Chapter*6:*Hellenistic*Empire* -...

of 8/8
63 Chapter 6: Hellenistic Empire Hellenistic period The Hellenistic period or Hellenistic era of Greek history describes the time which followed the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was so named by the historian J. G. Droysen. During this time, Greek cultural influence and power was at its zenith in Europe and Asia. It is often considered a period of transition, sometimes even of decline or decadence, between the brilliance of the Greek Classical era and the emergence of the Roman Empire. Usually taken to begin with the death of Alexander in 323 BC, the Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC or with the final defeat of the last remaining successor-state to Alexander's empire after the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. The Hellenistic period was characterized by a wave of colonists who established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia and Africa. The Hellenistic period emerged, approximately, 323-30BC. Beginning after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the period experienced prosperity and progress in the decorative and visual arts, exploration, literature, sculpture, theatre, architecture, music, mathematics, and science. The Hellenistic era experienced an age of eclecticism, a new awakening of the diverse knowledge and theories present in Greek culture. Instead of contemplating and debating ideals, logic, extinguished emotion, or consummate beauty, people would explore and analyze reality. Background Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area. With the accession of a strong and expansionist leader in Philip, Macedon was able to begin a rise to power over Greece. Philip took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory, and in 352 BC annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. Desultory conflicts with Thebes and Athens continued for another decade, but in 338 BC Philip defeated a Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, whilst this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated (possibly at the instigation of his son Alexander). Alexander’s Empire Succeeding his father, Alexander took over the Persian war himself. During a decade of campaigning, Alexander conquered the whole Persian Empire, overthrowing the Persian king Darius III. The conquered lands included Asia Minor, Assyria, the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Media, Persia, and parts of modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the steppes of central Asia. Controlling such a large territory wasn’t easy. The first tenet of Alexander's policies was the founding (or re-founding) of cities across the empire. This has, in the past, been interpreted as part of Alexander's desire to spread Greek culture throughout the empire. These cities were presumably intended to be administrative headquarters in the regions, and to have been settled by Greeks; many were settled by veterans of Alexander's campaigns. Undoubtedly, this would have resulted in the spread of Greek influence across the empire; however, the
  • date post

    25-Jun-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    226
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Chapter*6:*Hellenistic*Empire* -...

  • 63

    Chapter*6:*Hellenistic*Empire* Hellenistic period The Hellenistic period or Hellenistic era of Greek history describes the time which followed the conquests of Alexander the Great. It was so named by the historian J. G. Droysen. During this time, Greek cultural influence and power was at its zenith in Europe and Asia. It is often considered a period of transition, sometimes even of decline or decadence, between the brilliance of the Greek Classical era and the emergence of the Roman Empire. Usually taken to begin with the death of Alexander in 323 BC, the Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC or with the final defeat of the last remaining successor-state to Alexander's empire after the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. The Hellenistic period was characterized by a wave of colonists who established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia and Africa. The Hellenistic period emerged, approximately, 323-30BC. Beginning after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the period experienced prosperity and progress in the decorative and visual arts, exploration, literature, sculpture, theatre, architecture, music, mathematics, and science. The Hellenistic era experienced an age of eclecticism, a new awakening of the diverse knowledge and theories present in Greek culture. Instead of contemplating and debating ideals, logic, extinguished emotion, or consummate beauty, people would explore and analyze reality. Background Ancient Greece had traditionally been a fractious collection of fiercely independent city-states. After the Peloponnesian War (431404 BC), Greece had fallen under a Spartan hegemony, in which Sparta was pre-eminent but not all-powerful. Spartan hegemony was succeeded by a Theban one after the Battle of Leuctra (371 BC), but after the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC), all of Greece was so weakened that no one state could claim pre-eminence. It was against this backdrop, that the ascendancy of Macedon began, under king Philip II. Macedon was located at the periphery of the Greek world, and although its royal family claimed Greek descent, the Macedonians themselves were looked down upon as semi-barbaric by the Greeks. However, Macedon had a relatively strong and centralised government, and compared to most Greek states, directly controlled a large area. With the accession of a strong and expansionist leader in Philip, Macedon was able to begin a rise to power over Greece. Philip took every opportunity to expand Macedonian territory, and in 352 BC annexed Thessaly and Magnesia. Desultory conflicts with Thebes and Athens continued for another decade, but in 338 BC Philip defeated a Theban and Athenian army at the Battle of Chaeronea. In the aftermath, Philip formed the League of Corinth, effectively bringing the majority of Greece under his direct sway. He was elected Hegemon of the league, and a campaign against the Achaemenid Empire of Persia was planned. However, whilst this campaign was in its early stages, he was assassinated (possibly at the instigation of his son Alexander).

