Interesting article on Alexanderography

[Adrian II]

The New York Review of Books carries an article by British classicist Mary Beard on the Roman origins of the Alexander cult:

Even more significant is the character and the cultural background of the surviving ancient accounts of Alexander’s life. It is repeatedly said that these accounts were all written much later than the events they described. True; but more to the point is the fact that they were all written under the Roman Empire against the background of Roman imperialism. Diodorus Siculus, whose account is the earliest to survive, was writing in the late first century BC. Arrian, now the most favored source, was born in the 80s AD in the city of Nicomedia (in modern Turkey), and undertook a Roman political career, becoming consul in the 120s, and later serving as governor of Cappadocia. Of course these Roman authors did not create the story of Alexander; and of course they depended on the writings of Alexander’s contemporaries, however good, or bad, they may have been. But they are bound to have seen this story through a Roman filter, to have interpreted and adjusted what they read in the light of the versions of conquest and imperial expansion that were characteristic of their own political age.

[Arjos]

I agree that the Romani created (or there was already) legendary image of Alexandros, but some of the reasonings I don't get them:

- Intoxicated band in Punjab (would the author have preferred an army with waterborne diseases?)
- "The Great" (it had only to do with the persian "king of kings" which became Basileos Megas, Antiochos III assumed that title too, maybe he was even the first to introduce it to the Romani)
- Giving more credibility to the persian sources (obviously everything available is needed to grasp the truth, but by looking at the modern folklore in the area, Alexandros was an horned demon on earth; seems to me it would end as having the diametrical opposite of the "roman" view, but still a biased one)

[Adrian II]

I agree that the Romani created (or there was already) legendary image of Alexandros, but some of the reasonings I don't get them:

- Intoxicated band in Punjab (would the author have preferred an army with waterborne diseases?)

The author, in fact, is Livy. In his Alexander Discursion in Book 9 Livy opposes Alexander's leadership to the collective genius of the Roman Senate and military, obviously to the advantage of the latter:

Would the clever generalship of one young man have succeeded in baffling the whole senate, not to mention individuals, that senate of which he, who declared that it was composed of kings, alone formed a true idea? Was there any danger of his showing more skill than any of those whom I have mentioned in choosing the site for his camp, or organising his commissariat, or guarding against surprises, or choosing the right moment for giving battle, or disposing his men in line of battle and posting his reserves to the best advantage? He would have said that it was not with Darius that he had to do, dragging after him a train of women and eunuchs, wrapped up in purple and gold, encumbered with all the trappings of state. He found him an easy prey rather than a formidable enemy and defeated him without loss, without being called to do anything more daring than to show a just contempt for the idle show of power. The aspect of Italy would have struck him as very different from the India which he traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army; he would have seen in the passes of Apulia and the mountains of Lucania the traces of the recent disaster which befell his house when his uncle Alexander, King of Epirus, perished.

Beard refers to this passage to demonstrate that even in Rome the Alexander myth was not accepted without demur.

AII

[Catiline]

There's most likely a Dionysian aspect to Livy's presentation of Alexander and his army there, which would have raised a lot of more conservative Roman hackles.

[Adrian II]

There's most likely a Dionysian aspect to Livy's presentation of Alexander and his army there, which would have raised a lot of more conservative Roman hackles.

Quite. I was wondering myself if the 'effeminate' image of Alexander that has been cultivated lately goes back to such Roman portrayal as well.

AII

[Catiline]

THere's quite a good breakdown of the Ancient Sources here - http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexande...ander_z1b.html

[CountArach]

Mary Beard is simultaneously one of the most brilliant and most frustrating scholars of today... Her scepticism has allowed for radical re-thinkings of many aspects of Roman history (The Roman Triumph for example, is a fantastic read) but at times she pushes too far. There are resonances of both in this article.

For example it is easy to see the way that Roman authors wish to appropriate Alexander's memory.* Livy wrote at 26.19 that a rumour had arisen during the life of Scipio Africanus:

[Scipio travelling to the temple daily] revived the tale previously told of Alexander the Great and rivalling it as unfounded gossip, that his conception was due to an immense serpent, and that the form of the strange creature had very often been seen in his mother's chamber, and that, when persons came in, it had suddenly glided away and disappeared from sight. He himself never made light of men's belief in these marvels; on the contrary it was rather promoted by a certain studied practice of neither denying such a thing nor openly asserting it. Many other things of the same sort, some true, some pretended, had passed the limits of admiration for a mere man in the case of this youth. Such were the things on which the citizens relied when they then entrusted to an age far from mature the great responsibility of so important a command.

Ignoring Livy's scepticism, which is a topic for another day, it is telling that Livy includes the topos of a hero being borne from a serpent. Even though he apparently disbelieves this tale himself he has seen fit to include it. This implies one of two things. Firstly, it is easy to see that he was trying to equate Africanus with Alexander. This was not uncommon and it is clearly important to Livy otherwise an explicit comparison would not be made (Livy is, generally speaking, fond of more indirect characterisation so an explicit comparison such as this one is suitably rare as to indicate that a certain reading is intended by Livy. Secondly, it implies that Livy expected his audience to be familiar enough with this legend from Alexander to ensure that his comparison was not lost. This is also implied by the relative sparsity of details for such a magnificent tale. Livy had a penchant for narrating in detail certain scenes that he found interesting (this particular tale is in the midst of just such an aside) and so, rather than lavashing detail, he chooses not to do so and allows the comparison to Alexander to, as it were 'auto-fill' the detail in the reader's mind. As said, this implies a high degree of familiarity, which in itself implies a wide-spread transmission of a tale of Alexander's mythological origins. This, once again, implies that such a thing already existed.

