THE DIVINE HISTORY OF JESUS CHRIST

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CLEOPATRA, QUEEN OF EGYPT

ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN EGYPT

The condition of Egypt under the Persian dominion has been described in the previous volume. So far as we know, the Egyptian people suffered more from sentimental than from material grievances under that rule. We do not hear that Alexander, when he set the land in order, remitted taxes, and yet his conquest was regarded by the natives as a great boon. The main difference seems to have been in his attitude to the Egyptian gods and their priests. Instead of ignoring this great element in Egyptian life, or insulting the feelings of religious Egypt, the new conqueror sacrificed to the local gods, and probably granted some charter or security for their property to the priests. His conquest was attended with no trouble. The Satrap of Egypt, Sabakes, who came with his contingent to support Darius at the battle of Issus, had fallen in the fight, and another Persian grandee, Mazakes, had succeeded to the satrapy either by the new appointment of the king, or, what is more probable, as the lieutenant of Sabakes, left in charge of the country.

The first attack upon this new governor’s authority had been made by Amyntas, son of Antiochus, a deserter from the Macedonian side, who had joined Darius at Issus, and who fled, with some others of his kind, with a remnant of 8000 mercenaries by way of Cyprus to Egypt. What was the policy or the intention of this person, beyond mere raiding, we cannot tell. Curtius says he was gladly received by the natives, as being opposed to the Persians, his recent patrons, and that accordingly he attacked the Persian garrison at Memphis, but was beaten off by Mazakes, and presently overpowered and slain with his accomplices by the natives, who soon found that plunder was his object. The story is not clear. What position can he have assumed against the Persians and also against the Macedonians, unless he pretended that he was fighting for the natives—an excuse which could only last a few weeks? And surely such a person could never hope to set up for himself an independent monarchy. Yet this is the view of Q. Curtius, who alone among our authorities gives us any details.

There was, no doubt, great uncertainty, and a great collapse was impending throughout all the Persian provinces. Had Alexander perchance died shortly after Issus, the whole Eastern world would have indeed been the prize of the boldest adventurers. But Curtius by himself is a poor authority. At all events, Mazakes, who was loyal and strong enough to repel and crush this wholly unauthorised raid upon his province, was not strong enough to offer any resistance to Alexander. The whole population was excited with the news of Issus, and ready to fall into the arms of the new deliverer. So Alexander, appearing at Pelusium (probably September 332 BC), entered Egypt without resistance, and ascended the river to Memphis. His march was a triumphal progress, for the inhabitants felt that he would free them not only from the hated Persian yoke, but from the more pressing danger of other raids like that of Amyntas, and from the piracy which must have been rampant during the great crisis of the last year’s campaign. Not only was Memphis surrendered by Mazakes, but with it 800 talents of treasure, a most welcome addition to the military chest of the victor, for the expenses of the campaign must have been great, and the profits (excepting the plunder of Tyre) not yet very large.

We are told by all our authorities that he forthwith offered sacrifices to the local gods, especially to Apis, and celebrated gymnastic and musical contests with the help of Hellenic artists, who were on the spot at the required moment. Some historians regard this coincidence as a proof that Alexander had foreseen his movements and their success, and had ordered these distinguished people to meet him at Memphis. I think it more likely that, like camp-followers, they watched campaigns, and found themselves in the vicinity of conquests, knowing that under no other circumstances would their profits be so great as when celebrating the glories of victorious armies. It was worth while sailing to Egypt, and having a little acting season at Naukratis, among their Greek friends, upon the chance of being summoned by the recklessly extravagant Macedonian youth to adorn his successes. The festival must have been chiefly intended for his soldiers, and for the various speculators, petitioners, and other adventurers who came from Greek lands. For it is not very likely that the natives would understand or appreciate Greek gymnastics, still less Greek music.

