DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 i PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI A TMSIS GREEKAND THE OTHf,R: NARRATIVIE ANALYSIS oN PSETIDO CALLISTHENES' ALEXANDER ROMANCE AI\TD ANNA COMNENA'S ALEXIAD by 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 iv 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [Show full text]
  • The Date of the First Pythiad-Again Alden A
    MOSSHAMMER, ALDEN A., The Date of the First Pythiad - Again , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:1 (1982:Spring) p.15 The Date of the First Pythiad-Again Alden A. Mosshammer OST HISTORIANS have long agreed that the first in the regular M series of Pythian festivals celebrated every four years at Del­ phi took place in 58211. Now H. C. Bennett and more re­ cently S. G. Miller have argued that we should instead follow Pausa­ nias in dating the first Pythiad to 586/5, because the Pindaric scho­ liasts, they maintain, reckon Pythiads from that year. 1 The debate is an old one, but it has important implications for our understanding of the sequence of events at the time of the First Sacred War. Bennett and Miller have rightly criticized the excessive claims that have been made for some of the evidence; and Miller, in particular, has offered some important new insights into the problem. The argument in favor of 58211 nevertheless remains the stronger case. It needs to be presented once again, both to take these new objections into account and to elucidate the tradition that has given rise to the debate. I. The Problem According to the Parian Marble, our earliest evidence (264/3), the Amphictyons celebrated a victory against Cirrha by dedicating a por­ tion of the spoils as prizes for a chrematitic festival celebrated in 59110, and again the games became stephani tic in 582/1. 2 Pausanias 1 H. C. BENNETT, "On the Systemization of Scholia Dates for Pindar's Pythian Odes," HSCP 62 (1957) 61-78; STEPHEN G.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • ANDREW COLLINS, Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander's Divine
    Callisthenes on Olympias and Alexander’s Divine Birth Andrew Collins The proclamation of Alexander’s divine sonship at Siwah is universally acknowledged to have been of great importance to the steps that led to his later demand for divine honours. But the issue of whether Alexander already held a belief that he was son of a god before he travelled to Siwah is an equally important research question. Already a number of scholars have argued that Alexander believed in his divine sonship before Egypt,1 and I wish to strengthen that case in this paper by arguing that Arrian, Anabasis 4.10.2—a passage ascribing to Callisthenes a remark about Olympias’ stories concerning Alexander’s divine birth—has a greater claim to historicity than has hitherto been thought. First, some prefatory remarks on the notion of divine sonship are pertinent. Alexander’s assertion of divine sonship during his life did not make him a true god or fully divine in Greek thought or culture.2 For the Greeks, a man fathered by a god with a human mother during his lifetime was rather like a demigod of Homeric myth, on a par with the heroes of the mythic times, such as Heracles, Perseus and the Dioscuri. Homer, above all, uses the word “hero” of his living warriors, a subset of whom were sons of one divine and one human parent.3 The child of such a union was not an Olympian god, with the attributes and supernatural powers of the cosmic deities. One must also distinguish between the hero conceived as (1) a living man who was the son of a god (the sense in which the word is used by Homer), and (2) the hero as a powerful spirit of a dead human being, who received 1 E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Greek Alexander Romance Free Ebook
    FREETHE GREEK ALEXANDER ROMANCE EBOOK Richard Stoneman | 208 pages | 05 Nov 1991 | Penguin Books Ltd | 9780140445602 | English | London, United Kingdom Alexander Romance - Wikipedia Alexander romanceany of a body of legends about the career of Alexander the Greattold and retold with varying emphasis and purpose by succeeding ages and civilizations. The chief source of all Alexander romance literature was a folk epic written in Greek by a Hellenized Egyptian in Alexandria during the 2nd century ad. Surviving translations and copies make its reconstruction possible. It portrayed Alexander as a national messianic herothe natural son of an Egyptian wizard-king by the wife of Philip II of Macedon. In later