¹ The other attestations of Ptolemy's work can be found in Tzetzes (six passages) and Eustathius’ Homeric commentaries (twelve passages). There is some, though not substantial, overlap between Photius’ account and those of Tzetzes and Eustathius, both of whom claim to quote passages of Ptolemy in contrast to Photius’ explicit summarizing. Unfortunately, however, these overlaps do not include the passages under consideration in this article. For discussion of the relationship between these passages and Photius’ summary, see Chatzis, A., Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos: Leben, Schriftstellerei und Fragmente (mis Ausschluß der Aristotelesbiographie) (Paderborn, 1914)Google Scholar and Hartley, B., Novel Research: Fiction and Authority in Ptolemy Chennus (University of Exeter, 2014), 27–9Google Scholar.

² The controversy lies in the Suda, which contains two competing entries for Ptolemy, placing him in one instance in the Neronian-Flavian era (54–96 ce) and in another in the Trajanic-Hadrianic period (98–138 ce). For the controversy over the date, see Bowersock, G. W., Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (Berkeley, 1994), 24Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., ‘Dictys' Ephemeris and the Parody of Scholarship’, ICS 33–4 (2008–9), 56–7Google Scholar; Ogden, D., Alexander the Great: Myth, Genesis, and Sexuality (Exeter, 2011), 19Google Scholar.

³ Bowersock (n. 2), 25.

⁴ All quotations of Ptolemy in this article are from Photius.

⁵ All translations are the author's.

⁶ K.-H. Tomberg, Die Kaine Historia des Ptolemaios Chennos: Eine literarhistorische und quellenkritische Untersuchung (Rheinisohen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1967), and K. Dowden, ‘Fact and Fiction in the New Mythography: 100 BC–AD 100’, in I. Repath and F.-G. Herrmann (eds.), Some Organic Readings in Narrative, Ancient and Modern (Gronigen, 2009), 65–85, following Chatzis (n. 1), argue that Ptolemy passed on real references to other authors at whose feet blame for the false anecdotes must lie. In contrast, Bowersock (n. 2), 24–7, A. Cameron, Greek Mythology in the Roman World (Oxford, 2004), 135–59, and M. Sanz Morales, ‘Were the Homeric Poems the Work of a Woman? Ptolemy Chennus and the Diverse Faces of a Theory’, in A. Rengakos, P. Finglass, and B. Zimmermann (eds.), More than Homer Knew: Studies on Homer and His Ancient Commentators (Berlin/Boston, 2020), 217–34, following R. Hercher, ‘Über die Glaubwürdigkeit der Neuen Geschichte des Ptolemaeus Chennus’, Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie, Suppl. n.s. 1 (1855–6), 267–93, argue that it is more improbable to assume a host of fraudulent historians and mythographers than to assume that Ptolemy may have come up with some of the counter-narratives he presents or falsified some of his citations. See also Horsfall (n. 2), 59, who argues Ptolemy's work should be viewed, along with Lucian's True History, as ‘paraphilological writing’. For a comparison of Ptolemy with Lucian, see K. Ní Mheallaigh, Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks and Hyperreality (Cambridge, 2014), 123–5.

⁷ e.g. Hartley (n. 1), Ní Mheallaigh (n. 6).

⁸ e.g. L. Kim, Homer between History and Fiction in Imperial Greek Literature (Cambridge, 2010), Dowden (n. 6).

⁹ C. T. Djurslev, ‘Did Alexander Read Cratinus’ Eunidae on his Deathbed?’, GRBS 58 (2018): 542–60, represents the lone exception, in an article exploring Ptolemy's anecdote that Cratinus’ Eunidae was discovered by the head of the dead Macedonian king. Tellingly, Djurslev too notes the lack of attention that is paid to Ptolemaeus Chennus in spite of the increased attention paid in recent years to the reception of Alexander the Great.

¹⁰ Djurslev (n. 9), 545, articulates the problem well: ‘If Ptolemy is toying with his readers, we should approach the text from the assumption that everything he says either has a meaningful relationship with something that was actually true, at least in the Greek literary tradition, or it bears some relation to bogus information that someone else had provided.’