But from the outset, the policy which Alexander marked out for himself was to protect and promote Eastern nationalities, without abating aught from the primacy of the Greeks in culture. Hence his musical and gymnastic celebrations were a counterfoil to his sacrifices to Apis and to Ptah. The latter god is not indeed mentioned by our Greek authorities, but as his temple was the greatest feature of ancient Memphis, and his priests were the greatest corporation there, it was most probably in this metropolis of Greek religion that Alexander was formally crowned king of Egypt.

It is to be noted that when Alexandria had become the recognised capital of Egypt, the earlier Ptolemies did not trouble themselves with the sacred ceremony at Memphis. With Ptolemy V the solemn national enthronement was resumed, as the Rosetta stone tells us with the emphasis of reiteration.

There was also another great Egyptian god, served by a separate, and probably rival corporation of priests, who was better known to the Greeks, and whom Alexander desired to honour. This was Amon, whose shrine and city Thebes, in the upper country, had for centuries been the real metropolis of the whole land. Alexander must have thought it an important part of his policy to conciliate this great spiritual authority. But it does seem strange, at first sight, that he should not have ascended the river to Thebes, a very charming and instructive journey, showing him the greater part of his new possessions, at the goal of which he would see the wonders which attract travellers from all the world even to the present day. In the palmiest days of Memphis, its religious appointments were not equal to those of Thebes. Why then did Alexander select the long and difficult route to the oasis of Jupiter Ammon, to perform a ceremony which could have been more splendidly performed at Thebes?

There are several adequate reasons to explain this apparent waste of time in a very busy man, full of ambitious plans for the conquest of the East. In the first place, something may be due to the jealousy of the priests of Ptah at Memphis, whose old rivals were those of Amon at Thebes, and who might dread the effect which the splendour of Thebes would have upon Alexander, while the shrine of the god in the far oasis was in outward appearance and appointments insignificant. Secondly, while the splendours of Thebes were unknown to the Greeks, the reputation of the oracle in the desert was old and well established. From Pindar’s day onward, mention of it crops up occasionally in Greek history, showing that it was well known and honoured in the Hellenic world. Very probably it was through the comparative proximity of Cyrene, and the trade of this city with the desert, that it became thus known in the Levant.

But there were other than religious interests working in the minds of the Greeks of Egypt. Alexander had come into the land by its eastern gate, and if he left again by the same route, he might never see the western Delta, and so never become personally acquainted with the only purely Greek city in the land, the old mart of Naukratis. This consideration escaped the notice of historians, because they did not know the site of Naukratis, discovered by Mr. Petrie a very few years ago. As soon as Alexander spoke of founding a capital, the first alarm of the Greeks must have been that he should choose Memphis, or some site near it, at the head of the Delta. It was highly necessary to lure him away from too great an Egyptian centre. They may have hoped that he would select Naukratis itself, which he must have visited on his way to the Canopic mouth; but in any case they obtained this, that Alexandria was founded near it, and far from any great native city. The conqueror chose the strip of ground between Lake Mareotis and the sea, with the island Pharos over against it, so that this natural breakwater might afford means of making a good anchorage for ships.

Our best authorities agree that he planned this new and momentous foundation on his way to the oasis (which, by the way, he could more easily have reached across the desert), and perhaps immediately after he had been solicited by the Greeks of Naukratis to remember Hellenic interests in Egypt. I have already argued that there is no need for attributing special insight or prophetic genius to Alexander’s selection of the site. Any site along the coast, or near it, on one of the larger arms of the Nile, must have proved successful, if we give it the conditions supplied by the great conquests in the East, and then the wise and practical rule of the first Ptolemy and his successors. Wherever the mart was established for the meeting of the merchandise of the Mediterranean and the Nile, a vast concourse of people must inevitably take place.

