GREEK and the OTHER: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS on PSEUDO CALLISTHENES' ALEXANDER ROMANCE and ANNA COMNENA's ALEXIAD a THESIS Presen

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

GREEK AND THE OTHER: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS ON PSEUDO CALLISTHENES’ ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND ANNA COMNENA’S ALEXIAD

A THESIS Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M. Hum.) in English Language Studies

by Kristiawan Indriyanto Student Number: 146332017

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2016

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

GREEK AND THE OTHER: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS ON PSEUDO CALLISTHENES’ ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND ANNA COMNENA’S ALEXIAD

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) in English Language Studies

by Kristiawan Indriyanto Student Number: 146332017

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2016

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

A TMSIS

GREEKAND THE OTHf,R: NARRATIVIE ANALYSIS oN PSETIDO CALLISTHENES' ALEXANDER ROMANCE AI\TD ANNA COMNENA'S ALEXIAD

Kristiawan Indriyanto

Student Number: 146332017

Approved by

Paulus Sarwotoo Ph.D. ffi Thesis Advisor Yogyakarta, September 5, 2016 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

A TEE,SIS GREEKAI{D THE OTHER: NARRATTVE ANALY$S ON PSETIIX} CALI.TSTHENES' ALET(AIYDER ROMANCE AND A}INA COMNENA'S ALEXAD

Prwsted by. Kristiawea Indriyanto

Student Number: 116132017

Ilefended bcfore the Thalr fommlttm

'#= "'"ff""'-'q*ru

Chairperson Secrekry m,*ffi"'ig' %ffi ff, Member i-ffiurura*i, Ph.d # $€ ,ft' iara Anilalas, SJ.ZI(N; ,ffiER-PJb

#*rqH[ate' ;

Yogyakarta, August 19, 2A16

The Grduate Program Ilirector

iii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

MOTTO

GOTT MIT UNS GOD WITH US

Fur Gott Ums Vaterland Ums Prinzessin

it ; PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

$TATEMENT OT W$RI( ORIGINALITY

This is to certiS that all ideas, phraBss, senteflces, ualess otherwise stated, are the ideas, and sentences of the thesis writer. The writer undcrstands the full consequences including degree eenoellation if he took sornebody elseis ideas, phrases, or sentsrces without proper references

ogyakarta, Srytember 5, 2016 ,W. Kristiawan In&iyanto PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJAAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ANTAK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

I/ang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Kristiawan Indriyanto

NIM z 146332017

Derni pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

GREEK AND TIIE OTHER: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS ON PSEUDO CALLISTHENES' ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND ANNA COMNENA'S LEXIAD beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di intemet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu maninta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan.ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 5 September 2016

Yang menyatakan @ Kristiawan Indriyanto

VI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I thank Jesus Christ for His blessing and guidance for the accomplishment of my thesis. I give my gratitude toward my thesis advisor, Paulus

Sarwoto, Ph.D for his insight, help, and correction during the writing of this thesis. I also thank my lecturers in English Language Studies especially Patrisius Mutiara

Andalas, SJ., S.S., S.T.D. Dra. Novita Dewi, M.S., M.A. (Hons), Ph.D and the late

Prof. Dr. Bakdi Soemanto, S.U. Through their classes and discussions, I learn a lot.

Furthermore, I thank my examiner, Arti Wulandari, Ph.D.

I would also thank both my parents, Prof. Dr. Teguh Prasetyo, S.H., M,Si. and

Sri Indarti, S.H., for their kindness and support during my study. Many thanks are also attributed toward my friends in English Language Studies, especially from the B

Class of 2014 and Literature Batch. I would like to thank my friends in Literature

Batch, mas Adit, Pras, Ruly, Anggi, mas Tama, mbak Anis, mbak Rini, mbak Dian, mbak Melania, mbak Teti. During our class we all learn a lot. I also give my gratitude to my other friends who worked together to finish our thesis, Martha, Sari, Dangin, mbak Vita, mas Bayu and mas Ajay from IRB. I am also thankful toward the senior members of 2014 Batch, Pak Marwan, Pak Kosmas, and Pak Firmus for their wisdom. I also thank my friends in DOTA 2 Dictator Team, Pandu, Uya, Bryan,

Richard, Li, We, Theo, Bli Putu, Anto. Lastly, I also thank the academic staff of ELS,

Mbak Marni and Mas Mul for their helping hands.

vii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ...... i APPROVAL PAGE ...... ii DEFENCE APPROVAL PAGE ...... iii MOTTO ...... iv STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY ...... v LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viii ABSTRACT ...... xi ABSTRAK ...... xii CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Background of the Study ...... 1 1. Justification of the Study ...... 1 2. Historical Background ...... 7 3. Objects of Study ...... 10 B. Problem Formulation ...... 16 C. Benefit of the Study ...... 16 D. Thesis Outline ...... 17 CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 18 A. Review of Related Studies ...... 18 B. Review of Related Theories ...... 27 1. Narratology ...... 28 a. Classical and Postclassical Narratology ...... 28 b. Ideology in Narrative Devices ...... 30 b.1 Ideology and Ideology in Narration ...... 30 b.2 Ideology in Focalization ...... 32 b.3 Ideology in Narrative Form ...... 35

viii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

c. Narratology in Non-Fictional Text ...... 37 2. Postcolonial Theories ...... 39 a. Colonialism, Colonial Complicity, and Imperialism ...... 40 b. The Other and the Greek’s Barbarian Other ...... 44 b.1 Said’s Analysis on European Concept of the Other ...... 44 b.2 The Greek’s Concept of the Barbarian ...... 46 CHAPTER III : IDEOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND ALEXIAD ...... 50 A. Comparison between Alexander and Alexius through the Narrators’ Focalization ...... 51 1. Glorification of Alexander and Alexius as Noble Greek (Agathos) ...... 51 2. Alexander and Alexius’ Hellenic Virtues...... 54 a. Intelligence (xunesis) ...... 55 b. Bravery (andreia) ...... 59 c. Self-restrain (sophrosune)...... 62 B. Comparison between Barbarian Kings through the Narrators’ Focalization ... 66 1. Depiction of Darius as Stereotypical Barbarian King ...... 67 2. Depiction of Apelchasem as Stereotypical Barbarian King...... 75 CHAPTER IV : IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND ALEXIAD ...... 79 A. The Presence and Absence of Prolepsis ...... 79 1. The Presence of Prolepsis and the Myth of Colonial Complicity in Alexander Romance ...... 80 a. Prolepsis in Sarepeum Prophecy ...... 81 b. Prolepsis in Ammonian Prophecy ...... 86 2. The Absence of Prolepsis in Alexiad ...... 90 B. Different Barbarians by Different Narrators’ Focalization ...... 95 1. Alexander Romance’s Depiction of Mythical Barbarians ...... 96 2. Alexiad’s Depiction of Semi-Barbarians ...... 101 a. Depiction of the Varangians ...... 102 b. Depiction of Italus ...... 105

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION ...... 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 115 APPENDICES ...... 121 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF ALEXANDER ROMANCE ...... 121 APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF ALEXIAD ...... 122

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRACT Indriyanto, Kristiawan, 2016, Greek and the Other: Narrative Analysis of Pseudo- Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance and Anna Comnena’s Alexiad. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.

This thesis explores how colonial ideology is reflected in Pseudo- Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance and Anna Comnena’s Alexiad. Greek colonialism which took place during antiquity until medieval era had certain parallel with modern colonialism of the European powers. As Alexander Romance and Alexiad were written during different time periods the focus is to compare and contrast the similarities and differences in ideological paradigm. This thesis uses two main theories to analyze these two texts, narratology and postcolonialism. Narratology is used to probe the ideological position of both the narrator of Alexander Romance and Anna as the Greek through textual analysis. Several narratological concepts used are focalization, prolepsis, and pause. The use of these devices reflect the ideological position of the narrators. Secondly, several postcolonial concepts theorized by Said related with colonialism, imperialism, and the Other are used. As this thesis analyzes selected Greek texts, several concepts related more with the Greeks are also used, mainly the Greeks’ conceptualization of the barbarian. Based on these two theories, this thesis concludes that the narrators narrate Alexander Romance and Alexiad from the perspective of the Greek as colonizer. The primary similarities between Alexander Romance and Alexiad are mainly linked with how the narrators proclaim the superiority of the Greeks through the deeds of Alexander and Alexius which are contrasted with the inferiority of the barbarian kings. While Alexander and Alexius are depicted as a model example of a Greek, their enemies are depicted stereotypically as ignorant and cowardly barbarian kings. The narrators claim that as Greeks, Alexander and Alexius is more intelligent and braver than their opponents, which become the reason for their victory. As both texts are separated by different time periods, there are also differences in ideological perspectives. Firstly, Greek colonialism during antiquity is fueled by religious drive in form of prophecies, on the contrary prophecies is discontinued during Byzantine period. Secondly, Alexander Romance emphasizes more on the conquest of Alexander, not only towards the real barbarians of Persia and India but also towards the mythical barbarians, such as the centaurs. On the contrary, Alexiad gives more emphasizes on how the barbarians are Hellenized in the depiction of semi-barbarians.

Keywords: Greek colonialism, narratology, barbarian.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ABSTRAK Indriyanto, Kristiawan, 2016, Greek and the Other: Narrative Analysis of Pseudo- Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance and Anna Comnena’s Alexiad. Yogyakarta: Program Pasca Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma

Tesis ini membahas bagaimana ideologi kolonial tercermin dalam Alexander Romance yang ditulis Pseudo-Callisthenes and Alexiad karangan Anna Comnena. Kolonialisme Yunani yang berlangung selama zaman kuno hingga zaman pertengahan memiliki beberapa persamaan dengan kolonialisme Eropa modern. Karena kedua teks tersebut ditulis pada zaman yang berbeda, fokus tesis ini adalah membandingkan persamaan dan perbedaan dalam paradigma ideologis. Tesis ini menggunakan dua teori inti untuk menganalisa kedua teks tersebut, narratologi dan poskolonialisme. Teori pertama, narratologi digunakan untuk menyelidiki posisi ideologis pengisah dari Alexander Romance dan Anna sebagai orang Yunani melalui analisa tekstual. Beberapa konsep narratologi yang digunakan adalah fokalisasi, prolepsis, dan jeda (pause). Penggunaan beberapa konsep narratologi ini merefleksikan posisi ideologis kedua pengisah. Teori kedua, beberapa konsep poskolonialisme yang diteorikan oleh Edward Said terkait dengan kolonialisme, imperialism dan liyan. Karena tesis ini menganalisa beberapa teks Yunani, tesis ini juga menggunakan beberapa konsep bagaimana orang Yunani mengkonseptualisasi orang barbar. Berdasarkan kedua teori pokok ini, tesis ini berkesimpulan bahwa kedua pengisah menceritakan Alexander Romance dan Alexiad dari sudut pandang Yunani sebagai penjajah. Persamaan paling pokok antara Alexander Romance dan Alexiad adalah bagaimana kedua pengisah menyatakan keunggulan orang Yunani melalui perbuatan Alexander dan Alexius yang dibandingkan dengan inferioritas raja barbar. Alexander dan Alexius digambarkan sebagai sosok-sosok ideal orang Yunani, sedangkan lawan- lawan mereka digambarkan secara stereotipikal, sebagai raja barbar yang bodoh dan penakut. Pengisah-pengisah di kedua teks itu beranggapan bahwa Alexander and Alexius lebih pintar dan lebih berani dari lawan-lawan mereka sehingga mereka dapat menaklukkan raja-raja barbar. Karena kedua teks ini dipisahkan oleh perbedaan zaman, juga terdapat perbedaan dalam sudut pandang ideologis. Pertama, kolonialisme Yunani di zaman kuno dilandaskan oleh ramalan dewa-dewi, sebaliknya ramalan tidak lagi dipergunakan pada zaman Byzantium. Kedua, Alexander Romance lebih memberikan fokus bagaimana Alexander menaklukan kaum barbar, bukan hanya terhadap kaum barbar sebenarnya seperti orang Persia dan orang India tetapi juga kaum barbar mistis, seperti Kentaur. Sebaliknya, Alexiad lebih berfokus kepada kaum barbar mengadopsi gaya hidup Hellenisme. Kata kunci: Greek colonialism, narratology, barbarian.

xii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

1. Justification of the Study

Colonialism and imperialism begins even further than the modern Western imperialism. Irwin St. John Tucker in his A History of Imperialism (1920) proclaims that,” empire is as old as history itself.”1 A less hyperbolic view is addressed by Michael W Doyle in Empires (1986). In Doyle’s view,

empires have been key actors in world politics for millennia. They helped create the interdependent civilizations of Europe, India, the Americas, Africa, and East Asia which form much of our cultural heritage. They shaped the political development of practically all the states of the modern world.2

Both theorists recognize the fact that imperialism has started since the dawn of human civilization. Imperialism is associated with a sense of superiority by the imperial powers which become their justification to conquer and control the so called “weaker” civilization. The imperial subjugation causes the loss of independence in the occupied nation, as the colonizer has total control and authority in ruling their colonized. Doyle states that

empire, I shall argue, is a system of interaction between two political entities, one of which, the dominant metro pole, exerts political control over the internal and external policy-the effective sovereignty- of the other, the subordinate periphery.3

This thesis seeks to explore the reflection of colonial ideology in selected

Greek texts. Although Greek was not a major power in modern European

1 Tucker, Irwin St. John. A History of Imperialism. (New York: Rand School of Social Science, 1920) p. 134. PDF 2 Doyle. Michael W. Empires. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1986) p. 12. PDF 3 Doyle. Michael W. p 12.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

imperialism, Greek colonialism during antiquity until medieval era can also show the embodiment of colonial ideology in their literary texts. While the modern colonialism is marked more by the colonial empires of Britain, French, Dutch and also Germany, Greek colonialism occurs during the antiquity until the medieval era. The primary objects of study are two Greek texts, Pseudo-Callisthenes4’

Alexander Romance and Anna Comnena5’s Alexiad. Pepertua Nkamanyang addresses how literature, especially narrative is loaded with the cultural background of its production, he said that

narrative itself functions as a tool for constructing specific cultural contexts (including history/ideology of a given period) since it provides formal structures for reproducing specific cultures from which it emanates.6

Similar with the way modern colonizer proclaim their superiority compared to the colonized, the Greeks also conceptualized the view of the superiority of Hellenic culture compared to the barbarian Other through literature.

Even though there are parallels between Greek colonialism and modern colonialism as literature is used to strengthen the propagation of the superiority of the colonizer, there exists a major difference. Orientalism, as stated by Edward

Said in his Orientalism (1978) is the main ideological conception behind modern

4 Even though Callisthenes, Alexander’s court historian writes Alexander’s history, Callisthenes is executed before the end of the Indian Campaign. The person who continues Callisthenes’ work remains unknown, hence the authorship of Alexander Romance is attributed to Pseudo- Callisthenes. In Indian Campaign Alexander led his army into India in 326 BC and defeated King Porus of the Paurava Kingdom. Alexander did not conquer the whole of India, at the River Hyphasis he turned back (mid-326), sailed down the Indus and marched through the Gedrosian desert to the Persian heartland. 5 There is no standardized version of her name, it can be spelled either Anna Comnena (Latinized) or Anna Komnene (original Greek). This thesis uses Anna Comnena as Dawes’ version as the object of study uses the Latin version. 6 Nkamanyang, Pepertua. Forms and Function of Narration and Focalization in some Selected Poems of Lord Bryon: A Narratological Analysis. Diss. University of Giessen, 2008. Web. 17 December 2015.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

imperialism. Said defines Orientalism as the idea of the West for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient7, the place of Europe’s greatest and richest colonies8 in Asia and Africa. On the contrary, the Greeks denoted their antithesis, whom they considered as barbarian was not merely limited to the East.

The word barbarians denote person or people who have different culture, language, and custom to what the Greek had. Hence, the anti-Greeks in the

Greek’s perception cover all the non-Greek ethnicity which do not have the same culture and custom (paideia) to the Greeks.

As a comparative analysis, this thesis focuses on comparing and contrasting two Greek texts which come from different time period. The first text is Alexander Romance, depicting the legend of Alexander the Great (356-323

BCE) by Pseudo-Callisthenes. The second text is Alexiad, written by Anna

Comnena. Alexiad tells a story of the life of Anna’s father, Emperor Alexius of the Byzantine Empire (1057-1118 AD). Both texts portray the Greeks’ conquest of the non-Greeks through the campaigns of Alexander the Great and Alexius of

Byzantine Empire. As both texts were written by Greeks, the narrators narrate their story from the perspective of a Greek or through what Marie Louise Pratt states as “imperial eyes9”. Through postclassical narratology as the main framework for the analysis, this thesis focuses on how textual features of the text actually reflect the ideological positioning of the narrator as Greeks. Furthermore, as both texts were written during the different time periods, the emphasis is on the comparison between two Greek texts.

7 Said, Edward. Orientalism. (London: Penguins Book, 1978, Reprint.1995) p. 3. Print. 8 Said, Edward. p. 1. 9 Pratt, Marie Louise. Travel Writing and Transculturation. (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 7. PDF.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

This thesis briefly explores the status of Alexiad as one of the object of study. There are two main reasons why this thesis asserts that Alexiad is comparable with Alexander Romance, although their genre is different. Firstly,

Marjorie Perloff acknowledges how the term literature may not adequately describe the object of comparative literature, as literary phenomena are no longer the exclusive focus of comparative literature.10 Furthermore, literary texts are one discursive practice among many, and that the space of comparison today involves comparisons between various cultural constructions.11 It shows how in the contemporary comparative analysis, the comparable materials are expanded.

According to Perloff’s understanding, literature is comparable with historical texts as both are “cultural constructions”.

Secondly, although Alexiad is categorized as historical narrative or historiography, it differs from conventional Byzantine histories. John Davis analyzes how

Alexiad is notable due for its intricate blend of historical and linguistic awareness. On one hand it follows the pattern of serious historical composition, including research, considered assessment of the data and careful arrangement and exposition of the material; on the other, Alexiad also shows a rich mantle of rhetorical and literary artifice…. This work embodied the cultural spirit of the ancient Greco-Roman intellectual tradition.12

10 Perloff, Marjorie. “Literature in the Expanded Field”. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1995) Ed. Charles Bernheimer. p.176. Print. 11 Perloff, Marjorie. p. 180. 12 Davis, John. “Anna Komnene and Niketas Choniates ‘translated’ “the fourteenth-century Byzantine metaphrases.” History as Literature in Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007. Ed. R.J. Macrides. (Surrey: University of Birmingham, 2007) p. 57. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Neville argues also that Alexiad is “an unusual history”, Anna often makes allusion to the Greek epic Iliad, and Alexiad is also epic in scale.13 Similar with

Neville, Mesko states also that Anna intends more on praising Alexius’ deeds and the precise narration of the historical events is only secondary.14 Summarizing several aforementioned opinions, this thesis concludes that Alexiad should not be classified as historiography, but as a “historical epic15”.

As a basis for the comparison, this thesis uses Siegbert Prawer’s understanding of comparative literature, quoted in Susan Bassnett’s Comparative

Literature (1993). She states that two subjects of comparative analysis are the literary representation of that literary representation of named personages and recurring motifs are subjects of comparative analysis.16 Relating with the postclassical model of narratology used as the theory of analysis, it can be seen that narrative devices such as focalization reflected both narrators’ ideological positioning in how they portray Alexander and Alexius in their narration. In representing Alexander and Alexius as real persons in literary works, both narrators emphasize the superiority of Greek compared to barbarian through the achievements of both Alexander and Alexius.

Furthermore, both Alexander Romance and Alexiad have similarity in recurring motifs; both texts glorify the legend of two great man in Greek history

13 Neville, Leonora. “Lamentation, History, and Female Authorship in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) p.193. PDF. 14 Mesko, Marek. “Anna Komnene’s Narrative of the War against the Scythians.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 19 (2014) p. 54. PDF. 15 Herman, David. Jahn, Manfred and Marie-Laure Ryan. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. (London: Routledge, 2005) p. 214. PDF. 16 Prawer, Siegbert. Quoted in Basnett, Susan. Comparative Literature. (Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd. 1993) p.116. Print.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

by their martial prowess. Alexander and Alexius are portrayed as agathos (noble man) and possess arête (heroic excellence). Arthur W.H Adkins in his book Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (1975) elaborates more about agathos and arête. Firstly, agathos is “the most powerful words of commendation used of a man”17, an agathos is in possession of arête, the qualities most highly valued at any time by Greek society.18 Agathos is the most admired type of man; the man who possesses the skills and qualities of the warrior-chieftain in war….be brave, skillful, and successful in war.19 A successful conqueror is considered to achieve glory (kleos) by their prowess in war.20 Through the narrators’ voice in their focalization, both narrators emphasize Alexander and Alexius’ status as agathos due to their success in war and their various Hellenic virtues. On the other hand, Alexander and Alexius’ enemies are denigrated as barbarian kings, tainted by various barbaric flaws.

Even though both texts are similar in several aspects, these two texts also differ due to the different circumstances and historical background. Alexander

Romance focuses on the conquest of Alexander in the beginning of Hellenistic

Age. Hellenistic Age refer to the era of the enlarged, cosmopolitan Greek world of appropriately 330 -31 BCE.21. Hellenistic Age22 can therefore be considered as the

17 Adkins, Arthur W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960) Reprinted.1975. p. 30-31. PDF 18 Adkins, Arthur W.H. p. 31 19 Adkins, Arthur W.H. p. 31 20 Adkins, Arthur W.H. p. 32. 21 Sacks, David. Murray, Oswyn, and Margaret Bunson. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World (New York: Facts on File, 1995) p. 169. PDF 22The differentiation of the term Hellenic and Hellenistic according to the Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek World is that while Hellenic refers to the Greeks itself, the word Hellenistic come from the verb Hellazin –to speak Greek or identify with the Greeks. This thesis uses the term Hellenic to refer to the virtues, values, culture and heritage of ethnic Greeks, whereas the term Hellenistic is

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

glory days of Greek civilization, where they ruled a large empire populated by non-Greek ethnicities.

Compared to Alexander Romance, the situation of Byzantium depicted in

Alexiad is marked with discord and turmoil. Before Alexius usurped the throne during a coup in 1081, the reign of previous emperor Nikophoros III Botaneiates corresponded with a sharp downturn in Byzantium’s economic and military fortunes.23 Around 1081, several outside enemies such as the Normans in Italy,

Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor and also internal threat by pretender such as

Nicephorus Bryennius endangered the security of the empire. As stated by

Frankopan,” Byzantium is in a state of effective paralysis at the time of Alexius’ seizure of the throne.”24 To summarize, while both Pseudo-Callisthenes and Anna emphasize the superiority of Hellenic culture through the achievement of

Alexander and Alexius, there are also differences in the ideological perspectives due to the different time period, which will be further explored in the analysis.

2. Historical Background

Before moving into further explanation of the figure of Pseudo-

Callisthenes and Anna and their works, there are some information regarding

Greek colonialism. These aspects mainly cover the beginning of Greek colonialism, colonialism by conquest in the era of Alexander the Great, and about the interconnection between Greek and Roman culture after Greece was

used to refer to the era and the time period, especially as after Alexander’s conquest Hellenic culture is not only confined to Greece but spread to the East. 23 Frankopan, Peter. “Kinship and the Distribution of Power in Komnenian Byzantium.” The English Historical Review. 122. (2007) Web, 7 September 2015. PDF < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20108202> p. 1 24 Frankopan, Peter. p.2

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

conquered by Rome. Even though the Greeks were subjugated by the Romans, their Hellenic identity did not perish and it fact it continued to flourish until their

Hellenic heritage eventually replaced the Roman aspect during Byzantine period.

