DOCSLIB.ORG

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander chapter 9 Greek History in a Roman Context: Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander Jesper Carlsen Alexander the Great was one of the most popular historical and iconic figures in the Second Sophistic. Two surviving works, Plutarch’s biography and Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander in seven books, are among the most important literary sources for the life of the Macedonian king,1 but the subject of this chapter is not the myth or reality of Alexander the Great. The focus of this chapter is a contextual reading of Arrian’s work on Alexander, in order to discuss if or how it reflects a literary response to Roman power and institutions in the first half of second century CE. It explores the position of the Greek historian by looking not only at the four passages where he explicitly mentions Rome and the Romans in the Anabasis of Alexander, but it will also analyze two other episodes in the work that might be interpreted as implicit commentaries on the Roman Empire of Arrian’s own time. The dating of Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander is of course an essential issue, when the purpose is an analysis of the text in the light of contemporary his- tory, and the political career of Lucius Flavius Arrianus is, in broad outline, clear from his own literary works and epigraphical evidence.2 He was probably born about 84 CE and originated from Nicomedia. His cultural background and education was entirely Greek. In his youth Arrian attended the lectures of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus at Nicopolis in Epirus before entering Roman public service. It is uncertain when Arrian became a senator, but he presum- ably held the proconsulship of Baetica before being appointed consul suffectus about 129 CE. He was governor in the important frontier-province Cappadocia for at least six years but retired shortly before the death of Hadrian in 138 CE. Apparently Arrian left the imperial administration after his retirement, but he 1 See e.g. Anderson 1976: 171; Zecchini 1984; Anderson 1989: 145; Zeitlin 2001: 196; Whitmarsh 2005: 68–70; Asirvatham 2010; Desideri 2010. For Plutarch see also Hamilton 1969 and Hammond 1993. 2 For the life of Arrian see Halfmann 1979: 146–7; Bosworth 1980–95: I 1–7, II 1–2; Stadter 1980: 1–18; Syme 1982a; Bosworth 1988: 16–25; Fein 1994: 174–80; Madsen 2009: 68–70, and Romm 2010: 417–20. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004�78�88_��� Greek History in a Roman Context 211 did not settle in his hometown or in Rome. Instead he established himself at Athens where he held the eponymous archonship of 145/6 CE, which is the last information we have about his life.3 The reputation of Arrian is not due to this impressive political and admin- istrative career, although he was the first Greek Bithynian who entered the senate. It was his literary production, including the publications of Epictetus’ lectures and a brief handbook on these that made Arrian a famous philoso- pher already in Antiquity. The younger contemporary Lucian describes Arrian as ‘the pupil of Epictetus, a man among the first of the Romans, who consorted with culture (paideia) all his life’.4 Lucian’s remark is from the introduction of his work on Alexander the False Prophet, where he makes a brief comparison of the Alexander of Abonoteichos and the Macedonian king. As a justification of his own work Lucian adds that even Arrian wrote a biography of a brigand, so the context indicates that Lucian is playing with a double vision of Greek and Roman cultures in his characterization of Arrian.5 Unfortunately only eight of Arrian’s seventeen known works have survived. The most important of them, the Anabasis of Alexander, is our most completely preserved account of the Macedonian king. The inspiration from Xenophon’s Anabasis is obvious, and in the first paragraph of his later work on hunting, Cynegeticus, Arrian himself stresses the affinity with Xenophon ‘having the same name as he, and being of the same city, and having shared the same inter- ests from youth—hunting, generalship and philosophy.’6 The epigraphical evi- dence does not confirm that Arrian actually possessed the surname Xenophon, but he was celebrated by others as the ‘new Xenophon.’7 There is no exact reference in the seven books of the Anabasis of Alexander indicating when or where they were written. What Bosworth wrote more than fifteen years ago remains true: ‘The absolute date of the Alexander his- tory remains a stumbling block. Certainty is hardly attainable.’8 Three views dominate the debate. Bosworth himself holds the view that Arrian’s history of Alexander is a relatively early work, written in the period of Hadrian’s 3 Some of the controversial details of Arrian’s life and work include the time of his promotion to the senate and his early military activities. They are, however, not crucial for the argu- ments in this chapter that concentrates on his literary career. 