Hellenistic Ruler-Cult: Interpretation of Two Texts

The article published by Mr. Tarn on ‘The Hellenistic Ruler-Cult and the Daimon’ in J.H.S., 1928, p. 206, is convincing in its main points and an effective refutation of certain serious errors into which Miss Taylor and Dr. Schnabel have fallen. I merely write this note to criticise his interpretation of two passages in his Greek authorities, which I consider wrong, while it does not affect his main argument.The first is Plutarch, Alexand. c. 54 (p. 696 A), containing the account given by Chares of Mitylene of Alexander's feast, where all the guests drank his health with προσκύνησις, except Kallisthenes, who refused this act of adoration: the first who received the cup from Alexander is said πρὸς ἑστίαν ἀναστῆναι καὶ πιόντα προσκυνῆσαι πρῶτον, εἷτα φιλῆσαι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον: the phrase πρὸς ἑστίαν ἀναστῆναι puzzled Dr. Schnabel, but Mr. Tarn regards as convincing Prof. Otto's elucidation, ‘who has brilliantly shown that the function of the ἑστία in question was to carry the eternal fire which burnt before the Persian kings’ (p. 207). According to this, the first person who drank Alexander's health rose and before he drank turned towards the πῦρ ἀθάνατον. I need not discuss the significance of this act; for Mr. Tarn himself does not, and I regard the explanation as far-fetched, unnatural, and in fact impossible; for the words will not bear the weight put upon them.