Alexander and empire: a commentary on a new testimony to Onesicritus (Sen. Ben. 7.2.5)

Abstract

This article is a commentary on a recently discovered testimony to Onesicritus, in which the writer speaks about his role as participant in the expedition of Alexander. It will be argued that the ideological backdrop of the testimony was Alexander’s claim to universalism, which was intended to be a response to the ancient Near Eastern discourse on empire. Alexander adopted ideological concepts of successful rulership used by the Achaemenids in order to stabilize control in Asia. For this purpose, he claimed to have carried his conquest to the Ocean, which implied universalism. That claim was the main theme in Onesicritus’ account and established the literary atmosphere in which the writer determined his role during the navigation of the Indian Ocean.

I. Introduction

Although research on Alexander III (the Great) has increasingly focused on the lost accounts of the so-called primary authors in recent years, comparatively little attention has been paid to Onesicritus (probably of Astypalaea; BNJ 134). ¹ The major publication on this author is still the thoughtful commentary on the fragments published over ten years ago by Michael Whitby. ² However, discussion is expected to intensify, since Reinhold Bichler recently drew attention to a hitherto unnoticed reference to Onesicritus in Seneca the Younger’s De beneficiis. This reference needs to be considered as a biographical testimony to Onesicritus recounting his tasks as a participant in Alexander’s expedition in the course of naval missions, rather than a fragment deriving from his still-lost account. ³ Whereas Onesicritus’ life and much of his literary production are shrouded in mystery, the information provided by Seneca can contribute much to our understanding of his literary aims. There are two reasons which may justify an exhaustive treatment of this testimony. First, simply the fact that this passage went unnoticed in Felix Jacoby’s Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker and in its follow-up project Brill’s New Jacoby is remarkable. This implies that it was not considered to be significant evidence in the discussion of either Alexander or Onesicritus. Then, although Bichler’s article is a truly important contribution to the overall discussion on this little-known writer, he leaves it to future studies to gauge what can be inferred from it. ⁴

The present study intends to fill this gap, as a commentary discussing the testimony against the backdrop of the accounts of the earliest writers about Alexander. It will be argued here that Alexander’s claim to universalism was the prevailing theme in Onesicritus’ account, which also established the literary atmosphere in which the author determined his role as a participant in Alexander’s expedition. In addition, I attempt to show that Alexander promoted universalism by claiming successful conquest up to the Ocean. In this way, he responded to the Great Kings’ imperial representation and thus met the expectations of his Asian subjects, who were accustomed to Achaemenid concepts of legitimation.

The brief mention of Onesicritus in Seneca’s work can be divided into two related segments. Whilst the first is about his tasks, the focus of the second concerns Seneca’s own interpretation based on his reading of Onesicritus. ⁵ Both segments are equally important for examining the original intention of Onesicritus’ account. I shall begin with the first.

II. Onesicritus, scout and conqueror

As every reader of Seneca’s works knows, he sometimes uses Alexander as a moral exemplum to illustrate Stoic ideals. ⁶ With the intention of exemplifying the values of the ideal Stoic man, Seneca refers to Alexander’s insatiable appetite for conquest as an antithesis. In Seneca’s opinion, only the state of freedom from urges can prevent what he calls ‘mental confusion’ (distorquentibus mentem, Ben. 7.2.4). The central message of Seneca’s essay is that the ultimate objective of Stoic doctrine, that of attaining sapientia, can be achieved only if one relinquishes all ambitious struggles with other men (7.2). ⁷ By following these instructions, it is possible to become a wise man (sapiens), he who ultimately possesses everything (7.2.5, 6.2). All this means that in referring to Alexander the philosopher does not rebuke him on principle for being a conqueror; instead he points to the Macedonian ruler’s never-ending lust for conquest as his most obvious negative trait, which definitely does not correspond with Stoic maxims. Hence, the wise man who is freed from such desires shall possess much more than Alexander could ever have conquered. For the purpose of exemplifying this maxim, Seneca refers to Alexander as an antithesis to the Stoic ideals, at which point he thinks of Onesicritus (7.2.5):

Et ne illum existimes paruo esse contentum, omnia illius sunt, non sic, quemadmodum Alexandri fuerunt, cui, quamquam in litore rubri maris steterat, plus deerat, quam qua uenerat. Illius ne ea quidem erant, quae tenebat aut uicerat, cum in oceano Onesicritus praemissus explorator erraret et bella in ignoto mari quaereret.

