believing that the praise which another by precedency of time had
anticipated was to be a law also to himself, and saying that Homer in
the same verse had extolled the fortitude of Agamemnon and prophesied
of Alexander’s. Crossing therefore the Hellespont, he viewed the city
of Troy, revolving in his mind the heroic acts of antiquity. At this
time one of the chief citizens proffering to him Paris’s harp, if he
pleased to accept it; I need it not, said he, for I have that with
which Achilles pleased himself already,
When he the mighty deeds of heroes sung,
Whose fame so loudly o’er the world has rung;[201]
but as for Paris, his soft and effeminate harmony was devoted only
to the pleasures of amorous courtship. Now it is part of a true
philosopher’s soul to love wisdom and chiefly to admire wise men;
and this was Alexander’s praise beyond all other princes. His high
esteem for his master Aristotle we have already mentioned. No less
honor did he give to Anaxarchus the musician, whom he favored as one
of his choicest friends. To Pyrrhon the Elean, the first time he saw
him, he gave a thousand crowns in gold. To Xenocrates, the companion
of Plato, he sent an honorary present of fifty talents. Lastly, it is
recorded by several that he made Onesicratus, the disciple of Diogenes
the Cynic, chief of his pilots. But when he came to discourse with
Diogenes himself at Corinth, he was struck in such a manner with wonder
and astonishment at the course of life and sententious learning of
the person, that frequently calling him to mind he was wont to say,
Were I not Alexander, I would be Diogenes. That is, I would have
devoted myself to the study of words, had I not been a philosopher in
deeds. He did not say, Were I not a king, I would be Diogenes; nor,
Were I not opulent, an Argeades. For he did not prefer fortune before
wisdom, nor the purple robe or regal diadem before the beggar’s wallet
and threadbare mantle; but he said, Were I not Alexander, I would be
Diogenes. That is,—
“Had I not designed to intermix barbarians and Greeks and to civilize
the earth as I marched forward, and had I not proposed to search the
limits of sea and land, and so, extending Macedon to the land-bounding
ocean, to have sown Greece in every region all along and to have
diffused justice and peace over all nations, I would not have sat
yawning upon the throne of slothful and voluptuous power, but would
have labored to imitate the frugality of Diogenes. But now pardon us,
Diogenes. We follow the example of Hercules, we emulate Perseus, and
tread in the footsteps of Bacchus, our divine ancestor and founder
of our race; once more we purpose to settle the victorious Greeks in
India, and once more to put those savage mountaineers beyond Caucasus
in mind of their ancient Bacchanalian revels. There, by report, live
certain people professing a rigid and austere philosophy, and more
frugal than Diogenes, as going altogether naked; pious men, governed
by their own constitutions and devoted wholly to God. They have no
occasion for scrip or wallet, for they never lay up provision, having
always fresh and new gathered from the earth. The rivers afford them
drink, and at night they rest upon the grass and the leaves that fall
from the trees. By our means shall they know Diogenes, and Diogenes
them. But it behooves us also, as it were, to make a new coin, and to
stamp a new face of Grecian civility upon the barbarian metal.”
11. Tell me now; can such generous acts of Alexander as these be
thought to speak the spontaneous favors of Fortune, only an impetuous
torrent of success and strength of hand? Do they not rather demonstrate
much of fortitude and justice, much of mildness and temperance, in
one who managed all things with decorum and consideration, with a
sober and intelligent judgment? Not that I (believe me) go about to
distinguish between the several acts of Alexander, and to ascribe this
to fortitude, that to humanity, another to temperance; but I take every
act to be an act of all the virtues mixed together. This is conformable
to that Stoic sentence, “What a wise man does he does by the impulse
of all the virtues together; only one particular virtue seems to
head every action, and calling the rest to her assistance drives on
to the end proposed.” Therefore we may behold in Alexander a warlike
humanity, a meek fortitude, a liberality poised with good husbandry,
anger easily appeased, chaste amours, a busy relaxation of mind, and
labor not wanting recreation. Who ever like him mixed festivals with
combats, revels and jollity with expeditions, nuptials and bacchanals
with sieges and difficult attempts? To those that offended against the
law who more severe? To the unfortunate who more pitiful? To those that
made resistance who more terrible? To suppliants who more merciful?
This gives me an occasion to insert here the saying of Porus. For he
being brought a captive before Alexander, and by him being asked how
he expected to be treated, Royally, said he, O Alexander. And being
further asked whether he desired no more, he replied, Nothing; for all
things are comprehended in that word “royally.” And for my part, I know
not how to give a greater applause to the actions of Alexander, than by
adding the word “philosophically,” for in that word all other things
are included. Being ravished with the beauty of Roxana, the daughter
of Oxyarthes, dancing among the captive ladies, he never assailed her
with injurious lust, but married her philosophically. Beholding Darius
stuck to the heart with several arrows, he did not presently sacrifice
to the Gods or sing triumphal songs to celebrate the end of so long a
war, but unclasping his own cloak from his shoulders he threw it over
the dead corpse philosophically, as it were to cover the shame of royal
calamity. Another time, as he was perusing a private letter sent him
by his mother, he observed Hephaestion, who was sitting by him, to
read it along with him, little understanding what he did. For which
unwary act Alexander forbore to reprove him; only clapping his signet
to his mouth, he thus kindly admonished him that his lips were then
sealed up to silence by the friendly confidence which he reposed in
him,—all this philosophically. And indeed if these were not acts done
philosophically, where shall we find them?
12. Let us compare with his some few acts of those who are by all
allowed to be philosophers. Socrates yielded to the lustful embraces
of Alcibiades. Alexander, when Philoxenus, governor of the sea-coasts,
wrote to him concerning an Ionian lad that had not his equal for
youthful beauty, and desired to know whether he should be sent to him
or not, returned him this nipping answer: Vilest of men, when wast
thou ever privy to any desires of mine, that thou shouldst think to
flatter me with such abhorred allurements? We admire the abstinency
of Xenocrates for refusing the gift of fifty talents which Alexander
sent him; but do we take no notice of the munificence of the giver?
Or is the bountiful person not to be thought as much a contemner of
money as he that refuses it? Xenocrates needed not riches, by reason
of his philosophy; but Alexander wanted wealth, by reason of the same
philosophy, that he might be more liberal to such persons.... How
often has Alexander borne witness to this in the midst of a thousand
dangers? It is true, we believe that it is in the power of all men to
judge rightly of things; for nature guides us of herself to virtue and
bravery. But herein philosophers excel all others, that they have by
education acquired a fixed and solid judgment to encounter whatever
dangers they meet with. For most men have no such maxims to defend them
as this in Homer,—
Without a sign his sword the brave man draws,
And needs no omen but his country’s cause.[202]