In many ways, Greek colonialism in antiquity and medieval era is more long-lasting than the modern colonial power. Greek colonists traveled all along the Mediterranean and established many cities which remained until the present era. Marseille in France, Taranto (Taras) in Italy, and Alexandria in Egypt is a small example of cities founded by Greek colonists before Common Era. M.H

Hansen in his book Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State (2006) states that Greek colonies constitute around half of ancient Greek poleis or at least

500 cities in the archaic and classical periods.25 Furthermore, Scheidel estimates that 40 percent of all ancient Greek resides in colonial city-states.26 This illustration shows that colonialism is an essential part of Greek ideology to expand the boundaries outside Greece itself.

At first, Greek colonialism consists of peaceful contact and co-existence between Greek settlers and traders with the natives. Parmenter makes comparison between the early Greek colonialism and the early European colonialism of North

America.27 He believes that both is disorganized, involves migrations, and has no state sponsorship. Greek colonialism began to change during the reign of

Alexander the Great (330 BCE). Peter Green in his book Alexander the Great and

25 Hansen, M.H. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) p. 84. PDF 26 Scheidel, W. “The Greek Demographic Expansion: Models and Comparison.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 123 (2003) Web, 29 February 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3246263 p. 120- 140. PDF 27 Parmenter, Christoper S. Ethnography and the Colonial World in Theocritus and Lucian. MA Thesis. University of Oregon, 2013. Web, 30 November 2016. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the Hellenistic Age (2007) states that Alexander’s conquest of the Persian

Achaemenid Empire defines the start of the Hellenistic Age.28 In this era, Greek colonialism began to be identified by territorial conquest through warfare instead of following the early model of colonialism.

After reviewing the beginning of Greek colonialism and colonialism by conquest during the Hellenistic Age, this thesis explores the Greek identity in the

Byzantine Empire, as Alexiad was written in this period. Modern historians coined the term Byzantine Empire to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire. The earliest use is from Hieronymous Wolf, who uses the word Byzantine in his book Corpus

Historiae Byzantinae (1557) to characterize the culture of the Eastern Roman

Empire.29 The name Byzantine derives from the original settlement before

Constantinople, the capital was established which was named Byzantium. The

Eastern Roman Empire, as their territory encompassed the former territorial conquest of Alexander and hence the Hellenistic world was especially influenced by their Greek paideia (education, culture, and custom). Vyrnois addresses the

Hellenism of Byzantium, he states:

There are three fundamental aspects of Byzantine identity: (a) language, (b) education, and (c) monarchial institutions. The first two of these are clearly Greek, and directly descended from classical Greece through their Hellenistic forms. The third, the Roman imperial institution, is also in part descended from its Hellenistic precedents.30

Vyronis states that language and education –paideia- of the Byzantines are derived from classical Greece. He also offers some insight towards the Roman

28 Green, Peter. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007) p. xvi. PDF 29 Stathakopoulos, Dionysios. A Short History of the Byzantine Empire. (London, I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2014) p. 204. PDF 30 Vyronis, Speros. “Greek Identity in the Middle Ages” EB 6. (1999) p. 31. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

imperial tradition, such as the monarchial institutions which are still used by the

Byzantines. In his opinion, the “Roman imperial institution”31 are actually partly

“descended from its Hellenistic precedent”32, mainly related with the establishment of Hellenistic kingdoms in the aftermath of the conquest of

Alexander. It implies that the establishment of Roman imperial institution,

Imperium Romanum is actually based on the previous model of Greek imperium of the East in the Hellenistic Age. It indicates that there was continuity between ancient Greeks during antiquity and Byzantine Greeks. Vyronis concludes:

There was indeed a Greek identity in Byzantium as witnessed by the identification with the Greek language and Greek education on the formal cultural level, but one which the Hellenistic absolutist political tradition in its Roman political form was the characteristic political features.33

3. Objects of Study

In this section, this thesis explores more about the objects of study used,

Alexander Romance and Alexiad. Alexander Romance is a historical fiction about the legend of Alexander the Great during the 4th century BC. This story depicts the conquests of Alexander, not only towards the real barbarians such as the

Persians and the Indians but also against mythical barbarians such as the centaurs.

As the story is told from the perspective of a Greek narrator, the narrator glorifies the successful conquest of Alexander as the proof for the superiority of the

Greeks. This work is considered as one of the most long-lived and influential work of Greek literature.34 Alexander’s fame and popularity persists until the

31 Vyronis, Speros. p. 31 32 Vyronis, Speros. p. 31 33 Vyronis, Speros. p. 36 34 Callisthenes, Pseudo. The Greek Alexander Romance. (London: Penguins Books, 1991) p. 5. Trans. Richard Stonemann. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

modern era. In 2009, Alexander was voted as the greatest Greek of all time.35 This fact illustrates the modern Greeks still consider Alexander as their hero, an example of model Greek agathos which influenced how they vote Alexander as the greatest Greek of all time.

The authorship of Alexander Romance is usually attributed to Callisthenes, a contemporary historian of Alexander. Callisthenes served as Alexander’s court historian; he annotated Homer’s Illiad that Alexander always reads before he sleeps.36 Callisthenes followed Alexander’s expedition to Egypt, Persia, but he was executed before the end of Alexander’s expedition into India. For that reason, the authorship of Alexander Romance in modern English translation is attributed to Pseudo Callisthenes, as the person who complete Callisthenes’ work is still unrecognized.37

The thesis uses the Greek version translated by Richard Stoneman. Greek

Alexander Romance emphasizes Alexander’s divinity by his descend from Greek gods. He is believed as the son of Ammon and descends from Heracles and Zeus.

The narrator of Alexander Romance uses Alexander’s divine parentage to help legitimize Alexander’s territorial conquests. This thesis especially focuses on the use of prophecies or in narratological term prolepsis to argue that this device reflects the colonial ideology of the narrator through the justification for

Alexander’s conquest.

35 “Alexander the Great was voted as the Greatest Greek of All Time.” Web, 17 December 2015. < http://history-of-macedonia.com/2009/05/19/alexander-the-great-was-voted-as-the-greatest-greek- all-time> PDF 36 Stoneman, Richard. “Primary Sources from the Classical and Early Medieval Periods” A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages. Ed. David Zuwiyya. (Leiden: Brill Academic Pub, 2011) p. 12. PDF 37 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 19-20.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The second text used is Anna Comnena’s Alexiad which was written during medieval era (around 1148 AD), more than one millennium after

Alexander Romance. Similar with the narrator of Alexander Romance, Anna also emphasizes the superiority of the Greeks through her depiction of her father as a model Greek (agathos). Her father’s success in war is considered by Anna to be caused by her father’s status as a Greek; Greeks are considered to be more intelligent than barbarians.

This thesis briefly explores Anna as a historical figure. Anna was born at dawn of Saturday, 1st December 1083.38 She was educated by her father Alexius

Comnenus -Emperor of Byzantine Empire - in Greek literacy, rhetoric, and also philosophy.39 Shaffer and Marcopoulos compares Anna with Murasaki Shikibu, the author of The Tale of Genji, they state that both were highly educated persons in a day when most people were illiterate.40 As a first born child and

Porphyrogénnētos -born in the purple- an honorary rank for Byzantine prince/princess born in the purple chamber of the Imperial Palace, she expected herself to ascend the throne as Empress. Unfortunately for her, the birth of John, her younger brother placed her below John in the succession. After her father’s death, she tried to place her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius as Emperor and she as the Empress but her coup attempt was thwarted. Unwilling to execute his elder

38Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. (London: Routledge, 1928) Reprinted. (Ontario: In Parentheses Publication, 2000) Trans. Elizabeth A.S Dawes. p. 15. PDF 39 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. (London: Penguin Books, 1969) Reprint. Penguin Classics, 2003. Trans. E.R.A Sewter. p. 5. PDF 40 Shaffer, Lynda N and George J. Marcopouolos. “Murasaki and Comnena : Two Women and Two Themes in World History.” The History Teacher. 19.4 (1986) Web. 23 May 2016. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/493874> p. 489. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

sister, Emperor John ordered Anna to be banished at a monastery. It was the time where she wrote an account of her father’s reign as emperor.

Lastly, this thesis explores how the Greek texts are translated. As this thesis analyzes the Greek’s colonial ideology through the medium of translation from Greek into English, it cannot be denied that the message transferred might change in the process of translation. Hence, certain consideration is needed to make sure that the translated texts used do not differ too much with the narrator’s original ideological position. In other words, more literal translation or word-by- word translation is preferred. In their book The Theory and Practice of

Translation (1969) [1982] Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber elaborates two types of translation, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Nida and Taber define the characteristics of formal equivalence as

F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word use, and (3) meaning in terms of the source context. The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: (a) translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc.; (b) keeping all phrases and sentences intact41 Formal equivalence tries to remain as close to the original text as possible, without adding the translator’s ideas and thoughts into the translation.42 It can be seen therefore that translation which employs formal equivalence methods will have more faithful translation to the original source,

41 Nida, Eugene and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969) Reprinted. 1982. p. 165. PDF 42 Shakernia, Shabnam. “Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories” Merit Research Journals. 2.1 (2013) Web. 09 March 2016. >http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/er/index.htm> p. 2. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

In her book, Translation in a Postcolonial Context (1999), Maria

Tymoczko explores postcolonial translation of early Irish literature.43 A key point she addresses is “signature concepts” of a culture, the cultural elements that are important to both the social organization and the world view of a particular culture.44 She further adds:

The translation of early Irish literature into English was not only a matter of translating specifically literary elements of the texts within a charged ideological construct; there was also the matter of identifying and conveying the cultural beliefs, values, ideas, and ideals that make for distinct Irish views of the world embodied in the texts.45

It can be stated that in translating text, a translator should make careful observation to make sure that the specific “signature concepts” of the original text is able to be transmitted to the target audiences. Similar with what Tymoczko has stated, Lorna Hardwick and Eva Parisinou in their Translating Words, Translating

Cultures (2000) also propose correlated view:

The act of translating also involves translating or transplanting into the receiving culture the cultural framework within which an ancient text is embedded. The task facing the translator of ancient texts is to produce translations that seek to articulate in some way the cultural framework within which that text is embedded.46

While Tymoczko focuses more on the translation of early Irish literature into

English, Hardwick and Parisinou emphasize more on the translation of ancient

Greek texts. Hardwick and Parisinou state that the “task facing the translator of ancient texts” is to articulate “the cultural framework” of a text which similar with

43 Tymoczko, Maria. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. (Michigan: University of Michigan St. Jerome Publishing, 1999) p. 210. PDF 44 Tymoczko, Maria. p. 213. 45 Tymoczko, Maria. p. 211. 46 Hardwock, Lorna and Eva Parisinou. Translating Words, Translating Cultures. (Oakland: University of California, 2000) p. 22. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

what Tymoczko coins as “signature concepts.” Hence, it is not only the translation of early Irish text that should translate the “signature concepts” of Irish into

English, but also the translation of classical Greek texts into English.

The debate in choosing which text to use is more particularly shown in the translation of Alexiad, as there are two different versions. In choosing which version of Alexiad to analyze here, this thesis prefers the translation which uses formal equivalence method. The translated version of Alexiad used here is the

1928 version of Alexiad translated by Elisabeth A.S Dawes.47 Dawes’ version is the first translation of Alexiad into English, and another translator, E.R.A Sewter published her translation in 1968. Dawes’ version is preferred because in this thesis’s perspective, Dawes’ Alexiad better captures the original essence of

Anna’s narration, her colonial ideology that is the main aspect of the thesis. One review by Paul Halsall also emphasizes the closeness of Dawes’ translation to the original Greek.48 The review says, “Dawes’ translation was a literal one that kept very closely to the Greek text.” Halsall also reviews Sewter’ version and he states that Sewter’s translation is a more fluid version than Dawes’”.49 In her preface,

Sewter herself acknowledges that “she tries to express in contemporary Anglo-

American the ideas and language of a Byzantine princess who wrote some eight

47 Dawes’s version is republished by In Parentheses publications in 2000 and available online at www.yorku.ca/inpar/alexiad_dawes.pdf 48 Hallsall, Paul. Web, 23 May 2016. < http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad.asp> 49 Hallsall, Paul

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

hundred years ago”.50 Hence, this thesis uses the version translated by Dawes which is closer to the original Greek.

B. Problem Formulation

This thesis compares and contrasts the similarities and differences between the Greek’s colonial ideology in antiquity and medieval era through the narrators’ use of several narrative devices. Although both texts are separated by different time periods, the imperial and colonial attitude of the Greek persists from antiquity until the medieval era. While there are similarities, the different historical background of Alexander Romance and Alexiad also causes difference in how the colonial ideology is depicted. There are two questions formulated here.

The first question is intended to highlight the similarities of ideology from

Alexander Romance and Alexiad. Second question is to explore the differences in ideological positioning. This thesis formulates the questions as:

1. How do Alexander Romance and Alexiad depict the similarities of

ideology between ancient Greek and Byzantine Greek?

2. How do Alexander Romance and Alexiad depict the differences of

ideology between ancient Greek and Byzantine Greek?

C. Benefit of the Study

This thesis aims to have theoretical benefit which is to increase awareness towards contemporary/postclassical narratology. Contemporary narratology particularly highlights how the form and contents of literature are socially constructed, related with the historical contexts concerning literary texts. Through

50 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. London: Penguin Books, 1969. Reprint. Penguin Classics, 2003) Trans. E.R.A Sewter. p. 10-11. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the analysis of several narrative devices originally coined by structuralist narratology, contemporary narratology examines how the narrative devices reflect the ideological positioning of the narrator. Furthermore, as this thesis also uses several postcolonial concepts to analyze Greek colonialism in Alexander Romance and Alexiad, this study can also be defined as the application of postcolonial narratology. As stated by Gerald Prince, postcolonial narratology adopts and rely on the result of postclassical narratology, but would inflect and perhaps enrich it by wearing a set of postcolonial lenses to look as narrative.51 It can be said therefore that the analysis of this thesis is conducted with postclassical narratology as the main framework, which is enhanced by several postcolonial terminologies.

D. Thesis Outline

This thesis is arranged thematically. Chapter one consists of background of the study, problem formulation, and benefits of the study. Chapter two covers the review of related studies and review of related theories. Chapter three analyzes the similarities in ideology between Alexander Romance and Alexiad. Chapter four deals with the differences of ideological perspective between Alexander

Romance and Alexiad. The last chapter presents the conclusion of the analysis in the third and fourth chapter.

51 Prince, Gerald. “On a Postcolonial Narratology.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. (New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005) Ed. James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz. p. 373.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies

Previously, this thesis summarizes background of the study which covers justifications for the study, historical background, and also objects of the study. On historical backgrounds, this thesis reviews the development of Greek colonialism from the early period of colonialism until colonialism through conquest which started during the reign of Alexander the Great. In this section, the focus is more on reviewing several previous studies on how the Greeks viewed the non-Greeks as barbarian. This section emphasizes on how the Greeks conceptualized the idea of barbarian in several Greek texts as few researches on colonialism in both Alexander

Romance and Alexiad have been conducted. Several articles reviewed here argue that the concept of colonialism can be found in their reading of several Greek texts, either on historical accounts or literary texts.

Several studies have been conducted on how the Greek perceives the Other.

Van der Vliet presents this issue in his reading of Strabo’s Geography.52 He asserts that ethnicity is constructed on the basis of dichotomies, by which ‘us’ and ‘not us’ are distinguished.53 There was also dichotomy in how the Greeks viewed the non-

Greeks ethnicities based on Strabo’s account. The dichotomy was on strict opposition

52 Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. “The Romans and Us, Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity.” Mnemosyne. 56. (2003), Web, 7 October 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4433447 p. 257- 272. 53 Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. p. 261.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

between hostile and uncivilized native tribes facing Greek colonists. Strabo associates barbarism (barbaroi) with misery, poverty, a lack of capacity to civilize themselves and a lack of self-control and moderation.54 Barbarian natives were described to have a wretched and simple existence. Therefore, uncivilized natives needed the guiding hand of Greek colonizer in order to improve their living condition. The Greeks believed that it was their duty to bring Hellenic culture to the untamed ethnicities by the virtue of being the superior culture. In the Greeks’ perception, barbarian was their antithesis or the opposite of the Greek.55 Hence, the Greeks considered the non-

Greeks ethnicities as the Other.

Another idea of how barbarian was portrayed in Greek historical account can also be found in Herodotus’s Histories.56 Van Amsterdam explores how Herotodus’s

Histories presents the imagery of untidy hordes, incomprehensible speech, and the contrasting values between tyrannical Persians against the democratic Greeks.57

When the Greeks managed to hold the Persian’s expansion at Salamis and Platea it was the victory of the superiority of the Greeks compared to the barbarian, despotic slave state.58 Similar with what Van Der Vliet asserted before, the Greek perceived the non-Greeks as their antithesis. In this case, the Greek’s democratic government was contrasted with the tyrannical monarchy of the Persians. Greek’s victory in the

54 Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. p. 257 55 Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. p. 261 56 Van Amsterdam, Katrina. “When in Greece, Do as the Persian Don’t: Defining the Identity of the Greeks Against the Persian Imperial Order.” Hirundo XIII (2013), Web. 3 November 2015. https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2013-14-02.pdf p. 1-16. 57 Van Amsterdam, Katrina p.2 58 Van Amsterdam, Katrina. p. 4

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Persian War (480-479 BC) was further used to strengthen the superiority of the

Greeks compared with the Persian Other.

Previous two studies have reviewed the binary opposition between Greeks and non-Greeks based on the opposition between savagery and civilized and also democracy against tyranny. Another study explores that the Greeks’ perception toward the non-Greeks as the Other is not just limited to the East, but to all ethnicities which do not adopt Greek culture and custom. Holdsworth asserts that Diodorus

Siculus’s Bibliotheca Historia (59 BCE) consists of derogative view toward the

Romans.59 While Siculus acknowledges the achievement of the Romans, he considers the Romans as barbarian due to the fact that their native language is not Greek but

Latin.60 In the analysis of this thesis, how the Greek considers their Other as all non-

Greek can be found in both Alexander Romance (300 AD) and Alexiad (1148 AD).

The narrator in Alexander Romance and Anna both possess view that not just the

East, but the West is also considered as ruled by barbarian savages.

The idea of barbarism was not only found in Greek historical accounts but also in Greek literary texts. Edith Hall in her book Inventing the Barbarian: Greek

Self Definition through Tragedy (1986) states that the ideological polarization of

Hellene and barbarian started from the fifth century onwards, and drama is the source

59 Holdsworth, Benjamin, Evans (2009) Reading Romans in Rome: A Reception of Romans in the Roman Context of Ethnicity and Faith. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/214/ 60 Holdsworth, Benjamin, Evans. p. 21.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

for the Greeks’ conceptualization of the non-Greeks worlds.61 Based on Hall’s view, it can be noted that several Greek literary works, especially drama also reflects the ideological binarism between Greeks and barbarians. Several Greek plays depicted the dichotomy between civilized Greek and savage barbarian. The opposition between Greek and barbarian was first found in Aeschylus’s The Persian (472

BCE).62 Written in the aftermath of Persian War, Aeschylus differentiates between the Hellenes and the Persians. Hellenes live a free and simple life, while the Persian

Barbarians are characterized by oriental despotism and lush opulence.63 Van

Amsterdam states that

Aeschylus’s The Persian and Herodotus’ Histories are written by Greeks for a Greek audience, and as such there is an undercurrent of the advantages of Hellenism over barbarism in the texts. Each expresses themes of order over irrationality, democracy over tyranny, and ultimately Greek over barbarian. It is these themes that became the focal point for the Greeks in creating a political and cultural separation on which to build their own identity.64

Both Greek historical accounts and literary works present the idea of the superiority of Hellenic culture compared to the barbarian. The superiority of the Greeks was used as a justification toward the condescending colonial attitude the Greeks possessed toward their Other.

61 Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self Definition through Tragedy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) p. x. PDF 62 Hall, Edith. p. 73. 63 Heit, Helmut. “Western Identity, Barbarians and the Inheritance of Greek Universalism.” The European Legacy, 10. 7. (2005), p. 726. Web. 02 September, 2015 64Van Amsterdam, Katrina. p.14.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The derogative attitude the Greeks had toward their Other was found also in

Odyssey 9. Rinon’s reading on book 9 of Odyssey epic employs Rimmon-Kenan’s revised theory on Genette’s concept of focalization.65 Rimmon Kenan asserts that

Genette’s original concept is too narrow, she argues that focalizer is attributed also with certain ideological facet, i.e. the values and how the focalizer perceives the world.66 In Rinon’s finding, Odyssey as a focalizer has colonial attitude, hence he proposes the term “colonial focalization.”67 This facet of focalization can be found in

Odyssey’s attitude towards a recently discovered area as a potential area for settlement. Odyssey believes himself to be protected by the Gods, and in finding a new world which nobody lives, except for cyclops -one eyed monster- Odyssey perceives himself as the bringer of civilization. This way of thinking resembles how the European people perceived the rest of the world during the colonial era with jargon like “mission to civilize” or in French mission civilistatrice. One French politician during the Third Republic Era, Ferry states that:

We must believe that if Providence deigned to confer upon us a mission by making us master of the earth, this mission consists not of attempting an impossible fusion of the races but simply by spreading or awakening among the other races the superior notions of which we are the guardian…The superior races have the right vis-à-vis the inferior races, they have the right to civilize them68

65 Rinon, Yoav. “The Pivotal Scene: Narration, Colonial Focalization, and the Transition in Odyssey 9.” The American Journals of Philology. 128.3 (2007), p. 301-334. Web. 31 March 2015. 66 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction. (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 1983. Reprinted. 2005) p. 79-81 67 Rinon, Yoav. p. 303. 68 Ferry, Jules. Qtd in Conklin, Alice L. A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1989-1930. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997) p. 13. PDF.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Lastly, this thesis reviews the prior studies on Alexander Romance and

Alexiad to highlight the missing space as none of the studies attribute the idea of colonialism in their reading. A study by McInerley applies narratology to compare

Alexander Romance and the historical account of Alexander written by Arrian. The focus of his analysis is to argue that Alexander’s legend is enhanced by his portrayal as divinity in both account.69 McInerely believes that Alexander Romance uses the theme of hieros gamos, in which a God has sex with a mortal woman. In Alexander

Romance, Alexander’s mother Olympias is impregnated by the God Ammon and she gives birth to Alexander. Similar portrayal can also be found in Arian’s historical account of Alexander. In The Campaigns of Alexander, Alexander believes himself to possess “the blood of Heracles and Perseus in his veins, and too had a feeling than in some way he was descended from Ammon.”70 McInerley therefore concludes that the boundaries between historical and fictional Alexander is blurry, as both accounts portray Alexander as descended from divinity.

The previous study by McInerely does not focus on the idea of Greek colonialism. McInerely focuses more on similarity between historical Alexander based on Arrian’s account and fictional account of Alexander in Stoneman’s

Alexander Romance. Both texts emphasize Alexander’s divine lineage by his God parentage. This thesis aims to expand McInerely’s study by arguing that the narrator

69 McInerley, Jeremy. “Arian and The Greek Alexander Romance.” The Classical World. 100.4 (2007). Web, 2 December 1015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/25434052> p.424-430 70 Arian. The Campaigns of Alexander. (London: Penguins Book, 1976) Trans. Aubrey De Selincourt. Ed. J.R. Hamilton. p. 69.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

of Alexander Romance highlights Alexander’s semi divine status to justify the conquests of Alexander. This is seen mainly by the narrator uses many prophecies; in narratological perspective, the use of foreshadowing such as prophecies can be interpreted to hold the narrator’s ideological stance. In this case, the narrator justifies

Alexander’s conquest by using many prophecies to proclaim that Alexander is the rightful ruler of the world.