And do not suppose that he [sc. the ideal Stoic] is content with a little—all things are his, and not in the sense in which they were Alexander’s, who, although he stood upon the shore of the Indian Ocean, had need of more territory than he had passed through. Nor did he even own the kingdoms that he was holding or had conquered, while Onesicritus, who had been sent ahead, roamed as scout over the Ocean and stirred up war by sea in the unknown sea. ⁸

What makes this passage so important is Seneca’s designation of Onesicritus’ roles as those of scout and conqueror. Based on the available evidence, the majority of scholars have regarded him as a Cynic philosopher in Alexander’s entourage who had written an account in which philosophy, utopia and fiction were blended together. ⁹ However, in recent years, commentators have begun to doubt Onesicritus’ role as a philosopher, instead viewing him as a flatterer of Alexander. ¹⁰ Therefore, Seneca’s statement is an unexpected but welcome contribution to the discussion, which merits serious investigation.

The fact that Onesicritus occurred to Seneca is surprising, since his interest in his work is limited. No other fragment or report about Onesicritus can be found in the corpus of his works. Based on Seneca’s references to the accounts of the earliest writers about Alexander’s expedition, it can be said that he read Callisthenes (BNJ 124) ¹¹ and possibly also Aristobulus (BNJ 139). ¹² Bearing this in mind, Seneca’s choice of Onesicritus’ work is exceptional and deserves further explanation.

It is possible to make a good argument for Seneca having read Onesicritus’ account on the basis of how the latter designates his own tasks. This served Onesicritus’ intention to elevate his otherwise only poorly known and thus probably minor position in Alexander’s empire. This is supported by the fact that a pattern emerges from the extant fragments which shows that Onesicritus exaggerated his value to the voyage on the Indian Ocean in 325 BC. ¹³ We do not know what rank he held in Alexander’s fleet, but in his account he definitely referred to himself as the captain of the naval mission. ¹⁴ It is possible that being the first of all those who followed Alexander to Asia to publish his account gave him the chance to present himself in a favourable light. On the other hand, there is ample reason for regarding Nearchus as the captain of this mission. ¹⁵ The latter also wrote an account of the voyage, published after Onesicritus’ work, in which he accused the latter of bending the facts. ¹⁶

In the light of Onesicritus’ self-representation, it is easy to imagine that he situated himself as a scout whom Alexander sent ahead to roam over the Ocean with the aim of downplaying the importance of his rival Nearchus. ¹⁷ Seneca’s definition of Onesicritus’ task can be used as an argument to view conquest as the original purpose of the navigation, which scholars view as an expedition of discovery. ¹⁸ However, whether the exploration of the Indian Ocean was really Alexander’s motive for sending out his fleet is open to question. That the aspect of conquest and not exploration of the unknown was dominant in Onesicritus’ work may be inferred from Pliny the Elder, who used it as a source for his description of the fauna of the supposedly mythical island of Taprobane (Sri Lanka) in the Naturalis historia. ¹⁹ Whether Onesicritus simply hinted at the existence of this island or claimed credit for its discovery cannot be answered with complete certainty. However, that statement corresponds with another reference to Onesicritus, in Solinus’ collection of miracles. There, Alexander is said to have sent Onesicritus on a naval mission to the mythical island. ²⁰ The historicity of this mission should not be accepted without strong reservations. In this case, Onesicritus’ mission seems to be out of its original context, since Solinus’ interest is clearly focused on geographical investigation of the mythical island. However, this mission shares the same context as Alexander’s alleged encounter with the Amazons, which was also part of Onesicritus’ work. ²¹ Both episodes are set in mythical lands at the limits of the oikoumenē and thus seem originally to have been examples highlighting the enormous spatial dimensions of the Macedonian campaign. ²² This means that some of the earliest writers about Alexander’s expedition created a literary atmosphere in which the conqueror pushed his campaign so far that he reached the limits of the known world, where the land of myth was expected to be located. ²³ Apparently their interpretations were intended to highlight the uniqueness of the Macedonian campaign. However, this endeavour was clearly undertaken in the military context of conquest. Seneca’s classification of Onesicritus’ task as that of a scout clearly shows that the latter presented himself as Alexander’s spearhead on the high seas, which highlights conquest as the prevailing aspect of the enterprise.