    Alexanders$Empire$ Succeeding his father, Alexander took over the Persian war himself. During a decade of campaigning, Alexander conquered the whole Persian Empire, overthrowing the Persian king Darius III. The conquered lands included Asia Minor, Assyria, the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Media, Persia, and parts of modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the steppes of central Asia. Controlling such a large territory wasnt easy. The first tenet of Alexander's policies was the founding (or re-founding) of cities across the empire. This has, in the past, been interpreted as part of Alexander's desire to spread Greek culture throughout the empire. These cities were presumably intended to be administrative headquarters in the regions, and to have been settled by Greeks; many were settled by veterans of Alexander's campaigns. Undoubtedly, this would have resulted in the spread of Greek influence across the empire; however, the

  • 64

    primary purpose could have been to control his new subjects, rather than specifically to spread Greek culture. Arrian explicitly says that a city founded in Bactria was "meant to civilize the natives"; however, this comment could be interpreted in either way (with civilize as a euphemism for 'control'). Certainly, the cities would have been garrison points, and thus allowed control of the surrounding areas. Alexander also attempted to create a unified ruling class of Persians and Greeks, bound by marriage ties. He used both Greeks and Persians in positions of power, although he depended more on Greeks in unstable positions, and also replaced many Persian satraps in a purge after his return from India. He also tried to mix the two cultures, adopting elements of the Persian court (such as a version of the royal robes and some of the court ceremony and attendants) and also attempting to insist on the practice of proskynesis (bowing before the king) for his Greek subjects. Furthermore, Alexander's marriage to, and child with the Bactrian princess Roxana can be interpreted as an attempt to create a royal dynasty which would be acceptable to both Asians and Greeks. The spread of Hellenistic cultures was sparked by the conquests of Alexander the Great. After his ventures of the Persian Empire, Hellenistic kingdoms were established throughout south-west Asia (the 'Near' and 'Middle East') and north-east Africa (ancient Egypt and Cyrene in ancient Libya). This resulted in the export of Greek culture and language to these new realms, and moreover Greek colonists themselves. Equally, however, these new kingdoms were influenced by the indigenous cultures, adopting local practices where beneficial, necessary or convenient. After his death, the huge territories Alexander had conquered became subject to a strong Greek influence (hellenization) for the next two or three centuries, until the rise of Rome in the west, and of Parthia in the east. As the Greek and eastern cultures mingled, the development of a hybrid Hellenistic culture began, and persisted even when isolated from the main centres of Greek culture (for instance, in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom). Hellenistic civilization thus represents a fusion of the Ancient Greek world with that of the Near East, Middle East and Southwest Asia, and a departure from earlier Greek attitudes towards "barbarian" cultures. The Hellenistic period was characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization (as distinguished from that occurring in the 8th-6th centuries BC) which established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia and Africa. Those new cities were composed of Greek colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not, as before, from a specific "mother city". The main cultural centers expanded from mainland Greece to Pergamon, Rhodes, and new Greek colonies such as Seleucia, Antioch and Alexandria. This mixture of Greek-speakers gave birth to a common Attic-based dialect, known as Hellenistic Greek, which became the lingua franca through the Hellenistic world. After Alexander Alexander had made no special preparations for his succession in his newly founded empire, dying as he did at a young age, and thus on his death-bed (apocryphally), he willed it to "the strongest". The result was a state of internecine warfare between his generals (the Diadochi, or 'Successors'), which lasted for forty years before a more-or-less stable arrangement was established, consisting of four major domains: The Antigonid dynasty in Macedon and central Greece; The Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt based at Alexandria; The Seleucid dynasty in Syria and Mesopotamia based at Antioch; The Attalid dynasty in Anatolia based at Pergamum.

