Hello Dr. Reames. As a newby to Alexander the Great I'm curious to know, as someone with an artistic background (and I know this is gonna sound silly) but, was Alexander the Great a patron of the arts? Did he only favor Greek art? or did he show grace to various artists of different backgrounds throughout his empire?
Had a super-crazy-busy September. Finally getting back to asks....
Patronage & Euergetism in Ancient Greece
Short answer: he absolutely supported the arts, and athletics too. But let’s (briefly) consider the whole tradition, as it has come down to our own world from the Greeks (and Romans), who themselves were just copying royal traditions of the ancient near east.
The word euergetism from the Greek euergeteo (εὐεργετέω), to do good deeds, generally means a gift to the public (art, event, building, park, etc.) from a wealthy individual or family. Both then and now the person’s name might be attached to it: the Pantheon in Rome, although (re-)built by Hadrian, left the name of original temple’s donor right atop the entrance in huge letters: M AGRIPPA L. F. COS TERTIUM FECIT. (Marcus Agrippa, Lucius’s son, made this [temple] when he was third-time consul.) Sometimes a dedication was used to throw shade too. The famous hetaira Phryne supposedly funded (or at least offered to fund) the rebuilding of Thebes’s walls after Alexander sacked the city, but only if they inscribed the new wall: Alexander destroyed these but Phryne of Thespiai, the hetaira, rebuilt them. The scorpion’s sting here requires knowing that Thebes had earlier sacked Thespiai, her hometown, in 371. (ouch)
Patronage is also how artists of all modes worked, from the antiquity till today. Artists who couldn’t scare up a wealthy sponsor either gave up or produced art only at a very slow rate. Today, at least some modern states offer national funding for arts via foundations such as (in the US) The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Of course Trump gutted it, which is all too typical of authoritarian governments who want to squash free expression. Yet the notion of “free expression” for artists would have shocked most ancient and medieval artists. Only the best of the best in unique situations could hope for that. Otherwise, you didn’t dare piss off your patron.
So, both patronage and euergetisms were expected of the wealthy in the ancient world: a “social contract,” if you will. Of course, these patrons then got to determine what the artist created—and didn’t create—but the basic idea has rolled right on down to us. Blue bloods “give back,” then get to slap their name on shit. Carnegie Hall, for example. Andrew Carneige, one of the Robber Barons of the mid/late 1800s, was not exactly a good human being, but… art, buildings, even public libraries (2500+ from 1881 on!) … he donated huge amounts. In fact, he actually gave away much of his wealth to the public, famously saying, “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” Some modern billionaires (such as Warren Buffet, but also MacKenzie Scott) hold that as a moral obligation. In fact, a major complaint about/critique of the modern tech-bro nouveau riche or “Broligarchy” concerns their FAILURE to buy into this traditional social contract. They don’t seem to believe in it, except insofar as it can benefit one of their businesses.
That level of ostentatious and wholly self-absorbed wealth historically tends to be precede (if not always cause) massive social collapses: the Great Kings of the Late Bronze Age, Sargonid Assyrian kings, some Roman emperors, French nobility before the French Revolution, Russian nobility before the Russian Revolution, etc. We could pick apart why that’s the case, but I mostly want to note it here. Btw, this isn’t to excuse the Robber Barons, and the US hit the Great Depression in part due to their antics. Yet throughout history, royalty and nobility more typically engaged in patronage and euergetism—and not just in the ANE and the West.
So, in Alexander’s world, the wealthy were expected to offer patronage to artists, and to invest in public buildings and public entertainments. Even if plays for the public might charge an entrance fee, that covered only a portion of the cost. Patrons covered the rest. Still true today, either with patrons, or via advertisements. The ancient world didn’t have “advertisement” as we understand it. The only advertisement was to get to stick your name on it—and maybe a saucy reason, as we saw with Phryne and the walls of Thebes.
Prior to Alexander III (the Great), we know especially the Macedonian kings Alexandros I, Archelaos, and Philip II all patronized artists and sponsored public festivals, even quite big ones. Philip was thrilled to get to help fund the Delphic (Pythian) Games. Sure, it was hella expensive, but doing so was viewed as a major feather in his cap. And that’s the perk the wealthy get for their euergetism: social credit. The higher the price-tag, the greater the social clout.
Alexander sponsored many artists and athletic contests, as well as contributed to the construction of temples and other public buildings. As he became super rich, he also became quite lavish with that patronage. He wanted to fund a whole temple in Asia Minor but settled for just part of it when the priests there politely warned him to dial it back a notch. Also when he first arrived in Babylon in 331, he funded the repair of the Esagila and Etemenanki—the major Temple of Bel Marduk and its associated ziggurat. That money was reputedly squandered (or so Arrian claims), causing the guilty priests to give "bad omens” to keep Alexander out of the city when he returned in 333. I doubt this was true, as he was just there half a year before, or at least was at Opis right nearby, so I can’t imagine he didn’t ask then about progress on the repairs. But we know he did punish quite a few for similar misuse of funds: he had the man executed who was in charge of the Tomb of Cyrus but allowed it to be plundered.
Obviously, those things weren’t Greek. He wanted to be seen as a proper Asian king, and after he left the Greek colonies on the Asia Minor coast, his patronage and euergetism tended to be local, to wherever that was. He didn’t reserve the bulk of his money for Greece or Greeks. But he did bring several Greek artists to Asia to do this or that for him. In fact, one of the more famous stories about his patronage was giving Kampaspe his mistress (yes, the same as in my novels) to his favorite artist Apelles, when Apelles supposedly fell in love with her while painting her portrait for Alexander. Alexander kept the painting and Apelles kept the woman. Btw, this tale is almost certainly fake and dates to the Roman era, meant to be an example for Roman emperors of proper support for artists; we’re not even sure Kampaspe was a real person! But I fully intend to make hay from it in future novels.😉
Regardless, euergetism and patronage was what (good) kings did to burnish their kleos (fame) and timē (reputation). And Alexander certainly wanted to be seen as a good king.