This assumption is supported by the fact that in our sources nothing suggests that Alexander sent his fleet out to explore part of the Indian Ocean that was no longer an unknown body of water in his time. From various types of evidence, we learn that the ‘Red Sea’ or ‘Erythraean Sea’ (that is, the modern western Indian Ocean and the Red Sea) was a frequently used seaway nearly 3,000 years before the Macedonians’ arrival. ²⁴ Against this backdrop, it seems that Nearchus was simply in charge of guiding the fleet safely from the mouth of the Indus to Mesopotamia while Alexander led his army through the Gedrosian Desert. ²⁵ This means that exploration was not the major motivation for the navigation through the ‘Red Sea’. What strengthens this view is that Alexander’s contemporaries probably knew that Darius I claimed to have been the first to discover (ὑπὸ Δαρϵίου ἐξϵυρέθη) the eastern parts of Asia, as Herodotus states (4.44). ²⁶ Furthermore, there is ample evidence in Herodotus’ Histories and indigenous sources to suggest that the coastal regions of the Persian Gulf were part of the Achaemenid administrative system. ²⁷ Moreover, Strabo 15.2.3 mentions that Alexander sent out pioneers in advance to Gedrosia and its coast to establish stations for the army and the fleet before he set out to cross the desert. Obviously, Onesicritus’ account of his function as scout was originally set within a military framework and loaded with a meaning other than merely opening up the sea. Therefore, the designation of the Ocean as unknown is not evidence for the geographical knowledge of Alexander’s time, but combined a real military task with the self-representation of Onesicritus.

But why did Seneca the Younger refer to the ‘Red Sea’ as the unknown Ocean? Seneca the Elder’s first Suasoria is a key to understanding Onesicritus as scout on the unknown sea. This work is about a controversy between scholars on the issue of whether Alexander would have been able to carry his conquest to lands lying in or even beyond the Ocean, which was thought to be the world’s utmost limit (Suas. 1.1). The outcome of the debate was that it was impossible to conquer the Ocean because it was assumed to be a body of water too vast and hence must remain, literally, ‘untroubled by the oar’ (inagitata remigio). Thus, it is not surprising that the collocutors agree that Alexander’s plan to conquer the Ocean and even the lands lying beyond it was never one of his actual military objectives and hence has to be explained by his insatiable lust for conquest. Against this backdrop, it becomes even more plausible that Seneca the Younger understood Onesicritus as someone who reached the edge of the world in the wake of Alexander’s campaign.

Evidence for this assumption is provided by the context of Seneca’s reference to Onesicritus in Ben. 7.2.5, whose subject is not exploration but conquest. This specific task finally qualifies this testimony as exceptional, since it is the only ancient statement in which we find an association between Onesicritus and conquest. It seems possible that this was a self-designation by Onesicritus, who as we have seen exaggerated his role in Alexander’s naval missions. In other words, Onesicritus claimed to be playing Nearchus’ part. This is suggested by a short note from Plutarch about the naval mission which Alexander ordered Nearchus to undertake in 324 BC. Its purpose for Plutarch was clearly the military conquest of the Ocean’s shore (Alex. 68.3). The wider context of this mission was Alexander’s plan for a circumnavigation of Arabia and Africa, which was to be achieved under Nearchus’ command (Plut. Alex. 68.1). That endeavour was charged with ideological meaning, because the Achaemenids were known to have failed to circumnavigate these continents (Hdt. 4.42–43). ²⁸ Sailing on the Ocean that encircles the entire world and having reached its remotest corners bestowed connotations of universalism, a key ideological concept of rulers of the ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic empires. These rulers, however, claimed theoretical and not actual supremacy over the entire world. ²⁹ This required a particular mental geography whose limit was the boundless Ocean, thus creating the image of an imperium sine fine. According to this world-view, the Ocean itself, and any islands in it, is beyond the limit, so conquest up to the coast qualifies as universal.

Alexander’s claim to universalism is not only a feature of Seneca’s meditations, it is also well attested in our main sources from the Roman Imperial period. A revealing example is the elaborate argumentation of the Scythian delegation to Alexander, immediately before the Macedonians cross the Tanaïs (i.e. the Iaxartes) in Curtius Rufus’ account (7.8.18–19). ³⁰ Curtius does not fail to explain to his readers that Alexander’s main trait was his desire to gain possession of every part of the world (7.8.20). The same is true for Arrian’s Anabasis. When judging Alexander’s drive for conquest against the backdrop of Stoic ideals, Arrian discusses his imperial ambitions. ³¹ Alexander’s dialogue with the Indian sophists is only the most famous example among many Macedonian imperial projects used as targets for Arrian’s moralization (Anab. 7.1.6). ³² Arrian finally breaks with his eulogistic portrait of Alexander in the last book of his Anabasis, in which his protagonist’s plans to achieve universalism become the main focus of the narrative. ³³ The same applies to Plutarch and even to Seneca the Elder, both of whom cite Alexander’s will to reach the lands lying beyond the Ocean in order to exemplify his insatiable appetite for conquest (Plut. Mor. 207D; Sen. Suas. 1.1). ³⁴ As we can see, the Imperial authors all present the same picture of Alexander, dominated by unceasing conquest, aiming to continue to campaign until there was nothing left to conquer.