4 Lucian, Alex. 2. Translated by C.P. Jones. Brunt 1977: 31. 5 For Lucian’s Alexander biography see Swain 1996: 324–8 and Whitmarsh 2005: 77–8. 6 Arr. Cyn. 1.4. Translated by M.M. Willcock. 7 See Ameling 1984; Bosworth 1993: 272–5, and Fein 1994:181–2 against Stadter 1980: 2–3. 8 Bosworth 1980–95: II 4..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop
    The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop N THE ANABASIS, Xenophon asserts that the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger was falsely accused of plotting a coup I d’état against King Artaxerxes II shortly after his accession to the throne in 404 BCE. Spared from execution by the Queen Mother Parysatis, Cyrus returned to Lydia determined to seize the throne for himself. He secretly prepared his rebellion by securing access to thousands of Greek hoplites, winning over Persian officials and most of the Greek cities of Ionia, and continuing to send tribute and assurances of his loyalty to the unsuspecting King (1.1).1 In Xenophon’s timeline, the rebellion was not official until sometime between the muster of his army at Sardis in spring 401, which spurred his rival Tissaphernes to warn Artaxerxes (1.2.4–5), and his arrival several months later at Thapsacus on the Euphrates, where Cyrus first openly an- nounced his true intentions (1.4.11). Questioning the “strange blindness” of Artaxerxes in light of Cyrus’ seemingly obvious preparations for revolt, Pierre Briant proposed an alternative timeline placing the outbreak of the rebellion almost immediately after Cyrus’ return to Sardis in late 404 or early 403.2 In his reconstruction, the King allowed Cyrus 1 See also Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 16.59, Diod. 14.19, Plut. Artax. 3–4. 2 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake 2002) 617–620. J. K. Anderson, Xenophon (New York 1974) 80, expresses a similar skepticism. Briant concludes his discussion by stating that the rebellion officially (Briant does not define “official,” but I take it to mean when either the King or Cyrus declared it publicly) began in 401 with the muster of Cyrus’ army at Sardis, but it is nonetheless appropriate to characterize Briant’s position as dating the official outbreak of the revolt to 404/3.
    [Show full text]
  • Anton Powell, Nicolas Richer (Eds.), Xenophon and Sparta, the Classical Press of Wales, Swansea 2020, 378 Pp.; ISBN 978-1-910589-74-8
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 27 (2020): 213–216 doi:10.4467/20800909EL.20.011.12801 www.ejournals.eu/electrum Anton Powell, Nicolas Richer (eds.), Xenophon and Sparta, The Classical Press of Wales, Swansea 2020, 378 pp.; ISBN 978-1-910589-74-8 The reviewed book is a collection of twelve papers, previously presented at the confe- rence organised by École Normale Supérieure in Lyon in 2006. According to the edi- tors, this is a first volume in the planned series dealing with sources of Spartan his- tory. The books that follow this will deal with the presence of this topic in works by Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch, and in archaeological material. The decision to start the cycle from Xenophon cannot be considered as surprising; this ancient author has not only written about Sparta, but also had opportunities to visit the country, person- ally met a number of its officials (including king Agesilaus), and even sent his own sons for a Spartan upbringing. Thus his writings are widely considered as our best source to the history of Sparta in the classical age. Despite this, Xenophon’s literary work remains the subject of numerous controver- sies in discussions among modern scholars. The question of his objectivity is especial- ly problematic and the views about the strong partisanship of Xenophon prevailed for a long time; allegedly, he was depicting Sparta and king Agesilaus in a possibly overly positive light, even omitting inconvenient information.1 In the second half of the 20th century such opinion has been met with a convincing polemic, clearly seen in the works of H.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • 09. Ch. 6 Huitink-Rood