The second text, Alexiad has also been analyzed by several scholars. Andrew

R. Dyck focuses on how Anna makes several allusions to Greek antiquity epic Iliad as can be seen in the similarity of both titles.71 In Dyck’s argument, Anna provides certain parallel between her father Alexius as the protagonist in Alexiad with certain hero in Iliad. Alexius is compared to Agamemnon in how Alexius “did not require a dream to spur him into battle, as Atreus’s son, Agamemnon did.”72 Anna glorifies her father’s martial prowess in battle by placing him as superior from ancient Greek hero such as Agamemnon.

While both this thesis and Dyck’s article focus on comparative study between

Alexiad and Greek antiquity text, the focus is different. Dyck emphasizes the intertextuality between Alexiad and Iliad. The intertextuality is in how Anna alludes to Greek heroes in Iliad as a comparison for her father’s brilliance. On the other hand, this thesis compares Alexiad with Alexander Romance to compare the Greeks’

71Dyck. Andrew R. “Iliad and Alexiad: Anna Comnena’s Homeric Reminiscences” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986). p. 115-116. Web, 28 October 2015. < http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/5121/5389> 72 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Trans. Elizabeth A.S Dawes. p. 192

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

colonial ideology in two eras. Even though the overarching attitude of viewing the non-Greeks as inferior other remains the same, there are also some ways in which

Hellenism in antiquity differs from medieval. The comparison between antiquity and medieval colonial ideology will be further explained in the analysis.

Different from Dyck, Vilimonovic uses narrative textual analysis to argue that

Vilimonovic argues that Alexiad actually holds Anna’s resentment of being neglected in favor of his brother as successor to Emperor Alexius.73 Anna considers herself as the rightful successor, and her resentment manifests in her narration. Vilimonovic gives particular emphasis on the passage dealing with the birth of both Anna and

John. In her narration Anna remarks that, “And at dawn on a Saturday a female child was born to them who were exactly like her father, they said; that child was I.”74

Vilimonovic believes that “who were exactly like her father” is the way Anna rejects her brother’s claim to the throne, as Anna is more in the image of her father.75 In

Vilimonovic’s finding, Byzantine mosaics commonly depict a chosen imperial heir who was presented as an inheritor of his/her father’s physical feature.76 Hence Anna emphasizes her physical appearance which resembles her father, the Emperor.

This study differs from Vilimonovic’s previous study in the focus on the analysis. Vilimononic asserts that several quotations of Alexiad are a form of

73 Vilimonovic, Larisa. “Observation of the Text and Context of Anna Comnena’s Alexiad” Belgrade Historical Review. V (2014), p. 43-58. Web, 1 June 2015. 74 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Trans. Elizabeth A.S Dawes p. 107, 75 Vilimonovic, Larisa. p. 51 76 Vilimonovic, Larisa. p. 52

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

resistance Anna has toward the succession of the throne, her focus is more on the internal court intrigue of the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, the emphasis of this thesis is not on the inside politics of Byzantine Empire but how Anna as a medieval Greek writer still continue the Greek’s worldview which perceives the non-

Greeks as the Other. Anna’s status as the daughter of Byzantine emperor further enhances the fact that she is speaking from a position of power and authority. Her ideology can be found not only in her passages and utterances but also in the structure of her narration. Another difference is that Alexiad is compared with another Greek text, Alexander Romance to compare the similarities and differences in how the

Greeks’ colonial ideology is depicted.

To summarize, the argument that both Alexander Romance and Alexiad reflect the Greek’s colonial ideology is still unexplored. Previous studies on Alexiad focus either on the issue of intertextuality between Alexiad and Iliad or how Alexiad can be considered as Anna’s resentment toward her younger brother’s succession as

Emperor. Prior study of Alexander Romance focuses on the portrayal of Alexander as semi-divine based on Pseudo-Callisthenes’ and Arian’s account. Hence, there is still missing space in how narrative analysis on Alexander Romance and Alexiad can reflect both narrator’s ideological position as Greek.

While previous studies on Greek colonial perspective do not use narratology to focus on colonialism, Rinon proves that it is possible to use narratology in arguing that Odyssey as focalizer reflects the Greek’s colonial ideology. Rinon focuses on the focalization of Odyssey to argue that Odyssey is the representation of the Greek,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Odyssey as a focalizer embodies the Greek’s colonial ideology. Starting from Rinon’s argument, the narrator in Alexander Romance and Anna in Alexiad reflect the colonial ideology of the Greek as they are both narrator and focalizer.

There are several issues which differentiate this thesis from Rinon’s previous study. In the object of story, Rinon’s analysis is a re-reading of classical Greek epic, the Odyssey where he argues that actually Odyssey reflects colonial ideology in how

Odyssey perceives the native, the cyclops. On the other hand, this thesis focuses on comparing two Greek texts written during different era. The argument is that the lasting idea of Greek colonialism, how the Greeks were portrayed as superior while non-Greeks were inferior spans from antiquity until medieval era. Greek’s colonial ideology also undergoes several changes by the span of centuries. Another difference is that while Rinon’s study focuses on reflecting the colonial ideology based on focalization of a particular character, this thesis aims to analyze the Greek’s colonial ideology through the focalization and also the temporal arrangement of the narrator in

Alexander Romance and Anna’s narrations.

B. Review of Related Theories

In this section, this thesis explores the theories used in analyzing Alexander

Romance and Alexiad as theoretical foundation of the study. The main framework of this thesis is postcolonial narratology, which is divided into two main theories, narratology and postcolonialism. These two main theories are further explained in the next sections.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

1. Narratology

Narrative theory or narratology is used to probe the ideological position of both the narrator of Alexander Romance and Anna as the Greek through textual analysis. There are several narratological concepts reviewed here. Firstly, this thesis explores the shifting paradigm from classical narratology into the postclassical narratology. Secondly, the thesis focuses on reviewing ideology in narrative devices, mainly focalization, prolepsis and pause. a. Classical and Postclassical Narratology

First section in the theoretical framework focuses on the changing perspective from the structural model of narratology into the contemporary narrative analysis.

Contemporary narratology in the modern era is defined as “postclassical narratology” by David Herman in David Herman in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative

(2007). Herman uses this term to differentiate from the classical model of narratology which is criticized for its scientificity and disregard for content.77 Rimmon-Kenan explores that,

like poetics, narratology saw itself as a theory, conceived at the time as an attempt to formulate a system of logically interrelated laws, underlying the regularity of phenomena or of a group of phenomena.78

77 Herman, David. Jahn, Manfred and Marie-Laure Ryan. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. (London: Routledge, 2005) p. 594. PDF 78 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith . “Towards…Afterthoughts, Almost Twenty Years Later,” Narrative Theory Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. Mieke Bal. (New York: Routledge, 2004) p. 141. Print.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Classical narratology is criticized for their emphasis on the underlying structure of literature instead of the content of an individual work. On the contrary, Herman states that postclassical narratology

encompass framework for narrative research that build on this classical tradition but supplement in with concepts and methods that were unavailable to story analysis such as Barthes, Genette, Greimas, and Todorov during the heyday of structuralism.79

It can be stated therefore that postclassical narratology does not abandon the structuralist basis all together but they supplement it with other concepts and methods.

Herman’s view is echoed by Ansgar Nunning in What is Narratology?

Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory (2003):

The development of narratology has followed a course away from the identification and systematization of the ‘properties’ of narrative texts in the direction of a growing awareness of the complex interplay that exists between both texts and their cultural contexts and between textual features and the interpretive choices and strategies involved in the reading process…. postclassical narratology tends to focus on issues like context, culture, gender, history, interpretation, and the reading process, highlighting those aspects of narrative bracketed by structuralist narratology.80

It can be stated that postclassical narratology focuses on the complexities between texts and their cultural contexts. In postclassical narratology, not only the narrative devices are identified, but it is further used to argue that certain narrative devices such as focalization contribute to strengthen the narrator’s ideological positioning. In next

79 Herman, David. The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. p. 26 80 Nunning, Ansgar. “Narratology of Narratologies? Taking Stock of Recent Developments, Critique and Modest Proposals for Future Uses of the Term” What is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003) p. 245-246. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

section this thesis explores more about certain narratological concepts used as the framework for the analysis. b. Ideology in Narrative Devices

This section reviews several related theories about ideology and ideology in narrative text. First, this thesis elaborates the definition of ideology based on Herman and Vervaeck and also how ideology can be found in narrative devices, such as focalization and the temporal arrangement. Next, Rimmon-Kenan’s theory of focalization, on how focalizer is attributed with certain ideological aspect is reviewed.

Lastly, this study explores Nunning, Herman and Vervaeck’s concept of ideology inside the narrative structure based on Genette’s terminologies. b.1 Ideology and Ideology in Narration

In this section, this thesis reviews the concept of ideology used based on

Herman and Vervaeck’s definition. In their words, “ideology is a body of norms and

ideas that appear natural as a result of their continuous and mostly tacit promotion

by the dominant forces in society.”81 Herman and Vervaeck state that ideology is

collective norms or idea which seemed natural because the dominant class in society

keeps on promoting them. Their view is influenced by Gramsci’s theory of

hegemony. Gramsci in Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971) asserts that

hegemony is the absolute and unquestioned dominance of a particular view or

81 Herman, Luc and Vervaeck, Bart. “Ideology” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed. David Herman. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 217. Print.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

group.82 Using Gramsci’s view of hegemony of the particular group, Herman and

Vervaeck claim that the dominant social group promotes their particular ideology as

the norm.

One way of how the ideological paradigm is constructed is through literature.

Regarding the Greeks in particular, the worldview that Greeks were superior towards

barbarians had been propagated in several of their literary works, which have been

reviewed in the previous section. Through continuous promotion in literature, the

view that Greeks was superior compared to barbarian was believed to be natural and

inherent. This view is reflected in the use of certain narrative devices in Greek

literature.

As postclassical narratologists, Herman and Vervaeck further explore the idea

that ideology can be found inside literary works itself. In their words, they “sought

to uncover the values informing a narrative and its interpretation.”83 Based on their

reading on Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925) they found out that ideology

resides in certain narrative devices, mainly in focalization and the temporal

arrangement of the story. 84 In the next sections this thesis reviews how focalization

and the narrative structure hold the ideology of the dominant forces in society.

82 Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971) Trans. Carl Marzani p. 328. PDF 83 Herman, Luc and Vervaeck, Bart. “Ideology” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed. David Herman. p. 217 84 Herman, Luc and Vervaeck. p. 223-225

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

b.2 Ideology in Focalization

Focalization is one narrative device which holds the ideology of a particular focalizer. Gerald Genette first elaborates the term focalization in his Narrative

Discourse: An Essay in Method (1980). The seminal work by Genette differentiates mood and voice, between who is the character whose point of view orients the narrative perspective and who is the narrator (who sees and who speaks)?85 In

Genette’s view, the terminology of point of view focuses only on “who sees”, while neglecting the issue of voice, hence he theorizes about focalization.

This thesis uses Rimmon-Kenan revised concept of Genette’s focalization, in her Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction (2005) she criticizes Genette’s view of focalization. In her view, what Genette coined as focalization to replace the term

“point of view” is actually still limited into visual sense. She proposes that actually focalization should also include cognitive, emotive, and ideological orientation.86 A focalizer always has certain attributes which shape his/her way of narrating the story based on his/her ideological position. Rimmon-Kenan states that

this facet, often referred to as the norms of the text, consist of a general system of viewing the world conceptually, in accordance with which the events and characters of the story are evaluated…. A character may represent an ideological position through his way of seeing the world or his behavior in it, but also—like Raskolnikov—through explicit discussion of his ideology.87

85 Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1980) Trans. Jane E Lewin. p. 186. Print. 86 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p.73. 87 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p.83-84

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Ideology according to Rimmon-Kenan is the general system of viewing the world, or how certain person perceives the world. Hence this theory is used to argue that the narrations of both the narrator in Alexander Romance and Anna actually reflect their ideology as Greek which has colonial and condescending attitude toward the non-

Greek.

The focalizers in both Alexander Romance and Alexiad also function as the narrators, hence they are considered as narrator-focalizers.88 This thesis explores several characteristics of narrator-focalizer. Firstly, narrator-focalizer focalize the story from outside, because they are narrating the story from the exterior position, they are considered as external focalizer. Rimmon-Kenan states that there are certain aspects concerning the position of an external focalizer. An external focalizer has unrestricted knowledge about the represented world in his/her narration89 and having bird’s eye vision.90 In other words, the external focalizer is both omniscient and omnipresent. The narrator has access to his/her character’s inner thoughts and emotions, and able to freely shift the story from one location into another.

In her book, Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek

Literature (2004), Irene De Jong further explores how an external focalizer presents his/her character’s inner perception. She coined this term as embedded/secondary focalization. Embedded focalization is when the narrator represents in the text a character’s focalization, i.e., his perceptions, thoughts, emotions, or words (indirect

88 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p.76. 89 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p.81-82 90 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p. 79-80

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

speech).91 It can be said therefore that in embedded focalization, the one “who speaks” is still the narrator instead of the character.

Another theory of focalization used is the “we” narration and “we” focalization theorized by Brian Richardson. Richardson explores the use of “we” focalization which in his words is “little studied and poorly known.”92 “We” focalization, in his view can be used to present the collective consciousness of a particular group who can be expected to share closely aligned ideas and emotions.93

Furthermore, the use of “We” narration enables the narrator to discloses the inner thoughts, perceptions, and feeling of a group.94 To sum up, it can be stated that “We” narration is used to represent the collective voice of a particular group by the singular voice of the narrator.

Theories of focalization mentioned above are used to analyze the aspect of voice in both Alexander Romance and Alexiad. Voice as coined by Genette mainly focuses on the question of “who speaks”, the one speaking in the text. As narrator focalizer, both focalizers reflect the ideological perspective of the Greeks based on their subjectivity, as they believe that Greek is superior to barbarian which can be seen in their narration. The last aspect of “We” narration is mainly used to analyze

Alexander Romance as the narrator refers to himself in plural form.

91 De Jong, Irene. “Introduction: Narratological Theory of Narrators, Narratees, and Narrative.” Narrators, ` Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Ed. Irene De Jong, Rene Nunlist and Angus M.Bowie. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004. p. XVI. PDF 92 Richardson, Brian. Plural Focalization, Singular Voices; Wandering Perspectives in We- Narration.” Point of View, Perspective and Focalization, Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Ed. Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. p. 143. PDF 93 Richardson, Brian. p. 146 94 Richardson, Brian. p. 148

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

b.3 Ideology in Narrative Form

Ideology is not only found in the focalization of the narrator in Alexander

Romance and Anna, but also in how they structure their narration. The focus in this section is to review how ideological conception can actually be found in the temporal arrangement of a narration. This is in accordance with Herman and Vervaeck’s argument, they believe that,

temporal organization and focalization are also explicit carriers of ideology…. The temporal organization of narrative concerns the actual presentation of the events, whereas the temporal dimension of the story referred to the abstract and chronological sequence constructed by interpreters of the narrative. The difference between the two is significant for the study of ideology. For instance, an event that was important and took a long time on the level of the story may go unmentioned in the narrative. This is called an ellipsis, and it may have various ideological meanings. It may indicate a narrator’s hypocrisy or alternatively his or her reticence95

In Herman and Vercaeck’s view, narrator might not present events in a chronological way. In Herman and Vervaeck’s view, the difference between the temporal organization (narrative level) and temporal dimension (story level) is significant for the study of ideology as certain interpretation can be derived from the temporal presentation of the events.

Similar with Herman and Vervaeck, Nunning also believes that ideology can be found in the textual structure of the narration. In his words,

ideology is located in narrative structures themselves, an analysis of the semantization of narrative forms can shed light on unspoken assumptions, attitudes, and ideologies, as well as values and norms prevalent in any given

95 Herman, Luc and Bart Vervaeck. “Ideology” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative p. 223

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

text, genre and period…. Narrative forms are socially constructed, they provide information about ideological concepts and world views.96

From the quotation above, Nunning asserts that “narrative forms are socially constructed”, which resembles Rimmon-Kenan’s idea that the focalization of a certain focalizer is attributed with certain ideological perspective.

To summarize the opinion from various narratologists, it can be seen that the analysis on the narrative form itself can also reflects the author’s ideological position.

The form of a narration is “socially constructed”97 by the author. Regarding the temporality of a text, the differences between story level and narrative level is theorized by Genette, he elaborates three terminologies in his distinction of Order,

Duration, and Frequency.98 Order mainly concerns the chronological order of events.

Duration focuses on analyzing how long events and scenes last, while Frequency is how often an event occurs.

Even though as a structural narratologist Genette focuses more on the identification of narrative devices in a text, postclassical narratology uses his terminologies to highlight certain ideological perspective. As stated by Rimmon-

Kenan, Genette’s terminology is used as an “analytical toolkit”99 to argue that the temporal arrangement of a text also reflects the ideology of the narrator. Hence, the position of this thesis is that Genette’s theory about the temporal arrangement of the

96 Nunning, Ansgar. “Surveying Contextualist and Cultural Narratologies: Toward an Outline of Approaches, Concepts, and Potentials”. Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter , 2009) p. 64. PDF 97 Nunning, Ansgar. p. 64 98 Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method p. 33-85 99 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. “Towards…Afterthoughts, Almost Twenty Years Later,” Narrative Theory Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. p. 150.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

story is still useful in analyzing the ideology of the narrator in Alexander Romance and Anna based on how they structure their narrations.

Among Genette’s three divisions of temporality of a text, this thesis mainly uses Genette’s elaborations of Order and Duration. Order, which concerns the temporal arrangement or the chronological events of a narration100 is mainly used in

Alexander Romance. The narrator of Alexander Romance mainly uses prolepsis, anticipation of future events which will be told in the future.101 Prolepsis commonly takes the form of prophecies or dreams.

The second concept coined by Genette regarding how a story is structured is what he defines as Duration.102 This terminology mainly covers how long or how short an author devotes a particular section of text to describe certain events. Among this terminology, what is mainly found in the analysis is called pause. Pause represents segment in the text which respond to zero story duration, the plot does not move.103 Pause is commonly found in descriptive passage especially when the one narrating is the narrator. This is mainly found in Alexiad as Anna often pauses her narration to state her personal opinion and remarks. c. Narratology in Non-Fictional Text

As one of the text this thesis used as object in study is factual narrative or historiography, this thesis includes argument concerning the applicability of

100 Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method p. 33-85. 101 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction p. 61 102 Genette, Gerard. p. 86-111. 103 Genette, Gerard. p. 93

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Narratology in analyzing non-fictional text. Narrative analysis usually gives more concern with fictional story rather than factual account. This view is criticized by

Genette in his book Fictions and Dictions (1993), he claims that narratology has become “restricted narratology”104. As one of the pioneers in Narratology, Genette believes that narrative analysis should not only limited to fictional account but to also include history, biography, diaries, news, thesis article, and police report. Genette argues that the terminologies he coined are not only appropriate in analyzing fiction but also applicable in factual text. For example, in his terminology Duration Genette asserts that,

the accelerations, decelerations, ellipses, or pauses that can be observed, in quite variable doses, in fictional narratives are just as characteristics of factual narratives...they are governed by the narrator’s judgements regarding the relative importance of the story’s phases and episodes.105

Based on Genette’s argument, it is possible to analyze both fictional and factual literature using Genette’s concept. As Alexiad is a historical narrative which derives from real events, Genette’s opinion is used as the justification. The analysis of Alexiad as a factual literature mainly focuses on pause, as Anna often pauses her narration to state her personal remarks. Lastly Genette also mentions that in historiography the author and the narrator are the same person. His formula states:

104 Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993) Trans. Catherine Porter. p. 55-56. PDF. 105 Genette, Gerard. p. 63.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

A(uthor)

Historical narrative (including biography)

N(arrator) ≠ C(haracter) 106

Genette’s above formula highlights that in historical narrative such as historiography the author also functions as the narrator. In Alexiad therefore Anna is the author and also narrator-focalizer. This type of narrative is hetereodiegetic, as the narrator is absent as an acting character in the story.107 The narrator is also an external focalizer, as the narrator narrates the story from the position of omniscient and omnipresent narrator.

2. Postcolonial Theories

Previously this thesis summarizes narrative theory or Narratology, and now in this section this thesis includes several postcolonial concepts to argue that the narration of the narrator of Alexander Romance and Anna reflect the Greek’s colonial ideology. The focus on this section is to explore Edward Said’s concept of colonialism, imperialism and also the Other. Another term linked with colonialism and imperialism is colonial complicity. Second main theory is connected with how the Greeks conceptualized their alter ego, barbarian as stated by Hall, she is influenced by Said’s concept of the Other. Barbarian was also constructed in term of binary opposition to the Greeks.

106 Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions p. 73 107 Genette, Gerard. p. 74

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

a. Colonialism, Colonial Complicity, and Imperialism

Before reviewing several aforementioned concepts, this thesis explores the use of Saidian concepts in analyzing Greek texts. Franco de Angelis analyses the parallel between ancient Greek colonialism and modern European imperialism in several of his articles. He mentions that general treatment of ancient Greece usually discusses colonies and colonization.108 Furthermore, he states:

The study of ancient Greek colonization has sought, for most of its life, intellectual inspiration from, and hence been heavily overwritten by, analogies with modern European imperialism and colonialism.109

In De Angelis’ view, the study of ancient Greek colonization is inevitable being compared with modern imperialism. Regarding Greek colonization, he states that the term colonialism is more apt to be used in defining Greek colonization during classical Period (480-323 BCE) and Hellenistic Age (323-50 BCE).110 This is the period where Greek colonization shows more similarity to the modern colonialism, while the pre-500 BCE is considered by De Angelis to be more properly defined as migration, instead of colonization. De Angelis states that

colonization in the second period (after 500 BCE) had become truly colonialist and imperialist….it become ways of controlling conquered people and territories and hence came under the jurisdiction of states, now more fully developed.111

108 de Angelis, Franco. “Colonies and Colonization.” The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) Ed. George Boys-Stones et al. p. 48. PDF. 109 de Angelis, Franco. p. 49. 110 de Angelis, Franco. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) Ed. Michael Gagarin and Elaine Fantham. p. 252. PDF 111 de Angelis, Franco. p. 253-254.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

It can be stated that there exist certain parallels between ancient Greek colonization and modern European colonization. Both are state controlled, and intended to control distant territories and subjugated natives. Hence, this thesis uses Saidian concepts to analyze Greek texts which deal with the issue of colonization. Several Saidian concepts explored here are related with colonialism and imperialism.