¹¹ J. Downie, ‘Palamedes and the Wisdom of India in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana’, Mouseion, Series III, 13.1 (2016), 67.

¹² Pausanias’ description comes at the end of a lengthy ekphrasis (10.28–31) of a large fresco by Polygnotus in the Lesche of the Knidians in Delphi that depicted the sack of Troy and Odysseus’ journey to the underworld. There, Pausanias describes how Polygnotus has grouped together in the underworld the enemies of Odysseus, including Salaminian Ajax, Thersites, and Palamedes. Pausanias’ description of the death of Palamedes is much more detailed than what exists in Proclus’ summary for this section: ἔπειτά ἐστι Παλαμήδους θάνατος (Cypria, Argumentum 12).

¹³ Verg. Aen. 2.81–5, Ov. Met. 13.34–62, 308–12.

¹⁴ P. Bassino, ‘Palamedes, The Sophistic Hero’, in P. Bassino and N. Benzi (eds.), Sophistic Views of the Epic Past from the Classical to the Imperial Age (London, 2022), 42–5, 57, suggests that the version in which Palamedes is accused of treason, resulting in a face-off against Odysseus, is a later invention, perhaps born out of a desire to see the two legendarily wily enemies engage in a final battle of wits, and argues that it was popular among the Sophists in particular as a cautionary tale about the powers as well as the limitations of λόγος (speech).

¹⁵ See, for example, Ath. 1.11d–e, 1.17d–e, 14.614d; Lucian De domo 30, Dial. mort. 6.4, Salt. 46, Menippus sive necyomantia 18, Judicium vocalium 5, Cal. 28; Maximus of Tyre 1.1, 38.7.

¹⁶ SEG XXI 341 (=IG II² 385b). For analysis of the inscription, see S. Dow, ‘The Athenian Honors for Aristonikos of Karystos, “Alexander's ΣΦΑΙΡΙΣΤΗΣ”’. HSPh 67 (1963), 77–92.

¹⁷ Ath. 1.19b: Ἀριστόνικον τὸν Καρύστιον, τὸν Ἀλεξάνδρου σφαιριστήν Ἀθηναῖοι πολίτην ἐποιήσαντο διὰ τὴν τέχνην καὶ ἀνδριάντα ἀνέστησαν (Aristonicus of Carystus, with whom Alexander had played ball, the Athenians made a citizen on account of his skill, and set up a statue of him). For the overlap between the nature of Ptolemy's and Athenaeus’ works, see Cameron (n. 6), 135. See also the Suda s.v. ὄρχησις:…Ἀριστόνικος ὁ Καρύστιος, Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως σφαιριστής (Aristonicus the Carustian, who played ball with Alexander the king). On Aristonicus and the position of a σφαιριστής, see L. O'Sullivan, ‘Playing Ball in Greek Antiquity’, G&R 59.1 (2012), 17–33.

¹⁸ This is stated clearly by Plutarch in the opening chapter of the Alexander (1.2): οὔτε γὰρ ἱστορίας γράφομεν, ἀλλὰ βίους, οὔτε ταῖς ἐπιφανεστάταις πράξεσι πάντως ἔνεστι δήλωσις ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας, ἀλλὰ πρᾶγμα βραχὺ πολλάκις καὶ ῥῆμα καὶ παιδιά τις ἔμφασιν ἤθους ἐποίησε μᾶλλον ἢ μάχαι μυριόνεκροι καὶ παρατάξεις αἱ μέγισται καὶ πολιορκίαι πόλεων (for I am not writing histories, but lives; and in the most notable deeds there is not necessarily a demonstration of virtue or vice, but often a small affair, a phrase or some joke, reveals the character more than battles where thousands die and the greatest battle lines and sieges of cities).

¹⁹ See, for example, the contrasting portrayals of Alexander in Curtius and Justin as opposed to Arrian. E. Baynahm, Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor, 1998), 33, 62–3; D. Spencer, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter, 2002), 83–5.

²⁰ For an overview of the Macedonian court system, see T. Spawforth, ‘The Court of Alexander the Great Between Europe and Asia’, in T. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies (Cambridge, 2007), 82–92, and J. Reames, ‘Court and Companions’, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 2023), 179–91.