  • 65

    A further two kingdoms later emerged, the so called Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdom. Each of these kingdoms had, thereafter, a noticeably individual development and history. For the most part, the latter parts of those histories are of gradual decline, with most ending in absorption by the Republic of Rome. We find numerous cycles of alliances, marriages and wars between these states. However, it is clear that the rulers of these kingdoms still considered themselves Greek, and furthermore, recognized that the other Hellenistic realms were also Greek and not 'robbing barbarians.' The end of the Hellenistic period is often considered to be 146 BC, when the Roman Republic conquered most of mainland Greece, and absorbed all of ancient Macedon. By this time the rise of Rome to absolute political prominence in the Mediterranean was complete, and this might therefore mark the start of the 'Roman period'. An alternative date is 30 BC, when the final Hellenistic kingdom of Ptolemaic Egypt was conquered by Rome (the last remnants of the Seleucid empire having been taken over thirty years earlier). This more obviously represents the absolute end of the power of the Hellenistic civilizations.

    $Hellenistic$culture$ Athens retained its position as the most prestigious seat of higher education, especially in the domains of philosophy and rhetoric, with considerable libraries. Alexandria, Egypt, was arguably the second most important center of Greek learning. The Library of Alexandria had 700,000 volumes. The city of Pergamon became a major center of book production, possessing a library of some 200,000 volumes, second only to Alexandria's. The island of Rhodes boasted a famous finishing school for politics and diplomacy. Cicero was educated in Athens and Mark Antony in Rhodes. Antioch was founded as a metropolis and center of Greek learning which retained its status into the era of Christianity. Seleucia replaced Babylon as the metropolis of the lower Tigris. The spread of Greek culture throughout the Near East and Asia owed much to the development of cities. Settlements such as Ai-Khanoum, situated on trade routes, allowed cultures to mix and spread. The identification of local gods with similar Greek deities facilitated the building of Greek-style temples, and the Greek culture in the cities also meant that buildings such as gymnasia became common. Many cities maintained their autonomy while under the nominal rule of the local king or satrap, and often had Greek-style institutions. Greek dedications, statues, architecture and inscriptions have all been found. However,

  • 66

    local cultures were not replaced, and often mixed to create a new culture. Greek language and literature spread throughout the former Persian Empire. The development of the Alexander Romance (mainly in Egypt) owes much to Greek theater as well as other styles of story. The Library at Alexandria, set up by Ptolemy I Soter, became a center for learning and was copied by various other monarchs. An example that shows the spread of Greek theater is Plutarch's story of the death of Crassus, in which his head was taken to the Parthian court and used as a prop in a performance of The Bacchae. Theaters have also been found: for example, in Ai-Khanoum on the edge of Bactria, the theater has 35 rows - larger than the theater in Babylon. The spread of Greek influence and language is also shown through Ancient Greek coinage. Portraits became more realistic, and the obverse of the coin was often used to display a propaganda image, commemorating an event or displaying the image of a favored god. The use of Greek-style portraits and Greek language continued into the Parthian period, even as the use of Greek was in decline.