We hear many accounts, more or less detailed, of the founding of this great city, but of these the most fabulous (that in the Romance) is apparently the most instructive, for the writer was personally intimate with the city, and records the traditions of the inhabitants. But they all presuppose the city to be so well known that they omit details which to our comprehension of it are vital. The only earlier attempt to fix the plan by excavations was made for Napoleon III. by Mahmoud Bey (1866). Dr. Botti’s map in this volume gives the results of his researches up to 1897. On one point we must lay peculiar stress, because most authors produce a false impression, that Alexandria was a city in which Jews and Greeks counted for everything, the natives for nothing. There is good evidence that the majority of the poorer classes was from the first Egyptian, and that to the end the city remained very different from other Hellenistic foundations. The native element, though at first thrust out from power and influence, gradually asserted itself, and the city that opposed Caesar was probably far more Egyptian than that which opposed Antiochus Epiphanes. This is not an extraordinary or exceptional course of events. The city of Dublin, for example, has been settled with Danes and English for many centuries, during which the whole control and government of the city lay in these foreign hands. Yet, though they imposed their laws, their language, and to some extent their religion, upon the native population, the English never made it an English city. The masses of the poor, long subjected to harsh control, nevertheless so influenced the settlers, that to this day Dublin has remained and will continue an Irish city, with the national characteristics strongly and clearly marked. Such was the case with Alexandria.

It is therefore not out of place in this book, which deals with the people of Egypt and their condition under the .Macedonian dynasty, to enter into some details regarding the origin of this great foreign mart in the north-west corner of the land. For this capital in its day became, like Paris in France, the normal controller of the fortunes of the whole country.

The first point which deserves special notice is the statement of Strabo, corroborated by the Romance, that the site, when Alexander found it, was not an open coast, only occupied by a fishing village. ‘‘The former kings of Egypt, content with home produce and not desirous of imports, and thus opposed to foreigners, especially to Greeks (for these were pillagers and covetous of foreign land, because of the scantiness of their own), established a military post at this spot, to keep off intruders, and gave to the soldiers as their habitation what was called Rakotis, which is now that part of Alexandria which lies above the dockyards, but was then a village. The country lying round about this spot they entrusted to herdsmen, who themselves also should be able to keep off strangers.”

Strabo’s statement commends itself to common sense. If Pharos, and the coast it protected from the heavy sea, were not occupied, it could hardly fail to become the favourite haunt of Greek pirates, as it was the nearest point of Egypt both to Cyrene and to Crete. The island was well known to the Athenians in Thucydides’ time. The Romance adds that the population round Rakotis was divided into separate villages, in all twelve, and that each had a separate watercourse coming from the fresh-water canal skirting Lake Mareotis, and crossing the tongue of land into the sea. This also seems very probable. If the land was given up to careful agriculture as well as grazing, a systematic water supply at intervals along the coast was absolutely necessary. Each group would depend upon its own canal, and so form a separate village. We are further told that in the plan of the city the streets were built over these parallel canals, and formed the thoroughfares from north to south, which intersected at right angles the great Canopic street running along the whole tongue of land which separates Lake Mareotis and the sea. The old names of these villages are given in the text of pseudo-Callisthenes, but in such corrupt forms that Lumbroso has only been able to identify three of them1 by later allusions; enough, however, to show the historical character of the tradition. The large sheet of water called Lake Marea or Mareotis, at that time in touch (by several channels) with the Nile, and therefore affected by the summer rising of the river, afforded to the city a fresh-water harbour, which in Strabo’s day was more crowded with vessels and merchandise (coming down to it from the upper country) than were the harbours on the sea.

The native portion of the city was undoubtedly the western, where the great pillar (so-called that of Pompey) marks the site of the old temple of Serapis, which existed, we are told, before Alexander’s foundation. To the west of this was the Egyptian necropolis, with a suburb devoted, says Strabo, to all the preparations for embalming bodies, another very clear proof of the Egyptian character of this part of the city. Here also have been found at various times statues, etc., in granite, which point to a certain adornment of the old Rakotis and its temples. The necropolis on the east side was, so far as we know, rather Greek in character. There were also from the commencement many Jews attracted, as they ever have been, by the mercantile advantages of the new emporium, and they became a very important section of the population. It does not appear that Alexander gave these foreigners any privileges apart from other immigrant; but that he gave special consideration to Egyptian feeling appears from his either founding, or more probably embellishing, a temple of Isis, which always remained an important building in the city, and with its Egyptian facade forms a very curious feature in the coins of Alexandria under the Roman Empire.