Said’s theory is used as framework to illustrate how selected Greek literature actually reflect the Greek’s colonial ideology. Colonial ideology is based on the idea of how relationship between the colonizer and the colonized is not equal but firmly established in hierarchy between superior and inferior race. Firstly, this thesis explores the definition of imperialism in Said’s perspective as colonialism is the result of imperialism, on how the pretense of imperial authority is used as the justification for assertion of power in distant land. In Said’s word, “colonialism which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory”, while imperialism is defined as “practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory”112. Said further identifies several aspects of imperialism which are:

Idea that is based on the power to take over territory, an idea utterly clear in its force and unmistakable consequences; and the practice that essentially disguises or obscures this by developing a justificatory regime of self- aggrandizing, self-originating authority interposed between the victim of imperialism and its perpetrator113 Colonizer propagates several justifications to justify their oppression toward the subject nations. Said asserts that,

112 Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. (New York: Vintage Books, 1994) p. 9. PDF 113 Said, Edward. p. 69.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

[n]either imperialism nor colonialism is a simple act of accumulation and acquisition. Both are supported and perhaps even impelled by impressive ideological formations that include notions that certain territories and people require and beseech domination, as well as forms of knowledge affiliated with domination: the vocabulary of classic nineteenth-century imperial culture is plentiful with words and concepts like "inferior" or "subject races” “subordinate peoples," "dependency," "expansion," and "authority”114

In Said’s perspective in order to justify their authority, colonizer propagates notions and creating ideological justification that “certain territories and people require and beseech domination.”. Colonizer makes the colonized believed that they are dependent for the colonizer’s benevolence in bringing civilization to uncivilized land. Furthermore, the colonizer creates notion that subjugated population are their dependence, their subject to be exploited and oppressed.

To summarize, there is hierarchy in how the colonizer and colonized interact.

Colonizers put themselves in an elevated position compared to the colonized which are merely their subjects. This is demonstrated by Harmand’s assertion quoted by

Said:

It is necessary, then, to accept as a principle and point of departure the fact that there is a hierarchy of races and civilizations, and that we belong to the superior race and civilization, still recognizing that, while superiority confers rights, it imposes strict obligations in return. The basic legitimation of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic, and military superiority, but our moral superiority. Our dignity rests on that quality, and it underlies our right to direct the rest of humanity. Material power is nothing but a means to that end.115

Another concept related with colonialism and imperialism is colonial complicity. Colonialism occurs due to the complicity of the colonized in accepting

114 Said, Edward. p. 9 115 Harmand, Jules. Qtd in Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. p. 17

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the process of colonialism and become a willing partner. Ulla Vuorela defines it as the participation of the colonized in the hegemonic discourses, involvement in the promoting of universal thinking, and practices of domination.”116 Through the powerful and authoritative Western civilizing process, the colonized are lured to take part in its process.117

Although Said based his concepts of colonialism and imperialism on modern

European imperialism, De Angelis argues that beginning with the Hellenistic Age

(323-50 BCE) Greek colonization had become “truly colonialist and imperialist”, in line with what Said coined. Hence, the position of this thesis is that both Alexander

Romance and Alexiad as Greek literature also reflect the colonial ideology of Greek colonizer in how they perceive the non-Greeks with derogative portrayal. This is primarily seen in how both narrators emphasize the superiority of the Greeks based on the portrayal of Alexander and Alexius as a model Greek agathos, which is contrasted with the inferiority of the savage barbarian kings. Greek colonialism is more prominently seen in Alexander Romance, especially on Alexander’s interaction with the Egyptians. Through the narrator’s focalization of the Egyptians, the concept of colonial complicity, on how the Egyptians willingly assist Alexander in his colonization of Egypt can be seen. Greek colonialism in Egypt prospers due to the assistance of the Egyptians.

116 Vuorela, Ulla. ““Colonial Complicity: The Postcolonial in a Nordic Context”. Complying with Colonialism: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region. (Surrey: Ashgate, 2009) Ed. Suvi Keskiken et al. p. 19. PDF 117 Vuorela, Ulla. p. 1.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

b. The Other and the Greek’s Barbarian Other

This section focusing on reviewing several concepts related with the Other.

Firstly, this thesis explores how Said defines the construction of an alter ego of a society. As Said’s concept emphasizes more on how the Occident views the Orient based on modern colonialism, this thesis also includes several concepts related more to the Greeks, mainly about the concept of barbarian in Greek consciousness. b.1 Said’s Analysis on European Concept of the Other

After exploring the idea of colonialism and imperialism now this thesis describes how the modern European power construct the Other. Said believes that

“identity is not only not natural and stable; but constructed and occasionally even invented outright.”118 Furthermore, he explores the idea that “the development and maintenance of every culture requires the existence of another different and competing alter ego.”119 The colonizer believed themselves as superior to the colonized nation by the fabricated identity that the colonized are their inferior Other.

Hence, the idea of colonialism is fueled by the colonizer’s perception that their conquest is just, because they are helping the natives by educating them in their standard.

This condescending view can be found also in how the Greeks viewed the non-Greeks Other. Said’s view is echoed by Hall which states that,” the conceptual boundaries…which divided Greek from non-Greek are socially produced rather than

118 Said, Edward. Orientalism. (London: Penguins Book, 1977, Reprint.1995) p. 332. PDF. 119 Said, Edward. p. 332.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

inherent in nature.”120 The Other is actually a construct or an invention instead of an accurate portrayal of reality. Using Said’s idea that identity is invented, the view that non-Greeks civilizations were unequal to the Greeks was based on the fabrication of certain stereotypes or constructed instead of real fact. Hall explores the hypocrisy of the Greeks who proclaim that the Persian Other is tyrannical while the Greeks are democratic. In his finding tyrannies had been widespread in Greek society until 528

BC.121 It was only during the war between Greek and Persia that tyrannical form of government was demonized to show the contrast between the Greeks and their

Persian Other. In order to strengthen their fabricated identity as the superior civilization, the Greeks proclaimed that tyrannies can only be found in the Persian

Other, while in truth they also adapt this form of government before.

The idea of alter ego or the Other was strengthened also through the stereotypical portrayal of savage Other in literary works. Said proclaims that,” cultural forms like novel were immensely important in the formation of imperial attitudes, references, and experiences.”122 Similar with what Herman and Vervaeck addressed before, literature can be used by the dominant class to propagate the ideological construction of colonial ideology. One example is how concept of imperialism and colonialism is reinforced by the depiction of the violent and savage

Other in literary works. Similar view can be found also in how the Greeks perceived themselves as superior to their barbarian Other by their depiction of savage barbarian

120 Hall, Edith. p. ix 121 Hall, Edith. p. 57-58. 122 Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. p. xii

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

in literature. Hall states that the ideological polarization of Hellene and barbarian started from the fifth century onwards, and drama is the source for the Greek’s conceptualization of the non-Greek worlds.123 The Greeks and modern imperial powers were differentiated by different time periods, but they had similar view that the idea of the Other was strengthened by the depiction of savage and hostile Other in literature. b.2 The Greek’s Concept of the Barbarian

While this thesis uses Said’s concept of the Other, there is a certain difference in how the modern imperial power and the Greeks construct their Other. The Western imperial power portrayed the East or the Orient as their Other, on the contrary the idea of the Other in Greek consciousness was not only limited to the east. The Greeks coined the term barbarian to define their Other, or the anti-Greek. Quoting

Thucydides, Hall states how the word barbarian (barbaroi) was used to denote person or people who have different culture, language, and custom to what the Greek had.124

Hence, the anti-Greeks in the Greek’s perception cover all the non-Greek ethnicity which do not have the same paideia to the Greeks.

Barbarian was constructed in the term of binary opposition to the Greeks. In other words, they were the polar opposite of the Greeks. Hall mentions that an ideal

Greek should possess several cardinal Hellenic virtues, such as: wisdom or intelligence (xunesis), manliness or courage (andreia), discipline or restraint

123 Hall, Edith. p. x 124 Hall, Edith. p. 5-6.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(sophrosune) and justice (dikaiosune).125 On the contrary, barbarians were conceptualized to possess certain barbaric vices. While the Greeks possess intelligence, the barbarian were ignorant and stupid (amathia) instead.126 Compared to the Greeks’ courage (andreia), the barbarians can either be portrayed as cowards

(deilia) or as excessively boastful (alazoneia).127 To contrast with the Greek’s self- restraint and discipline, the barbarians were depicted to possess overbearing temper and lack of restraint -intemperance - (akolasia).128 Regarding the barbarians’ lack of akolasia, they can be depicted either as savage, wild and bestial (agriotes) or characterized by their excessive refinement and luxury (habrote)129. Lastly, while the

Greeks were law abiding (diakaiosune), the barbarians were marked by their lawlessness (adikia).130 In the analysis, the binary opposition between Greek virtues and barbarian vices is shown especially in how Alexander and Alexius are portrayed as a noble Greek (agathos) which is contrasted with the barbarian kings.

In Hall’s view, the fabrication of the term barbarian begins with the Greek’s conflict against the Persians in the Persians Wars. He states that,

the story of the invention of the barbarian is the story of the Greeks’ conflict with the Persians, a people who had risen suddenly in the middle of the middle of the sixth century to international prominence…. the conceptualization of the struggle with Persia as a struggle of united and disciplined Greeks against alien violence was one impetus behind the invention of the barbarian131

125 Hall, Edith. p. 137. 126 Hall, Edith. p. x 127 Hall, Edith. p. 141 128 Ibid 129 Hall, Edith. p. 142. 130 Hall, Edith. p. 203. 131 Hall, Edith. p. 35

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

To unite various diverse Greek ethnicities such as the Spartans and the Athenians, the

Persians enemy was demonized as Other, the polar opposite of the Greeks. To quote

Hall “the idea of Pan Hellenism in Greek creates the maintenance of the image of an enemy common of all Hellenes, the ethnically other, the anti-Greek, the barbarian.”132

The chauvinistic view of Pan Hellenism causes the Greeks to consider all the non-

Greeks as their Other or as barbarian. Lynette G. Mitchell in her book Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece (2007) further expands Hall’s idea. She states that “the Persian Wars were reinvented as a symbol of unity in the face of` the common barbarian enemy”133, furthermore “by the end of the classical period the enemy was not necessarily fixed.”134 Her assertion indicates that while at first the term barbarian referred only to Persia, it was later expanded to include other non-Greek ethnicities.

While Hall claims that the term anti-Greek was based on ethnicity, Anthony

Kardellis on his book Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (2007) proposes a different view.

Quoting Isocrates, Kardellis states that,” the name of the Greeks designates not a race

(genos) but a mindset, and those are called Greeks who share in their culture rather

132 Hall, Edith. p. 60. 133 Mitchell, Lynette G. Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece. (Swansea, Classical Press of Wales, 2007) p. 10. PDF 134 Mitchell, Lynette G. p. 12

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

than their common stock (physis)”135. Hence, in Kardellis’ view the Greeks defined themselves less on ethnical basis but more on cultural basis. This thesis agrees with

Kardellis’ idea that the term Greeks is more associated with cultural aspect rather than ethnicity, as the word Greeks is related more with culture, it makes the non-

Greeks able to be Hellenized. This is primarily shown in Alexiad, how the Byzantine

Greeks also include several Hellenized barbarians. The Hellenized non-Greeks are stated by William Woodthorpe Tarn in his book Hellenistic Civilization (1961) as culture-Greeks. In his words, culture-Greeks refers to Greek by adoption, they think and behave in ways overly identical to those of their political masters.136 On the contrary, it is also possible for Greeks to be labeled as barbarian if their behavior is more resembling the barbarian vices instead of Hellenic virtues.

As previously covered in the first chapter, the main framework of this thesis is postcolonial narratology, which combines narratology and postcolonialism. The analysis uses several narratological terminologies, such as focalization and prolepsis, which is enhanced by several postcolonial concepts such as the Other and also colonial complicity. One example is how through the narrators’ focalization, the binary opposition between ideal Greek agathos and barbarian kings can be seen.

Furthermore, the use of prolepsis or foreshadowing is related with the colonial complicity of the Egyptians.

135 Isocrates, Qtd in Kardellis, Anthony. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) p. 18. PDF. 136 Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Civilization. (London, World Pub. Co, 1961) p. 35. PDF.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER III IDEOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ALEXANDER ROMANCE

AND ALEXIAD

Previous chapter have summarized several previous studies on how the

Greeks conceptualized barbarian in their literary works and also several theoretical concepts. Barbarian was constructed in binary opposition towards the

Greeks. While the Greeks are characterized by several positive Hellenic virtues, barbarian are noted for their negative flaws.

This section focuses on analyzing the similar ideological conception which still persist from Alexander Romance and Alexiad. To use a terminology coined by Rinon, both narrator’s external focalization reflects colonial ideology or can also be stated as colonial focalization.137 The narrators’ colonial focalization manifests in the contrasting portrayal between the Greek agathos and their enemies which are depiction as barbarian kings. While the Greek protagonists are noted by their positive Hellenic virtues, their enemies are denigrated as stereotypical depiction of barbarian kings. This chapter is divided into two main sections. Firstly, this thesis compares the portrayal of Alexander with the depiction of Darius in Alexander Romance. Secondly, the similar portrayal can also be seen in how Anna contrasted between Alexius and Apelchasem in Alexiad.

To prove that the depiction of both Darius and Apelchasem are fictional, this thesis includes the counter discourse of historical Darius and Apelchasem.

137 Rinon, Yoav. “The Pivotal Scene: Narration, Colonial Focalization, and the Transition in Odyssey 9.” The American Journals of Philology. 128.3 (2007) p. 303

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

A. Comparison between Alexander and Alexius through the Narrators’

Focalization

This section emphasizes on examining how the narrator of Alexander

Romance and Anna similarly depict both Alexander and Alexius as agathos. Both

Alexander and Alexius are exalted as conquerors due to their success in war and also by their Hellenic virtues. Several Hellenic virtues possessed by both

Alexander and Alexius are intelligence (xunesis) and also bravery (andreia). The similar depiction between Alexander and Alexius illustrate how both narrators emphasizes the superiority of the Greeks as these traits cause Alexander and

Alexius to prevail against their enemies.

1. Glorification of Alexander and Alexius as Noble Greek (Agathos)

Alexander Romance is written to glorify and honor the achievement and deeds of Alexander. Alexander is considered by the narrator as a perfect model of a Greek (agathos). To portray Alexander as an agathos, the narrator emphasizes both Alexander’s deeds in warfare and also his honorable virtues as a model

Greek. This is shown in the narrator’s focalization:

In our opinion, Alexander the king of the Macedonians was the best and most noble of man, for he did everything in his own way, finding that his foresight always worked in harness with the virtues. When he made war against a people, the time he spent in his campaigns was not sufficient for those who wished to research the affairs of the cities. We are going now to speak of the deeds of Alexander, of the virtues of his body and his spirit, of his fortune in action and his bravery.138

This thesis highlights more about the use of “we” focalization in

Alexander Romance. As seen in the quotation above the narrator uses first-person

138 Callisthenes, Pseudo. The Greek Alexander Romance. (London: Penguins Books, 1991) Trans. Richard Stonemann. p. 46. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

plural pronoun forms such as our and we in the quotations “in our opinion” and

“we are going to”. The “we” narration, as theorized by Richardson enables the narrator to disclose the inner thoughts, perceptions, and feeling of a group.139 In other world, the voice of the narrator claims to be communal. Communal voice emphasizes more on the collective opinion of a particular group instead of a single voice of an individual. The narration of the narrator, which uses “we” and “our” narration claims to represent the collective voice of the Greeks.

Similar with how the narrator of Alexander Romance considers Alexander as “the most noble” Greek, Anna in Alexiad also portrays Alexius as an agathos.

Even if it is the case, from narratorial perspective, both narrators employ different focalization. Different from the narrator of Alexander Romance who uses “we” focalization to represent the Greeks as a whole, Anna narrates in first person point of view, “I” focalization. In “we” focalization, the narrator of Alexander Romance represents the collective voice of the Greeks. On the contrary, “I” focalization emphasizes that the one “who speaks”140 is the Anna as the narrator herself in her narratorial voice. Her voice is influenced by how she as a Greek perceives the world. As a narrator-focalizer, Anna represents the Greek’s ideological position through her way of seeing the world141.

Another aspect regarding Anna’s status as narrator is that she writes a historical narrative or historiography. As mentioned by Genette, in historiography

139 Richardson, Brian. “Plural Focalization, Singular Voices; Wandering Perspectives in We- Narration.” Point of View, Perspective and Focalization, Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Ed. Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. p. 148 140 Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1980) Trans. Jane E Lewin. p. 186. Print. 141 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction. (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 1983) Reprinted. 2005. p. 83-84

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the author and the narrator are the same person.142 Hence, while the narrator of

Alexander Romance is not Pseudo-Callisthenes himself, in Alexiad Anna is both the author and the narrator-focalizer in Alexiad. While previously it is difficult to attribute the narration of Alexander Romance to Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alexiad is narrated from the subjective focalization of Anna.

Anna’s “I” focalization reveals much about herself. As seen in her full name, Anna Comnena, Anna is a member of the Comnenian family, the royal family of Byzantium (1081-1185 AD). In her focalization, Anna asserts her privileged status in society:

Now, I recognized this fact. I, Anna, the daughter of two royal personages, Alexius and Irene, born and bred in the purple. I was not ignorant of letters, for I carried my study of Greek to the highest pitch, and was also not unpracticed in rhetoric; I perused the works of Aristotle and the dialogues of Plato carefully, and enriched my mind by the “quaternion” of learning.143

This aforementioned quotation highlights Anna’s high status in society. She is not an ordinary commoner, but she is “the daughter of two royal personages,” the

Emperor Alexius and Empress Irene. Furthermore, Anna’s status as a Greek is highlighted by the mention of her education in Greek paideia. She studies “Greek, rhetoric, the works of Aristotle and also the dialogues of Plato”. These facts establish that Anna is a member of the royal family of Byzantium who is educated in Greek paideia. Her status as a Greek royalty caused her to derogatively perceive the non-Greeks in her narration.

142 Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions. (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993) Trans. Catherine Porter. p. 72-73 143 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. (London: Routledge, 1928. Reprinted. Ontario, In Parentheses Publication, 2000) p. 2. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Through her focalization, Anna portrays Alexius, her father as a noble

Greek (agathos). Similar with how the narrator of Alexander Romance glorifies

the deeds and virtue of Alexander as an agathos, Anna also wrote Alexiad to

honor her father’s achievement and also his cardinal Greek virtues. She states

that her reason to write Alexiad is to “recounts the deeds done by my father for

they should certainly not be lost in silence, or swept away on the current of time

into the sea of forgetfulness.”144 Furthermore, she adds:

To have as my object the publication of the life of so great and virtuous a King will be a reminder of his wondrous achievements, and these force me to shed warm tears, and the whole world will weep with me. (Comnena 4)

From the quotations above, it can be seen that Alexius is venerated not only based on his deeds and “wondrous achievements” but also due to his virtues. Alexius’ arête (heroic excellence) is not only due to his “military prowess and the skills which promote success in war”145 but he is also stated as a “virtuous King.” As an agathos, not only Alexius is expected to be successful in war, but he also must possess certain virtues fitting a noble Greek king

2. Alexander and Alexius’ Hellenic Virtues

This section focuses on analyzing how the narrators of Alexander

Romance and Alexiad depicts Alexander and Alexius to be in possession of certain Hellenic traits. The narrators consider these traits as the reason for

Alexander and Alexius’ success in war, and furthermore as the proof for the superiority of the Greeks. Several notable traits are intelligence (xunesis) and bravery (andreia), and also their self-restrained nature (sophrosune)

144 Comnena, Anna. p. 2. 145 Adkins, Arthur W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Reprinted.1975) p. 31. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

a. Intelligence (xunesis)

One example of the Greek heroes’ intelligence is how the narrator in

Alexander Romance depicts Alexander’s deception of the Persians. Alexander is portrayed to be able to trick the Persians into believing that Alexander has a larger army than he actually has. The narrator focalizes it as:

Alexander arrived with a great army in the land of Persia. The high wall of the city was visible to the Macedonians from a long way off. Then the cunning Alexander thought of a trick: he rounded up the flocks of sheep which were grazing there on the meadows, and tied branches from the trees into their back; he then made the flocks march behind the army. The branches dragging behind them on the ground stirred up the dust, and the sandstorm reached up to Olympus, so that the Persians, as they looked up from their walls, thought that a vast army was coming against them. (Callisthenes 112)

This aforementioned quotation also illustrates the narrator’s usage of embedded focalization. Embedded focalization is when the narrator represents in the text a character’s focalization, i.e., his/her perceptions, thoughts, emotions, or words.146 In embedded focalization, the one “who speaks” is still the external focalizer, as the narrator can be stated to borrow the character’s voice to focalize the narrator’s own thoughts, perceptions, and words. The use of embedded focalization illustrates the omniscient nature of the narrator, as the narrator is able to penetrate his/her character’s psyche and voices their voice. In this case, the narrator delves into Alexander’s inner thought to voice Alexander’s deception of the Persians.

146 De Jong, Irene. “Introduction: Narratological Theory of Narrators, Narratees, and Narrative.” Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Ed. Irene De Jong, Rene Nunlist and Angus M. Bowie. (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004) p. XVI. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The narrator in Alexander Romance proclaims that intelligence is an inherent trait for the Greeks. This is addressed by the narrator’s embedded focalization to voice Alexander’s speech:

Truly the only sense one can get out of barbarians is their own insensibility. Just as animals –tigers, lions, elephants, which pride themselves on their own strength – are easily brought to heel by human nature –even among barbarians – so the kings of barbarians who exult in the size of their armies are easily worsted by the intelligence of Greeks.” (Callisthenes 140)

From the aforementioned quotation, the narrator makes a parallel between barbarian and animal. Even though several animals such as tigers, lions, and elephants have superior strength compared to human, human will always be able to tame and domesticate them. In the narrator’s view, it is due to “human nature”147. Similar to animals, the barbarians who pride themselves based on their strength will always be defeated by the superior intelligence of the Greeks. Hence, the narrator believes that the dichotomy between barbarian and Greek is inherent, it is always the Greek’s nature to be smarter and become the ruler of the savage and stupid barbarian. Just as animal will always be domesticated by “human nature”, barbarian will always be subjugated by “Greek nature” as Greeks by nature is always smarter compared to barbarian.

Similar to Alexander previously, intelligence (xunesis) is one of the

Hellenic virtues possessed by Alexius. Several times Anna mentions how Alexius is able to prevail against his enemies not by frontal assault but by using tricks, stratagems, and even without any fighting at all. In Anna’s view, rash and inconsiderate assault should be avoided instead, and using clever means to

147 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.140

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

achieve victory is more worthy to be celebrated as it shows the intellect of the general. She focalizes it as,

now I consider it courage when anybody gains a victory through using sound judgment; for high spirits and energy without judgment are to be condemned, and are rashness and not courage. For we have courage in war against men whom we can conquer; but we are rash against those whom we cannot overcome, and thus, when danger impends over us, we hesitate to attack from the front…. and then we handle the war in a different way and endeavor to conquer the enemy without fighting. (Comnena 280)

The aforementioned quotation, a personal remark from Anna illustrates what in narratological term known as pause. Pause refers to a stop in the story when the narrator reflects or remarks on a particular happening.148 Furthermore,

Genette notes that pauses are just as characteristics of factual narrative such as

Alexiad rather than just limited to be used in fictional narrative.149 In Alexiad several times Anna puts a stop –pause- of her narration to state her personal opinion on a certain issue. The aforementioned quotation is Anna’s personal opinion, as seen in “now I consider”. One example from the aforementioned quotation, she commends the action of “using sound judgement” to achieve victory, while “high spirits and energy without judgement” is condemned instead.

In Anna’s view, able to use sound judgement shows the intelligence of the general, as the general should be able to anticipate the course of a battle and take correct action. Rash and frontal assault “without judgement” shows the lack of intelligence of the general, which fits more for a barbarian rather than Alexius as the leader of the disciplined Byzantine army.

