contrast "the city that will be built" or "the city by the sea" (clearly Alexandria) with "the (native) city", which is later specified as Memphis. What will happen to these two cities?
7. What seems to be the point of "not a few of those dwelling in Egypt … abandon(ing) their own land and go(ing) to a foreign place"?
8. Who might "he who will be hateful to all men", who comes "out of Syria" be? To put the question more broadly, what might be the origin of this image? What does the description of the idealised native king who follows suggest?
9. How literally ought we to take the apparent hope for a resurrection of the dead in the final paragraphs?
10. Various Egyptian and Greek gods are obscurely identified in the document. "Hephaistos" means Ptah, and the "he" a sentence or two later is probably Ptah as well. "Agathos Daimon" (literally, "the Good Spirit") is the "spirit of Alexandria". According to Pseudo-Callisthenes 32.10-13, when Alexander was examining the site of the future Alexandria, a great snake appeared, and was killed, and Alexander set up a Hero Shrine to it, as "Agathos Daimon". Apparently there were harmless small snakes in the district that lived in peoples' homes, which were remembered as incarnations of that Agathos Daimon, and offered food on the city's birthday. The point of this obscure reference is therefore that even the city's own patron Spirit will leave and go to Memphis.
11. The sentence, "This city, in which every race of men dwelt, was all-nourishing", appears to be a deliberate reference to the tradition recorded in Plutarch, Life of Alexander 26. Here Alexander marks out the outline of the city using barley meal, and, when it is eaten by birds from the nearby marshes, takes this as a bad omen until Aristander (his favourite seer) reinterprets it. The author of the Oracle apparently knows this tradition. What use does he make of it?
12. How much more sense does the document make now? What is your best guess as to its intended audience, and its message to them?

… and lawless. The river will flow without enough water, with insufficient, so that the land … will be inflamed, but against nature. For in the time of the Typhonians they will say: "Wretched Egypt, you are wronged by terrible iniquities wrought against you." The sun will be darkened, not wishing to look upon the evil things in Egypt. The land will not welcome the sowing of the seed. These … will be blasted by the wind. And the farmer did not sow on account of this, but tribute will be required of him. They are fighting in Egypt because of the lack of nourishment. What they till, another reaps and takes away.

In this generation there will be war and murder which will destroy brothers, and husbands and wives. For these things will come to pass when the great god Hephaistos wishes to return to the city, and the Girdle-wearers, being Typhonians, will destroy themselves … evil will be wrought. He will go on foot to the sea in wrath, and will trample on many of them because of their impiety. And out of Syria will come he who will be hateful to all men, and … being … he will come from Ethiopia … and from the realms of the impious into Egypt and he will be established in the city which will later be laid waste.

And for two years our … well … The month of Amon and he said well. Their children will be defeated. And the land will be unsettled and not a few of those dwelling in Egypt will abandon their own land and go to a foreign place. Friends will murder friends. There will be weeping and their ills will be worse than those of the others. And men will perish at each others hands. Two of their number will pass on to the same place(?) because of the one help. Much death will fall upon pregnant women.

The Girdle-wearers being Typhonians are destroying … And then Agathos Daimon will abandon the city being established and will enter Memphis, and the foreign city which will be built will be emptied. And these things will take place at the conclusion of the evils when the falling of the leaves occurs in the Egypt of the foreigners. The city of the Girdle-wearers will be laid waste as in my furnace, because of the unlawful deeds which they executed in Egypt.

The statues transferred there will return to Egypt. The city by the sea will become a drying place for fishermen because Agathos Daimon and Knephis will have gone to Memphis, so that some who pass through will say: "This city, in which every race of men dwelt, was all-nourishing."

And then Egypt will increase, when for fifty-five years he who is well disposed, the king the dispenser of good, born of the Sun, established by the great goddess Isis, is at hand, so that those surviving will pray for the resurrection of those who died before, in order that they might share in the good things. At the end of these things trees will bear leaves and the forsaken Nile will be filled with water, and the winter having been stripped of its natural dress, will run its own cycle. And then the summer will take its own course, and the winds shall be well-ordered and gently diminished.

For in the time of the Typhonians the sun was darkened, having shone forth on evil customs and having exhibited the poverty of the Girdle-wearers. And Egypt …

Week 13, beginning Monday November 5th.

Lecture 25: Hellenistic Religion.    Extra Materials.
Lecture 26: Unit Summary.
Tutorial: Austin Docs. 61, 161: Two Treaties.

The two treaties to be discussed this week for an interesting contrast. The first, the treaty between Philip V of Macedon and Hannibal, negotiated shortly after the third of Hannibal's great victories, at Cannae, is fairly clearly conceived as an agreement between respectful equals. The second, the Roman settlement after the Second Syrian War, is imposed by the victors after a crushing victory. There are further differences to note as well.

1. Austin Doc. 61: 215 B.C.
1. What features of this treaty appear "un-Greek"?
2. To what, precisely, does the treaty commit each side? What exceptions are made, and how significant are they?
3. What information does the wording of this treaty give us about Hannibal's aims in his war with Rome?
4. What appears to be the overall intention of the treaty?
5. It should be noted that by signing the Peace of Phoenice in 205, Philip effectively repudiated this treaty.
2. Austin Doc. 161: the Peace of Apamea, 188 B.C.
1. Note the completely different opening of this treaty, compared with the previous one.
2. What limitations are imposed on Antiochus and his forces by the treaty:
1. militarily?
2. territorially?
3. geographically?
4. financially?
3. Who appear to be the major beneficiaries of the settlement imposed by this treaty?
4. Why might the hostages specified in the treaty (clause 15) be "changed over" every three years?
5. What would the intentions of the Romans, in settling their war with Antiochus with this treaty, appear to be? To cripple his kingdom? To remove him from power? To take over his realm? or what?