²¹ E. Badian, ‘Conspiracies’ in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford, 2000), 50–89; W. Heckel, ‘King and ‘Companions’: Observations on the Nature of Power in the Reign of Alexander’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden, 2003), 197–225.

²² Spencer (n. 19), 83–118.

²³ Given the problematic nature of Ptolemy's dates, I am not attempting to make a claim of intertextuality between Arrian or Plutarch and Ptolemy. Instead, I am arguing that the shared use of this phrase suggests a theme in the Alexander tradition which Ptolemy is also activating in this passage.

²⁴ Plut. Alex. 48.1: Φιλώτας δὲ ὁ Παρμενίωνος…ἀνδρεῖος ἐδόκει καὶ καρτερικὸς εἶναι, φιλόδωρος δὲ οὕτω καὶ φιλέταιρος μετ᾿ αὐτὸν Ἀλέξανδρον οὐδείς (Philotas, son of Parmenio, seemed to be brave and determined, and after Alexander himself no one was so munificent and so fond of his companions). For Philotas’ innocence in Plutarch, see Alex. 48.3–49.12. On the portrayal of Alexander in this incident, see E. Badian, ‘The Death of Parmenio’, TAPhA 91 (1960), 324–38; W. Heckel, ‘The Conspiracy Against Philotas’, Phoenix 31.1 (1977), 9–21; W. L. Adams, ‘The Episode of Philotas: An Insight’, in W. Heckel and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of History: The Age of Alexander (Cambridge, 2009), 113–26.

²⁵ Plut. Alex. 49.14: ταῦτα πραχθέντα πολλοῖς τῶν φίλων φοβερὸν ἐποίησε τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον (these affairs made many of Alexander's friends regard him with fear). On the death of Parmenio, see Plut. Alex. 49.13. See also Arr. Anab. 3.26.1–27.3. This trend in Plutarch continues with the murder of Cleitus by Alexander (Alex. 50.1–11). On the deaths of Parmenio and Cleitus in Plutarch, see also Spencer (n. 19), 91–4.

²⁶ Heracles’ paternity has long been called into question. See, for example, E. Carney, ‘The Women of Alexander's Court’, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 2023), 213–25, who follows the source tradition in accepting Heracles’ paternity. In contrast, P. V. Wheatley, ‘The Date of Polyperchon's Invasion of Macedonia and Murder of Heracles’, Antichthon 32 (1998), 12–23, following W. W. Tarn, ‘Heracles Son of Barsine’, JHS 41.1 (1921), 18–28, rejects the claim that Heracles was a child of Alexander.

²⁷ The similarities between Plutarch's account of the murder of Heracles and the accounts of Pausanias and Dictys regarding the murder of Palamedes are readily apparent. The murder of Heracles is also recorded by Diodorus Siculus (20.28.2–3) and Justin (15.2.3), who lays the blame entirely at the feet of Cassander, though neither include the shaming element present in Plutarch.

²⁸ See also Athenaeus 12.538a: εὐφημία τε καὶ σιγὴ κατεῖχε πάντας ὑπὸ δέους τοὺς παρόντας⋅ ἀφόρητος γὰρ ἦν καὶ φονικός⋅ ἐδόκει γὰρ εἶναι μελαγχολικός (‘all those present kept silent out of fear, for [Alexander] was insufferable and bloodthirsty; for he seemed to be ill-tempered’).

²⁹ See especially Arrian 7.6.5: ταῦτα πάντα ἐλύπει τοὺς Μακεδόνας, ὡς πάντῃ δὴ βαρβαρίζοντος τῇ γνώμῃ Ἀλεξάνδρου, τὰ δὲ Μακεδονικὰ νόμιμά τε καὶ αὐτοὺς Μακεδόνας ἐν ἀτίμῳ χώρᾳ ἄγοντος (all these things pained the Macedonians, as indeed they thought that Alexander was becoming entirely barbarian in his disposition and was treating both the Macedonian customs and the Macedonians themselves disrespectfully).

