ALESSANDRO MAGNO, III DI MACEDONIA

ALEXANDER THE GREAT, III of MACEDONIA. – Born in 356 BC to Philip II of Macedon. He succeeded to the throne after his father’s assassination (336) and, having subdued the surrounding peoples, including the Greeks (335), turned against the Persians. Victories at the Granicus (Troad, 334) and at Issus (Cilicia, 333), where he encountered the Persian king Darius III Codomannus (336–30), opened the gates of the East to him. After taking Tyre and Gaza (332), he entered Egypt (winter 332–31), where he was welcomed as a liberator and hailed as a god at the shrine of the oasis of Ammon; there he founded Alexandria (v.), which later became the centre of Hellenistic culture. He then marched into the East, where beyond the Tigris, between Arbela and Gaugamela, he delivered a final defeat to Darius (331). Finally he advanced into India as far as the Hyphasis (327–26), but was obliged to turn back because of the exhaustion of his army. Stricken by a severe fever at Babylon, he died there on 13 June

323. The effect of Alexander’s conquests was the spread of the Greek language and civilisation throughout the eastern world. All of Asia Minor became Hellenised, and Greek cities arose even on the Euphrates. At the triumph of Hellenism Judaism held firm at its centre, though Judea was surrounded by Hellenistic centres (Egypt, the Decapolis, Galilee, Phoenicia); Diaspora (v.) multiplied and became Hellenised.

1 Maccabees reports that, near death, Alexander “divided his kingdom among his generals” (1:6 [Gr. 7]). Independent critics regard this account as legendary (e.g. G. Luzzi, *La Bibbia*, X, Florence 1930, p. 34), “in contradiction” to history. Yet 1 Maccabees, written c. 120–110 BC, is the oldest surviving document on Alexander’s death. The other sources, moreover, are later and narrate matters that, if not contradictory, are at least disparate, as Arrian already noted (late 2nd c. AD; *Anabasis Alexandri*, VII, 27). Diodorus Siculus (2nd half of 1st c. BC; *Bibliotheca historica*, XVII, 117), Quintus Curtius Rufus (1st half of 2nd c. AD; *Historia Alexandri Magni*, X, 5) and Justin (c. AD 200; *Epitome of Pompeius Trogus*, XII, 15) tell how Alexander, unable to speak, handed his ring to Perdiccas, thereby designating him regent during the minority of his unborn son; yet Curtius and Justin, joined by Arrian (*loc. cit.*), also say that when asked to whom he wished to leave his kingdom Alexander replied: “To the strongest.” Plutarch (2nd c. AD; *Life of Alexander*, 76)—apparently agreeing with 1 Maccabees—relates that Alexander conferred with his generals to appoint governors for the various provinces; while Curtius denies that Alexander distributed the provinces, yet adds “by testament.” Against this tangle of reports stands the fact that after Alexander’s death the regency was not given to Perdiccas, as was thought, but to Craterus, as modern scholars believe (F. Geyer, s.V. *Perdikkas*, in *Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft*, XIX, col. 608; id., s.V. *Krateros*, ibid., suppl. IV, col. 1042). On the other hand, 1 Maccabees does not say that Alexander created kings; rather, alluding to the events of 306–305, it notes how the generals assumed royal crowns for themselves (v. 10 [Gr. 9]). Thus the phrase “they divided the kingdom” means only, as Plutarch clarifies, that Alexander assigned governors to the individual provinces. This plurality of governors, which indeed soon came into being, does not conflict with the unity of a single head-regent, hypothetically designated by Alexander in word or gesture, whether in Perdiccas, Craterus or another.

It is plausible that Alexander, lacking an heir, gave thought to the governance of his vast empire, even in its details. While other historians concerned themselves only with the general direction in the designation of a supreme head for the entire empire, 1 Maccabees, introducing the tragic history of the Seleucids, wished to trace its origins back to the first act: the assignment of provinces to the various governors, who later, crowning themselves kings, “caused trouble upon the earth” (v. 10 [Gr. 9]).

In his symbolic visions Daniel repeatedly alludes to Alexander’s kingdom and to the fourfold division of 301: 2:32–33, 39–40 (copper, iron); 7:6, 17 (leopard with four heads); 8:5–8, 21–22 (horn with four prongs); 11:3–4 (a mighty king whose kingdom is divided toward the four winds).

Flavius Josephus recounts that after the capture of Gaza Alexander ascended to Jerusalem, where—solemnly received by the high priest Jaddua (Jaddua [Neh 12:11–12]), who showed him the prophecies of Daniel concerning the Macedonian king’s victories over the Persian—he offered sacrifice in the Temple (Antiquitates Judaicae, XI, 8, 4–5). Scholars recognise a historical substratum in this tradition, though they disagree over its precise determination.

Gaetano M. Perrella

ALEXANDER SEVERUS, Roman emperor (Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander). – He was the son of Gessius Marcianus and Julia Mamaea; before his adoption by his cousin Elagabalus (AD 221) he was called Bassianus or Alexianus. He succeeded Elagabalus in AD 222 and sought to govern with honesty and wisdom, relying on the Senate, rejecting military absolutism, and issuing many legislative enactments with the aid of the celebrated Ulpian. Gentle in spirit, he allowed himself to be guided too much by his mother; lacking military ability, he preferred to pay large sums to the barbarians threatening the frontiers rather than fight them. This alienated the military, who set up Maximinus against him; he was killed in AD 235 together with his mother.

Like his predecessors, members of his family, he followed a conciliatory eclecticism in religion, but more than they he showed himself well disposed toward Christians, even placing the effigy of Christ among those of other illustrious figures in his private shrine and adorning his palace with maxims drawn from the Sacred Books. Christians were numerous at court in those years. Moreover, when a dispute arose between them and the tavern-keepers of Rome over the occupation of a site, the emperor decided in favour of the former, replying that it was better for the place to be devoted in some way to the worship of deity than to be handed over to the tavern-keepers. The episode shows that the Church already enjoyed the right of property and that the Christian religion was no longer regarded as a *religio illicita*.

(vol. Alinari)