    Histos Supplement ( ) – SUBORDINATE OFFICERS IN XENOPHON’S ANABASIS * Luuk Huitink and Tim Rood Abstract : This chapter focuses on Xenophon’s treatment of divisions within the command structure presented in the Anabasis , and in particular on three military positions that are briefly mentioned—the taxiarch, ὑποστράτηγος , and ὑπολόχαγος . Arguing against the prescriptive military hierarchies proposed in earlier scholarship, it suggests that ‘taxiarch’ should be understood fluidly and that the appearance of both the ὑποστράτηγος and the ὑπολόχαγος may be due to interpolation. The chapter also includes discussion of two types of comparative material: procedures for replacing dead, absent, or deposed generals at Athens and Sparta in the Classical period, and the lexical development of subordinate positions with the prefix ὑπο -. Keywords : Xenophon, Anabasis , subordinate commanders, taxiarch, ὑποστράτηγος , ὑπολόχαγος . enophon’s Anabasis has more often been broadly eulogised for its supposed depiction of the X democratic spirit of the Greek mercenaries whose adventures are recounted than analysed closely for the details it o?ers about the command structure of this ‘wandering republic’. 1 When Xenophon’s presentation of * References are to Xenophon’s Anabasis unless otherwise specified. Translations are adapted from the Loeb edition of Brownson and Dillery. We are grateful to Peter Rhodes for advice and to Simon Hornblower, Nick Stylianou, David Thomas, the editor, and the anonymous referee of Histos for comments on the whole article. Luuk Huitink’s work on this paper was made possible by ERC Grant Agreement n. B B (AncNar). 1 Krüger (E ) (‘civitatem peregrinantem’). On the command structure see Nussbaum (F) ‒E; Roy (F) EF‒; Lee ( F) ‒ , ‒ .
    [Show full text]
  • Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ALL THE KING’S GREEKS: MERCENARIES, POLEIS, AND EMPIRES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE A Dissertation in History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies by Jeffrey Rop © 2013 Jeffrey Rop Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ii The dissertation of Jeffrey Rop was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Munn Professor of Ancient Greek History and Greek Archaeology, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Gary N. Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Ancient History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Kenneth Hirth Professor of Anthropology Carol Reardon George Winfree Professor of American History David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies Graduate Program Director for the Department of History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Greek mercenary service in the Near East from 401- 330 BCE. Traditionally, the employment of Greek soldiers by the Persian Achaemenid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt during this period has been understood to indicate the military weakness of these polities and the superiority of Greek hoplites over their Near Eastern counterparts. I demonstrate that the purported superiority of Greek heavy infantry has been exaggerated by Greco-Roman authors. Furthermore, close examination of Greek mercenary service reveals that the recruitment of Greek soldiers was not the purpose of Achaemenid foreign policy in Greece and the Aegean, but was instead an indication of the political subordination of prominent Greek citizens and poleis, conducted through the social institution of xenia, to Persian satraps and kings.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • Women in Xenophon's Anabasis
    For there were many hetairai in the army: Women in Xenophon's ~4.nabasis 1 The mercenaries of Cyrus, the CyreaiLS, whose story Xenophon recounts in his Anabasis, are familiar figures to students of ancient warfare. 2 The women who accompanied the Cyreans for much of their march, in contrast, have so far received scant attention from historians more often interested in the details of tactics and leadership. 3 Nor is such neglect solely the fault of old~ fashioned military types, for even those who focus on the political and social aspects of the Anabasis army largely ignore its women4 What is more, although women make repeated appearances in Xenophon's narrative, scholars of women's roles and status in the ancient Greek have scarcely noticed their presence 5 This last omission appears all the more strildng, given the amount of scrutiny accorded recently to the category of the hetaira, and given that Xenophon several times describes women amongst the Cyreans as hetairai. 6 The histories of women and of warfare, it would seem, are not supposed to mix. Such an artificial boundary clearly invites brealdng, and the Anabasis provides invaluable material for the task. This essay examines Xenophon' s testimony on the origins and number of women amongst the Cyreans and the extent of their participation in the social life of the army. His narrative, as we shall see, indicates that at least some of the women who joined the Cyreans in the retreat from Cunaxa to the sea and thence to Byzantium became integral members of the soldiers' community.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrian the Personal Historian
    Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Arrian the Personal Historian Version 1.0 December, 2005 Kyle Lakin Stanford Department of Classics & Stanford Law School Abstract: Current scholarship ignores the personal nature of the second preface of Arrian's Anabasis. This preface reveals that the Anabasis can be read as a work about Arrian's own personal identity. Arrian's biographical history allows us to speculate that his identity was in flux throughout his life. By understanding the Anabasis as Arrian's way to claim to be a Greek, we can better interpret his characterization of Alexander. © Kyle Lakin. [email protected] Lakin 2 Arrian the Personal Historian In his Anabasis, Arrian claims his work about Alexander as a peculiarly personal triumph for a historian. He does not claim it to be a defining work for all mankind but rather to fulfill a personal goal that he has held since childhood. …a)ll0 e)kei~no a0nagra&fw, o3ti e0moi\ patri&j te kai\ ge&noj kai\ a0rxai\ oi#de oi( lo&goi ei)si& te kai\ a0po\ ne&ou e!ti e)ge0nonto. (I.12.5) ...But I write this because these words are country, family, and offices and have been since I was a child. Arrian claims that oi#de oi( lo&goi has been a work connected to his personal life unlike any other. Much discussion over the meaning of oi#de oi( lo&goi has shown that its interpretation depends mostly upon the view that an individual scholar holds concerning Arrian’s trustworthiness. It has been interpreted as everything from “this history” to “these writings” to “writing history” in an abstract sense.1 But the interpretation of this passage is crucial to our interpretation of the work, for if Arrian’s history was intensely personal, then this raises questions about his historiographical aims and method.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Narratives in Xenophon's Anabasis
    Histos 10 (2016) 85–110 DIVINE NARRATIVES IN XENOPHON’S ANABASIS* Abstract: This paper builds on recent work that has focused on the interplay between Xeno- phon the narrator and Xenophon the character in the Anabasis. It illustrates how crucial the divine is in the construction of Xenophon’s character and the overall shape of the narrative. By referring to oracles, dreams and sacrifices, as well as his divine estate at Scillus, Xeno- phon the narrator contributes substantively towards wider thematic concerns in the narra- tive: the meaningful rôle of the divine in warfare; Xenophon’s stellar record during this opaque foreign campaign, and the signal connection between piety and good leadership. Keywords: Xenophon, Anabasis, divine, leadership, narrator, religion οὐ μόνον ἐς Πέρσας ἀνέβη Ξενοφῶν διὰ Κῦρον, ἀλλ' ἄνοδον ζητῶν ἐς Διὸς ἥτις ἄγοι. Not only on account of Cyrus did Xenophon march up towards Persia, but also seeking a road that would lead to Zeus. —Diogenes Laertius1 begin this paper by quoting from one of Xenophon’s most influential modern readers, J. K. Anderson, specifically his interpretation of Xeno- Iphon’s attitude towards supernatural phenomena: Xenophon’s education in religion and politics, whatever it may have owed to Socrates, was, like his moral instruction, not complicated by abstract speculations. Throughout his life, Xenophon remained the sort of conservative whose acceptance of the doctrines and principles that he has inherited seems either unintelligent, or dishonest, or both, to those who do not share them.2 * A special vote of thanks must go to Joe Skinner and the Classics and Ancient History department at the University of Newcastle for first inviting me to give this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Imitation of Greatness: Alexander of Macedon and His Influence on Leading Romans