148 Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method p. 93 149 Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions. p.55-56

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

One example of how Anna portrays Alexius as an intelligent general is how Alexius is able to regain the city of Dyrrachium from Norman occupation.

The Normans, who are led by their Duke Robert of Apulia managed to capture this city from the Byzantines. Alexius tries to oppose them in military campaign, but he is defeated by the Normans in the battle of Dyrrachium (1081 AD). Using embedded focalization, Anna portrays how Alexius uses other means beside direct battle to recapture Dyrrachium from the Normans:

He aimed at sowing dissension amongst them by letters and other devices, as he thought that would be the easiest means of regaining the city. He also persuaded the Venetians who happened to be in the capital to advise the Venetians, Amalfians and other foreigners who were in Epidamnus to submit to his will and surrender Dyrrachium to him. And he himself did not cease making promises and offering bribes with a view to their surrendering Dyrrachium to him. (Comnena 105)

In the aforementioned quotation, Anna employs embedded focalization to focalize

Alexius’ perceptions and thoughts. Through embedded focalization, Anna voices

Alexius’ thoughts, in which he believes that “sowing dissentions” is the “easiest means of regaining the city.” Furthermore, Anna narrates that Alexius also uses other ways such as “making promises” and “offering bribes.” These indirect means prove more successful rather than fighting the Normans directly, Anna remarks that,

the Latins allowed themselves to be persuaded (for their whole race is very fond of money and quite accustomed to selling even their dearest possessions for an obol) and with high hopes in their hearts they formed a conspiracy and first of all slew the man who had originally suggested betraying the fort to Robert, and next his fellow conspirators; and then they went to the Emperor, and handed over the fort to him and in return received immunity of every kind from him. (Comnena 105)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

In her focalization, Anna illustrates how “the Latins allowed themselves to be persuaded”. Using pause, Anna also state her personal opinion about how the

Latins are able to be convinced by Alexius, she believes that it is due to the greed of the Latins. From the above quotation, she emphasizes that the whole race of the

Latins is “very fond of money.”150 Alexius’ intelligence (xunesis) is illustrated in how Alexius is able to exploit this flaw of the Latins for the benefits of the

Byzantine Greeks. b. Bravery (andreia)

Second important Hellenic virtue is bravery (andreia), a trait possessed by both Alexander and Alexius. Beside intelligence, Alexander is also noted for his bravery. Bravery is another Hellenic virtue an agathos is supposed to have, and one of the most commended virtue. One example of Alexander’s bravery is during the Greek’s crossing of the Euphrates river. The Greeks are depicted to be afraid in crossing the swift current of the Euphrates. To encourage the Greek soldiers, the narrator narrates how Alexander gives an example to his soldiers by crossing the river first. The narrator focalizes the crossing of the Euphrates river as:

He (Alexander) marched on for many days through waterless country full of ravines, until he eventually came via Ariane to the river Euphrates. Here he built a bridge with iron arches and bands, and ordered the army to cross it. When he saw them hesitating, he ordered the wagons and the beast of burden, with all the provisions, to be conveyed across first, then the army. But they were frightened by the swiftness of the river, thinking the arches might give way. Since they did not dare to cross, Alexander took his bodyguard with him and crossed over first. Then the rest of the army crossed over too. (Callisthenes 107)

150 Comnena, Anna. p. 105.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Another example of Alexander’s bravery is how he is portrayed to always be in the front-line; in other words, Alexander personally leads his army himself.

The narrator narrates how

Alexander raced ahead to battle, full of enthusiasm, and drew up his troops against Darius. When those around Darius saw Alexander leading his troops towards the quarter where he had heard that Darius was positioned, they halted their chariots and the rest of the army. (Callisthenes 131)

Furthermore, Alexander’s bravery is also illustrated by how Alexander is portrayed to confront Porus, the Indian king in a personal combat, even though

Alexander is physically disadvantaged, as he is smaller. This is highlighted by the narrator’s usage of embedded focalization to voice Alexander’s challenge toward

Porus:

Alexander sent a message to Porus, as follows: “It does not befit the power of a king to allow one or other of us to gain the victory only by the destruction of our armies; but it will be a mark of our personal bravery if each of us puts a stop to the general fighting and comes forward to decide the victory by single combat.” (Callisthenes 141)

Similar with the depiction of Alexander, Anna also emphasizes Alexius’ bravery (andreia). She believes that bravery is a very necessary trait for a successful general. A hero’s martial prowess is mainly determined by his bravery, on how he is able to lead his army personally and always be on the front line. In this case, the portrayal of Alexius is not dissimilar with the previous depiction of

Alexander by the narrator of Alexander Romance. One illustration given by Anna is how Alexius is portrayed to attack a detachment of the Scythians, a nomadic people living in the north of the empire who invade Byzantium. The Byzantines army are depicted to be afraid in facing the enemy, as the Scythians numbers six

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

thousands. Through embedded focalization, Anna narrates how Alexius convinces his army to follow him in attacking the Scythians:

Consequently, he assembled the soldiers and said, “We must not let our courage flag by contemplating the number of Scythians, but put our trust in God and go to battle with them, and if only we all of one mind, I am convinced we shall beat them utterly…. Consequently, it behooves us to take the risk and not die like cowards. So I shall go out at once and whoever likes can follow me for I will lead the way and dash into the midst of the Scythians.” (Callisthenes 138-139.)

Anna’s embedded focalization of Alexius depicts how Alexius tries to raise the spirit of his army by his speech. Through Alexius’ speech, Anna condemns cowardice (deilia), because it is a trait associated with barbarian instead of a Hellenic virtue. Alexius’ bravery is emphasized by how Anna’s embedded focalization state that “I will lead the way and dash into the midst of the

Scythians. Anna further highlights how Alexius is the first one who venture into battle against the Scythians. She narrates:

With these words he immediately put on his armor and sallied out by the gate opposite the marsh. After skirting the walls and turning aside a little, he mounted the ridge from the back. He was the first to seize a spear and push his way into the middle of the Scythians, and then he struck down the first man he encountered. And the soldiers, too, who were with him shewed themselves no less keen fighters and the result was that the greater number of Scythians were killed and the rest taking prisoner. (Comnena 139)

Some parallels can be taken from how Anna portrays Alexius as a brave general and how the narrator in Alexander Romance depicts Alexander’s heroism in battle. Both narrators emphasize the personal bravery of these two generals, they are brave enough to take risk by leading their armies personally. Previously, the narrator of Alexander Romance illustrates how Alexander is the first one who cross the Euphrates river while his soldiers are hesitant and frightened.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Furthermore, Alexander is also portrayed as “the first to enter the cities” and

“fought at the head of his army”151 Similar to Alexander, Alexius is also “the first to seize a spear” and charge into the Scythians lines. By their displays of personal valor, Alexius and Alexander are able to encourage their army to fought harder and achieve victory c. Self-restrain (sophrosune)

Another Hellenic virtue possessed by both Alexander and Alexius is their self-restrain (sophrosune). As Greeks, they are supposed to be restrained in their conduct and behave correctly as the Greek’s standard. The narrator of Alexander

Romance illustrates this trait in his depiction of Alexander. The narrator contrasted between Alexander as the king of the Macedonians and Nicolaus the king of Acarnania. The narrator focalizes that Nicolaus is “the son of Andreas, king of Acarnania, who exulted in his wealth and good fortune”. These flaws are condemned by the narrator, as boasting (alazoneia) and hedonist lifestyle

(habrotes) are barbarian vices instead of Hellenic traits. Through embedded focalization of Alexander, the narrator condemns these flaws:

Alexander replied, “Do not pride yourself so, King Nicolaus, and glory in the assumption that your life will last to the morrow; for fate is not accustomed to stay in one place, but a turn of the balance makes mock of the boastful man.” (Callisthenes 106)

In the narrator’s portrayal of Alexander, the narrator emphasizes

Alexander’s self-restrained nature. One example is how after Alexander’s victory against Darius, the narrator emphasizes how Alexander does not boast on his

151 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 106

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

achievement. Furthermore, the narrator explores Alexander’s courtesy towards the captured wife and daughter of Darius. The narrator focalizes it as:

Although he (Alexander) had defeated his opponents, he disdained to make a great boast of it, and did not behave arrogantly towards them. He gave orders for the bravest and most noble of the Persian dead to be buried. Darius’ mother, wife, and children he took along with him, treated them with all respects. (Callisthenes 106)

Similar with Alexander previously, Anna also emphasizes Alexius’ self- restraint (sophrosune). Even though Alexius is an Emperor, he is not characterized by his excessive wealth (ploutos) or his decadent lifestyle. In

Alexiad, Anna focuses on her father’s temperate living and his charitable nature.

She addresses how Alexius prefers to stay in the front line with his soldiers rather than to lay down in the comfort of his capital Constantinople. She focalizes it as:

To the various generals engaged in the West he sent other letters enjoining them to march to Sthlanitza without delay. What happened next? Did he after summoning the protagonists, relapse into case, and enjoy his leisure and the pleasure of the baths, as the Emperors who prefer a bestial life, are wont to do? No, certainly not, why he could not even endure staying in the palace any longer. (Comnena 216) As the empire is in constant threat, not only from the Scythians in the north but also from the Normans in the West, Alexius constantly campaigns outside of

Constantinople. Even when he is in the capital, Anna describes how Alexius is still concerned with the situation of war, as seen by how Alexius sent many letters to his generals. The aforementioned quotation asserts Alexius’ self-restraint and temperance; Alexius is depicted to not fall into decadence, such as “the Emperors who prefer a bestial life.” Anna condemns the action of previous Emperors who prefers the decadent living on the capital rather than commanding army in the front line. She compares the hedonist lifestyle of the past as “bestial life”, life

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

without any self-restraint similar to animals. Alexius is depicted to “could not even endure staying in the palace any longer”, as he would much prefer stay close to his army in the battlefield to avoid the trap of decadent living in

Constantinople.

In writing Alexiad, Anna focuses on glorifying her father’s conquests. She especially emphasizes Alexius’ bravery (andreia) and also his intelligence

(xunesis) as a successful conqueror. It can be said that she takes special concern on establishing the superiority of the Byzantine Empire towards the non-Greeks outside the imperium by her father’s conquests. As she focuses more on her father’s wars, she does not give much illustration about her father’s domestic policy and governance. Actually while Anna claims that her father does not enjoy living in the capital, several Byzantine scholars point out that Alexius actually accumulated immense wealth through the taxation of the populace. In his book,

Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh & Twelfth Century (1984)

Alexander Kazhdan summarizes several Byzantine scholars’ criticism toward

Alexius’ fiscal policy. One critique from John Zonaras (11-12th century) is that

Alexius rules Byzantium “as if the Empire is his household properties.”152 He especially criticizes how Alexius distributes whole wagon-loads of public money for the benefits of his relatives and servants, little remained in the treasure after he died.153 Similar critique is addressed by John Oxeites (11-12th century), he states

152 Zonaras, John. Quoted in Kazhdan, Alexander and Simon Franklin. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Century. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) p. 59. PDF 153 Zonaras, John. p. 61.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

that the Emperor and his relatives, the Komnenian dynasty “occupy”

Constantinople by their many estates and possession:

Beginning with the topic of the poor state of imperial finances, John Oxeites compares the deficit in the state treasure with the opulence of the ruling Komnenian family, highlighting to the Emperor how they had built entire cities within the City, enjoying an abundance of possessions, while at the same time partaking in the state’s revenues and treasures, thusly dismantling the very imperial system, by living extravagantly, and placing personal benefit before the common well-being.154

From the several criticisms summarized above, it can be stated that the depiction of Alexius in Alexiad, in which Anna claims that her father is not corrupted by the lure of decadent living (habrotes) and wealth (ploutos) is false.

Based on Zonaras and Oxeites’ finding, Alexius possesses immense wealth and possessions. Even worse, Alexius acquires this richness from the taxation and revenues of the citizen of Byzantium, which actually should be distributed for either internal or external issue of the empire. Hence, although militarily Alexius is a capable general, he is also a corrupt ruler whose policy is detrimental for the empire’s wellbeing.

To conclude the discussion of this subchapter, this thesis summarizes that both Alexander Romance and Alexiad is written from the perspective of the

Greeks. Alexander and Alexius are depicted as model Greek (agathos) due to their arête (heroic excellence) and their Hellenic virtues, Through the narrators’ focalization of the deeds of Alexander and Alexius, both narrators proclaim the superiority of the Greeks. Alexander and Alexius’ success in war is considered by the narrators to be caused by their superior intelligence (xunesis) and bravery

154 Oxeites, John. Quoted in Stankovic, Vlade and Albrecht Berger. “The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the Pantokrator Complex.” The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc, 2013) Ed. Sofia Kotzabassi. p. 23. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(andreia) as Greeks compared to their enemy as barbarian. Furthermore, as ideal

Greeks, the narrators emphasize the self-restrained behavior (sophrosune) of

Alexander and Alexius.

The narrator of Alexander Romance compares barbarian with animal, although animals have superior strength and more numerous that human, human is able to tame and domesticate animals due to their superior intelligence. Similar with how human is always able to defeat the bestial aspect of animals, the narrator of Alexander Romance also believes that the inherent superior intellect of the

Greeks is always able to defeat the superior strength and numerical superiority of barbarian. In the narrator’s words, “so the kings of barbarians who exult in the size of their armies are easily worsted by the intelligence of Greeks.”155

B. Comparison between Barbarian Kings through the Narrators’

Focalization

After analyzing how Alexander and Alexius are glorified as agathos, this thesis explores the portrayal of their enemies, Darius and Apelchasem as stereotypical barbarian kings. While Alexander and Alexius are marked by their possession of admirable Hellenic virtues, both narrators depict Darius and

Apelchasem to be flawed by their barbarianism. To argue that their portrayal in

Alexander Romance and Alexiad are based on stereotypical view of barbarian kings, this thesis includes the historical portrayal of Darius and Apelchasem.

155 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.140

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

1. Depiction of Darius as Stereotypical Barbarian King

In this section, this thesis analyzes how Darius as the Persian king is depicted by the narrator. The narrator of Alexander Romance portrays Darius as

Alexander’s polar opposite. While the narrator praises Alexander’s success in battle as the proof of the superiority of the Greeks, the narrator considers Darius’ defeat to symbolize the inferiority of the barbarian, in this case the Persians. In the depiction of Darius, the narrator illustrates the contrasting aspect between Greek virtues possessed by Alexander and barbarian flaws Darius has.

While Alexander is narrated to possess intelligence (xunesis), Darius is characterized by his ignorance and stupidity (amathia) instead. Darius’ ignorance is highlighted by the narrator through the use of embedded focalization to voice

Darius’ thoughts, perceptions, and also utterance. While the previous embedded focalization of Alexander portrays Alexander as a wise and cunning general who has a clear strategy, the embedded focalization of Darius mainly highlights his confusion and his ignorance. One example is how Darius is depicted to be slow in responding towards the Greek’s threat against his empire. The narrator emphasizes Darius’ ignorance by the use of embedded focalization to focalize

Darius’ reply towards Darius’ satraps (governor). Through embedded focalization, the narrator emphasizes how Darius severely underestimates Alexander’s invasion:

The kings of kings, the great god, greets all his satraps and generals. Demonstrate now the extent of your bravery without expecting any help from me. A great river has burst its back in your country and has terrified you who are the thunderbolts that should be able to quench it; and you have been incapable of standing up to the thunder of a fresh-faced youth. (Callisthenes 85)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Darius’ ignorance is emphasized by how Darius’ satraps is ordered to

“demonstrate their bravery, without any help” from him. Through embedded focalization, the narrator explores how Darius believes that his satraps should be able to resist Alexander’s invasion, as Alexander is only a “fresh-faced youth.”

This shows how detached Darius is from the real condition of the front-line. The narrator focalizes that, ”Darius was in Babylon, in Persia when he received this letter.”156 Darius is depicted to write his letter in the comfort of his capital city,

Babylon, which illustrates his ignorance on the real situation in the war against

Alexander.

Darius’ ignorance is further emphasized in a dialogue between Darius and his brother Oxydelkys. Through embedded focalization, the narrator contrasted between Darius and Oxydelkys. While Darius is depicted to have no idea how to fight against the Greeks, Oxydelkys is focalized to have a plan of action. The narrator narrates the exchange as:

Then, Darius’s brother Oxydelkys said to him, “send now for your satraps and all the people who are subject to you: The Persians, the Parthians, the Medes, the Elymaeans, the Babylonians in Mesopotamia, and the land of the Odyni, not to mention the Bactrians and Indians, and raise an army from them. If you can keep the gods on your side and defeat the Greeks, we shall by the very numbers of our troops be a source of astonishment of our enemies…. “Good advice,” replied Darius, “but worthless. A single resolute Greek army can conquer a horde of barbarian, just as one fierce wolf can put a whole flock of sheep to flight. (Callisthenes 82)

Through the narrator’s use of embedded focalization, the aforementioned quotation also highlights Darius’ defeatist nature. Darius is focalized to already realize the superiority of the Greeks, or to quote Harmand, acknowledges that

156 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 82

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

there exist a “hierarchy of civilizations.”157 With embedded focalization, the narrator emphasizes that Darius already recognizes the inherent superiority of the

Greeks. In the aforementioned quotation, the Greeks are compared to wolf who is always of the very top of the food chain. This analogy demonstrates the superiority of the Greeks compared to the barbarian horde and the Persians who are merely only “flock of sheep”, which will always be dominated by the superiority of the Greek civilization.

The depiction of Darius as an ignorant and stupid king is actually based on stereotypical view of barbarian king rather than the real description of Darius. As previously explored by Hall, the Greeks conceptualized barbarian to possess certain flaws, which is contrasted with the virtues of the Greeks.158 In his article,

Ernst Badian argues that the depiction of Darius is “almost entirely gathered from sources that see them through a Greek lens; and not only Greek, but sources concerned to celebrate the history and achievement of Alexander III of

Macedon.”159 In other words, the portrayal of Darius in various sources, including

Alexander Romance is based on how the Greeks conceptualized the figure of barbarian king. Badian rejects the myth that Darius is an ignorant and stupid king, he emphasizes Darius’ careful planning to counter Alexander’s invasion:

Darius now showed remarkable adaptability and courage. He collected a large army, chiefly from the eastern part of the kingdom, which had hitherto not been called upon, and while increasing and improving the

157 Harmand, Jules. Qtd in Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. p. 17 158 Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self Definition through Tragedy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) p.137-142. 159 Badian, Ernst. “Darius III” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 100. (2000) 20 May 2016 2015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788284 > p. 241

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

arms in which Persia was traditionally strong –cataphract cavalry and scythed chariots, to which he added elephants –160

While Darius in Alexander Romance is depicted as an ignorant king who dismisses the threat posed by Alexander, the historical Darius shows his careful preparation. Badian states how Darius “collected a large army” and also

“improved the arms in which Persia was traditionally strong.” Furthermore,

Darius’ careful planning is emphasized also by how he “meet the enemy on a broad plain”161 to maximize the charge of his cavalry and elephants. Historical

Darius, as proven by Badian actually has a clear plan to defeat Alexander, he plans to use his cavalry and elephant in a wide open plain. On the contrary, fictional Darius believes that the idea of opposing the Greeks is futile, as by nature a Greek army will always conquer the barbarian horde. The contrasting portrayal between historical Darius and Darius in Alexander Romance highlights how the narrator of Alexander Romance based his Darius on stereotypical depiction of the ignorant barbarian king.

Another contrasting trait between Alexander and Darius is the bravery of

Alexander (andreia) which is contrasted with the cowardly nature (deilia) of

Darius. Darius is denoted as a cowardly king who is in total contrast with

Alexander’s bravery. Darius’ cowardice is mainly highlighted in his battle against

Alexander; as the battle is not in the favor of the Persians, Darius flees the battle.

The narrator states:

In the end there was a great rout of the Persians, who fled precipitately. When many of the Persians have been horribly killed, Darius in terror

160 Badian, Ernst. p. 258. 161 Badian, Ernst. p. 259.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

pulled down the reins of his scythed chariot; as the wheels whirled, he moved down a multitude of the Persians, like a harvester cropping down the stalks of corn. (Callisthenes 117)

In his haste to avoid being captured by the Greeks, Darius does not care that in order to escape he has to massacre his fellow Persians. Beside Darius’ cowardice, the above quotation also highlights Darius lack of self-restraint (akolasia). His lack of self-restraint is shown in how Darius recklessly “moved down” his Persian soldiers who stands in his way to escape. Darius is depicted to have no compassion towards the life of his soldiers and he willingly sacrifices his soldiers so that he can escape from the battle.

Although in historical account Darius also fled the battle against

Alexander, there is difference between historical Darius and the fictional

Alexander in Alexander Romance. The narrator of Alexander Romance believes that the reason why Darius escapes the battle is his personal cowardice, on the contrary Badian explores several possible reasons for Darius’ flight from the battle field. One interpretation is that Darius sees that “the only chance of saving his kingdom lay in his survival…. His flight shows that he kept his head and thought of his responsibilities.”162 If Darius were to fall in battle then the Persians are in danger of falling into a civil war of succession, which will be detrimental as they are facing an outside invader. Quoting an account from Diodorus, Badian offers another interpretation of Darius’ choice to escape the battle. He states that actually Darius intends to die in the battlefield, yet one of his charioteers carried

162 Badian, Ernst. “Darius III” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 100. (2000) 20 May 2016 2015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788284 >p. 256.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

him away.163 Hence, Darius’ decision to flee the battle is not due to his personal cowardice, but there are other reasons for that. Badian’s interpretations is that either Darius feels that his death will be detrimental for the unity of the Persians, or Darius already intended to die, but one of his soldier unknowingly saved him instead.

Furthermore, while Alexander is noted as a capable general who always lead his army himself in the front line, Darius is depicted to prefer to stay in his capital. Through embedded focalization of Oxydelkys, the narrator denounces

Darius’ decision:

You (Darius) must rather imitate Alexander, and in that way hold on to your kingdom. He did not entrust the conduct of the war to generals and satraps, like you, but has always been the first to enter the cities and fought at the head of his army. (Callisthenes 106)

By the embedded focalization of Oxydelkys, the narrator emphasizes that Darius is Alexander’s inferior, and hence he should imitate Alexander’s conduct.

Alexander is portrayed as a brave general, as he is always “the first to enter the cities” and “fought at the head of his army”. On the contrary, Darius prefers to stay in his capital and delegates commands into his satraps. It is only when the situation gets worse he takes personal command directly.

The narrator believes that Darius’ unwillingness to personally lead his army is caused by his excessive refinement and luxury (habrotes). As a Persian king, Darius is marked more by his wealth and extravagant clothing instead of his virtues or achievement in war. This is contrasted by how Alexander is portrayed

163 Badian, Ernst. p. 260.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

as a model agathos, excels in both virtue and warfare. One depiction of Darius emphasizes his luxurious dressing:

Darius wears his crown set with precious stones, his silk robes woven with gold thread in the Babylonian style, his cloak of royal purple, and his golden shoes studded with gems with covered his shins. He held a scepter in either hand, and the troops around him were innumerable. (Callisthenes 114) From this quotation, the splendor of Darius’ dressing is emphasized. His shoes are golden and “studded with gems which covers his shins.” Furthermore, he wears

“silk robes woven with gold thread.” In Hall’s view, the Greeks believe that wealth and truphe -an excessively dainty or comfortable way of life- became bad education for masculinity and courage.164 In other words, the Greeks denote the excessive dressing of the Persians as effeminate, more resembling a woman rather a man. Darius’ luxurious lifestyle is considered to be the reason of his lack of bravery, as he is accustomed to decadent living. Darius is depicted to prefer the hedonist lifestyle of his capital, Babylon rather than commanding his army directly in the front-line.