³⁰ R. Mayhew, Aristotle's Lost Homeric Problems: Textual Studies (Oxford, 2019), 180, notes that the opening of the passage resembles an Aristotelian problêma: ‘Why did Homer make doves servants of the nourishment of the gods?’ The similarity is certainly present, but this question, drawing on one minute, insignificant detail in the Odyssey, is also exemplary of the nature of such questions found throughout the sympotic literature of Ptolemy's day.

³¹ E.g. Strabo 13.1.17; Plut. De Alex. fort. 327F–328A and 335, Alex. 15.7–9, 26.1–7, 28.3; Arr. Anab. 1.12.1–5; Dio Chrys. Or. 2. On this association with Homer, see H. Bowden, ‘Alexander as Achilles: Arrian's use of Homer from Troy to the Granikos’, in T. Howe and F. Pownall (eds.), Ancient Macedonians in the Greek and Roman Sources: From History to Historiography. (Swansea, 2018), 163–79.

³² Ath. 11.489F–492D, Hom. Il. 11.634–5.

³³ These authorities include Aratus (11.489d–490a), Simonides (11.490f), Pindar (11.490f), Aeschylus (11.491a), Simmias (11.491c), Posidippus (11.491c), Lamprocles (11.491c–d), the author of Astronomy spuriously attributed to Hesiod (11.491d), and Moero of Byzantium (11.490e, 491b). Eustathius includes a similar list of authors together with their respective opinions in his discussion (11.8–9), with the notable addition of Athenaeus himself, suggesting his source for these attestations was none other than the Deipnosophistae.

³⁴ For the debate over the veracity of Ptolemy's many otherwise unattested references, see above (n. 6).

³⁵ R. Janko, Philodemus On Poems, Books 3–4, with Fragments of Aristotle On Poets (Oxford, 2011), 327–8; Mayhew (n. 30), 184–5.

³⁶ See, for example, Plut. De Alex. fort. 330E, 333B; Alex. 7.4–8.5. See also Ael. VH 3.17, 12.54. Others, such as Athenaeus, noted the contrast between Alexander's reputation for excess and the reputation of his teacher, e.g. Ath. 12.537f.

³⁷ On the Macedonian Pages (basiliki paides), see F. Pownall, ‘Basilikoi paides’, in W. Heckel, J. Heinrichs, S. Müller, and F. Pownall (eds.), Lexicon of Argead Makedonia (Berlin, 2020), 137–9; E. Anson, ‘Philip and Alexander and the Nature of Their Personal Kingship,’ in F. Pownall, S. Asirvatham, and S. Müller (eds.), The Courts of Philip II and Alexander the Great: Monarchy and Power in Ancient Macedonia (Berlin/Boston, 2022), 17–31.

³⁸ For this association, see Djurslev (n. 9), 550. On the figure of Proteas, see W. Heckel, Who's Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander's Empire (Oxford, 2006), 233. Other ancient descriptions of Proteas as a drunkard and a companion of Alexander can be found in Ath. 4.129a, 10.434a–b.

³⁹ Ath. 4.129a: Πρωτέας ἀπόγονος ἐκείνου Πρωτέου Λανίκης υἱοῦ, ἥτις ἐγεγόνει τροφὸς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἔπινε πλεῖστον, ἦν γὰρ πολυπότης ὡς καὶ ὁ πάππος αὐτοῦ Πρωτέας ὁ συγγενόμενος Ἀλεξάνδρῳ (‘Proteas, a descendant of that Proteas, son of Lanike, who was the nurse of King Alexander, drank the most, for he was a heavy drinker, just like his ancestor Proteas the companion of Alexander also was.’).

⁴⁰ Plut. Alex. 70.1–3 describes Alexander initiating a drinking contest that left forty two dead from alcohol poisoning, including Promachus, the victor of the contest. Other than his own death, one of the most famous tales of his excessive drinking involves the destruction of Persepolis, e.g. Curt. 5.7.11, Ath. 13.576d–e. On the portrayal of Alexander in this episode, see A. McAuley, ‘The Great Misstep: Alexander the Great, Thais, and the Destruction of Persepolis’, in K. R. Moore (ed.), Brill's Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great (Leiden/Boston, 2018), 717–38.