Because of this, as well as similar cases, I would hesitate to say that the Alexander we have is wholly a Roman creation, rather he is a Greek creation that has been transmitted to us with a Roman lens further distorting it. Certainly the Romans played a large part in the creation of this legend and this resonates throughout the texts that we have on Alexander. However, the extent to which it was expected that people would associate certain topoi directly with Alexander implies that such a legend already existed prior to the Roman authors writing, which implies that the creation of the myth happened earlier and was simply expounded upon by later authors. Of course, such a hypothesis would need much further work to be proven, but it is possible that I'm right and that Beard is here vastly oversimplifying.




*For those who are interested this argument draws on "Augustus' Conception and the Heroic Tradition" by R. S. Lorsch in Latomus 56, no. 4 (1997).

[Adrian II]

[...] that such a legend already existed prior to the Roman authors writing, which implies that the creation of the myth happened earlier and was simply expounded upon by later authors.

But isn't this exactly what Beard states?

Of course these Roman authors did not create the story of Alexander; and of course they depended on the writings of Alexander’s contemporaries, however good, or bad, they may have been. But they are bound to have seen this story through a Roman filter, to have interpreted and adjusted what they read in the light of the versions of conquest and imperial expansion that were characteristic of their own political age.

I would say that the article isn't half as radical as you suspect based on her reputation.

AII

[CountArach]

Hmmm, true, I appear to have done exactly as you state

In that case take my post as a further case study of what Beard says...

[Kralizec]

Well, first I'm going to adress Livy's assertion that the Romans would have kicked Alexander's ass. It seems rather unlikely at this point, the Roman army being what it was at the time. About half a century later, Phyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans (albeit narrowly) on several occasions, and in all likelyhood he didn't have either the quantity or the quality of troops Alexander (the great) had at his disposal. This seems like a more fair comparison than with that other King of Epirus, another Alexander, who died ungloriously.

What I'm wondering is, if Livy were genuinely trying to make the case that Alexander wasn't all that he's cracked up to be, why he would have to rely on speculations about alternative history. The myth goes that Alexander was never beaten, ever, and apparently Livy couldn't disprove it either. I suspect that Livy is speaking more out of jealousy (on behalf of all Romans, if you will) than out of genuine scepticism.

The anxieties about Alexander’s claim to be a god (or at least son of a god) show obvious similarities with Roman anxieties about the divine or semidivine status of their own emperors

The concept of a divine, or at least quasi-divine King was an eastern convention* that was adopted by Alexander and his successors; and the Romans adopted it from them. Or at least that's what I remember reading about it.

(*Egyptian really; afaik the Persians did revere their kings but not as actual gods - allthough the disctinction may have been lost on the Greeks. At any rate, Alexander had himself declared divine by Egyptian priests and his successors merely stepped in his footsteps, so to speak)

About the article in general, there isn't much to disagree with. There isn't much ancient material on Alexander. If much of it is Roman, then it's no surprise that this should affect general perceptions.

I remember an anecdote about Caesar in Spain, at a time when he basically was nobody. He is said to have encountered a statue of Alexander, and wept because he hadn't accomplished anything of note at his age, while Alexander had already conquered "the world".

[CountArach]

What I'm wondering is, if Livy were genuinely trying to make the case that Alexander wasn't all that he's cracked up to be, why he would have to rely on speculations about alternative history. The myth goes that Alexander was never beaten, ever, and apparently Livy couldn't disprove it either. I suspect that Livy is speaking more out of jealousy (on behalf of all Romans, if you will) than out of genuine scepticism.

I'm just reading the only major recent scholarship on it right now ("Livy's Alexander Digression: (9.17-19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics" by Ruth Morello) and apparently he was working within a broader historiographical tradition that speculated on alternative histories particularly against Alexander. Livy was possibly doing something that would have been expected from his audience (certainly he appears to think so, stating that they would derive pleasure from it - pleasure being something that is secondary to the moralistic tone of his work). Further, he was always prone to patriotic asides. That means that he could possibly have been acting as a corrective to an earlier Greek historian who had made the opposite assertion to himself or there could be something larger at play.

[Catiline]

I console my self with that Caesar story often. however he was Quaestor, so it does mean I'm running out of time, and I've got to start getting my arse in gear from December...

[Kralizec]

What's the equivalent of Quaestor in Singapoore? Or do you intend to fast-track, and get to the subjegation of neighbouring tribes immediately?

[Adrian II]

That means that he could possibly have been acting as a corrective to an earlier Greek historian who had made the opposite assertion to himself or there could be something larger at play.

A passage from Book9 would seem to support that hypothesis:

What, pray, would have happened if his love of wine had become stronger and his passionate nature more violent and fiery as he grew older? I am only stating facts about which there is no dispute. Are we to regard none of these things as serious drawbacks to his merits as a commander? Or was there any danger of that happening which the most frivolous of the Greeks, who actually extol the Parthians at the expense of the Romans, are so constantly harping upon, namely, that the Roman people must have bowed before the greatness of Alexander's name [...]

His use of the present tense would indicate that Livy is addressing contemporary Greek views (or rather slogans).

AII

[Catiline]

What's the equivalent of Quaestor in Singapoore? Or do you intend to fast-track, and get to the subjegation of neighbouring tribes immediately?

Best to go directly to the subjugation don't you think? Though I might try a little enfranchisement first, the PAP do rather hold sway politically.

That said I'm british, not Singaporean, so perhaps enough Empire building has already been done.