In his article, Badian further debunks the myth that Darius never personally lead his army. He states that “there is not a word of any military achievement by Darius in any of our Alexander sources.”165 To counter this view,

Badian proves that Darius leads the expedition to overcome Egypt himself, right after his ascension.166 This event is omitted by the narrator of Alexander

Romance, although the episode where Egypt is conquered is included, the army

164 Hall, Edith. p. 128 165 Badian, Ernst. “Darius III” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 100. (2000) 20 May 2016 2015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788284 >p. 254. 166 Badian, Ernst. p. 252.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

which conquer Egypt is not lead by Darius personally but instead the narrator describes it as “a great storm cloud of barbarians” 167. By the omission of Darius as the leader of the army which conquers Egypt, the narrator undermines Darius’ bravery and intelligence to command an army.

To summarize, it can be seen that the narrator contrasted between

Alexander as a model Greek (agathos) and Darius as a barbarian king. As an agathos, Alexander is characterized positively by his possession of several

Hellenic virtues, mainly intelligence (xunesis) and bravery (andreia). On the other hand, the portrayal of Darius emphasizes several negative vices. Darius is depicted to be ignorant (amathia), cowardly (deilia), having lack of `restrain

(akolasia), and possesses excessive wealth (habrotes). To contrast the portrayal between Alexander and Darius, the narrator either uses external focalization, or embedded focalization to voice the characters’ statement. The embedded focalization still conforms to the intention of the narrator, which is to portray

Alexander as a noble Greek king and Darius as a stereotypical barbarian king.

Several negative traits possessed by Darius are actually based on fabrication instead of a real fact. The historical Darius, based on Badian’s finding is actually an intelligent and brave military commander, while the fictional Darius is characterized by his stupidity, cowardice and his unwillingness to lead his army personally.

167 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 47.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

2. Depiction of Apelchasem as Stereotypical Barbarian King.

After analyzing how Darius is depicted as a stereotypical barbarian king, this thesis explores the similar depiction of Apelchasem in Alexiad. Not different from how the narrator of Alexander Romance contrasted between Alexander as an agathos and Darius as barbarian king, Anna as the narrator of Alexius also contrasted between Alexius and Apelchasem. While Alexius is depicted to be in possession of several Hellenic virtues, such as intelligence (xunesis), bravery

(andreia), and self-restrained (sophrosune), Apelchasem is mainly marked by his ignorance (amathia) and also his lack of self-restraint (akolasia) which manifests in his decadent lifestyle (habrotes).

Although in truth Apelchasem is not yet a Sultan, but he is the arch-satrap

(governor) of Nicaea, the capital of the Turks, Anna depicts Apelchasem to behave similarly to a Sultan of the East. Through embedded focalization, Anna narrates how Apelchasem already expected to be appointed as Sultan due to his high status:

Now Apelchasem who was then arch-satrap in Nicaea, where the Sultan’s palace was, took possession of the town and transferred Cappadocia to his brother, Pulchases, and then lived a carefree life, expecting soon to assume the dignity of “Sultan,” in fact looked upon it as a certainty. (Comnena 110)

Anna associates Sultan with “carefree life”, she considers the Eastern ruler to live a life of luxury and decadence. This is contrasted with how previously Anna depicts her father, the Emperor to be self-restrained (sophrosune) in how he rejects the decadent life of his capital Constantinople in favor of life in the frontier with his army.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

In her father’s conflict with Apelchasem, Anna contrasted between her father’s intelligence (xunesis) as a Greek and Apelchasem’s stupidity and ignorance (amathia) as barbaric Sultan. After finding out how Apelchasem maintains “a determined resistance”168 around Nicaea, Anna depicts how Alexius uses a devious plan to overcome the Turks. She portrays how her father offers a peace treaty toward Apelchasem, yet the peace offering is actually more for the benefit of the Byzantines rather than the Turks. Anna states:

Emperor, clever as he was in winning the souls of men and in softening a heart of stone, at once dictated a letter to Apelchasem advising him to abstain from such vain enterprises and not to beat the air but to come over to him and thus exchange a life of labour for the enjoyment of bounteous gifts and honour….When the truce between them had been concluded, the Emperor who was already scheming to obtain another advantage, and could see no other way of gaining his end, invited Apelchasem to the capital to receive gifts of money, enjoy a life of luxury to the full and then return home. (Comnena 110)

In the aforementioned quotation, Anna portrays how Alexius deceives

Apelchasem to accept his peace treaty. She narrates how Apelchasem will receive

“the enjoyment of bounteous gifts and honors”, furthermore Alexius even invite

Apelchasem to Constantinople to “enjoy a life of luxury to the full.” Through her father’s deception, Anna highlights her father’s intelligence as a Greek, he is able to deceive the barbarian Sultan to accept his peace treaty. The peace treaty is actually only a cover for Alexius’ real intention, through embedded focalization of

Alexius, Anna explores Alexius’ inner thought:

The Turkish rulers of Nicaea still held Nicomedia (which is the metropolis of Bithynia) and as the Emperor wished to expel them from that town, he thought it well to build a second small citadel near the sea, while the terms of peace were being arranged. Consequently, he had all the materials

168 Comnena, Anna. p. 110.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

necessary for the construction of the fort, as well as the builders, loaded on transports and dispatched them under Eustathius, the “Drungaire” of the fleet, to whom he had revealed his secret and entrusted the building. (Comnena 111)

This event depicted in Alexiad, how Apelchasem is tricked by Alexius into accepting the treaty and living in Constantinople is actually a fabrication by Anna.

There is difference between how Anna portrays Apelchasem and the Apelchasem in historical account. In The Universal Dictionary of Biography and Mythology:

A-Clu (2009), Joseph Thomas explores the historical fate of Apelchasem, in his finding Apelchasem “took Nicaea and advanced towards Constantinople, but was repulsed by Taticius and put to death by the Shah of Persia.”169 Although in

Alexiad Anna also portrays how Apelchasem captures the city of Nicaea and threatened Constantinople, the one who defeats Apelchasem is not Taticius but her father Alexius. Furthermore, Anna narrates that her father is able to deceive

Apelchasem, which differs from most historical accounts. The historical

Apelchasem was actually executed by the Shah of Persia due to his failure, with no mention that he was tricked by Alexius, because in historical fact, the opponent of Apelchasem was not Alexius but Taticius.

To sum up, it can be stated that both narrators portray Darius and

Apelchasem based on the stereotypical depiction of barbarian kings. While the narrators depict Alexander and Alexius as a model example of Greek nobility due to their various Hellenic traits, the depiction of Darius and Apelchasem are based on stereotypical construction of barbarian kings. The defining traits of both Darius

169 Thomas, Joseph. The Universal Dictionary of Biography and Mythology: A-Clu. (New York: Cosino Classics, 2009) p. 231. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

and Apelchasem are their stupidity and ignorance (amathia) and also their hedonist lifestyle (habrotes). Their barbaric traits are considered by both narrators as the proof for their inferiority compared to Alexander and Alexius. Although

Darius has numerical advantages compared to Alexander’s soldiers, the narrator depicts Darius as an ignorant king who dismissed the threat faced by Alexander and unwilling to face Alexander directly. The narrator of Alexander Romance emphasizes that Darius possesses “innumerable troops”170, furthermore the number of troops Darius has is compared with sand on the seashore.171

Similar with Darius, Apelchasem also depicted as an ignorant sultan who is unable to grasp the real meaning of Alexius’ peace treaty. In both cases, Darius and Apelchasem are defeated by the superior cunning and intelligence (xunesis) of

Alexander and Alexius. The depiction of Darius and Apelchasem is actually not based on historical account. Several studies have debunked the depiction of

Darius and Apelchasem as stereotypical barbarian kings. This infers that the portrayal of Darius and Apelchasem is not derived from historical fact but more on the conception of barbarian kings in the Greeks’ perspective.

170 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 81. 171 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 112.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER IV IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALEXANDER ROMANCE AND

ALEXIAD

On previous chapter, this thesis analyzes the similar ideology which still persist between Alexander Romance and Alexiad, on how the narrators glorifies the

Greek heroes and stereotypically portrays their enemies as barbarian kings. After analyzing the similarities of ideological perspective, this chapter analyzes the differences of ideological paradigm between Alexander Romance and Alexiad. There are two main emphases of this chapter. Firstly, the antiquity Greeks as illustrated in

Alexander Romance uses many prolepses, in term of prophecies and omen to legitimize the nature of Alexander conquest. On the contrary, Byzantine Greeks as illustrated by Anna shows hostility toward prolepsis, hence Anna does not use this narrative device in Alexiad. Second difference is on the barbarians portrayed,

Alexander Romance primarily focuses on mythical barbarians such as centaurs, while

Alexiad gives more emphasis on Hellenized barbarians.

A. The Presence and Absence of Prolepsis

This section focuses on comparing how prominent prolepsis is in Alexander

Romance and how Anna as the narrator of Alexiad does not use this terminology anymore. Firstly, this thesis explores the use of prolepsis in Alexander Romance to justify and legitimize the conquest of Alexander. Secondly, this thesis argues that the

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

discontinuation of prolepsis in Alexiad is caused by the different religious belief practiced by Byzantine Greeks compared to the ancient Greeks during antiquity.

1. The Presence of Prolepsis and the Myth of Colonial Complicity in

Alexander Romance

The focus of this section is to highlight how the use of foreshadowing helps the narrator to justify Alexander’s conquest against and the Egyptians. Several events in Alexander Romance are narrated in form of prolepsis; in narratological terms, prolepsis172 which includes omens, prophecy, and foreshadowing refers to an event which will occur in the future. The use of prolepsis by the narrator is due to the narrator’s status as an external focalizer; to quote Rimmon-Kenan, an external focalizer has in his/her disposal all the temporal dimension of the story (past, present, future).173 The external focalizer of Alexander Romance already has a prior knowledge that Alexander’s conquest will be successful, and the use of prolepsis is to justify Alexander’s territorial usurpation. There are two main prolepses depicted in

Alexander Romance, which will be further explained in the next segments.

The focus of this section mainly deals with how the use of prolepsis is used by the narrator to justify the Greek colonialism of Egypt. The prolepsis takes place in form of two prophecies. Firstly, Sarapeum prophecy emphasizes that Alexander is the rightful ruler of Egypt. Second prophecy, Ammonian prophecy highlights that the establishment of Greek city in Egypt such as Alexandria is based on a prophecy given

172 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction. (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 1983. Reprinted. 2005) p. 61 173 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. p. 63

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

by Ammon. These prolepses cause the Egyptians to be complicit in assisting the

Greek colonialism. a. Prolepsis in Sarepeum Prophecy

Firstly, this thesis explores how the narrator includes the Serapeum’s prophecy to assert that Alexander is the rightful king of the Egyptians. This prophecy is connected with Alexander’s parentage. In Alexander Romance, Alexander’s father is not Philip, King of Macedonia but Nectanebo, king of Egypt instead. The narrator remarks,

many say that he (Alexander) was the son of King Philip, but they were deceivers. This is untrue: he was not Philip’s son, but the wisest of the Egyptians say that he was the son of Nectanebo, after the latter had fallen from his royal state.174 In the beginning of Alexander Romance Egypt is threatened by invasion from the numerous barbarian hordes. Nectanebo is portrayed to be unable in resisting the invasion of the barbarian horde. Egypt is overrun by the horde, and Nectanebo has to flee into Macedonia. In Pella, the Macedonian capital he impregnates Queen Olympia by disguising himself as Ammon. Olympia later gives birth to Alexander.

The manner of Nectanebo’s escape from Egypt and the conception of

Alexander as Nectanebo’s son are recorded in the form of a prophecy or oracle. The

Sarapeum prophecy deals with the flight of the last king of Egypt, Nectanebo and his eventual return, not as an old man but as a youth. Through embedded focalization of

174 Callisthenes, Pseudo. The Greek Alexander Romance. (London: Penguins Books, 1991) p. 46. Trans. Richard Stonemann. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the Egyptian God Serapis, the narrator asserts that what will return to Egypt is not

Nectanebo but Alexander, his son. Here is how the oracle is depicted in the text:

Meanwhile, the Egyptians asked their so-called gods what has become of the king of Egypt, since all of Egypt had been overrun by the barbarians. And the self-styled god in the sanctuary of the Serapeum spoke an oracle to them: “This king who has fled will return to Egypt not as an old man but as a youth, and he will overcome our enemies the Persians.” The Egyptians wrote down the oracle that had been given to them on the pedestal of the statue of Nectanebo. (Callisthenes 48)

This prophecy is fulfilled by Alexander’s entry to the land of the Egyptians. The narrator focalizes:

[w]hen he (Alexander) reached Memphis, the Egyptians put him on the throne of Hephaestus as king of Egypt. In Memphis Alexander saw a very tall status of black stone which was treated as holy. The statue was the statue of the last king of Egypt, Nectanebo. On its base was this inscription: “This king who has fled will return to Egypt, no longer an old man but a young one, and will subject our enemies the Persians to us.” …. Alexander sprang up and embraced the statue, saying: “This is my father, and I am his son.” (Callisthenes 79-80)

Alexander Romance considers Alexander’s entry into Egypt in his Egyptian

Campaign as the fulfillment of the Serapeum oracle. As Alexander is the descendant of Nectanebo, his victory against the barbarian and his liberation of Egypt is considered to fulfill the Serapeum prophecy. The king of Egypt depicted in the prophecy is not Nectanebo, but his young son Alexander, as seen in the words “no longer an old man but a young one.” Hence, when Alexander and his troops reach

Egypt, the Egyptians are shown not to resist but instead welcome Alexander as their savior. The quotation below illustrates the response of the Egyptians towards

Alexander’s subjugation of Egypt:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The Macedonian soldiers and the captains close to the walls heard voices from within which were acclaiming Alexander: “Long live King Alexander”, they said…. The Egyptians began to beseech Alexander in submissive tones:” Have mercy, your majesty, on your own country. Do not persist in your anger towards your slaves…. Take your city, therefore, and do what seems proper to you.” (Callisthenes 183-184)

Alexander’s status as the Prince of Egypt due to his descends from Nectanebo

as depicted in Alexander Romance justifies his invasion of Egypt. As an Egyptian

prince, the narrator considers that Egypt is Alexander’s birthright, he has the right to

capture it from the barbarian overlord. Hence, through embedded focalization of the

Egyptians, the narrator asserts that Egypt is Alexander’s “own country” based on his

inheritance from his father Nectanebo. As the Egyptians believe that Alexander is

their rightful ruler, the portrayal of the Egyptians in Alexander Romance focuses on

their subservient nature. They willingly accept being dominated by the Greeks, as

seen in the quotation,” do what seems proper to you.” Their colonial complicity is

highlighted by this remark, it indicates that the Egyptians are willing to be ruled,

colonized, and exploited by Alexander.

The narrator further emphasizes that Alexander is welcomed in Egypt not as a

conqueror but as a king who returns. Through the embedded focalization of the

Egyptians, the narrator focalizes:

the Egyptians were joyful because they had been liberated from oppression. They did not lead Alexander as a conquering enemy but as a king, acclaiming him and cheering and shouting, “Egypt rules again.” (Callisthenes 184) The narrator asserts that Alexander is accepted as a rightful king due to his status as

Nectanebo’s heir. This is highlighted by the quotation,” Egypt rules again” which

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

indicates that the Egyptians accept the reign of Alexander. Furthermore, the narrator emphasizes that the Egyptians are joyful in accepting Alexander’s leadership, the

Egyptians cheer and acclaim Alexander as the new king of Egypt.

Although the narrator emphasizes Alexander’s descent from Nectanebo, the last Egyptian king, Alexander is more Greek than Egyptian. The narrator puts particular focus on Alexander’s paideia based on Alexander’s upbringing and education in Greek custom. The narrator mentions that Alexander is taught by several

Greeks such as Polynices as his grammar teacher, Anaximenes as his teacher of rhetoric, and Aristotle of Stageira as his philosophy teacher.175 Hence, even though

Alexander is half-Egyptian, he is more Greek than Egyptian, as emphasized by his upbringing in Greek. Even more, Alexander’s arrival into Egypt is accompanied by his Greek soldiers and settlers. Therefore, the quotation “Egypt rules again” is ironic, as Egypt is now ruled by a Greek, Alexander and even after Alexander’s death Egypt is still ruled by one of Alexander’s Greek general, Ptolemy who is appointed as satrap

(governor) of Egypt.176 It can be stated that the Egyptians are still not freed from oppression, but they are once again being colonized. Previously they are ruled by the barbarian, now they are ruled not by a native Egyptian, but a Greek. Further highlights of the Greek’s authority as the colonizer of Egypt will be further explained in the next section.

175 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 55 176 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 164

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The narrator’s ideological position as a Greek colonizer is reflected through the narrator’s commentary toward Egypt. As a Greek colonizer, the narrator focuses on the richness of Egypt due to its proximity to the Nile River. The narrator remarks that, “Alexander made Egypt subject to him: a king is nothing if he does not have a productive land.”177 The conquest of Egypt places the Greeks in control of a rich and fertile land, which fits Alexander as a Greek king who should have “a productive land”. Through the narrator’s focalization, Egypt is described as rich in wheat, a fertile land with a river to nourish it and rich in men.178 The fertility of Egyptian soil is then exploited for the benefits of the Greek colonizers. There is no shortage of native men to work for the Greeks, as Egypt is described as “rich in men”.

Furthermore, Egypt is depicted as a model colony; the Egyptian natives do not reject Greek colonialism but instead the Egyptians embrace and celebrate the Greek’s domination which is illustrated by this quotation:

Alexander asks for funds, and they are made available; he needs gold, and its taxes and rents are plentiful, he asks for soldiers, and they come forward with enthusiasm.179

The narrator highlights the enthusiasm of the Egyptian natives toward the Greek colonialism. The Egyptians are depicted to supply everything the Greeks wanted, either money by taxes or becoming soldier in Alexander’s army. Therefore, the quotation above illustrates the colonial complicity of the Egyptians. Not only they

177 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.103 178 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.103 179 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.104

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

provide Alexander with taxes, rents, and soldiers but they even do it “with enthusiasm.” b. Prolepsis in Ammonian Prophecy

After exploring how the prolepsis in the form of Serapeum oracle is used by the narrator to state that Alexander is the rightful king of Egypt, this thesis explores how Greek colonialism in Egypt is also fueled by religious drive in form of another prolepsis. To assert the authority of the Greeks as the new colonizer of Egypt,

Alexander Romance depicts several founding of Greek cities. Perhaps the most famous city established by Alexander in Egypt is Alexandria, which still exist in the present day. The founding of Alexandria as Alexander’s new capital city is based on a prophecy given by Ammon. The prophecy is depicted here:

O King, thus Phoebus of the ram’s horns says to you: If you wish to bloom forever in the incorruptible youth, Found the city in fame opposite the isle of Proteus Where Aion Ploutonios himself is enthroned as king He who from his five-peaked mountain rolls round the endless world. (Callisthenes 73)

The prophecy above commands Alexander to found a city “opposite the isle of Proteus.” The narrator believes that one of Alexander’s reasons to launch his expedition into Egypt is to seek the isle of Proteus mentioned in the prophecy. The narrator focalizes, “when Alexander received this oracle, he set about finding out which island was that of Proteus, and who was the god who presided over it.180

Hence, it can be said that Alexander’s expedition to Egypt has the attitude of a

180 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 73.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

colonial explorer; Alexander is depicted to undertake an expedition into foreign and exotic place, in this case “the isle of Proteus” and establishes Greek city there to assert the Greek’s authority upon the Egyptians natives. Alexander’s quest to find the isle of Proteus is based on divine commandment by a deity, Ammon. Hence, religion in form of prophecy is used to justify Alexander’s venture into the land of the

Egyptians and the eventual colonization of Egypt. The narrator states that

Alexander’s establishment of Alexandria as a Greek city is legitimized, because

Alexander does it in order to fulfill a prophecy which commands him to “found a city opposite the isle of Proteus.”

Alexandria is intended as the “dominating metropolitan center”181 replacing

Alexander’s former capital in Pella, Macedonia. Hence, the name of the city is derived from Alexander’s own name. In this passage, the narrator describes the founding of Alexandria:

Alexander ordered his architects to build a city on a scale they preferred. On receiving these orders, they marked out a city extending in length from the river Dracon opposite the promontory of Taphorision as far as the river Agathodaimon. Then Alexander ordered all those who lived within 30 miles of the city to leave their villages and move to the city; he presented them with parcels of land and called them Alexandrians. The chief officials of the boroughs were Eurylichios and Melanthos, which is how those districts got their name. (Callisthenes 74) The founding of Greek cities in Egypt, for example Alexandria shows the example of

Greek colonialism based on Said’s concept of colonialism. In Said’s words,

181 Said. Edward. Culture and Imperialism. (New York: Vintage Books, 1994) p. 9.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

colonialism is “the implanting of settlements on distant territories.”182 The Greeks begin to assert their authority in Egypt by establishing new cities and settlements in which the leading officers are Greeks. In the quotation above, we can see that the chief officials of Alexandria are Greeks, Eurylichios and Melanthos instead of

Egyptians. It highlights that after the conquest of Alexander the Greeks have high status in Egyptian society. Furthermore, the city of Alexandria is constructed based on the cities in Greece, as the builders and engineers are all Greeks. Alexander took advice also from other builders, including Numenius the stone-mason, Cleomenes of

Naucratis, the engineer, and Karteros of Olynthus.183 The involvement of many Greek architects indicates that Alexandria is constructed in line with Greek cities in mainland Greece.

Construction of a large metropolis such as Alexandria requires immense wealth which the Greeks do not possess. In order to get the required fund to construct

Alexander’s capital, the Egyptians are demanded to pay tribute. The narrator focalizes it as,

then Alexander demanded of them (the Egyptians) the tribute they had formerly paid to Darius. “It is not so that I may transfer this to my own treasure, “he said,” but so that I may spend it on your city of Alexandria which lies before Egypt, and is the capital of the whole world.” At this the Egyptians gladly gave him a great deal of money, and escorted him with great pomp and honor out of the country via Pelusium. (Callisthenes 80)

182 Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism p. 9 183 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 74

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

The narrator once again emphasizes the submissive nature of the Egyptians. The

Egyptians are depicted as submissive and docile, they are willing to do anything

Alexander requires, in this case paying tribute to fund the construction of Alexandria.

This can be seen in the quotation above, “the Egyptians gladly gave Alexander a great deal of money.” The narrator uses embedded focalization of Alexander to persuade the Egyptians, by stating that the money is not for Alexander’s “own treasure” but it is for the city of Alexandria “which lies before Egypt and is the capital of the whole world.” Hence, by claiming that the tribute is for the benefits of the Egyptians,

Alexander is shown to be able to convince the Egyptians. This action of the

Egyptians, in which they gladly give Alexander a great deal of money again emphasizes the colonial complicity of the Egyptians. They help establish the new capital of the Greek Empire, Alexandria by their own money. Yet in truth, the tribute is not for the Egyptian’s advantage, but is it intended more for the Greeks. Although

Alexandria in the Egypt, the leading officers and the ruling class are all Greeks instead of Egyptian natives. The Egyptians are locked out from the upper reaches of the society, which after Alexander’s conquest is now dominated by Greek citizens.

Even after Alexander’s death, Ptolemy as the satrap of Egypt established his own

Ptolemaic dynasty (305-50 BC).