Was universal conquest also a theme in Onesicritus’ account? Surveying the remaining fragments of his work, one has the impression that later authors used it mainly for quoting fiction rather than for matters concerning Alexander’s campaign. ³⁵ The scanty evidence about his biographical and intellectual background does not assist us in reaching any conclusions on his literary activity. In this regard, Lucian’s remarks on Onesicritus offer a fresh interpretation. An argument for viewing Onesicritus as a flatterer who wrote an account to match what Alexander wanted to hear can be crafted from Lucian’s pejorative appraisal of the latter. According to Lucian, Onesicritus was one of the few participants who were known to have praised Alexander not only after his death but also during his lifetime. ³⁶ Thus it seems at least conceivable to include him with those who flattered Alexander, or the circle of writers to whom Ptolemy, Aristobulus and Nearchus belonged, whose works all show the influence of court language. ³⁷

If the assessment above is correct, certain surviving fragments may shed light on contemporary views of Alexander’s campaign, when considered in their specific contexts. The natural phenomena in some fragments are revealing examples of universalism as a prominent theme in Onesicritus’ work. Later authors were most interested in his observations about significant changes in flora and fauna that the soldiers had allegedly observed when they reached the Indus Valley. Two fragments can be regarded as praise for Alexander’s deeds in this context. In the first, Onesicritus claimed that Alexander had reached the springs of the Nile because his companions saw hippopotamuses in the Indus. As becomes clear from the other fragment, Onesicritus states that the Macedonians traversed the Tropic of Cancer, supporting this assertion with observations of significant changes in shadows and astronomical phenomena. Both statements are devoid of their precise and targeted meaning because the fragments are products of later writers’ selective interest and thus their original context has been lost. However, when considered in the context of contemporary geographical conceptions, the two fragments reveal Onesicritus’ original intention to glorify Alexander’s achievements. Reading the fragments against the backdrop of Herodotean geography is helpful. The same natural phenomena and fauna which Onesicritus places in India can also be found in Herodotus’ description of Ethiopia. ³⁸ In the Histories, this land is the southernmost inhabited part of the oikoumenē, lying on the equator and at the end of the world (τὰ ἔσχατα γῆς, Hdt. 3.25.1). There is no doubt that the Histories must be counted among the most well-known pieces of classical and early Hellenistic period prose in the Greek-speaking world, and therefore can be expected to have had an impact on Alexander’s contemporaries’ geographical notions. ³⁹ The context of statements about India’s natural phenomena originating from Onesicritus which later authors used as fiction seems to support the view of Lucian, who regarded him as having written an account for a specific purpose. Thus, it seems at least conceivable that Onesicritus’ account, in which he had the conqueror reach the bounds of the oikoumenē, was intended to meet the expectations of Alexander’s claim to universalism. Seen against this backdrop, it is possible to argue that Onesicritus’ flattering rhetoric derived from Alexander’s self-representation, which aimed to demonstrate that he had achieved universalism. As can be seen, a pattern which suggests that universalism was a theme in Onesicritus’ work is beginning to emerge from our analysis of the extant fragments of it. The second segment of the testimony enhances this impression.

III. Onesicritus on universalism

Universalism finds a nuanced expression in Seneca the Younger’s interpretation of Alexander’s character, which immediately follows the reference to Onesicritus (Ben. 7.2.6–3.1):

Non satis apparebat inopem esse, qui extra naturae terminos arma proferret, qui se in profundum inexploratum et immensum auiditate caeca prosus immitteret? Quid interest, quot eripuerit regna, quot dederit, quantum terrarum tributo premat? Tantum illi deest, quantum cupit. Nec hoc Alexandri tantum uitium fuit, quem per Liberi Herculisque uestigia felix temeritas egit, sed omnium, quos fortuna irritauit implendo. Cyrum et Cambysen et totum regni Persici stemma percense. Quem inuenies, cui modum imperii satietas fecerit, qui non uitam in aliqua ulterius procedendi cogitatione finierit? Nec id mirum est; quidquid cupiditati contingit, penitus hauritur et conditur, nec interest, quantum eo, quod inexplebile est, congeras.