It does not seem necessary to enter here more minutely upon the topography of the new city. It was laid out on the principles which the architect Hippodamus had made fashionable in Greece, and which, unfortunately, have again become fashionable in Southern Europe. The intersection of two great thoroughfares at right angles marked the approximate centre of the city, and the lesser streets were cut parallel to these. The main thoroughfares, which ran from gate to gate, were a plethron (101 English feet) wide, and adorned with colonnades on both sides for the shelter of pedestrians. But it is added by our authorities that even the lesser streets were passable for horses and wheel traffic, a convenience not usual, apparently, in Greek towns. The narrowness of the site from north to south (across the main lie of the city) was remedied by building a causeway, the Heptastadion, to the island Pharos, which not only conveyed water to the island, but divided the bay into two main harbours, which were entered round the east and west ends of the island respectively. Thus this great natural breakwater was converted into a suburb or part of the town, and fortified accordingly. The royal or eastern harbour had inner docks and special quays for the navy, and round it were situated the royal palace and other notable buildings. The western harbour was for the merchant shipping; but this too contained special recesses, and there was a way here from the sea into Lake Mareotis. This harbour, which is spoken of as open, in contrast to the other, was afterwards known as Eunostus, in memory, possibly, of a king of Cyprus, who was a friend and connection of the first Ptolemy. But this seems an unsatisfactory account of the title. There were two passages kept open in the causeway to allow vessels to be transferred from the eastern to the western harbour.

How far the original plan of Alexander corresponded to the results in after days we shall never know. For we are told that after the foundation had attracted many settlers, besides the neighbouring natives, whose former possessions were made into a privileged (and possibly untaxed) territory, the city grew rapidly, and then history is silent about it for many years. The splendour of Alexander’s conquests dazzled the historians, so that they were blind to all lesser or more gradual changes in the world. The conqueror spent but little time superintending his new plan. The stories about the prosperous omens noted at the moment are hardly worth repeating now. What is called the accident or sudden expedient of marking out the circuit with meal or flour appears to have been a Macedonian habit founded upon some old superstition. The real marvel would have been if this meal had not been picked up by the numerous birds that people the country. So that it required the talents and the veracity of courtiers to make a portentous phenomenon out of this perfectly unavoidable occurrence. Probably there were more birds to do it in Egypt than there were upon such occasions in Macedonia.

We may, therefore, hurry on with Alexander to the oasis of Ammon, and consider the bearings of this adventure upon the history of the country. He probably followed the usual, though not the shortest, route. Greeks coming to visit the oasis from Cyrene or elsewhere would probably go as near as possible by sea, and disembark due north of the oasis. To this point Alexander could sail or march, with the aid of a provisioning fleet. The rest was a caravan march across the desert. We are told by some of our Greek authorities that at Paraetonium, the roadstead from which the march started, he was met by an embassy offering submission and valuable presents from the Cyrenaeans.1 It is far more likely that they offered him guides. For this was not the Egyptian road to the oasis, and it is quite possible that even the Greeks of Naukratis were not familiar with it. For they would probably take the road through the Nitrian desert, when making the journey. But this is only a conjecture. The marvels related concerning Alexander’s journey are such as could be easily constructed from an exaggeration of natural phenomena. That two ravens, when flushed from some carrion in the desert, should fly towards the oasis was almost certain, and was a well-established index used by every straying traveller. That the party suffered from drought, and were relieved by a sudden downpour of rain, was an unusual, but not unprecedented occurrence then, as now. It is more interesting to note that none of our authorities makes any mention of the use of camels in this journey, thus indicating that they were not yet domesticated in Egypt, or at least in the west of Egypt. The name Carnets Fort near Pelusium occurs in the next generation.