    Hellenistic*Judaism* Those Jews living in countries west of the Levant formed the Hellenistic diaspora (scattering of Jews). The Egyptian diaspora is the most well-known of these. It witnessed close ties, indeed the firm economic integration, of Judea with the Ptolemaic kingdom ruled from Alexandria, and the friendly relations which existed between the royal court and the leaders of the Jewish community. This was a diaspora of choice not of imposition. Information is less robust regarding diasporas in other territories. It suggests that the situation was by and large the same as it was in Egypt. Jewish life in both Judea and the diaspora was influenced by the culture and language of Hellenism, and in Judah relations deteriorated between Hellenized Jews and traditionalists. For reasons not fully understood, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes banned key Jewish religious rites and traditions in Judea, causing traditionalists to revolt against the Greek ruler. When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was looted and services stopped, Judaism was outlawed. In 167 BC Antiochus ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. He banned brit milah (circumcision) and ordered pigs to be sacrificed at the altar of the temple. Antiochus's actions provoked a large-scale revolt. Mattathias (Mattityahu), a Jewish priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah led a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah became known as Yehuda HaMakabi ("Judah the Hammer" or Maccabeus). By 166 BC Mattathias had died, and Judah took his place as leader. By 165 BC the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy was successful. The Temple was liberated and rededicated. The festival of Hanukkah was instituted to celebrate this event. Some modern scholars argue that the king was intervening in an internal civil war between the Maccabean Jews and the Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem. These competed violently over who would be the High Priest, with traditionalists with Hebrew/Aramaic names like Onias contesting with Hellenizing High Priests with Greek names like Jason and Menelaus. In particular Jason's Hellenistic reforms would prove to be a decisive factor leading to eventual conflict within the ranks of Judaism. Other authors point to possible socioeconomic reasons in addition to the religious reasons behind the civil war. What began in many respects as a civil war escalated when the Hellenistic kingdom of Syria sided with the Hellenizing Jews in their conflict with the traditionalists. As the conflict escalated, Antiochus took the side of the Hellenizers by prohibiting the religious practices the traditionalists had rallied around. This may explain why the king, in a total departure from Seleucid practice in all other places and times, banned a traditional religion. The main issue which separated the Hellenized Jews from rebellious and traditional Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (or Roman or other non-Jewish) empire. The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphicapocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period. Philo of Alexandria was an important Hellenistic apologist of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition

  • 67

    of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the heart" in the pursuit of virtue. Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) asemanations from God.

  • 68

    Primary$Sources$

    Plutarch:*Philip*of*Macedon's*Assassination*

    The assassination that had the greatest impact on the course of ancient history was that of Philip II (r. 359-336 B.C.E.), king of Macedon and father of Alexander the Great. Lawyers, confronted by a suspicious death, often ask the question cui bono?--" to whose benefit?" In Philip's case, obviously, it was to Alexander's. Father and son had their differences, at the center of which was Alexander's forceful mother, Olympias, who had figured more prominently in her son's life than Philip had. When Philip took as his new wife (Macedonian kings often practiced polygamy) a high-born Macedonian woman named Cleopatra, his relations with Olympias naturally were strained and Alexander's position as likely heir to the throne became insecure, since Olympias was not Macedonian by blood. Could either Alexander or Olympias have been behind the killing of Philip? You be the judge! Hint: try constructing a chart of relationships (several of the participants share the same name). The marriages and love affairs of Philip not only led to conflicts in his household and among his womenfolk, but soon affected the state as a whole, when disputes arose between himself and his son Alexander. The envious and vengeful personality of Olympias fanned these flames, as she provoked Alexander to defy his father. Their differences came to a crisis with Philip's decision to marry Cleopatra, a very young woman with whom he had rashly fallen in love. At a banquet one night, Attalus, Cleopatra's uncle, being quite drunk, urged the Macedonians to pray the gods that the marriage of Philip and Cleopatra would produce a pure-blooded heir [i.e., Macedonian on both sides] to the throne. This infuriated Alexander, who shouted "You scoundrel, are you calling me a bastard?" He then flung his drink at Attalus. Philip rose to intervene, drawing his sword against his son. Luckily, he was so unbalanced by wine and anger that he stumbled and fell to the ground. At this, Alexander sneered and said "Here's the man who plans to travel from Europe to Asia, but he can't even make it from one couch to another without taking a header! " Following this drunken ruckus, Alexander left the capital, removing Olympias to Epirus and himself to Illyria. In the archonship of Pythodorus [336 B.C.E.] ... Philip, having been appointed hegemon [commander-in-chief] by the Greek states, commenced the war with Persia by sending ahead into Asia [Minor] an advance expedition under the command of Attalus and Parmenio, with orders to liberate the Greek city-states there. Philip himself, anxious to have divine approval, consulted the Pythia [priestess at Delphi] to ask if he would defeat the Persian king. She responded as follows: "The bull is garlanded [for sacrifice]. All is ready and the sacrificer is at hand. " Though the response was equivocal, Philip took it as propitious to himself: that is, predicting the death of the Persian king. In fact, it foretold Philip's own death at a festival with solemn sacrifices; he, like the bull, would die wearing religious wreaths. But Philip rejoiced to think that he had the backing of the gods and trusted that Macedonian arms would subjugate Asia [Minor]. Philip now made plans for spectacular celebrations for the gods, in conjunction with the wedding of his and Olympias's daughter, Cleopatra, who was marrying Alexander, the king of Epirus (and brother of Olympias). Eager to have as many Greeks as possible participating in the sacred observances, he scheduled elaborate musical displays and feasts for his guests. He invited his own friends from all over Greece and urged his courtiers to do the same. He intended to impress the Greeks with his civility and to repay the honors bestowed on him as supreme commander by staging an appropriate social event. Many people came to the festival at Aegae in Macedonia from all parts both for the games and for the marriage. Philip was awarded golden crowns not only by individuals but also by many major city-states, including Athens. When the herald announced the Athenian decoration, he closed by saying that the Athenians would surrender anyone plotting against Philip and seeking refuge at Athens. The words (later) seemed an omen from the gods that a conspiracy was in fact approaching. There were several other sayings at the time that seemed to foreshadow the king's demise.... The games were to begin the next day. The theater was already packed before dawn, and at sunrise the lavish procession began: it included dazzling images of the twelve Olympian gods meant to awe the spectators; and to the twelve was joined a thirteenth--that of Philip himself. Philip appeared at the crowded theater attired in a white mantle. He bid his bodyguards to keep their distance, meaning to demonstrate his confidence in the adulation of the Greeks, which made armed guards