    Imitation of Greatness: Alexander of Macedon and His Influence on Leading Romans Thomas W Foster II, McNair Scholar The Pennsylvania State University Mark Munn, Ph.D Head, Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies College of Liberal Arts The Pennsylvania State University Abstract This paper seeks to examine the relationship between greatness and imitation in antiquity. To do so, Alexander the Great will be compared with Romans Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius. The question this paper tries to answer concerns leading Romans and the idea of imitating Alexander the Great and how this affected their actions. It draws upon both ancient sources and modern scholarship. It differs from both ancient and modern attempts at comparison in distinct ways, however. This paper contains elements of the following: historiography, biography, military history, political science, character study, religion and socio-cultural traditions. Special attention has been given to the socio-cultural differences of the Greco-Roman world. Comparing multiple eras allows for the establishment of credible commonalities. These commonalities can then be applied to different eras up to and including the modern. Practically, these traits allow us to link these men of antiquity, both explicitly and implicitly. Beginning with Plutarch in the 1st/2nd century CE1, a long historical tradition of comparing great men was established. Plutarch chose to compare Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar. The reasons for such a comparison are quite obvious. Both men conquered swaths of land, changed the balance of power in the Mediterranean and caused many to either love them or plot to kill them. Scholars have assessed this comparison continuously.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyropaedia 8.7 and Anabasis 1.9 Paula Winsor Sage
    SAGE, PAULA WINSOR, Tradition, Genre, and Character Portrayal: "Cyropaedia" 8.7 and "Anabasis" 1.9 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 32:1 (1991:Spring) p.61 Tradition, Genre, and Character Portrayal: Cyropaedia 8.7 and Anabasis 1.9 Paula Winsor Sage YRUS THE GREAT, according to Xenophon, died peacefully C at home after a long, illustrious life (529 B.C.). Over a cen­ tury later (401), his namesake and distant relative, Cyrus the Younger, died violently in battle while still a young man, as he attempted to overthrow his brother Artaxerxes II. Their deaths, in Cyr. 8.7 and An. 1.9 respectively, occasion Xen­ ophon's extended tributes to each. He adopts for these accounts narrative techniques that, on the surface, appear very different: at the conclusion of the Cyropaedia, Cyrus the Great, im­ mediately before his death, summarizes his accomplishments in direct speech; when Cyrus the Younger dies, early in the Anabasis, Xenophon interrupts his third-person account of the battle at Cunaxa to summarize his virtues. Apart from some notice of verbal and thematic parallels, there has been no extensive comparison of these passages. 1 A closer examination reveals that, despite their differences in purpose, they also share common rhetorical strategies and a complex intertextual relationship that merit exploration. Sustained allusions-both to a popular tradition and to a genre -constitute a vital part of Xenophon's compositional method here. 2 Specifically, allusions to Solon's well-known discussion of 1 Inter alios, H. A. Holden, The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, Books VI, VII, VIII (Cambridge 1890) 147, 19M; J.
    [Show full text]
  • Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Royal Holloway - Pure Socratic Themes in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius JOHN SELLARS ABSTRACT: Although Marcus Aurelius refers to Socrates only a handful of times in the Meditations, and often only to name him as an example of an illustrious figure now long dead, this chapter argues that there is a distinctive Socratic character to the philosophical project that we see at work in Marcus’s notebook writings. In those few places where Marcus does invoke Socrates it is usually in connection with one of the central preoccupations of the Meditations, in particular the notion of taking care of oneself, the primacy of virtue, and the need for self- control. Moreover, Marcus’ practice of writing to himself may also be seen as a Socratic enterprise, when approached in the light of a suggestive passage from Epictetus. This chapter i) examines Marcus’s knowledge of Socrates and the sources he used, and ii) explores the Socratic themes in the Meditations noted above. Although Marcus does not explicitly say much about Socrates, I suggest that he probably considered the Meditations to embody a deeply Socratic project. 1. Introduction Marcus Aurelius mentions Socrates a dozen or so times in the Meditations.1 To these explicit references we can add a few quotations from the Socrates of Plato’s dialogues where he is not named.2 Of these few scattered references to Socrates, some merely name him in a list of illustrious people who are now dead: Heraclitus, after many speculations about fire which should consume the Universe, was waterlogged by dropsy, poulticed himself with cow-dung and died.
    [Show full text]