On the whole, the accounts we have from our various sources are very consistent as regards the visit and its probable objects. There is a description of the temple and its appointments in Diodorus which is said to correspond with what still remains of ancient ruins on the spot. Still more closely does it correspond, according to M. Maspero,1 with the very analogous ruins in the Great Oasis. It seems that in the days of Darius, temples of Amon had been built or restored in both these outlying sites. They were constructed, with less expense and grandeur, upon the same principles as the other shrines of the god, and the ceremonies attending the accession of a new king were depicted, as upon the walls of the temple of Karnak and that of Erment. If Alexander had been a legitimate Pharaoh, he must visit the god in his temple, he must enter alone into the inner shrine, where the statue of the god in his sacred boat was kept, and after due homage, Amon answered with a declaration that the new king was his beloved son, on whom he would bestow the immortality of Ra, and the royalty of Horus, victory over all his enemies, and the domination of the world, etc. etc. These wildly exaggerated formulae, which had none but a liturgical meaning for a poor king of decaying Egypt, were translated into a prophecy of some import when addressed to Alexander. The god, in this case, not only received him in his shrine, but answered him in words, instead of mere motions of his head. The priests had all these things well arranged. But the important point in the affair is that the declaration of the king’s divinity, and of his actual descent from Amon as his father, was the only formula known by which the priests could declare him de jure king of Egypt, as he already was de facto.

As every king for centuries back had been declared the son of Amon, it was natural and necessary that Alexander should be so also. But most of these earlier native kings had been of the royal stock, where any new interference of Amon was unnecessary. In the case, however, of illegitimacy, when a conqueror became king of Egypt (and that had been no unfrequent occurrence), the first precaution had been to marry him to one of the royal princesses, whose right of succession was as recognised as that of their brothers. Thus the next generation, at all events, showed partial royal descent. But, as M. Maspero has shown, even this was not enough ; by a fiction of the priests, represented in several instances upon the hieroglyphic decorations of temples,1 the god was declared to have taken the place of the non-royal husband, and to have become the actual father of the new prince. It seems even likely that among the strict prescriptions for all the solemn acts of the king it was directed that he should assume the insignia of the god, his ram’s horns, fleece, etc., when visiting the queen. We find from the Romance of Alexander’s life, afterwards so popular in Alexandria, that the invented paternity of the hero by means of Nektanebo and his magic arts conforms exactly to all this ritual. As last legitimate king of Egypt, Nektanebo had fled to Macedonia, seduced Olympias by magic visions, and then appeared to her under the form either of a serpent, the Agathodaemon, or of the ram-headed god Amon.

Here is another argument to be added to those of Lumbroso in his rehabilitation of the traditional literature of this period. The theological details have now been shown by M. Maspero to correspond so accurately with the doctrine of the priests of Amon in pre-Ptolemaic days, that I hesitate to date the composition of the Romance after that dynasty was extinct. I do not think that the decayed priesthood under the Roman Empire could have found any interest in reviving these solemn fictions. I had argued long ago that the remarkable absence of all importance of the Ptolemies throughout the whole book pointed further in the same direction. Either the legend arose before they did, or after they had passed out of public memory. The latter seems to me impossible, so that I contend that at least the earlier portions of the Romance, and those regarding Alexander’s acts in Egypt, must have taken shape almost at once, and the story of his birth must have become current before it became necessary to make similar inventions for the Ptolemies.

As regards Alexander’s acceptance of his own divinisation, there is no reason to think that he received it with reluctance or with scepticism, or that either Greeks or Orientals were shocked at it, and unwilling to accord him this honour. The insurgent Macedonians indeed twitted him concerning his father Amon, and one or two sceptical philosophers may have expressed their scorn; but the Attic public that lavished divinity a few years later on Demetrius the Descender, or the natives of the Cyclades who conferred it with enthusiasm upon the first Ptolemy, can hardly have thought the notion strange or shocking a few years earlier. Strack even maintains the general conclusion that the deification of the Ptolemies and other Hellenistic sovereigns was a distinctively Greek invention, not a piece of Orientalism.