  • 69

    unnecessary. Amidst the general applause and raves, the plot to assassinate unfolded itself. In the interest of clarity, I will examine the motives for it. A Macedonian, Pausanias by name, from the Orestis district, had been a member of the king's bodyguard. Because of his attractiveness, Philip became his lover. When Philip then turned his attentions elsewhere (to another man named Pausanias), the first Pausanias mocked the second by saying he was androgynous and promiscuous. Cut to the quick by this slur, the second Pausanias secured his own death in a sensational way, after confiding in Attalus what he was intending to do. For, some days later, during a battle with Pleurias, an Illyrian king, Pausanias shielded Philip's body with his own, and died from fatal wounds so received. The incident was widely reported. Attalus, a man of standing and influence in the court of Philip, thereupon invited the first Pausanias to dinner. Having gotten him drunk on undiluted wine, he then handed him over nearly unconscious to be raped by his mule-drivers. Pausanias, once sobered up, was deeply aggrieved by the assault on his person and denounced Attalus to the king. Philip, however, although outraged at the brutality of the deed, did not choose to bring Attalus to account because of their affiliation and because he had need of the man's services at the moment: Attalus was the [uncle] of Philip's new wife, Cleopatra, and, owing to his valor, had just been appointed general of the forward forces in Asia. Thus, Philip instead tried to quell Pausanias's justifiable rage over his injury by giving him gifts and elevating his position in the corps of his personal bodyguards. Pausanias for his part kept his grudge and longed to exact vengeance not only from the man who had injured him, but also from the one who had declined to redress the injustice. His teacher, the sophist Hermocrates, unwittingly inspired him in his scheme. When Pausanias asked him how one could become most renowned, the sophist answered: "by slaying the man whose achievements were the greatest, for the assassin's fame would endure as long as the great man's. " Pausanias took this opinion as applicable to his own situation. He immediately resolved to revenge himself during the distractions of the wedding festival. Having readied horses at the city gates, he went to the entrance of the theater carrying a concealed Celtic dagger. Philip on his arrival bid his companions to enter ahead of him and, with his bodyguard ordered to keep their distance, was by himself. Pausanias darted forward and stabbed the king through his ribs, killing him instantly. He then made a dash for the gates and his getaway horses. Meantime, the royal bodyguards sprang into action, some rushing to the fallen king, others pursuing the killer; these included Leonnatus, Perdiccas, and Attalus [not the uncle of Cleopatra]. Pausanias nearly made it to the waiting horses, but his shoe caught in a vine and he fell. As he was getting up, Perdiccas and the others overtook him and slew him with their javelins. So perished Philip, the greatest European monarch of his era. The vast extent of his rule led him to claim a throne among the twelve great Olympian deities. He reigned twenty-four years, in that time rising from a man with little support for his claim to the throne to ruler of the greatest empire in Greece. The success of his career derived not so much from his military genius as from his facility and tact in diplomacy. They say that he prided himself more on his skills of strategy and diplomacy than on his battlefield courage, for his whole army shared the credit for success in combat, while he alone got the recognition for diplomatic victories. Question: Which people and what motives might have been behind the murder of Philip?

