Reading History Ethically: Plutarch on Alexander’s Murder of Cleitus (Alex. 50-52.2)*

This paper offers a close reading of Plutarch’s treatment of Alexander’s murder of Cleitus in the Life of Alexander (50-52.2), analyzing the specific narrative techniques that Plutarch employs to draw his readers to reflect on several aspects of Alexander’s character and actively engage them with the complexities involved in the process of moral evaluation. Though Alexander’s murder of Cleitus constitutes a pure stain on Alexander’s moral record, I argue that Plutarch’s narrative offers a repertoire of thought-prompts that further readers’ understanding of Alexander’s character and morally disconcerting actions. Key-Words: Plutarch, Biography, Narrative technique, Moral reflection, Characterization.

O ver the last few decades, scholars have decisively call ed attention to the challeng ing and interrogatory nature of the mo ra lism of Plutarch's biographies as well as their narrative sophistication, an im por tant aspect of which is how they pro duce an active, committed sort of reader response 1 . It has already been observed that in the Lives Plutarch is not simply concerned with 'protreptic' and 'expository' moralism-in the form of "do that" or "do not do that", "this is what is good" or "this is what is bad"-but rather with 'descriptive' and 'exploratory' moralism, which points towards, and prompts reflection on, ethical "truths about human behaviour and shared human experience" 2 . It has also been noticed that Plutarch "assumes a mature, discerning reader able to grapple with the moral challenges" presented by the characters of the Lives 3 ; and that in the Lives he develops and employs a wide range of narrative techniques in order to encourage his readers to assume a special sort of empathetic picture of historical agents and their character as well as actively engage them with the complexities involved in the process of moral evaluation 4 .
In this paper I will focus on a pa radigmatic episode from Plutarch's Life of Alexander, Alexander's murder of Cleitus (Alex. 5052.2), and analyze some of the narrative strategies that Plutarch uses to encourage readerly reflection and engagement. Though Alexander's kill ing of Cleitus might be taken as a stain that mars Alexander's moral re cord 5 , in Plutarch's Life it offers, as we shall see, much opportunity for ethico political reflection that advances readers' understanding of Alexander's character and morally disconcerting action.
Plutarch introduces the story about Alexander's killing of Cleitus with a striking distinction between two kinds of readers: those 'casual readers' who are satisfied with being simply informed about what had happened (cf. ἁπλῶς πυθομένοις) and those 'serious readers' who are willing to get involved in an investigation (cf. λόγῳ μέντοι συντιθέντες) of the reasons (cf. τὴν αἰτίαν) and the circumstances (cf. τὸν καιρόν) of Cleitus' murder (50.1) 6 . The former, Plutarch says, will find that the affair of Cleitus was just more savage than that of Philotas (50.1)-recounted in the preceding chapters, cf. Alex. 48 49-while the latter (to whom Plutarch appears to include himself through the use of the first-person plural) will find (cf. εὑρίσκομεν) that "it was some misfortune (cf. δυστυχίᾳ τινί) rather than a deliberate act (cf. οὐκ ἀπὸ γνώμης), and that it was Cleitus' evil genius (cf. τῷ Κλείτου δαίμονι) which took advantage of Alexander's anger and intoxication to destroy him" (50.2) 7 . Plutarch signals here the importance of the following episode as well as its exploratory and interrogatory character: it is one on which his ideal reader should spend time, joining Plutarch in a serious investigation of the reasons and the circumstances of Alexander's action. To this end, as we shall see, Plutarch uses multiple narrative means of arousing readers' interest and engaging them further.