Was it not quite clear that it was a man without resources who pushed his weapons beyond the bounds of Nature, who, driven on by blind greed, plunged headlong into an unexplored and boundless sea? What difference does it make how many kingdoms he has snatched, how many he has bestowed, how many lands he oppresses with tribute? He has need of as much as he still covets. Nor was this the vice of Alexander alone, whose successful audacity led him to follow in the footsteps of Liber and Hercules, but of all those whom Fortune has goaded on by rich gifts. Consider Cyrus and Cambyses and all the royal line of Persia. Will you find any among them for whom contentment imposed a limit upon their empire, who did not end his life in plan to advance farther? Nor need we wonder; anything that comes into contact with greed is drawn in deeply and stored away, and it does not make any difference how great a quantity you pile up in something that is unfillable. ⁴⁰

Since Seneca referred to Onesicritus in the previous line, it can be suggested that what he read in his account had a considerable influence on his characterization of Alexander. The fact that Seneca puts focus on Onesicritus in this passage indicates his knowledge of his account and may be a hint to his reading. It is surprising that Seneca associates Alexander with the Persian Great Kings whose dissatisfaction with the limits of their empire was a trait he shared. This close association with the Persian rulers, to whom Seneca accords no special role in his works, is not without basis. The only examples of rulers whose lust for conquest was comparable to that of Alexander in De beneficiis can be found in the Histories of Herodotus, in which taking conquest to the limits of the world was a particular feature of the Teispids and Achaemenids. The most revealing instance of this comes from Xerxes I’s speech given in the so-called ’Crown Council’, which was considered part of the Ocean encircling the world in Achaemenid royal texts. ⁴¹ According to Herodotus 7.8γ1–2, the limits of heaven became Xerxes’ military objective when campaigning against Hellas. ⁴² Nothing in our sources indicates that the Great Kings gave up their claim to universalism after the Persian Wars. This can be seen from Aeschines, who states that Alexander’s military success ended the dissemination of the Achaemenids’ letters in which they claimed universalism (In Ctes. 132). Although Seneca was thinking about the Herodotean Great Kings when penning these lines, the association of universalism with the conquest of the Ocean deserves further examination.

Herodotus may generally explain the Achaemenid claim to universalism by reference to the Great Kings’ hubristic traits, but this theme is approached with subtlety in certain episodes of his work. This applies particularly to Darius I’s attitude towards the sea. The Achaemenid king is said to have sailed the Ocean twice in the context of staging his military success. He did so when he reached the Indian Ocean having accomplished his conquest of the Indus Valley, and in sailing the Pontus Euxinus before campaigning against the Scythians (Hdt. 4.44, 85–87). Robert Rollinger and Johannes Haubold have shown convincingly that these episodes should be viewed in the context of Achaemenid royal ideology. ⁴³ This means that the Great Kings were acting out an ancient script, aiming to stage imperial success by showing their ability to do what their predecessors had failed to achieve. The connotation of these symbolic acts in respect of the sea cannot be understood without considering their original contexts.

The shared kernel of both Herodotean episodes is deeply rooted in the discourse on empire in the first millennium BC, in which large bodies of water such as the sea and the Ocean became essential reference points for highlighting imperial success. Good examples can be found in the Neo-Assyrian period. Each king claimed to have surpassed the achievements of his predecessor, which were measured in terms of reaching the ‘Upper and the Lower Sea’ (tâmti elīti adi tâmti šaplīti), locations that were heavy with meaning in the mental geography of royal propaganda. ⁴⁴ Although reaching these points was regarded as fundamental for claiming universalism, later rulers gradually outperformed their predecessors’ claims by extending the imperial borders towards the sea. There is an abundance of ancient evidence for this. ⁴⁵ A telling example comes from the texts of the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who drew on this discourse by expanding his claim to include power over the islands in the Upper and Lower Seas and even those in the ‘Midst of the Sea’ (qabal tâmti). ⁴⁶ This claim, which included even the remotest places, could not be surpassed. The much later Cyrus Cylinder likewise asserts that the Upper and Lower Seas are the limits of the Teispid Empire. ⁴⁷ Nevertheless, Cyrus’ son and successor, Cambyses II, seems to have extended this claim. According to a statement in Herodotus’ Histories (3.34.4), the Persians praised Cambyses as their most successful ruler because he had added Egypt and the neighbouring sea to the realm he had inherited from his father. ⁴⁸ It does not matter whether historical credence is given to this episode. It reveals that the Great Kings engaged in this discursive dialogue with their ancient Near Eastern predecessors.