To sum up, prolepsis is used by the narrator to justify Alexander’s conquest of

Egypt and also the beginning of the Greek colonialism in Egypt. The Serapeum prophecy highlights Alexander’s claim to the throne of Egypt as the son of

Nectanebo, the exiled king of Egypt. As the Egyptians believed that they are ruled by

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

the rightful king, they have no reason to rebel or resist. Secondly, the prophecy of

Ammon is used to legitimize the establishment of Alexandria as Alexander’s new capital city. In other words, Greek colonialism in Egypt is fueled also by religious drive, as Alexander builds his capital city Alexandria to fulfil an oracle given by

Ammon. The religious justification of the fulfillment of an oracle is used to validate

Greek colonialism in Egypt. The use of prolepsis, the Samonian and Ammonian prophecy cause the Egyptians to be an eager and willing partner in the process of

Greek colonialism which highlights their colonial complicity.

2. The Absence of Prolepsis in Alexiad

After exploring how prominently prolepsis is used by the narrator of

Alexander Romance to justify Alexander’s territorial conquest, this thesis explores the absence of prolepsis in Alexiad. Firstly, this thesis analyses this issue from narratological standpoint, especially about the applicability of using prolepsis in historical narrative such as Alexiad. The use of prolepsis is due to a narrator’s status as an external focalizer; to quote Rimmon-Kenan, an external focalizer has in his/her disposal all the temporal dimension of the story (past, present, future).184 As prolepsis is in the form of foreshadowing of the future events, a narrator need to have knowledge what will happen in the future to be able to accurate predict the occurrences. Furthermore, as covered in theoretical review, Genette asserts that several characteristics of fictional literature such as temporal arrangement of story

184 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction p. 63

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

can be found not only in fictional text but also in factual literature such as historical narrative.185

Not different from the narrator in Alexander Romance, Anna is also an external focalizer. She is able to narrate her story without any restriction, and even able to give an illustration of her character’s inner thoughts, perceptions, and motivations through embedded focalization. Furthermore, she narrates her father’s campaigns from a bird-eye perspective, above the events. As she describes Alexius’ deeds after it already happened, she has full knowledge about reign of Alexius from his ascension until his death. Hence, she is both an omniscient and omnipresent narrator. This indicates that from a narratological standpoint, Anna’s status as an external focalizer allows her to employ prolepsis, yet in Alexiad she does not use prolepsis such as prophecies and dreams. The reason for the absence of prolepsis in

Alexiad is not caused by narratological restriction but most probably by the different values between ancient Greeks and medieval Byzantine Greeks.

Previously, the prominent uses of prolepsis in Alexander Romance is mainly based on the values of Greek society at that time. Ancient Greeks during antiquity believe and worship many Gods and Goddesses. One God which features in

Alexander Romance is Ammon. Ammon directly orders Alexander to establish Greek cities in Egypt to fulfill the Ammonian prophecy. This became the justification for

Greek colonialism in Egypt. According to the narrator, Alexander’s conquest and his

185 Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions. p. 55-56

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

colonization in Egypt is legitimized, because Alexander does it in order to fulfill a prophecy given by Ammon.

Polytheism is discontinued during the time of Byzantine Greeks, as they are now Christian, or to be more specific Orthodox Christian. This different religious paradigm causes Anna to be skeptical toward the notion of prophecies. She claims that there is actually nothing mythical or magical in prophecies, as prophecies is actually based on astrological science:

Now these (astrologers) observe the hour of the birth of the persons about whom they intend to prophesy, and fix the cardinal points and carefully note the disposition of all the stars, in short they do everything that the inventor of this science bequeathed to posterity and which those who trouble about such trifles understand.186

She further illustrates that she indeed has some knowledge of astrology, but it is not intended to cast prophecies and horoscopes but to identify the astrologers:

We, also, at one time dabbled a little in this science, not in order to cast horoscopes (God forbid!), but by gaining a more accurate idea of this vain study to be able to pass judgment upon its devotees. (Comnena 105)

In the above passage, it can be seen that through Anna’s focalization, the

Byzantine Greeks are hostile towards the notion of prophecy. This is mainly derived from their Orthodox Christian belief. The hostility of Orthodoxy toward astrological prophecies is summarized by Efthimios Nicolaidis is his book Science and Eastern

Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization (2011):

This condemnation had been based on the doctrine of free will, which alone could bring a person to sin or virtue, as well as the condemnation of the pagan

186 Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. (London: Routledge, 1928. Reprinted. Ontario, In Parentheses Publication, 2000) Trans. Elizabeth A.S Dawes. p. 105. PDF.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

idea that stars were divinities. The fatalism implied by astrological predictions was unacceptable to Orthodoxy because it would annul humankind’s constant struggle to lead a life according to God’s prescriptions.187

From Nicolaidis’ statement, it can be stated that the antagonism of Orthodoxy towards prophecies is due to two factors, the doctrine of free will and also the association with astrological reading with paganism. Quoting Philoponus, an

Alexandrian theologian who lived in the 5th century, Nicolaidis further states:

the practice of astrology is hated by God and is ruinous for the soul in that it distances those who indulge in it from God and from the hope that we place in Him, and prevents them from asking Him by their prayers and by a good life what is suitable for them, on the pretext that nothing happens outside Destiny. The stars can indeed serve as signs for meteorological predictions but not for the lives of humans.188

The hostility of the Byzantine Greeks toward astrology is further explored by

Anna in Alexiad. Similar with what Philoponus’ addressed about how astrology distances its users from God, Anna also believes that any venture to the realm of astrology “tended to make people of a guileless nature reject their faith in God and gape at the stars.”189 Furthermore she narrates that her father “wages war against the teaching of astrology"190 which indicates how the studies of astrology is treated hostilely in Byzantium. Anna focalizes that the one who still believe in prophecies are the Egyptians, through her depiction of Alexandreus:

187 Nicolaidis, Efthimios. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2011) Trans. Susan Emanuel. p. 49. PDF 188 Philophonus, Quoted in Nicolaidis, Ethimios. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. p. 37. 189 Comnena, Anna. p. 117 190 Comnena, Anna. p. 117

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

There was also a famous Egyptian, Alexandreus, who was a strong exponent of the mysteries of astrology. He was consulted by many and used to give most accurate forecasts in many cases, not even using the astrolabe, but made his prophecies by a certain casting of dice. There was nothing magical about that either, it was an art practiced by the Alexandrians (or by Alexandreus) (Comnena 118)

While the Byzantine Greeks rejects astrological prophecies due to their

Orthodox Christian belief, the Egyptians are depicted to still practice prophecies, not only by star forecasts but also by dice casting. This is shown by how Anna describes not only Alexandreus who still believe in prophecies but also the Alexandrians.

Nicolaidis finds out that while astronomy was discontinued by the Byzantines, the astrological practice flourished in the Muslim world, including Egypt.191 The contrasting practice between the Byzantines and the Egyptians cause the Egyptians to be labelled as Other due to their mysticism in using prophecies. In their book, The

Occult Science in Byzantium (2006) Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi state that the Byzantines consider the practice of astrological prophecy to indicate the alien, suspect rites of oriental Other.192 In her opinion towards the Egyptians’ astrological prophecies, Anna claims that the Ishmaelites still practice paganism, as they worship

“Astarte and Ashtaroth, the figure of the moon and the golden image of Chobar.”193

It can be seen therefore that Anna’s discontinuation of prolepsis in form of prophecies is linked with the differing values between ancient Greeks and Byzantine

Greeks. While previously the paganism of ancient Greeks causes the narrator of

191 Nicolaidis, Ethimios. p. 49. 192 Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi. The Occult Science in Byzantium (Geneva: La Pomme d'or Publishing, 2006) p. 12. PDF 193 Comnena, Anna. p. 177.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Alexander Romance employ many prophecies to legitimize Alexander’s conquest, the

Orthodox Byzantines are hostile toward astrological prophecies due to their religious doctrine. Furthermore, the practice of prophecies is associated with the oriental Other such as the Egyptians. Anna considers the practice of the Egyptians, whom she grouped together with other Ismaelites to indicate that they still worship pagan Gods instead of one true God.

To conclude this subchapter, one difference in ideological perspective is related with differing religious values between antiquity Greeks and medieval Greeks.

This difference is mainly seen in how the prophecies or in narratological term prolepsis are used. In line with Nunning’s assertion that “narrative forms are socially constructed”194, it can be seen that the presence of prolepsis in Alexander Romance and the absence of prolepsis in Alexiad reflect the contrasting religious paradigm between different time periods of Greek history. The ancient Greeks who still believe in paganism employ prophecies to legitimize the conquest of Alexander. On the contrary, the Byzantine Greeks as Orthodox Christian are skeptical towards the idea of prophecy. Hence, prophecy or prolepsis are no longer featured as prominently in

Alexiad as in Alexander Romance.

B. Different Barbarians by Different Narrators’ Focalization

Secondly, this thesis examines the different barbarian groups depicted in both

Alexander Romance and Alexiad. The notable difference is that Alexander Romance

194 Nunning, Ansgar. “Surveying Contextualist and Cultural Narratologies: Toward an Outline of Approaches, Concepts, and Potentials”. Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009) p. 64

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

portrays several mythical creatures which inhibit barbarian vices, hence Hall considers them as “supernatural barbarians.”195 On the other hand, Alexiad depicts several examples of Hellenized barbarians whom Anna describes as semi-barbarians.

As Alexander Romance takes place in the beginning of Hellenistic Age, the main emphasis is the conquest of Alexander, not just against the real barbarians but also toward the mythical barbarians. On the contrary as Alexiad was written when the

Greeks already established their imperium, the focus is more on how the barbarians are Hellenized.

1. Alexander Romance’s Depiction of Mythical Barbarians

In this section, the concern is to explore the representation of the non-human creatures in Alexander Romance. As a romance, Alexander Romance takes place

“within an idealized, imaginative, and mythical setting”.196 Even though the basic premise of Alexander Romance is Alexander’s conquests which are based on historical fact, Alexander Romance also includes many fantastical and fictional aspects. One of the interesting fictional elements in Alexander Romance is how

Alexander is depicted to meet various fantastical creatures. The non-human creatures

Alexander encountered is also depicted by the narrator as Other by their bestial appearance and savage nature. Hall considers the half-human creature as

195 Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self Definition through Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) p. 70 196 Herman, David. Jahn, Manfred and Marie-Laure Ryan. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. ((London: Routledge, 2005)p. 659.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

“supernatural barbarians”197, as even though they are fantastical and fictional account, they also inhibit certain barbarian vices. This section highlights several example of how the non-human creatures also represent the barbarian Other in the Greek’s consciousness.

Several of the fictional people Alexander meets in his conquest are half- human. Even though they resemble human, they also have body parts of animal; hence they are half-human and half-animal. One of the half-human encountered by

Alexander is called the Ochlitae. The narrator emphasizes the savage (agriotes) and bestial appearance of the Ochlitae. The Ochlitae are described to resemble lion but with three eyes, they are six feet tall, dressed in lions’ skin and fight with the logs of a tree.198 The narrator states that the Ochlitae dwell in caves instead of cities or villages which highlight their lack of civilization.199 The Ochilitae are described as very strong, because they have the physique of a lion and come close to overpower the

Greeks by beating them with logs. Although they have immense strength, they are depicted as coward (deilia) who are afraid of fire; Alexander is able to defeat them by igniting fire in the forest. Hence, the narrator highlights how the Greeks’ superiority in intellect (xunesis) is able to overcome the savagery (agriotes) of the Ochiltae. The narrator focalizes Alexander’s victory as:

we (the Greeks) fought them, but they struck us with logs and killed a good many of us. Alexander was afraid that they might put the Greeks to flight, and

197 Hall, Edith. p. 70. 198 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p.126. 199 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 127.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

so he ordered fires to be lit in the forest. When these mighty men saw the fire, they run away. But they had killed 180 of our soldiers. (Callisthenes 129)

Another half-human creature portrayed in Alexander Romance is the centaurs.

The centaurs are based on Greek mythology, they are human from waist above, but they have the body of a horse below the waist. Here is how the narrator depicts them in Alexander Romance:

Here, animal resembling men appeared, from their heads to their navels they were like men, but below they were horses. They were a great number of them, carrying bows in their hands; their arrows were not tipped with iron but with a sharp stone. They were eager for battle…The horse-men gathered into a mob and decided to charge on the Macedonians. (Callisthenes 135-136)

Similar with the Ochlitiae, the centaurs are also considered as Other. The narrator emphasizes their numerousness, “a great number of them”, and also how the horse- man “gathered into a mob.200” Hence, the tribe of centaurs are depicted as similar to a barbarian horde, as both have numerous numbers.

Besides the numerousness of the centaurs, the centaurs are also characterized by their bestial nature. While the Ochlitiae are considered as human who resembles animal, the centaurs are believed to be animal that resembles human. They are more similar to animal rather than to human. The narrator considers that the half-human nature of the centaurs inhibits their reasoning,” just as their human part was incomplete, so too were their reasoning powers.”201This aspect of the half-human is emphasized by the narrator as proof of the inferiority of the centaurs compared to the

Greeks. The centaurs have lesser intellect as their human nature is distorted by their

200 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 136 201 Callisthenes, Pseudo. p. 135.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

bestiality. In his narration of the centaurs, the narrator highlights how the Greek’s superior intelligence and wisdom (xunesis) prevails against the ignorance and stupidity of barbarian (amathia) and also the barbarian’s lack of restraint (akolasia).

The defeat of the centaurs is due to how they recklessly charged into a trap which

Alexander has prepared. The narrator focalizes it as:

As beast, they were incapable of understanding the devilment of men. So they charged regardless towards the camp, thinking that their opponents were on the run, and plunged and tumbled straight into the ditch. (Callisthenes 135)

The strange physicality of the centaurs is looked by the narrator with amazement. Through embedded focalization, the narrator voices how Alexander intends to capture the centaurs as a trophy:

Alexander wanted to capture some of the centaurs and bring them back to our world. He brought about fifty out of the ditch. They survived for twenty-two days, but as he did not know what they feed on, they all died. (Callisthenes 136)

In the quotation above, Alexander is depicted to try to bring several centaurs back into “our world”. The phrase “our world” mentioned in the quotation above is

Hellenistic world, which symbolizes civilization. The capturing of the centaurs therefore symbolizes the victory of Greek civilization against the savage tribal society of the centaurs. The Greeks are able to win due to their superiority in intellect

(xunesis).

Another illustration of the half-human in Alexander Romance is the men with six hands and six feet. The narrator emphasizes the numerousness of these tribe of men:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

100

From there they journeyed for ten days and found men with six hands and six feet, countless in number and all naked, who seemed to gather together when they see the size of the phalanx. (Callisthenes 190)

Similar to the Ochlitae before, this race of men is also depicted as coward (deilia) who are afraid of fire. The narrator focalizes it as:

When Alexander saw them, he ordered fire to be lit and carried against them. At once they all fled and hid in caves below the ground. The soldiers caught one of the men, and he was a wonderful sight to see. They kept him with them for one day’s journey, but because he had none of his fellows to accompany him, suddenly he shivered, gave a great cry and expired. (Callisthenes 191)

Similar with how the centaurs are looked by the Greeks with amazement, the narrator also considers that the six hands and six feet men are “a wonderful sight to see.” The strangeness of this race of men also becomes a source of fascination for the Greeks.

The Greeks intend to capture and present this strange non-human as a trophy to symbolize their conquest of the barbarian Other.

The portrayal of the various half-humans in Alexander Romance is influenced by the ideological aspect of the narrator as a Greek. The Greeks perceive and consider that the world outside Greece is populated by savage barbarian. This conception is strengthened further by their contact and conflicts with the non-Greek ethnicities such as the Persians and the Egyptians whom the Greeks consider as Other. Hence, the fictional account of the half-human creature in Alexander Romance is influenced also by how the Greeks perceive the non-Greek as Other. Hall notes that “the barbarian was to be assimilated to the mythical archetype of the stereotypical barbarian.”202 In other words, several of the barbarian vices are used in the portrayal of mythical

202 Hall, Edith. p. 66.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

101

barbarians such as the Ochlitae and the centaurs. The half human creature such as the

Ochlitiae and the centaurs depicted similar to the real barbarian; even though both have bestial strength, they are ignorant (amathia) and outsmarted by the superior intelligence (xunesis) of the Greeks. Furthermore, the half-human is depicted as either bestial in nature due to their animal side such as the centaurs and the Ochlitate, or as a deformed and abnormal race of human. How Alexander and the Greeks are depicted to defeat and capture the non-human highlight the superiority of Greek culture compared to the half human Other. Bill Ashcroft et all in Post-Colonial Studies: The

Key Concepts Second Edition (2000) emphasize that “exotics in the metropoles were a significant part of imperial display of power.”203 By how Alexander is described to capture several mythical barbarians and tried to bring them back to the Hellenistic world, the Greeks assert their authority among the mythical barbarians.

2. Alexiad’s Depiction of Semi-Barbarians

While Alexander Romance gives special emphasis on the mythical barbarians,

Alexiad focuses more on the Hellenized barbarian. As Alexander Romance covers the beginning of Hellenistic Age, it does not explore much about the Hellenized barbarian. On the contrary, in Byzantine society there exist a certain class which consist of Hellenized barbarian. In Alexiad, Anna names the Hellenized barbarian as semi-barbarian. Semi-barbarian or in original Greek mixobarbaroi refers to someone who is not a Greek by birth, but they become Greek due to their acquisition of Greek

203 Ashcroft, Bill. Griffiths, Gareth and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts Second Edition. (New York: Routledge, 2000) p. 88. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

102

culture and custom (paideia). Similar point is also addressed by Tarn, but he uses different term, culture-Greeks instead. In Tarn’s opinion, culture-Greeks refers to

Greeks by adoption, who speaks and thinks in ways overly identical to those of their political masters.204 It can be stated therefore that Anna’s terminology is more derogative, as she emphasizes the barbarianism of the semi-barbarian, while the term culture-Greeks focuses on their Hellenic aspect. Further sections will explore more about how Anna portrays the semi-barbarian in Alexiad, she asserts that the semi- barbarian still possess certain barbaric traits which undermine their Hellenic aspect. a. Depiction of the Varangians

One example of semi-barbarian depicted in Alexiad is called the Varangians.

The Varangians are a group of people from Scandinavia who migrates to Byzantium and become the Emperor’s personal retinues. Anna mentions that the Varangians are

“axe-bearing barbarians who comes from Thule (Scandinavia)”.205 The Varangians are chosen as the Emperor’s personal guards due to their physique; as a barbarian, the

Varangians are noted to possess immense strength. Anna explores how the

Varangians carry “double-edged heavy axes on their shoulders”206, which highlights the strength of the Varangians in how they use such heavy weapon for battle.

In her depiction of the Varangians, Anna emphasizes the loyalty of the

Varangians. The Varangians are noted to be loyal and do not have any rebellious thought to overthrow the Emperor. Through her focalization, Anna states:

204 Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Civilization. (London, World Pub. Co, 1961) p. 35. PDF 205 Comnena, Anna. p. 46. 206 Comnena, Anna. p. 46.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

103

The Varangians, being indigenous, naturally cherished a great affection for the Emperor and would sooner lose their lives than be persuaded to adopt any treachery against him. The Varangians, who carried their axes on their shoulders, regarded their loyalty to the Emperors and their protection of the imperial persons as a pledge and ancestral tradition, handed down from father to son, which they keep inviolate and will certainly not listen to even the slightest word about treachery. (Comnena 46)

The aforementioned quotation shows the loyalty of the Varangians. They are noted to

“will certainly not listen to even the slightest word about treachery”, it illustrates their faithful devotion to the Emperor. Furthermore, another interesting aspect is how

Anna states that the Varangians are “indigenous” or a citizen of the Empire. The

Varangians are already accepted as a full member of the Greek community, a citizen of the imperium. This fact is further highlighted by how the protection of the imperial royalty is “ancestral tradition, handed down from father to son”. The Varangians can be said to have been reside in Byzantium for many generations, as the tradition of guarding the Emperor is inherited from generation into generation. Hence, Anna emphasizes the Varangians’ Hellenic aspect or “Greekness”, as they already adopt

Greek paideia for generations.

Even though the Varangians have been Hellenized for many years, their barbarian flaw is still able to manifest, especially their lack of self-restrain (akolasia).

This issue is illustrated in Alexius’ battle against Robert in the battle of Dyrrachium

(1081). Anna remarks how the cause of her father’s defeat against Robert is not due to his wrong strategy or his insufficient valor but she blames it into the indiscipline of the Varangians. In the middle of the conflict, the Varangians forget the discipline and the orderly march of battle and instead they ignorantly charged far ahead, forgetting

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

104

the rest of the Byzantine troops who are still behind. Anna focalizes the reckless charge of the Varangians as:

Meanwhile the axe-bearing barbarians and their leader Nabites had in their ignorance and in their ardour of battle advanced too quickly and were now a long way from the Roman lines, burning to engage battle with the equally brave Franks, for of a truth these barbarians are no less mad in battle than the Franks, and not a bit inferior to them. (Comnena 78) The ignorance of the Varangians proved costly to Alexius. The Varangians’ lack of self-restrain (akolasia) cause themselves to be tired already when they encounter the

Frankish troops, they are defeated and wiped out by the Franks. In her focalization,

Anna narrates:

The barbarians having been previously wearied out, proved themselves inferior to the Franks, and thus the whole corps fell; a few escaped and took refuge in the chapel of Michael, the “Captain of the Host,” as many as could crowded into the chapel itself, and the rest climbed on to the roof, being likely in this way, they imagined, to ensure their safety. But the Latins started a fire and burnt them down, chapel and all. (Comnena 36)

In the above passages, the Varangians are depicted to forget their Hellenic aspect and instead they embrace their barbarian characteristic. In their “ardour of battle”, they once again inhibit the flaw of barbarian, which is their lack of self- restrain. They ignorantly charge into the Norman lines without any support from the rest of Alexius’ troops. Their rash action turns out fatal for the Byzantines which lead to their defeat against the Normans. Through embedded focalization, Anna voices how Alexius “condemned his own leaders for great negligence.”207 In Anna’s perspective, Alexius’ defeat against Robert is due to the negligence of certain

207 Comnena, Anna. p. 83.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

105

elements of his army, mainly the Varangians. This proved that even though the

Varangians have been Hellenized for years, their barbarian nature is still able to take control which make them less reliable than full Greeks. Greeks are expected to have self-restrain and emotional control (sophrosune), while the Varangians who are only half-Greeks still fall victim to their barbarian flaw, lack of self-restrain (akolasia). b. Depiction of Italus

Lastly, this thesis explores another portrayal of semi-barbarian in the depiction of Italus. As his name implies, Italus is not ethnically Greek but he comes from Sicily in Italy. Anna narrates Italus’ origin and his venture to Constantinople as:

Now this Italus (for it is necessary to give his history from the beginning), was a native of Italy and had spent a considerable time in Sicily; this is an island situated near Italy…. When the famous George Maniaces during the reign of Monomachus mastered and subdued Sicily, the father of Italus which his child only escaped with difficulty and betook themselves in their flight to Lombardy which was still under the Romans. From there (I do not know how) this Italus came to Constantinople, which was not ill supplied with teachers of every subject and of the art of language. (Comnena 94)

Italus’ status as a semi-barbarian is particularly interesting to explore here because Anna illustrates Italus’ acquisition of Greek paideia. As a Western European, the depiction of Italus highlights how Anna as a Greek consider the West also as barbarian. During his time in Constantinople, Italus is depicted to learn Greek culture, custom, and education. Through her focalization, Anna asserts that Italus has never been able to fully grasp the full extent of Greek paideia. She especially mocks Italus’ weakness in pronunciation and grammar, she believes that Italus lacks grace in his speech and writing:

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

106

He stumbled over grammar and had never tasted the nectar of rhetoric. Consequently, his language was not adaptable nor at all polished. For the same reason, too, his character was austere and entirely unadorned with grace…. His pronunciation was such as you would expect of a Latin who had come to our country as a young man and learnt Greek thorough fully but was not quite clear in his articulation, for he mutilated his syllables here and there. This want of clearness in his utterance and his dropping the last letters did not escape even ordinary people and made rhetoricians call him “rustic” in his speech. (Comnena 95-96)

Through her focalization, Anna summarizes Italus’ various faults, which lies in his weaknesses in grammar, uneducated in rhetoric and also his garbled and unclear pronunciation. This is contrasted with Anna’s own education; Anna proudly asserts that she is “not unpracticed”208 in rhetoric which implies that she learns rhetoric during her education. In contrary, Anna narrates how Italus “had never tasted the nectar of rhetoric”, which causes his language to be unpolished and “without grace.”