Plutarch begins with a depiction of the background of the drinking party, offering his reader an insight into the events surrounding and preceding the conflict between Alexander and Cleitus. We are told that some people came to bring Alexander a gift of Greek fruit; that Alexander was impressed by its beauty and perfection and thus called Cleitus to see and have a share in it too (50.3). Cleitus, Plutarch proceeds to tell, left the sacrifice he offered at the time and came, while three of the sheep on which libations had already been poured came after him (50.4). Alexander asked the advice of his soothsayers on this incident, who interpreted it as a bad omen. Accordingly, Alexander ordered that a sacrifice should be offered quickly for the safety of Cleitus (50.5), especially as two days before he saw a portentous dream about Cleitus (50.6). Before the completion of the sacrifice, nevertheless, Cleitus hastened to dine with Alexander (50.7).
It is worth noticing that Plutarch's account lavishes too much attention on the presence and workings of superhuman forces (omens, dreams, and other divine signs) on Alexander and Cleitus, giving the scene a tragic ring and allowing the two men to emerge as tragic figures or at least to have tragic potentialities. The idea of divine inevitability and human futility that resonates in Plutarch's 6 On similar distinctions in Plutarch's Lives, see C. , pp. 272, 276. Cf. T. Duff, 2004  ; and Justin has nothing of this theme (Epit. 12.6.14).
This initial tragic sense in Plutarch deepens in the following chapters of Plutarch's narrative of Cleitus' murder, where several Dionysiac themes, thea trical motifs and imagery come together to sketch the heated quarrel between Alexander and Cleitus and offer a detailed reconstruction of the onlookers' reactions 10 . The latter constitutes a fa vou rable technique of Plutarch in the Lives of making his story more engaging; it reenacts the climate of the times and draws readers into the atmosphere of the actions, comments, thoughts and feelings of contemporary observers, which on occa sions are used to guide, or at least pro blematize, the readers' moral response and characterize historical agents 11 . Here we are told, on the one hand, of the annoyance and railing of the elder Ma ce donians (cf. τῶν δὲ πρεσβυτέρων δυσχε ραινόντων καὶ λοιδορούντων) at those who shamed and ridiculed with their songs the people who had recently been defeated by the Barbarians (50.8 9); and on the other hand, of the delight and enthusiasm (cf. ἡδέως ἀκροωμένων καὶ λέγειν κελευόντων) of Alexander and his circle (50.9).
Amidst such contrasting responses, Plutarch introduces a brief sketch of Clei tus. He makes some general re marks about his natural harshness in respect of his anger (cf. φύσει τραχὺς ὢν πρὸς ὀργήν) and stubbornness (cf. αὐθάδης), bringing into relief his current state of intoxication (cf. ἤδη με θύων) and strong anger (cf. ἠγανάκτει μάλιστα), which foments Alexander's passion (50.9). While Cleitus supports, as Plutarch tells us, those Macedonians who fell, suggest ing that they were far better than those who laughed at them (50.9), Alexander accuses Cleitus of pleading his own case by misleadingly presenting cowardice as misfortune (50.10). Then Cleitus, so Plutarch says, rose and spoke: Yes, it was my cowar dice that saved your life, you who are the son of the gods (cf. τὸν ἐκ θεῶν), when you were turning your back to Spithridates' sword. And it is the blood of these Macedonians and their wounds which have made you so great that you disown your father, Philip, and claim to be the son of Ammon! (50.11).
Cleitus' emphasis on Alexander's di vi nity prompts the readers to look back to Plutarch's narrative of Alexander's life in order to understand what exactly provokes Alexander's anger here. In the preceding chapters Plutarch has many times referred to Alexander's divine origin (2.63.6; 27.511; 33.1), but he also stressed that Alexander "was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others" (28.6); "in general, Alexander adopted a haughty and majestic bearing towards the barbarians, as a man who was fully convinced of his divine birth and pa rentage, but towards the Greeks he was more restrained, and it was only on rare occasions that he assumed the manner of divinity" (28.1). It is no wonder that Cleitus' onesided, bold assertion about Alexander's conception of divinity in fu riates Alexander. Closely relevant to this is also Cleitus' highly ironical stan ce towards Alexander here, calling attention to Alexander's "godborn na ture" (cf. τὸν ἐκ θεῶν) in order to bring all the more sharply into relief his own con tribution to Alexander's salvation in the Battle of the Granicus.