⁴¹ Ael. VH 12.26: Ποτίστατοι γεγόνασιν ἄνθρωποι, ὥσπερ φασί, Ξεναγόρας ὁ Ῥόδιος, ὃν ἐκάλουν Ἀμφορέα καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ πύκτης, καὶ Πρωτέας ὁ Λανίκης μὲν υἱός, Ἀλεξάνδρου δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως σύντροφος. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος λέγεται πλεῖστον πιεῖν ἀνθρώπων (‘The men who were the biggest drinkers, as they say, were Xenagoras the Rhodian, whom they call Amphora, Herakleides the boxer, and Proteas, son of Lanike, the companion of King Alexander. And Alexander himself is said to drink the most out of any man.’). See also Ael. VH 3.23.

⁴² Ath. 10.434a–b.

⁴³ Whether Alexander actually died due to over-consumption of wine is well beyond the scope of this paper. For the debate over the cause(s) of his death, see J. Roisman, ‘Alexander's Death, Last Plans and Burial’, in D. Ogden (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 2024), 129–44.

⁴⁴ For example, Arr. Anab. 7.11.14, 14.2–15.6; Plut. Alex. 72.1–5; Justin 12.12; D.S. 17.114–15, Lucian, Calumniae non temere credendum 17. As P. McKechnie, ‘Diodorus Siculus and Hephaestion's Pyre’, CQ 45.2 (1995), 420, notes, the death and funeral of Hephaestion occur in a lacuna in Curtius. However, the ubiquity of the theme is noted by Arrian (Anab. 7.14.2): ἔνθα δὴ καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλα ἀνέγραψαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πένθους τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου⋅ μέγα μὲν γενέσθαι αὐτῷ τὸ πένθος, πάντες τοῦτο ἀνέγραψαν…(‘here indeed historians record different things concerning the grief of Alexander; that it was great, all have written…’). On this portrayal of Alexander and Hephaestion, see S. Müller, ‘In Abhängigkeit von Alexander: Hephaistion bei den Alexanderhistoriographen’, Gymnasium 118.5 (2011), 429–53. For an analysis of the relationship between the two, see S. Müller, ‘Hephaestion – A Re-assessment of His Career’, in T. Howe and F. Pownall (eds.), Ancient Macedonians in the Greek and Roman Sources: From History to Historiography (Swansea, 2018), 77–102.

⁴⁵ Within the Varia Historia, Aelian is consistent in representing Hephaestion as the Patroclus to Alexander's Achilles (e.g. 12.7).

⁴⁶ E.g. Gell. 5.2; Plut. Alex. 61.1–3; Arr. Anab. 5.14.4, 19.4–6; Metz Epitome 62.

⁴⁷ Pliny HN 8.154: rex defuncto ei duxit exequias urbemque tumulo circumdedit nomine eius.

⁴⁸ According to Pausanias (10.28.3), Archilochus’ grandfather was named Tellis, though there is no indication there that he was a poet.

⁴⁹ Suda s.v. Ἀλκμάν: ἔγραψε βιβλία ἓξ μέλη καὶ Κολυμβώσας (“he wrote six lyric books and the Κολυμβῶσαι”), D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962), 83 (Alcman 158). On this work of Alcman, see M. Ornaghi, ‘Alcman et les Κολυμβῶσαι, un plongeon métaphorique?’, in M. L. Desclos (ed.), La Poésie archaïque comme discours de savoir (Paris, 2018), 143–73.

⁵⁰ See Page (n. 49), 83. Pl. Ion 534d: Τύννιχος ὁ Χαλκιδεύς.

⁵¹ As noted by R. Henry, Photius Bibliothèque: Tome III (Paris, 1962), ad loc.

⁵² R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci, Vol. IV Aristophon-Crobylus (Berlin, 1983), 157–8.

⁵³ For Pompey associated with Agamemnon, see Plut. Pomp. 67.3, Caes. 41.2. See also Tomberg (n. 6), 156. Given the usage of these comparisons between Pompey and Agamemnon, it appears likely that this was intended to mock Pompey's pretentions to authority. For a thorough assessment of these varying book placements, see Djurslev (n. 9).