    Hippocrates*(c.*400*BC)*

    Let us inquire then regarding what is admitted to be Medicine; namely, that which was invented for the sake of the sick, which possesses a name and practitioners, whether it also seeks to accomplish the same objects, and whence it derived its origin. To me, then, it appears, as I said at the commencement, that nobody would have sought for medicine at all, provided the same kinds of diet had suited with men in sickness as in good health. Wherefore, even yet, such races of men as make no use of medicine, namely, barbarians, and even certain of the Greeks, live in the same way when sick as when in health; that is to say, they take what suits their appetite, and neither abstain from, nor restrict themselves in anything for which they have a desire. But those who have cultivated and invented medicine, having the same object in view as those of whom I formerly spoke, in the first place, I suppose, diminished the quantity of the articles of food which they used, and this alone would be sufficient for certain of the sick, and be manifestly beneficial to them, although not to all, for there would be some so affected as not to be able to manage even small quantities of their usual food, and as such persons would seem to require something weaker, they invented soups, by mixing a few strong things with much water, and thus abstracting that which was strong in them by dilution and boiling. But such as could not manage even soups, laid them aside, and had recourse to drinks,

  • 70

    and so regulated them as to mixture and quantity, that they were administered neither stronger nor weaker than what was required. Question: What does this passage tell us about the Hellenistic practice of medicine?

    Diogenes*Lartius:*Life*of*Diogenes*the*Cynic*(d.*325*BC)*

    Once, when some strangers wished to see Demosthenes, he stretched out his middle finger and said, "This is the great demagogue of the Athenian people." When some one had dropped a loaf, and was ashamed to pick it up again, he, wishing to give him a lesson, tied a cord round the neck of a bottle and dragged it all through the Ceramicus. He used to say, that he imitated the teachers of choruses, for that they spoke too loud, in order that the rest might catch the proper tone. Another of his sayings, was that most men were within a fingers breadth of being mad. If, then, any one were to walk along, stretching out his middle finger, he will seem to be mad; but if he puts out his forefinger, he will not be thought so. Another of his sayings was, that things of great value were often sold for nothing, and vice versa. Accordingly, that a statue would fetch three thousand drachmas, and a bushel of meal only two obols. . .

    On one occasion he saw a child drinking out of its hands, and so he threw away the cup which belonged to his wallet, saying, "That child has beaten me in simplicity." He also threw away his spoon, after seeing a boy, when he had broken his vessel, take up his lentils with a crust of bread. And he used to argue thus, "Everything belongs to the gods; and wise men are the friends of the gods. All things are in common among friends; therefore everything belongs to wise men." Once he saw a woman falling down before the Gods in an unbecoming attitude; he, wishing to cure her of her superstition, as Zoilus of Perga tells us, came up to her, and said, "Are you not afraid, O woman, to be in such an indecent attitude, when some God may be behind you, for every place is full of him?" . . .

    Once, while he was sitting in the sun in the Craneum, Alexander was standing by, and said to him, "Ask any favour you choose of me." And he replied, " Cease to shade me from the sun." On one occasion a man was reading some long passages, and when he came to the end of the book and showed that there was nothing more written, "Be of good cheer, my friends," exclaimed Diogenes, "I see land." A man once proved to him syllogistically that he had horns, so he put his hand to his forehead and said, "I do not see them." And in a similar manner he replied to one who had been asserting that there was no such thing as motion, by getting up and walking away. When a man was talking about the heavenly bodies and meteors, "Pray how many days," said he to him, "is it since you came down from heaven?" Question: Why might Diogenes' cynicism have been popular in Hellenistic times?