The prevailing claim to universalism could only be extended if a new mental map were used as its framework. Darius I did this in the Babylonian version of his Apadāna-inscriptions in Persepolis (DPg), when he proudly proclaimed that he ruled over lands located beyond the Ocean:

^d ú-ru-ma-az-˹da˺ ra-bi šá ra-bu-ú ina muḫ-ḫi DINGIR.MEŠ gab-bi šá AN-e u KI-tì ib-nu-ú u A.MEŠ ib-nu-ú šá dum-qí gab-bi id-din-nu-ma ÙG.MEŠ ina lìb-bi bal-ṭu-ʾ šá a-n[a] ^m da-a-ri-ia̭-muš LUGAL ib-nu-ú u ˹a-na˺ ^m da-a-ri-ia̭-˹muš˺ LUGAL LUGAL-ú-tu id-din-nu ina qaq-qar a-ga-a rap-šá-a-˹tu ₄˺ šá KUR.KUR.MEŠ ma-de-e-tu ₄ ina lìb-bi-šú KUR par-su KUR ma-da-a-a u KUR.KUR.MEŠ šá-né-ti-ma li-šá-nu šá-né-tu ₄ šá KUR.MEŠ u ma-a-tu ₄ šá a-ḫa-na-a-a a-ga-a šá ÍD.mar-ra-tu ₄ u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ul-li-i šá ÍD.mar-ra-tu ₄ šá a-ḫa-na-a-a a-ga-a šá qaq-qar sụ-ma-ma-i-tu ₄ u a-ḫu-ul-lu-a-a ˹ul-li-i˺ šá qaq-qar sụ-ma-ma-i-tu ₄.

Ahuramazdā (is) great, who (is) great over all gods, who created the heaven and the earth and created water. Who gave all prosperity and people to live on, who made Darius the king, and to Darius the king (he) gave the kingship in this wide earth of many lands, among (them) Parsa, Media and other lands of other tongues, of mountains and plains, of this near side of the sea and that far side of the sea, of this near side of the waterless desert and that far side of the waterless desert. ⁴⁹

The reference points for Darius’ imperial extension are the lands beyond the marratu, the ‘Bitter Sea’ which according to the Mesopotamian mental map, encircled the inhabited world. ⁵⁰ However, this claim does not indicate either factual conquest or hegemony, but the ability to seize even the world’s remotest places. ⁵¹ By claiming to rule over these remote lands, Darius not only surpassed all his predecessors’ claims to power but also measured his achievements alongside the deeds of gods and heroes. According to Mesopotamian mythology, the crossing of the marratu is an achievement attributed only to the sun-god Shamash and the great hero Gilgamesh. ⁵² This exaggerated claim to universalism finally became merely a formula in the ‘lists of lands’ (OP dahyāva) of Darius’ successors, in which no further advancement of this idea can be seen during the Achaemenid period. ⁵³ Interestingly, the oldest testimony for this claim is paragraph 74 of the famous Bisitun rock inscription in its Old Persian version. This text was produced at a time when the usurper Darius sought to establish his rule on firm ground, which may explain the superlative claim. ⁵⁴ However, the fact that DPg is only preserved in an Akkadian version becomes important for the examination of Darius’ intentions. It can be said that this text is a good example of an intensive discourse between Darius and his ancient Near Eastern predecessors and their conception of universal rule.