Cleitus' mention of the Battle of the Granicus 12 , in fact, may bear further im plications than simply reminding Alexander of Cleitus' previous ser vice. There Plutarch stresses that Alexan der "seemed to be acting like a despe rate madman rather than a prudent com man der" (cf. 16.4: ἔδοξε μανικῶς καὶ πρὸς ἀπόνοιαν μᾶλλον ἢ γνώμῃ στρα τηγεῖν. Cf. 16.14: ὁ δὲ θυμῷ μᾶλ λον ἢ λογισμῷ πρῶτος ἐμβαλών). Plutarch's account of the Battle of the Granicus may also have some interesting reminders of Xerxes' building of the two bridges across the Hellespont. In both instances Helles pont is personified: Xer xes reviles and pu nishes Hellespont for ha ving wrong ed its master (Hdt., VII 35), whi le Alexander rejects Par me nion's oppo sition to the crossing of the ri ver, highlighting that "the Hellespont would blush for shame if, once he had crossed it, he should shrink back from the Granicus" (Alex. 16.3) 13 . Xerxes' ne glect of Artabanus' cautious advice (Hdt., VII 46-52) and the foreboding signs (Hdt., VII 57) might be called to mind in parallel as well. In Aeschylus' Per sae, moreover, Darius' ghost main tains focus on the madness and youth ful recklessness of Xerxes (719; 744; 750751). If such a link between Xer xes and Alexander is activated in rea ders' minds, then Xerxes provides a useful comparandum for Alexander's demeanour of derangement and insanity. Xerxes' paradigm might cast a shadow over readers' attitude to Alexander's character and morality, thereby asking probing questions of them: Will Alexan der be able to avoid a Xerxeslike fa te? Will he be able to comport with his superior ethical standards? In fact, as the Life progresses and Alexander mo ves eastwards, a clearcut polarity between Alexander and barbarian rulers is profoundly challenged and qualified 14 .
Plutarch proceeds to narrate that Alexan der was incensed (παροξυνθείς) at Clei tus: You scum (ὦ κακὴ κεφαλή), do you think that you can keep on speaking of me like this, and stir up trouble among the Macedo nians and not pay for it? (51.1).
A reminder of Xerxes earlier may be especially apt considering that Cleitus in his subsequent reply to Alexander gives much stress on Alexander's barbarity: It is the dead ones [i.e. the Ma cedonians] who are happy, be cause they never lived to see Macedonians being beaten with Median rods, or begging the Persians for an audien ce with our own king (51.12).
And later on Cleitus, so Plutarch says, insisted on his position and "challenged Alexander to speak out whatever he wish ed to say in front of the company, or else not invite to his table freeborn men who spoke their minds (cf. ἄνδρας 13 Cf. Arr., An. 1.13.6 where it is Alexander who feels ashamed, not the Hellespont. Cf. J. Hamilton, 1969, p. 39 ad loc. 14 See T. Schmidt, 1999, p. 297;T. Whitmarsh, 2002, pp. 182191;J. Beneker, 2012, pp. 136139; C. Chrysanthou, forthcoming. It is highly suggestive that at Alex. 37.5 we hear that Alexander stops before a gigantic statue of Xerxes and talks to it: "Shall I pass by and leave you lying there because of the expedition you led against Greece, or shall I set you up again because of your magnanimity and your virtues in other respects?". Plutarch goes on to mention that Alexander passed on, after he communed with himself for a long time in silence (Alex. 37.5 ἐλευθέρους καὶ παρρησίαν ἔχοντας): it would be better for him to spend his ti me among barbarians and slaves, who would prostrate themselves before his white tunic and his Persian belt" (51.5)-no ti ce here the striking contrast between ἐλευ θερία/παρρησία and barbarism.