romances, however, marvels and exotic anecdotes predominated and gradually eclipsed the historical personality. This work inspired the Alexanderlied by the German poet Lamprecht der Pfaffe. An The Greek Alexander Romance poet, Thomas of Kent, wrote the Roman de toute chevalerie toward the end of the 12th century, and about this was remodeled to become the Middle English romance of King Alisaunder. Italian Alexander romances began to appear during the 14th century, closely followed by versions in Swedish, Danish, Scots, and dating from a little earlier in the Slavic languages. The Arabs, expanding Syrian versions of the legend, passed them on to the many peoples with whom they came in contact. Alexander romance literature declined in the late 12th century, and, with the revival of classical scholarship during the Renaissance, historical accounts displaced the Alexander romances. Alexander romance Article Additional Info. Print Cite. Facebook Twitter. Give Feedback The Greek Alexander Romance Websites. Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article requires login.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction KONSTANTIN DOULAMIS University College Cork This collection of articles originated in the colloquium ‘The Ancient Novel and its Reception of Earlier Literature’, which was held at University Col- lege Cork in August 2007, with funding from UCC’s Faculty of Arts and the Classics Department. As the conference theme indicates, the purpose of that two-day event was to explore the reception of antecedent literature in Greek and Roman narratives, to consider ways in which earlier texts are assimilated in prose fiction, and to reflect on the implications that this assimilation may have for our understanding of the works discussed. The colloquium, which comprised papers on a variety of texts, from the ‘canonical’ Greek romances and the Roman novels to Alexander’s Letter about India and the Alexander Romance, gave birth to stimulating discussions, both in and out of confe- rence sessions, in a relaxed yet productive ambience of fruitful academic exchange, constructive criticism and collegiality, and yielded some interest- ing conclusions. The following are some of the main questions that were raised and de- bated during the colloquium: Is the ancient novel distinctive in its reception of earlier literary production? To what extent can we talk of a ‘sociology of reception’? Can intertextuality in the Greek and Roman narratives be used in order to define a specific type of reader or social model? What role does the author of a text play in all this? Should emphasis be placed on authorial in- tent or on textual relations? The revised version of the nine conference pa- pers collected here explore these and other similar broad questions, focusing on various types of literary echoes in ancient narratives.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Political Philosophy of Plutarch's Alexander
    “If I were not Alexander…” An Examination of the Political Philosophy of Plutarch’s Alexander- Caesar Richard Buckley-Gorman A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics 2016 School of Art History, Classics and Religious Studies 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………3 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 Chapter One: Plutarch’s Methodology…………………………………………………………….8 Chapter Two: The Alexander………………………………………………………………………….18 Chapter Three: Alexander and Caesar……………………………………………………………47 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………….71 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………….73 2 | P a g e Acknowledgements Firstly and foremost to my supervisor Jeff Tatum, for his guidance and patience. Secondly to my office mates James, Julia, Laura, Nikki, and Tim who helped me when I needed it and made research and writing more fun and less productive than it would otherwise have been. I would also like to thank my parents, Sue and Phil, for their continuous support. 3 | P a g e Abstract This thesis examines Plutarch’s Alexander-Caesar. Plutarch’s depiction of Alexander has been long recognised as encompassing many defects, including an overactive thumos and a decline in character as the narrative progresses. In this thesis I examine the way in which Plutarch depicts Alexander’s degeneration, and argue that the defects of Alexander form a discussion on the ethics of kingship. I then examine the implications of pairing the Alexander with the Caesar; I examine how some of the themes of the Alexander are reflected in the Caesar. I argue that the status of Caesar as both a figure from the Republican past and the man who established the Empire gave the pair a unique immediacy to Plutarch’s time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Pancrates and His Pow Ers