⁵⁴ On the specific location of under the pillow, see Horsfall (n. 2), 50–1, and C. Brunelle, ‘Alexander's Persian Pillow and Plutarch's Cultured Commander’, CJ 112.3 (2017), 257–78.

⁵⁵ Plut. Alex. 8.2:…τὴν μὲν Ἰλιάδα τῆς πολεμικῆς ἀρετῆς ἐφόδιον καὶ νομίζων καὶ ὀνομάζων, ἔλαβε μὲν Ἀριστοτέλους διορθώσαντος ἣν ἐκ τοῦ νάρθηκος καλοῦσιν, εἶχε δ’ ἀεὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἐγχειριδίου κειμένην ὑπὸ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον, ὡς Ὀνησίκριτος ἱστόρηκε (‘…[Alexander] considered and called the Iliad a supply of military excellence; he carried Aristotle's recension which they call “of the casket”, and he always kept it with his dagger under his pillow, as Onesicritus recorded’).

⁵⁶ For example, Arr. Anab. 1.12.1–5, 7.14.4, 7.16.8; Dio Chrys. Or. 2; Diod. Sic. 17.17.3. Strabo 13.1.27 also mentions this ‘recension of the casket’ (ἡ ἐκ τοῦ νάρθηκος λεγομένη), though he credits it to Callisthenes and Anaxarchus rather than to Aristotle as in Plutarch/Onesicritus. On the question of authorship of the recension, see J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch: Alexander (Bristol, 1969), 20.

⁵⁷ Ath. 12.539a. The three named are Lycon, Phormio, and Ariston, who are listed alongside three tragic actors (Thessalus, Athenodorus, and Aristocritus).

⁵⁸ Ath. 13.555a.

⁵⁹ Athenaeus mentions this play three times in Deipnosophistae (2.50f, 13.58dD, 13.595e), noting each time that there was a debate whether Python of Catana (recorded as Python of Catana or Byzantium in 2.50f and 13.595e) or Alexander wrote the satyr play Agēn. For an overview of scholarship on this play, see Djurslev (n. 9), 548–9.

⁶⁰ B. Dreyer, ‘Heroes, Cults, and Divinity,’ in W. Heckel and L. A. Tritle (eds.), Alexander the Great: A New History (Malden, MA, 2009), 222. For other Egyptian affiliations for Ammon, see Ogden (n. 2), 23.

⁶¹ See Arr. Anab. 3.3.1–4.5, Diod. Sic. 17.49.2–52.2, Curt. 4.7.5–8.2, Justin 11.11.2–13, Plut. Alex. 27.5–28.6. Alexander's visit to Siwah, this purported declaration by the priest, and Alexander's own belief in his divinity continue to be the subject of considerable scholarly debate. For a representative sample of the controversy, see A. B. Bosworth, Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (Oxford, 1996), 115–18; I. Worthington, Alexander the Great: Man and God (London, 2004), 203; D. Ogden, ‘Alexander's Snake Sire’, in P. Wheatley and R. Hannah (eds.), Alexander and his Successors: Essays from the Antipodes (Claremont, CA, 2009), 136–78; A. Collins, ‘Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander's Divine Birth’, AHB 26 (2012), 1–14; T. Howe, ‘The Diadochi, Invented Tradition, and Alexander's Expedition to Siwah’, in V. A. Troncoso and E. M. Anson (eds.), After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC) (Oxford, 2013), 61–70.

⁶² For an overview of perspectives, see Hamilton (n. 56), 73, and E. Badian, ‘The Deification of Alexander the Great’, in H. J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki, 1981), 27–66.