Alexander, so Plutarch moves on to tell, was unable to control his anger any mo re and so threw an apple at Cleitus, hit him, and looked around for his sword (51.5). While the rest of his comrades were trying to restrain him, Alexander "leapt to his feet (cf. ἀναπηδήσας) and shouted out in Macedonian (ἀνεβόα Μακεδονιστί) for his corps of guards, a signal that this was an extreme emergency" (51.6). "Shout ing out in Macedonian" has been rightly stressed as a significant marker of Alexander's temperament: "when in the grip of emotion he is portrayed as reverting to a less sophisticated self" 15 .
Strikingly, Alexander's reaction in the Cleitus' episode recalls not only his own attitude in the wedding party but also Philip's own response 18 : At this Phi lip lurched to his feet against him (i.e. his son) (ἐπ' ἐκεῖνον ἐξα νέστη) with drawn sword (cf. σπα σά μενος τὸ ξίφος), but fortunate ly for them both he was so overcome with drink and with rage that he tripped and fell headlong (9.9).

Ploutarchos, n.s., 16 (2019) 45-56
We may remember and compare here Alexander who out of anger at Clei tus "looked around for his sword" (51.5) and "leapt to his feet and shouted for his corps of guards" (51.6). Mo reo ver, it was due to good fortune for both (cf. εὐτυχίᾳ δ' ἑκατέρου) that Philip tripped and fell when he drew his sword against his son (9.9). Compare Plu tarch's mention that the affair of Cleitus happened through some mis for tune (δυστυχίᾳ τινί) of Alexander (50.2) 19 . J. Beneker rightly notes that the association of Alexander with Philip in the episode of Cleitus' murder may be hinting at the fact that Alexander be co mes at this point more like his father, a "more ordinary king" 20 . Here there is a revelation of Alexander's spasmodic mental derangement, "the concomitant re jection of philosophical ideals", which "vi vidly illustrates the power of Alexan der's θυμός and also marks the beginning of his decline as king" 21 .
The rest of the scene encourages fur ther reflection on Alexander's character. Clei tus' friends, as Plutarch relates, try to push him out of the banqueting room, but he does not give in (51.8). Rather, he tries to come in again and recites "in a loud and contemptuous voice this line from Eu ri pi des' Andromache (693): 'Alas, what evil customs reign in Greece'" (51.8). Here as elsewhere in Plutarch quotations from tra gedy (and intertextuality in general) are significant bearers of characterization through en cou raging comparison and con trast. Eu ripides' Andromache is a play par ti cu larly apposite to mark, intensify, and en rich Plutarch's account at this point: the constant accusations heaped upon An dromache of Eastern habits 22 , the an ger, jealousy, brutality, and trea chery that pre vail throughout the play suggest a wi der tragic framework wi thin which we can think again more pro foundly about the character and actions of Clei tus and Alexander.
Readers who know of the context of the quotation from the Andromache may recall that in these lines Peleus talks to Menelaus and expresses his displeasure with the fact that a general re ceives the greatest honour for a mi li tary success, al though he does no more than a single warrior (Andr. 694698) 23 . The quo ta tion from the Andromache, thus, attri buted to Cleitus sets up a tra gic link between Cleitus and Peleus and Alexander and Menelaus. Both Peleus and Cleitus appear to devalue Menelaus' and Alexander's conducts accordingly. It is worthy to remember that earlier in the Life of Alexander Peleus has been associated with Philip by one of Alexan der's teachers, who also linked Alexan der with Achilles and himself with Phoenix (5.8). Such an epic tone has been especially appropriate for the early chap ters of the Life where Alexander's distinguished selfrestraint, seriousness of purpose and ambition are heavily brought out 24 . In Plutarch's account of Cleitus' mur der, on the other hand, the tragic tone is a fine touch to flag Alexan der's depar ture from those earlier highminded thoughts. His asso ciation with Menelaus is by no means com plimentary 25 .