To the completion of Alexander’s divinity, and his foundation of the new capital, our historians well-nigh confine their account of his Egyptian doings. We are even uncertain whether he ever saw Alexandria after his first laying out of the place on his way to the oasis. For though some of our inferior authorities actually place the foundation on his return journey, it seems more likely that he returned across the desert straight to Memphis, and hastened to descend the eastern channel to Pelusium and to Syria. He had received some Greek deputations from cities of Asia Minor, and had ordered some political prisoners to be put in ward at Elephantine, which seems to have been regarded in some way as a penal settlement. But with the natives he had no further intercourse.

It remains for us to consider, so far as our materials permit us, the general effect of the conquest upon these natives and their condition. For this is properly the history of Egypt. The founding of the new city was doubtless accompanied by some hardships. Probably to the natives the closing of the mart at the Canopic mouth was the least, for the whole literature of the papyri of the succeeding generations does not afford us any evidence that native Egyptians engaged in foreign trade. That must have been altogether in the hands of Greeks or Syrians. But the unsettling of all the villages round Rakotis, and the sweeping in of the country population into a new city—this must have caused much annoyance and trouble, notwithstanding the many privileges with which Alexander sought to soften it. The Egyptians are, however, a patient people, and provided their priests were satisfied, and recommended the new dynast, we may imagine the poorer people soothed with the reflection that a change of masters would not do any harm, and might possibly bring some relief. We hear, indeed, that he demanded from them the same amount of taxes as they had paid to the Persians. But the odiousness of the Persian rule had not been so much extortion, as a reckless and cruel disregard of Egyptian sentiment. In our day we have heard grievances made light of because they were sentimental, as if such were not the worst, nay, perhaps the only real grievances. The violation of sentiment is a far worse form of tyranny than the violation of material rights. Outrages, for example, on property are not resented with the same fierceness as outrages on religion. But these latter had often been committed by the Persians. It was on this point that there was now every probability of a great change.

As regards the political settlement of the country there is a curious chapter in Arrian giving us the names and offices of those to whom Alexander entrusted the country. Upon his return to Memphis he had received various embassies from Greece, and also (what was more welcome) about 1000 mercenaries sent him by Antipater by way of reinforcement. He then celebrated a great musical and gymnastic feast to “Zeus the king,” apparently in Hellenic fashion, and perhaps in contrast to the various Egyptian ceremonies to which he and his army had submitted. Then he ordered the country as follows:—“He made two Egyptians nomarchs of (all) Egypt, viz. Doloaspis and Peteesis, and divided the country between them; but when Peteesis presently resigned, Doloaspis undertook the whole charge. As commanders of the garrisons he appointed from among his companions Pantaleon of Pydna at Memphis, and Polemo of Pella at Pelusium; as general of the mercenaries, Lycidas the Aetolian; as secretary over the mercenaries, Eugnostos, one of his companions; as overseers over them, Aeschylus and Ephippus of Chalcis. Governor of the adjacent Libya he made Apollonios, of Arabia about Heroopolis Cleomenes of Naukratis, and him he directed to permit the nomarchs to control their nomes according to established and ancient custom; but to obtain from them their taxes, which they were ordered to pay him. He made Peukestas and Balakros (two of his noblest Macedonians) generals of the [whole] army he left in Egypt, and admiral Polemo... He is said to have divided the government of Egypt into many hands, because he was surprised at the nature and (military) strength of the country, so that he did not consider it safe to let one man undertake the sole charge of it.” So far Arrian.