    ACTA CLASSICA XLVII (2004) 101-126 ISSN 0065-1141 THE APPRENTICE’S SORCERER: PANCRATES AND HIS POW ERS IN CONTEXT (LUCIAN, PHILOPSEUDES 33-36)∗ Daniel Ogden University of Exeter ABSTRACT The figure of the sorcerer Pancrates in Lucian’s tale of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice at Philopseudes 33-36 alludes to the traditions relating to Hadrian’s poet Pancrates Epicus and to those relating to his supposed magicial guru Pachrates. These traditions are argued to have had a common origin, and new arguments are advanced for this position. Lucian further exploits the significance of Pancrates’ name (‘All-powerful’) in relation to that of a well-established character-type within his stock-in-trade, Eucrates (‘Well- powerful’), who is accordingly cast in the role of his apprentice. Pancrates’ focal spell, the animation of the pestle for domestic service, reflects the themes and concerns of contempary magical practice as documented in the papyri. Admonitory Cynic imagery, of a sort found elsewhere in the Philopseudes, may be latent both in the figure of Pancates and in his pestle. The famous tale of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, now known principally from the works of Goethe and Disney,1 originates among the ‘lying’ stories related in Lucian’s dialogue Philopseudes or Lover of Lies.2 Here Tychiades gives his friend ∗ I acknowledge with gratitude the significant contributions made to the development of this paper by: the staff of the department of Classics, Near and Far Eastern and Religious Studies at UNISA; the staff of the Classics Department in the University of Natal at Pietermaritzburg, where an incunabular version was delivered in 2001; and the anonymous AClass referees.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ETHIOPIC ALEXANDER ROMANCE Peter Christos Kotar Introduction the Ethiopic Alexander Romance Is Written in the Old Ethiopic L
    CHAPTER SEVEN THE ETHIOPIC ALEXANDER ROMANCE Peter Christos Kotar Introduction The Ethiopic Alexander romance is written in the old Ethiopic language Ge’ez, a Semitic language, belonging to the south-Semitic branch.1 Ge’ez has been used in literature from the 4th century on in the north- ern part of Ethiopia (Eritrea). Center of the Ethiopic culture after 100 A.D. was the city of Aksum. Shortly after 340, the kingdom of Aksum was Christianized.2 In the 13th century, beginning with the so-called “Salomonian dynasty” (1270–1285), founded by Jekuno Amlak, a new orientation of Ethiopic literature took place with a strong dependence on the Christian-Arabic literature of the Coptic church of Egypt.3 In this golden era of Ethiopic literature, at the end of the 14th century, falls the Zēnā Eskender [history of Alexander the Great], a genuine creation of Ethiopic literature, not to be confused with the Alexan- der romance of Pseudo-Callisthenes (PC).4 Later, both the 16th and 17th centuries were further high points of Ethiopic literature. Dur- ing this period, the monastery of Dabra Libanos was the most impor- tant center of Arabo-Ethiopic translation.5 It can be assumed that the 1 J. Tropper, Altäthiopisch. Grammatik des Ge’ez mit Übungstext und Glossar. pp. 1–3; F. Prätorius, Äthiopische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Litteratur, Chrestoma- thie und Glossar. pp. 3–4; T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Ge’ez); S. Procházka, Altäthiopische Studiengrammatik. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Subsidia linguistica 2; O. Raineri, Introduzione alla lingua Ge’ez. 2 Ge’ez as language of the clergy is still used in the Ethiopic church as language of the scripts and liturgy.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan
    Court Intrigue and the Death of Callisthenes Lara O’Sullivan MPLICATED IN A PLOT by the Royal Pages (the basilikoi paides) against Alexander’s life in Bactria in 327 B.C.E., the historian I Callisthenes was condemned as a traitor and died—either tortured and hanged, or imprisoned and carted about with the army until disease brought about his death.1 His demise marks something of a nadir in Alexander’s reign; indeed, centuries after the fact, Curtius could claim that no one’s execution incited greater resentment of Alexander among the Greeks (nullius caedes maiorem apud Graecos Alexandro excitavit invidiam).2 The reason for that resentment is not difficult to discover. Despite the avowals of the Alexander-apologists that the Pages had implicated Cal- listhenes, his supposed involvement in the plot was unsupported by evidence. Arrian concedes as much, observing that most traditions had no indication of Callisthenes’ guilt, while Plutarch cites a letter purportedly written by the king himself in the im- mediate aftermath of the conspiracy, in which the Pages were said to have confessed under torture that the conspiracy was en- tirely their own, and that nobody else was cognizant of the plot.3 The underlying cause of Callisthenes’ downfall is, instead, 1 For Callisthenes’ fate Arr. 4.14.3 cites divergent accounts by Ptolemy FGrHist 138 F17 (put to death; so too Curt. 8.8.21) and Aristobulus FGrHist 139 F 33 (died while imprisoned). Aristobulus clearly based his account on Chares (FGrHist 125 F 15 = Plut. Alex. 55.9). 2 Curt. 8.8.22.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Return to Greece in the Alexander Romance
    Alexander’s Return to Greece in the Alexander Romance Benjamin Garstad HE ALEXANDER ROMANCE, a largely fictional account of Alexander the Great, is full of odd and arresting T discrepancies with the more trustworthy historical accounts of the conqueror’s career. The route of the campaign described in the Romance is not the least of these inconsistencies, taking Alexander, as it does, along roads he never traveled and to places he never saw. Perhaps the oddest and most remark- able deviation from the historical record in the Romance’s version of Alexander’s itinerary is not a visit to some unlikely, exotic, or fabulous locale, but his return to Greece in the midst of his eastern campaign. Whereas, in fact, Alexander crossed the Hellespont never to see Macedonia or Greece again, in the Romance he comes back to put down an uprising of the Greeks and lay waste Thebes before he finally defeats Darius and completes the conquest of the Persian Empire. As Stoneman notes, the narrative here is “[l]ike a film running in reverse,”1 and the effect can be just as comical and disconcerting. Even the Romance’s idiosyncratic deviation has its own dis- crepancies, since the Romance survives in several identifiable versions, or recensions, each marked by its distinctive ad- ditions, omissions, and elaborations. The differences occur already in the two earliest verions: the α recension, represented by a single Greek manuscript, Parisinus graecus 1711 (A), Julius Valerius’ Latin translation (ca. 270–330), and the Armenian translation (ca. 500), and the later β recension, written after 1 Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (London 1991) 191 n.44.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creative Reception of the Alexander Romance in Iran
    The Creative Reception of the Alexander Romance in Iran Ulrich Marzolph hen the Greek emperor Alexander died, aged 33, in the year 323 BCE, his life and career destined him to become the ideal model W for the topos of valiant hero and reckless conqueror. Considering his conquest of more or less the whole world known to the Greek culture of his day, he would even become the quintessential expression of a world ruler. In world literature, no other historical character plays a similarly significant role. No other character has been portrayed so often and in so many different ways in historical literature, in epics, romances, and legends, in songs and dramatic poetry, in works of pious edification and in prophetic revelations.1 In terms of geography, the narrative tradition dealing with Alexander covers primarily the whole of Europe and the Near and Middle East. In terms of chronology, it has stayed alive and vibrant, albeit with changing notions, from the earliest versions up to the very present. As a matter of fact, the Alexander tradition is so overwhelmingly present in both space and time that in a historical perspective it is hard to think of any work of transnational narrative literature surpassing its popularity. Consequently, it was neither surprising nor coincidental that Alexander became the focus of scholarly attention towards the end of the second millennium CE, when his memory was celebrated in various conferences, large research projects, and numerous scholarly publications.2 The narrative tradition focusing on Alexander derives mostly from a work of late Greek antiquity that has erroneously been attributed to Greek historian Callisthenes (ca.
    [Show full text]