Seen against this backdrop, one wonders whether Alexander was not also seeking his place in this discourse on empire. There is evidence suggesting that his contemporaries knew of the particular geographical conception which established the framework for Achaemenid royal ideology. Donald Murray has highlighted its impact on Herodotus’ idea of the waters at the world’s limits. ⁵⁵ However, the best example of its reception comes from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (8.6.21), in which the encircling Ocean and the deserts form the limits of the Achaemenid Empire. ⁵⁶ The same geographical conception is also the background to Alexander’s argumentation in his speech delivered at the river Hyphasis, according to Arrian (Anab. 5.25.3–26.7). ⁵⁷ Here, Alexander characterizes the Caspian Sea as a bay of the Ocean, with the aim of creating the illusion that the Macedonians had already seen its shore in the north. Seemingly, Arrian had recourse to a source that does not appear to be the most recent geographical model of the time. The earliest writers about Alexander intentionally presented the Caspian Sea was an open body of water, which helped to create the impression that Alexander really had reached the Ocean in the north. ⁵⁸ However, although the authenticity of this statement in the Anabasis is open to debate, Alexander’s drive to campaign beyond the Achaemenid Empire’s boundaries is a theme common to other accounts. ⁵⁹ According to certain fragments of Aristobulus, the participants in Alexander’s expedition employed onomastic deceits to change Asia’s geography with the purpose of elevating the conqueror’s military achievements by creating the idea that he had pushed beyond the limits of Asia. Strabo views this as the flatterers’ attempt to satisfy Alexander’s lust for glory (φιλοτιμία). ⁶⁰ Telling examples of this are the re-designations of the Parapamisus as the Caucasus and the river Iaxartes as the Tanaïs. The targeted meaning of these statements is that those natural barriers were considered to be the limits of the Great King’s realm. ⁶¹ Changing the names of the geographical reference points which Alexander passed through on his campaign to those marking the limits of the Achaemenid Empire may have served a particular purpose. It seems that Alexander wished to hear that the Achaemenids’ proud achievements were a thing of the past, since he had campaigned beyond the limits of their empire. This may have found an echo in Arrian’s meditations on Alexander’s achievements, which are dominated by the theme of adding new lands to what had previously belonged to the Persians and the Medes (Anab. 5.25.5, 7.10.5). Given Alexander’s ambition, it is not surprising that the Macedonians found evidence of Dionysus’ distant wanderings to the East in places which also mark the limits of the Persian realm. ⁶²

Whilst some of the earliest writers explained Alexander’s transcendence of the borders of the Achaemenid Empire by reference to his quest for mythical figures, they also showed interest in disguising his failures in order to achieve this objective. ⁶³ From the extant fragments we can grasp Ptolemy’s explanation for the Macedonian campaign halting at the Hyphasis. He stated that inauspicious omens made it impossible to cross the river which was known to be the easternmost border of the Achaemenid Empire. ⁶⁴ The common patterns among some of the first accounts create the image of Alexander as successful in pushing beyond the borders of the Persian Empire and hence outperforming the deeds of the Achaemenids. This might be because the authors of the first accounts of the expedition were recipients of Alexander’s self-representations, which were put into circulation by his entourage. We know that Ptolemy, Aristobulus and Nearchus belonged to Alexander’s inner circle, which may explain why they wrote about Macedonian imperial ambitions. Elements of Alexander’s self-representation thus found their way into accounts that were published a considerable time after Onesicritus’ work, and it appears that all the earliest writers regarded the theme of universalism to be an essential part of their portraits of Alexander. ⁶⁵

Considering this discourse as the context of Seneca’s mention of Onesicritus, it is not surprising that the philosopher mentions Alexander alongside the Great Kings, all rulers who attempted to achieve world conquest. In this regard, the special connotation of the Ocean suggests that the Achaemenid idea of it as a point of reference for claiming imperial success was the background of Onesicritus’ episode. Finally, the best example of Alexander’s response to the discourse on empire regarding the Ocean is the context of the testimony of Onesicritus under discussion. After Alexander had led his troops from the Hyphasis to the mouth of the Indus, he performed an act of great symbolic significance in the Indian Ocean; he acted out the ancient script by sailing out onto the Ocean and performing sacrifices on the high seas much as Darius I had done at the end of his Indian campaign, or the Assyrian kings had done at the Upper and Lower Seas (Hdt. 4.44). ⁶⁶ The aim of Alexander’s ceremony was to claim conquest of the Ocean, and thus it can be seen as a response to the Near Eastern discourse on empire. Two statements from the so-called ‘Vulgate’ tradition also support this view. According to Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus, Alexander marked the shore of the Indian Ocean as the furthest border of his empire (positis imperii terminis, 12.10.5). ⁶⁷ Plutarch, who drew on the same tradition, emphasized another detail, stating that Alexander prayed to the gods that no one would ever cross the limits of his campaign (αὐτὸν ἀνθρώπων ὑπϵρβῆναι τοὺς ὅρους τῆς στρατϵίας ἀνέστρϵφϵ, Alex. 66.1). Contextualizing this information against the backdrop of the discourse on empire allows one to draw the conclusion that in marking the Ocean as the most far-flung point of his empire, Alexander aspired to surpass the deeds of the Great Kings.