But his meagre statement of facts leaves room for many conjectures. Alexander’s military arrangements do not specially concern Egypt. It is more than probable that the general, secretary, and episcopi were a regular feature in the hazardous control of every great mercenary force; separate military governors of Memphis and Pelusium, with trusty Macedonian garrisons—all these forces under command of two of his highest officers, leave no room for surprise except in the last item. Here was shown the young king’s suspicion. For either Peukestas or Balakros might well have sufficed as the commander-in-chief. Apollonios was made Libyarch, a term known from early papyri; but to the corresponding Arabarch, Cleomenes, a man of Naucratis, was given another most important function. He was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was responsible to Alexander for the whole tribute of Egypt. Yet he was not entrusted with the collection of it. This was left in the hands of two native general nomarchs, who must have had under them a host of local nomarchs. I suppose the division of the country between them was into Upper and Lower Egypt. Perhaps the resignation of Peteesis, taken with the evil reports we hear of Cleomenes’ extortions, show that the office became unpopular, and that the gain from the Macedonian rule was not so great as people had anticipated. It is plain that the man of Naucratis had most influence with Alexander; the native nomarchs sank into insignificance; the garrison was gradually withdrawn into the East, and so the Greek, as usual, monopolised all the power and profit. It is remarkable, that though Alexander must have been in much want of troops, no hint is given us that he even thought of enrolling the military caste of Egypt, as he afterwards enrolled Persians in his service. He was no doubt quite young and inexperienced, and proposed to himself to conquer the world with Macedonians and Greeks only. It should be added that the separation of administrative from military functions was a principle carried out elsewhere by Alexander, probably on the Persian model. In his Eastern conquests his habit was to set a satrap over each province, but beside him, and independently, a commander of the forces, and an official in charge of the revenue.

It would be a matter of no small interest to determine with certainty whether Ptolemy accompanied Alexander to Egypt, and to the oracle of Amon. He was at that time still an officer of no prominence in the Macedonian service, whose promotion was yet to come. Yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was now that the wealth and isolation of Egypt struck the far-seeing man, and made him in after years claim this as his province without hesitation. But if we merely regarded his account of Alexander’s adventure, we find him so well inclined to the marvellous as to dispose us to believe that he wrote from hearsay. Arrian reports that “Ptolemy son of Lagus says that two serpents (Spaxovras) went before the army (in the desert march to the oasis) uttering a voice; and that Alexander commanded his guides to follow them as inspired; that these led the way to the oracle and back from it again. But Aristobulus and the majority say that two ravens flew in advance of the force,” etc. Either, therefore, Ptolemy, writing his history of the campaigns in long after years, copied down one of the legends that clustered about the conqueror, without any criticism, or, having himself accompanied the expedition, he deliberately chose to propagate the most miraculous version. Subsequent acts, to which we shall come in due time, incline us to believe that the latter was the case.

Alexander never revisited Egypt, but his corpse was conveyed with solemn pomp to Memphis, and ultimately laid at rest in the centre of his new capital, as its hero-founder (oekist). He seems even to have neglected the proper care of the land in the midst of his enormous engagements. He was informed that Cleomenes had proved an unjust and tyrannous steward; he promised to pardon him for all his crimes, provided his instructions regarding the worship of his friend Hephaestion were duly carried out at Alexandria. Arrian quotes the very words of Alexander’s letter without suspicion, and thinks they are justified by the promptness with which Cleomenes procured an oracle from Amon ordering Hephaestion’s deification , and the importance of his loyalty to Alexander when other financial officers were proving dishonest and mutinous. The fact remains that the administration of Egypt during Alexander’s short reign was in bad hands, and that though the king knew it, he either could not or would not interfere. Probably the tribute of Egypt was at all events promptly paid. The charges against Cleomenes in Demosthenes’ speech against Dionysodorus are only to be taken for what they are worth in an Athenian law-court. The defendants are one and all conspirators with Cleomenes, “who has the control in Egypt, who, from the time that he received this government, did no small harm to your city (Athens), nay, rather to all the Greeks, retailing upon retail and raising the prices of corn with his associates.” Possibly this sharp practice only damaged the Greek traders, and did no harm to the natives. On this point we have no information. But the promptness with which Ptolemy put him to death when he took over Egypt, may be a proof that he was a power among the natives, not merely that he was detested by the merchants.

PTOLEMY I SOTER, THE WINING OF A KINGDOM