In Anna’s perspective, Italus’ inability to fully grasp and learn Greek is caused by his inherent nature as barbarian. Anna states that,

Italus, then, became this man (Michael Psellus)’s disciple, but he was never able to plumb the depths of philosophy for he was of such as boorish and barbarous disposition that he could not endure teachers even when learning from them. He was full of daring and barbarous rebelliousness and even before learning a thing, imagined he surpassed everybody else and from the very start he entered the lists against Psellus himself. (Comnena 94)

Anna asserts that Italus possesses “boorish and barbarous disposition” and also

“barbarous rebelliousness”. Anna states that as a Latin barbarian, Italus’ wild and uncivilized nature causes him to be unable fully learn Greek paideia and be considered as Full-Greeks. She claims that the uncultured nature of the Latins causes

208 Comnena, Anna. p. 4.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

107

them to be unable to grasp the sophisticated culture of the Greeks, as illustrated in the example of Italus. Furthermore, Anna explores Italus’ arrogance through embedded focalization; she describes how Italus arrogantly perceives himself to be already superior to his teacher even “before learning a thing”. Anna further addresses how

Italus “could not endure teachers” and even imagined that he already “surpassed everybody else”. Hence, Italus is depicted to be unwilling to learn Greek paideia through fully because in Italus’ perspective, he already surpasses his Greek teachers.

Anna further addresses another flaw of Italus, his temper and wildness

(agriotes). Italus’ savage nature is emphasized by how Anna focalizes that Italus even uses physical violence, such as punching during a debate. She narrates it as:

In other ways he was most unrefined, and subject to violent temper; and this fierce temper annulled and obliterated the credit he gained from his learning. For in arguments, this man used fists as well as words and he did not allow his interlocutor simply to lose himself in embarrassing nor was he satisfied with sewing up his opponent’s mouth and condemning him to silence, but forthwith his hand flew out to tear his beard and hair, and insult quickly followed insult, in fact the man could not be restrained in the use of his hands and tongue. (Comnena 95)

Anna emphasizes Italus’ violent attitude by how he is depicted to use physical violence during a debate, “by fists as well as words.” The use of physical violence such as punching during a debate is condemned by Anna as a barbarian habit, civilized Greeks should eloquently use language to create an argument rather than use physicality. She concludes that Italus still act as a barbarian through his behavior.

To summarize, another different ideological perspectives is the type of barbarians depicted. As the emphasis of Alexander Romance is on Alexander’s

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

108

conquest, the narrator depicts Alexander to not only conquer real barbarians but also mythical barbarians such as the centaurs and the Ochlitiae. The depiction of mythical barbarians in Alexander Romance are based on the portrayal of the Persians barbarians who are ignorant (amathia) and cowardly (deilia). They are defeated by the superior cunning and intelligence (xunesis) of Alexander as a Greek. On the other hand, Alexiad focuses more on how the barbarians are Hellenized through their adoption of Hellenic culture and custom (paideia). Through Anna’s narration, it can be noted that the Byzantines still consider the semi barbarians as more barbarian than

Greeks. Anna emphasizes how the semi barbarians still possess various barbarian flaws. One example is how Italus as a Latin barbarian is unable to fully embrace

Hellenism because of his boorish and uncultured nature. Furthermore, Italus still embrace his wild nature (agriotes) in his use of physical violence during a debate, which is not how a civilized Greek should behave.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis, this thesis argues that both Alexander Romance and

Alexiad reflect the colonial ideology of the Greeks. Similar with how the modern colonizers proclaim their superiority to the natives through literature, Alexander

Romance and Alexiad also conceptualize the supremacy of Hellenic culture compared to the barbarian. The emphasis of the thesis is to compare and contrast two Greek texts from different era, hence this thesis formulates it into two questions:

1. How do Alexander Romance and Alexiad depict the similarities of ideology

between ancient Greek and Byzantine Greek?

2. How do Alexander Romance and Alexiad depict the differences of ideology

between ancient Greek and Byzantine Greek?

Through the aforementioned questions, the analysis focuses on analyzing the similarities and differences of ideological conception. The third chapter examines the similarities of colonial ideology, while the fourth chapter gives emphasis in the differences of ideology.

The analysis is conducted through postcolonial narratology as the framework.

Postcolonial narrative analysis focuses on analyzing how several narrative devices in the texts actually reflect the ideological positioning of the narrators as Greek colonizers. The method of analysis is textual analysis, focusing on analyzing several narrative devices through postcolonial lens. Several theories used, both on the

109

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

110

narratological aspect and postcolonialism have been reviewed on the second chapter.

This thesis uses several narratological devices such as focalization, embedded focalization, prolepsis, and also pause to argue that these devices actually reflect the ideological positioning of both narrators. Several postcolonial terminologies such as colonialism, the Other, and also colonial complicity highlight how the Greeks place themselves in a more privileged position compared to the barbarian and how the

Egyptians are also complicit in the process of colonialism.

In the succeeding paragraphs, this thesis reviews the analysis in the third and fourth chapter. The recount of the analysis is divided into three main parts. Firstly, this thesis explores the nature of both focalizers in Alexander Romance and Alexiad as the narrator of Alexander Romance employs “we” focalization, while on the contrary Anna as the narrator in Alexiad uses “I” focalization. Secondly, this thesis reviews the similarities of colonial ideology, and lastly the emphasis is on the differences of ideological positioning.

Analyzed from narratological perspective, although both narrators are external focalizers they narrate the story in a different way. Firstly, the narrator of

Alexander Romance uses “we” focalization, the narrator claims to represent the communal voice of the Greeks. Although historically Callisthenes was the one who recorded Alexander’s campaign, he was executed before the end of Alexander’s

Indian Campaign. As the person who completed Alexander Romance remained unknown, it is attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes instead. The use of “we” focalization makes it is hard to correctly attribute the narration of Alexander Romance to a

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

111

specific person, as the narrator does not emphasize a personal subjective voice but instead the narrator claims to represent the Greeks as a whole.

On the contrary, as Anna wrote a historiography, from narratological perspective she is both the author and the narrator of Alexiad. She uses “I” focalization, different from the narrator of Alexander Romance. This is mainly highlighted in her usage of pause, where she pauses her narration to remark on a particular issue. Her subjectivity mainly manifests in her usage of pause, as it is mainly related with her personal opinion. Even though both the narrator of Alexander

Romance and Anna narrate the story in a different way, both narrators proclaim the superiority of the Greeks through Alexander and Alexius’ achievement in warfare.

They consider that Alexander and Alexius’ success in war is the proof for the superiority of the Greeks. Through focalization and embedded focalization, both narrators portray Alexander and Alexius positively as agathos, while their opponents are considered as their inferior, due to their status as barbarian kings.

After reviewing the narratological status of both narrator focalizers, this thesis recounts the similarities of ideological positioning. The similar ideology is mainly related with the glorification of Alexander and Alexius as model Greek (agathos) which the narrators consider as the proof for the superiority of the Greeks. Alexander and Alexius are depicted to be successful conquerors due to their possession of several Hellenic virtues, mainly intelligence (xunesis) and bravery (andreia) which make them prevail against their enemies. On the other hands, their enemies, Darius and Apelchasem are portrayed stereotypically as barbarian kings, which are ignorant

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

112

(amathia) and cowardly (deilia). The depictions are actually not factual representation, as it is countered by several historical accounts of both Darius and

Apelchasem. While this thesis still does not find the rewriting of Darius and

Apelchasem which place them as the figure of resistance, it is possible that postcolonial rewriting of Darius and Apelchasem exist.

Although there is similarity of ideology between Alexander Romance and

Alexiad, there is also difference in ideological perspective. One difference is on the different religious paradigm between Greeks during the time of Alexander and the medieval Greeks as depicted in Alexiad. The narrator of Alexander Romance employs prolepsis in form of prophecies and dreams to legitimize the conquest of Alexander.

The narrator considers that Alexander’s conquest of Egypt is justified because

Ammon orders Alexander to establish a city opposite the isle of Proteus which lies in

Egypt. On the contrary, Anna as a Byzantine Greek is hostile toward the idea of prophecy. She claims that prophecy causes people to lessen their faith towards God and instead practicing astrology to predict their fate. During the era of Byzantium, prophecies is considered as superstitious and mythical rites, practiced by the Egyptian

Other. Not only it is forbidden by Orthodox Christian doctrine, Anna also does not herself to be associated with the mythical rites of the Egyptians, whom she believed to still practice paganism.

Second differing ideological perspective is the type of barbarian portrayed.

Alexander Romance portrays an idealized account of Alexander’s conquest. The narrator of Alexander Romance focuses more on Alexander’s subjugation of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

113

barbarians, not only towards real barbarians but also mythical barbarians. Several mythical barbarians in Alexander Romance represent the barbarian Other in the

Greek’s consciousness. The Ochiltae and the centaurs are marked by their bestiality and savagery (agriotes), stupidity (amathia) and also cowardice (deilia). Their bestial aspect, different physical appearance is looked by the Greeks with curiosity and amazement. The Greeks are depicted to capture several beasts, which symbolizes their conquest to the savage Other.

Different with Alexander Romance, Alexiad explores more on the issue of

Hellenized barbarian (mixobarbaroi) in Alexiad. As this text was written when the

Greeks already established their imperium, the focus is more on how the barbarians are Hellenized. Through Anna’s focalization, how the Byzantine Greeks perceive the

Hellenized barbarian can be seen. Anna believes that the Hellenized barbarians are still by nature inferior to the Greeks. Although they have been Hellenized by Greek paideia, they still inhibit several barbarian vices, mainly lack of self-restraint

(akolasia) and also wild and uncultured nature (agriotes). These flaws cause the

Byzantine Greeks to consider the semi-barbarians more as barbarian rather than

Greeks.

As concluding remarks, this thesis states the limitation of this research and suggestion for future researchers. The limitation of this thesis is that it only focuses on Greek colonial ideology through the binary opposition between Greeks and barbarians. As the focus is on the binarism, this thesis does not analyze the ambivalent relationship between the Greeks and the natives. In the analysis, this

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

114

thesis focuses only on how the Egyptians are complicit in Greek colonialism, without considering the resistance towards Greek occupation. Regarding the issue of resistance, Darius and Apelchasem can be read as figure of resistance against the foreign domination of the Greeks.

Lastly, this thesis concludes that postcolonial narratology is able to probe the ideological implication behind literature. Furthermore, postcolonial narratology can also be applied in other texts. While this thesis focuses more on ancient and medieval colonialism, the analysis on textual narrative structure can be used to analyze subtler neo colonialism of modern era. Although direct colonialism has largely ended, colonialism still continue through economic exploitation of the former colonies. An analysis on the narrative form and structure can help probe the subtler colonialism in the contemporary world.

As a suggestion for future researchers, it is hoped that this study can be enhanced by a contrapuntal reading of text, as stated by Ashcroft et al, contrapuntal reading focuses on revealing the deep implication of texts in imperialism and colonial process.209 Furthermore, Said addresses that these type of reading should not only focus on the process of colonialism and the complicity of the colonized, but also the resistance of the colonized.210 As previously illustrated, the resistance against Greek colonialism is a possible avenue for future scholars.

209 Ashcroft, Bill. Griffiths, Gareth and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts Second Edition. ((New York: Routledge, 2000) p. 49 210 Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. (New York: Vintage Books, 1994) p. 66-67.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Alexander the Great was voted as the Greatest Greek of All Time.” Web, 17 December 2015. < http://history-of-macedonia.com/2009/05/19/alexander- the-great-was-voted-as-the-greatest-greek-all-time> PDF

Adkins, Arthur W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Reprinted.1975. PDF

Arian. The Campaigns of Alexander. London: Penguins Book, 1976. Trans. Aubrey De Selincourt. Ed. J.R. Hamilton. PDF.

Ashcroft, Bill. Griffiths, Gareth and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts Second Edition. New York: Routledge, 2000. PDF

Badian, Ernst. “Darius III” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 100. (2000) 20 May 2016 2015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788284 >

Callisthenes, Pseudo. The Greek Alexander Romance. London: Penguins Books, 1991. Trans. Richard Stonemann. PDF

Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. London: Penguin Books, 1969. Reprint. Penguin Classics, 2003. Trans. E.R.A Sewter. PDF

----. The Alexiad. London: Routledge, 1928. Reprinted. Ontario, In Parentheses Publication, 2000. Trans. Elizabeth A.S Dawes. PDF

Davis, John. “Anna Komnene and Niketas Choniates ‘translated’ “the fourteenth- century Byzantine metaphrases.” History as Literature in Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007. Ed. R.J. Macrides. Surrey: University of Birmingham, 2007. PDF de Angelis, Franco. “Colonies and Colonization.” The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Ed. George Boys-Stones et al. PDF.

----. de Angelis, Franco. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ed. Michael Gagarin and Elaine Fantham. PDF

De Jong, Irene. “Introduction: Narratological Theory of Narrators, Narratees, and Narrative.” Narrators, ` Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Ed. Irene De Jong, Rene Nunlist and Angus M.Bowie. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004. PDF

115

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

116

Doyle. Michael W. Empires. New York: Cornell University Press, 1986. PDF

Dyck. Andrew R. “Iliad and Alexiad: Anna Comnena’s Homeric Reminiscences” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27 (1986). p. 115-116. Web, 28 October 2015. < http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/5121/5389>

Ferry, Jules. Qtd in Conklin, Alice L. A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1989-1930. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. PDF.

Frankopan, Peter. “Kinship and the Distribution of Power in Komnenian Byzantium.” The English Historical Review. 122. (2007) Web, 7 September 2015. PDF < http://www.jstor.org/stable/20108202>

Genette, Gerard. Fictions and Dictions. New York: Cornell University Press, 1993. Trans. Catherine Porter. PDF.

----. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. New York: Cornell University Press, 1980. Trans. Jane E Lewin. Print.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971. Trans. Carl Marzani. PDF

Green, Peter. Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007. PDF

Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self Definition through Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. PDF

Hallsall, Paul. Web, 23 May 2016. < http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena- Alexiad.asp>

Hansen, M.H. Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006. PDF

Hardwock, Lorna and Eva Parisinou. Translating Words, Translating Cultures. Oakland: University of California, 2000. PDF

Heit, Helmut. “Western Identity, Barbarians and the Inheritance of Greek Universalism.” The European Legacy, 10. 7. (2005), Web. 02 September, 2015 https://www.academia.edu/546983/Western_Identity_Barbarians_and_the _Inheritance_of_Greek_Universalism

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

117

Herman, David. Jahn, Manfred and Marie-Laure Ryan. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 2005. PDF.

Herman, Luc and Vervaeck, Bart. “Ideology” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed. David Herman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.

Holdsworth, Benjamin, Evans (2009) Reading Romans in Rome: A Reception of Romans in the Roman Context of Ethnicity and Faith. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/214/

Isocrates, Qtd in Kardellis, Anthony. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. PDF.

Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi. The Occult Science in Byzantium Geneva: La Pomme d'or Publishing, 2006. p. 12. PDF

McInerley, Jeremy. “Arian and The Greek Alexander Romance.” The Classical World. 100.4 (2007). Web, 2 December 1015. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/25434052> p.424-430

Mesko, Marek. “Anna Komnene’s Narrative of the War against the Scythians.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 19 (2014). PDF.

Mitchell, Lynette G. Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece. Swansea, Classical Press of Wales, 2007. PDF

Neville, Leonora. “Lamentation, History, and Female Authorship in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013). PDF.

Nicolaidis, Efthimios. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 2011. Trans. Susan Emanuel. PDF

Nida, Eugene and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Reprinted. 1982. PDF

Nkamanyang, Pepertua. Forms and Function of Narration and Focalization in some Selected Poems of Lord Bryon: A Narratological Analysis. Diss. University of Giessen, 2008. Web. 17 December 2015.

Nunning, Ansgar. “Narratology of Narratologies? Taking Stock of Recent Developments, Critique and Modest Proposals for Future Uses of the

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

118

Term” What is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. PDF

----. “Surveying Contextualist and Cultural Narratologies: Toward an Outline of Approaches, Concepts, and Potentials”. Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2009. PDF

Oxeites, John. Quoted in Stankovic, Vlade and Albrecht Berger. “The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the Building of the Pantokrator Complex.” The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc, 2013. Ed. Sofia Kotzabassi. PDF

Parmenter, Christoper S. Ethnography and the Colonial World in Theocritus and Lucian. MA Thesis. University of Oregon, 2013. Web, 30 November 2016. PDF

Perloff, Marjorie. “Literature in the Expanded Field”. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1995. Ed. Charles Bernheimer. Print.

Philophonus, Quoted in Nicolaidis, Ethimios. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: from the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization.

Pratt, Marie Louise. Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992. PDF.

Prawer, Siegbert. Quoted in Basnett, Susan. Comparative Literature. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd. 1993. Print.

Prince, Gerald. “On a Postcolonial Narratology.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. Ed. James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz. PDF.

Richardson, Brian. Plural Focalization, Singular Voices; Wandering Perspectives in We- Narration.” Point of View, Perspective and Focalization, Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Ed. Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. PDF

Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. “Towards…Afterthoughts, Almost Twenty Years Later,” Narrative Theory Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. Mieke Bal. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.

----. Narrative Fiction, Contemporary Fiction. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 1983. Reprinted. 2005.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

119

Rinon, Yoav. “The Pivotal Scene: Narration, Colonial Focalization, and the Transition in Odyssey 9.” The American Journals of Philology. 128.3 (2007), p. 301-334. Web. 31 March 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4496968

Sacks, David. Murray, Oswyn, and Margaret Bunson. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World New York: Facts on File, 1995. PDF

Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books, 1994. PDF

----. Orientalism. London: Penguins Book, 1978, Reprint.1995. Print.

Scheidel, W. “The Greek Demographic Expansion: Models and Comparison.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 123 (2003) Web, 29 February 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3246263 p. 120-140. PDF

Shaffer, Lynda N and George J. Marcopouolos. “Murasaki and Comnena : Two Women and Two Themes in World History.” The History Teacher. 19.4 (1986) Web. 23 May 2016. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/493874> PDF

Shakernia, Shabnam. “Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories” Merit Research Journals. 2.1 (2013) Web. 09 March 2016. >http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/er/index.htm> PDF

Stathakopoulos, Dionysios. A Short History of the Byzantine Empire. London, I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2014. PDF

Stoneman, Richard. “Primary Sources from the Classical and Early Medieval Periods” A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages. Ed. David Zuwiyya. Leiden: Brill Academic Pub, 2011. PDF

Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Civilization. London, World Pub. Co, 1961. PDF.

Thomas, Joseph. The Universal Dictionary of Biography and Mythology: A-Clu. New York: Cosino Classics, 2009. PDF

Tucker, Irwin St. John. A History of Imperialism. New York: Rand School of Social Science, 1920. PDF

Tymoczko, Maria. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Michigan: University of Michigan St. Jerome Publishing, 1999. PDF

Van Amsterdam, Katrina. “When in Greece, Do as the Persian Don’t: Defining the Identity of the Greeks Against the Persian Imperial Order.” Hirundo

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

120

XIII (2013), Web. 3 November 2015. https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2013-14-02.pdf p. 1-16.

Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. “The Romans and Us, Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity.” Mnemosyne. 56. (2003), Web, 7 October 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4433447 p. 257-272.

Vilimonovic, Larisa. “Observation of the Text and Context of Anna Comnena’s Alexiad” Belgrade Historical Review. V (2014), p. 43-58. Web, 1 June 2015. http://www.academia.edu/10361876/Observations_on_the_text_and_conte xt_of_Anna_Komnenes_Alexiad

Vuorela, Ulla. ““Colonial Complicity: The Postcolonial in a Nordic Context”. Complying with Colonialism: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region. Ashgate: Surrey, 2009. Ed. Suvi Keskiken et al. PDF

Vyronis, Speros. “Greek Identity in the Middle Ages” EB 6. (1999) p. 31. PDF

Zonaras, John. Quoted in Kazhdan, Alexander and Simon Franklin. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. p. 59. PDF

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF ALEXANDER ROMANCE

Nectanebo, the last pharaoh of Egypt is defeated by the barbarians and he escaped into Pella, Macedonia. In there he impregnates Queen Olympias, who later gives birth to Alexander. Alexander grows up, educated by Aristotle. After his father is assassinated, he ascends to the Macedonian throne and embarks on a

Pan Hellenic expedition to conquer Persian Empire, ruled by Darius. Alexander first marches into Egypt, where an oracle of god Ammon gives him instructions where to found the city that will be named Alexandria. Alexander is received as the descendant of Nectanebo and the heir of Egypt.

Resuming his campaign against Darius, he crosses the Euphrates river and camps outside the Persian capital of Babylon. Alexander uses various tricks to demoralize the Persians and visits the Persian court in disguise. In a vicious battle,

Darius is defeated and he flees into his Eastern provinces, He is killed by one of his satraps (governor) who is dissatisfied with him. By Darius’ death, Alexander claims the throne of the Persian Empire.

In his further expedition, Alexander ventures into India and encounters king Porus. After he defeats Porus, he journeys towards the strange regions of the

East. He is described to meet strange beasts and encounters exotic lands. After his expedition, he returns to his new capital in Babylon where he is assassinated by his cupbearer Lolaus.

121

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

122

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF ALEXIAD

Alexius Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantine Empire has been campaigning since he was fourteen years old. During his services in several emperors he defeats many enemies and receiving much fame. Through a coup d’état, Alexius usurps the throne from Nicephorus Botaniates. Upon ascending to the throne, he finds that the empire is threatened in all directions. The Turks of the East are grievously harassing the frontiers, they even reached the outside of

Constantinople itself. After Alexius managed to stabilize the situation, immediately he is called to counter another invasion, this time from the Normans in the West lead by Robert of Apulia. Although Alexius is unable to defeat Robert directly, after the death of Robert the Normans is able to be driven back.

Another opponent threatens the security of the empire, this time the nomadic Scythians (Pechenegs) from the North. The battles are hard fought and ranging several years, yet eventually Alexius managed to defeat and enslave the remaining Scythians. Although Alexius is a skillful general, the Byzantines are outnumbered by the Turks and unable to venture deeper into Anatolia (modern

Turkey). He asks the Western European for military assistance, which nowadays is known as the Crusade. Through the help from the Crusaders, Alexius is able to regain control of much of Anatolia. Even until his old age, Alexius keeps on campaigning in the East. He died of illness, after his return from an eastern expedition.