There is additional evidence to suggest that Alexander took his competition with the Achaemenids further, aspiring to rule even over the boundless Ocean. The idea of extending his conquest into the Ocean finds expression in a speech by Dio Chrysostom (Or. 4.49). Here, the emphasis is on Alexander’s dissatisfaction with what he has achieved after completing his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire:

οὐδὲ γὰρ ζῆν ἐβούλϵτο, ϵἰ μὴ βασιλϵὺς ϵἴη τῆς Eὐρώπης καὶ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τῆς Λιβύης καὶ ϵἴ πού τίς ἐστι νῆσος ἐν τῷ Ὠκϵανῷ κϵιμένη.

For he did not care to live at all unless he might be king of Europe, Asia, Libya, and of any island which might lie in the Ocean. ⁶⁸

The phrase ‘island which might lie in the Ocean’ suggests the existence of accounts in which Alexander’s plans for conquest were not limited by the Ocean’s shore, influenced by the ancient Near Eastern semantics. ⁶⁹ Thus it appears that the ideological background to Dio Chrysostom’s statement was Alexander’s response to the discourse on empire. An extension of this idea can be found in Seneca the Elder and Plutarch, where the endless Ocean itself became the objective of Alexander’s campaign (Plut. Mor. 207D; Sen. Suas. 1.1). Onesicritus’ mission to roam over the boundless Ocean and conquer new lands in it described in De beneficiis can be seen to be in accordance with this. Seneca’s idea of Alexander standing at the shore of the Indian Ocean and longing for even more lands to conquer than those he already possessed is based on Alexander’s claim to universalism. In this way, Alexander responded to the ancient Near Eastern discourse on empire by aspiring to conquer lands whose existence was unknown, in the boundless Ocean.

Although there is much to indicate that Alexander deliberately responded to the ancient Near Eastern discourse on empire, nothing in our sources suggests that he ever saw himself as ‘the last Achaemenid’. ⁷⁰ Instead it seems that he and members of his entourage presented an image in which it was essential to surpass his ancient Near Eastern predecessors. This may have served the purpose of creating an atmosphere in which his Asian subjects, who were accustomed to Achaemenid rule, could regard the Macedonian conqueror as their new, legitimate ruler. ⁷¹ Alexander acted in the way expected of a legitimate ancient Near Eastern ruler, staging himself as superior to his predecessors. There is much to be said for the idea that Onesicritus played an important role in this cultural dialogue. One of the extant fragments reveals that he provided a translation of Darius’ tomb inscription which reproduces part of the original text quite closely. ⁷² This suggests that an intensive encounter occurred between Alexander’s entourage and Achaemenid ideology, in which Onesicritus was somehow involved. In the light of the evidence presented here, the Achaemenid imperial model was not foreign to the earliest writers about Alexander.

Finally, we may return to the question of Seneca’s choice of Onesicritus as his source for Alexander’s lust for conquest. Onesicritus’ self-designation as scout and conqueror needs to be seen in the context of Alexander seeking his place in the prevailing discourse on empire in his time. He did so with his claim to universalism, which even included as yet unknown lands beyond the Ocean, for which the meditations of Imperial philosophers are a telling source. Obviously, this was less a theoretical claim than an actual aim of his campaign. Alexander’s aspiration, perceived by later authors as an insatiable lust for conquest, seems to have been an important theme in Onesicritus’ work. And that qualifies the testimony as a high-value source regarding Alexander’s dialogue with the Achaemenid imperial model. Therefore, it seems that Onesicritus’ self-designation as a scout and conqueror of the Ocean is linked to Alexander’s ideological claim. The latter constituted the literary background of his work, and was also the context of the author’s elevation of his role during the campaign. So there is no room for doubt that Onesicritus made the last campaign of Alexander a topic in his writing and used its ideological frame to bring his own function into line with the purposes of his ruler’s claim to power. This means that he presented himself as a scout roaming the Ocean and thus acted out Alexander’s claim to universalism. This proud statement may have been the reason why Seneca chose Onesicritus as his source in exemplifying the Macedonian conqueror’s imperial ambitions. Ultimately, the contextualization of this overlooked testimony regarding Onesicritus suggests that the presentation of Alexander in his account was very close to what Seneca called ‘something that is unfillable’.