Plutarch narrates next Alexander's mur der of Cleitus in a highly vivid man nernotice the use of present tense (cf. 51.9: ἀπαντῶντα τὸν Κλεῖτον αὐτῷ καὶ παράγον τα τὸ πρὸ τῆς θύρας παρακάλυμμα διελαύνει)-and details his reactions: With a roar of pain and a groan (cf. μετὰ στεναγμοῦ καὶ βρυ χήματος), Cleitus fell, and immediately the king's anger left him. When he [i.e. Alexander] came to him self and saw his friends standing around him speechless, he snatched the wea pon out of the dead body and would have plunged it into his own throat if his bodyguards had not fo restalled him by seizing his hands and carrying him by force into his chamber (51.1011).
Plutarch moves on to stress Alexan der's terrible remorse and deep groans and the fact that he was unable to say a word, being exhausted by his cries and lamentation: He paid no attention to what any of them (i.e. his friends) said, except that when Aristander the di viner reminded him of the dream he had had concerning Cleitus, and its significance, and told him that these events had long ago been or dained by fate, he seemed to accept this assurance (52.2).
We end, then, where we began, and all of these themes (lamentations, cries and wailings, attempt at suicide and di vine inevitability) bring the tragic ring of the scene to full circle 26 .
A thing that is worthy to note in con clusion is Alexander's 'speech less ness' (cf. ἄναυδος ἔκειτο) and 'silence' (cf. τὴν ἀποσιώπησιν) that come in for spe cial attention in Plutarch's account (Alex. 52.1). In Justin (Epit. 12.6.514), Alexander contemplates the character of the dead, the occasion of his death, his own unbridled agitation, and feels shame towards his nurse, the sister of Cleitus.
He also considers what remarks and 24 See J. Mossman, 1995, pp. 214215. 25 On Euripides' negative characterization of Menelaus in the Andromache, see e.g. P. Stevens, 1971Stevens, , pp. 1314D. Kovacs, 1995, pp. 270271. 26 Cf. J. Mossman, 1995, pp. 219220. See also Alex. 13.4 on the role of the divine in Cleitus' murder: "Certainly he [i.e. Alexander] used to claim that the murder of Cleitus, which he committed when he was drunk, and the cowardly refusal of the Macedonians to cross the Ganges…were both caused by the anger and revenge of the god Dionysus".

ISSN 0258-655X
Ploutarchos, n.s., 16 (2019) 45-56 odium he must have caused among his ar my and conquered nations, what fear and dislike of himself among his friends, also remembering several murdered Mace do nian nobles. In Curtius we si milarly hear, amidst a very tragic atmosphere (cf. 8.2.39), of Alexander's lament about the dead Cleitus (8.2.2) and his nur se (8.2.89) as well as his wondering whe ther the crime was committed due to the anger of the gods (8.2.6). Similar things are mentioned in Arrian (4.9.34).
Plutarch, then, although he has an ex cellent opportunity to disclose the in ter nal struggle that Alexander has plau sibly experienced at the time 27 , pre fers Alexan der to keep silence. Plu tarch's choi ce, I suggest, might be design ed to ac tivate the reflection of the readers by im planting in them the desire to fill up the hidden mind by extrapolation from the wider and preceding narrative as well as from Alexan der's overall behaviour 28 . Af ter all, as we saw throughout this paper, Plu tarch used a wide range of narrative de vices in the earlier scene of Cleitus' mur der, which have been highly effective in putt ing us empathetically in Alexander's shoes and making us think about the cause (τὴν αἰτίαν) and the circumstances (τὸν και ρόν) of the murder (cf. Alex. 50.12) as well as about the bitter consequences of Alexander's anger and propensity for drink ing in the way in which Alexander him self might now have been thinking or talking about them 29 . This is pre cisely the sort of active, engaging and reflective reading that Plutarch, as noted at the very out set of Cleitus episode (Alex. 50.2), appro priates for himself and his serious, ideal reader.