⁶³ Plut. Alex. 2.6, 3.1–2; Just. 11.11.3–8; Lucian Dial. mort. 13.1–2. For a more complete discussion of the different literary accounts of Alexander's snake-siring, see R. Frank, ‘The Best Man Among the Dead: Alexander Son of Ammon in an Alexandrian Inscription’, in F. Pownall, S. Asirvatham, and S. Müller (eds.), The Courts of Philip II and Alexander the Great: Monarchy and Power in Ancient Macedonia (Berlin/Boston, 2022), 265–8. The debate stems from the question of whether the snakes were an Egyptian addition to the story, came from Greek cult practised by Olympias, or were Asclepian in nature. For an overview of the evidence, see Ogden (n. 2), 14–52; D. Ogden, ‘The Serpent Sire of Alexander the Great: A Palinode’, in F. Pownall, S. Asirvatham, and S. Müller (eds.), The Courts of Philip II and Alexander the Great: Monarchy and Power in Ancient Macedonia (Berlin/Boston, 2022), 211–12.

⁶⁴ See, for example, Collins, A., ‘The Divinity of Alexander in Egypt: A Reassessment’, in Wheatley, P. V. and Hannah, R. (eds.), Alexander and His Successors: Essays From the Antipodes (Claremont, 2009), 179–206Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Plut. Alex. 2.6, 3.1–2.

⁶⁶ Just. 11.11.3–8.

⁶⁷ Lucian Dial. mort. 13.1–2. For an overview of the traditions of both snake-siring in general, and Alexander's purported snake-siring specifically, see Ogden (n. 61). More recently, Ogden (n. 63) argues against this previous publication, making the case for a separation of the traditions of Alexander's divine birth and his snake-siring.

⁶⁸ Ael. VH 12.64: Ὁ μὲν Φιλίππου καὶ Ὀλυμπιάδος Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν Βαβυλῶνι τὸν βίον καταστρέψας νεκρὸς ἔκειτο, ὁ τοῦ Διὸς εἶναι λέγων.

⁶⁹ Ael. VH 5.12. Cf. Ath. 251b, where the penalty is listed as 10 talents.

⁷⁰ See, for example, Ael. VH 2.19 and 9.37.

⁷¹ Ael. VH 1.25, 2.25, 3.17, 3.32, 4.29, 10.4, 12.14, 12.64, 13.7, 13.11, 14.47a.

⁷² Ael. VH 1.25: εἰ δέ τῳ δοκεῖ, ὁ τοῦ Διός, ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐδὲν διαφέρει. See also VH 12.64.

⁷³ Ath. 6.250f–251c.

⁷⁴ Ath. 12.537d–538b. Note especially 537e: Ἔφιππος δέ φησιν ὡς Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς ἐσθῆτας ἐφόρει ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις, ὁτὲ μὲν τὴν τοῦ Ἄμμωνος πορφυρίδα καὶ περισχιδεῖς καὶ κέρατα καθάπερ ὁ θεός (‘Ephippos says that Alexander even wore sacred garments at feasts, sometimes the purple garment of Ammon and split-sided shoes and horns just like the god’).

⁷⁵ In fact, Ptolemy's own claim here is undercut by his use of Φιλλίπου to identify him elsewhere in the Novel History (see 148a, above), Against this humorous reading, see O'Hara, J. J., ‘Sostratus Suppl. Hell. 733: A Lost, Possibly Catullan-Era Elegy on the Six Sex Changes of Tiresias’, TAPA 126 (1996), 199–200Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ A final example of this is the case of Ptolemy Soter's dog, Briareus (Photius 190.148a). According to Ptolemy (Chennus), when Briareus died, he was cut open and was found to have a hairy heart (τὴν καρδίαν εὑρέθη ἔχων τετριχωμένη). This appears to be a literalization of the Homer's phrase λάσιον κῆρ, used to describe someone as brave or stout-hearted (e.g. Il. 1.188–9, 2.851, 16.544). But where in Homer it is metaphorical, in Ptolemy it is quite literal. Ptolemy Soter's dog fought alongside him (συνεμάχει τῷ δεσπότῃ), and thus displayed this Homeric bravery. As a result, his physical heart was discovered to be τετριχωμένη, or ‘covered with hair’. Not only does Ptolemy play with the meaning of the phrase, but he also winks at his knowing reader who sees him giving a Homeric epithet to a dog. For another example of Ptolemy taking this idea literally, see Heracles’ eromenos Stichios (Photius 190.152b).

⁷⁷ Mheallaigh (n. 6), 123–5.