When he reaches Babylon, a monstrous birth is interpreted as an omen of his death (30). Meanwhile, Antipater (the acting ruler of Macedonia) sends his son to poison Alexander. The poison is served to him by his cupbearer Iolaus,9 and Alexander falls ill (30–31). He makes his will and says farewell to his comrades, appointing rulers for all the provinces of his Empire (32). He then dies (33) and Ptolemy has the body brought to Memphis, where the priests order it to be transferred to Alexandria (34). The work concludes with a list of the cities he founded (35).
These legends became enormously important in later tradition.10 The Greek Romance was translated into Latin in the fourth century AD, and this was in turn translated during the Middle Ages into every major language, including English, Scots, French, German, Swedish, Italian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Rumanian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Magyar, Spanish-Arabic and Hebrew.
The Greek tradition is important too. The story of the Romance continued to be retold throughout the Byzantine period, in both verse and prose, and the legends of Alexander creep into works on other subjects too. The latest of the Greek retellings was published in Venice in 1529 by Demetrios Zenos.11
A Syriac translation from the Greek was the source of all the oriental versions of the tale.12 It both influenced Arabic literature, including the Qur’an, and became a fundamental source for the epics of the kings of Persia, notably the important Sikandernameh of Nizami (1140–1203)13 and the Book of Kings of Firdausi (941–1019).14 It was from here that the tales seeped into the common lore of Afghanistan and its rulers.
At the same time the legend spread via the Syriac version to Christian Ethiopia, and a version of the Christian legend was brought – probably by Nestorian missionaries – to central Asia, originating a Mongol version no later than the fourteenth century.15
THE FORMATION OF THE ROMANCE
The formation of the legend as it was known to the Middle Ages was a gradual process. The circumstances of its origin are a matter of some controversy. One red herring may be quickly dealt with. Several fifteenth-century MSS of the Romance attribute the work to Alexander’s court historian, Callisthenes. This is impossible for the simple reason that Callisthenes was disgraced and executed before Alexander’s expedition to Asia was over, while the Romance covers the whole of Alexander’s life and death. For this reason the work is sometimes known as Pseudo-Callisthenes. However, this obscures the main question surrounding the origin of the earliest form of the Romance, and its date.
The Greek Alexander Romance as we have it survives in three major versions (the scholarly term used is ‘recensions’), each containing material that differs considerably from that in the other two.16 None of these is securely dated, though it is easy enough to place them in a relative chronology. The first is quite close to being a conventional, if somewhat rhetorical, historical account. The second has incorporated a large amount of legendary material deriving from a series of letters purporting to have been written by Alexander to his mother, Olympias, and to his tutor, Aristotle. The third is a considerably expanded version of the second, containing much additional legendary material, a good deal of which can be firmly associated with a Jewish–Christian milieu.
The most difficult question to answer is at what date the earliest version of the work as we have it was written down. The first manuscript dates from the third century AD. Thus composition must have taken place between this date and the death of Alexander in 323 BC – a period of 600 years. Its popularity in the third century AD coincides with a period when there was considerable interest in the lives of sages, holy men and wonderworkers, and a flourishing literature developed around these subjects. Some scholars therefore argue that the Romance was first composed at this date by an ‘editor’ from a variety of sources. More recently argument has tended to set the composition of the Romance quite early in this 600-year period.17 Can we tie it down to a particular literary milieu?
There is no doubt that most of the component elements of the Romance were already in existence in the third century BC. Even in the decades after Alexander’s death the historical accounts competed with pure legend, as well as carefully structured reinterpretation and perhaps even forgery (for example, Alexander’s will) in the interests of one or other of the successors. None of the work of the first generation of Alexander historians survives today, and what we read are reinterpretations by later writers of what they wrote. The contemporary historians of Alexander were his general, Ptolemy, and a member of his scientific staff, Aristobulus; the historian Arrian regarded these as the best sources. But Quintus Curtius Rufus and the rest of the so-called Vulgate tradition, including Plutarch (who wrote both a life of Alexander and two essays on his Fortune), placed more reliance on the extravagant tales of the official court historian Callisthenes and of Cleitarchus (who wrote after Alexander’s death and did not go with him to Asia). For the wonders of India the historian Onesicritus, who was trained as a Cynic philosopher, was a major source. Even in these accounts one can see the seeds of what will later become the legends or tall stories of the Romance. As Strabo put it: ‘All who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvellous to the true’ (2.1.9).
At the same time literature of a very different kind was already beginning to circulate. Papyrus finds in this century have proved beyond a doubt that many of the elements of the Romance were current as early as a century after Alexander’s death. The most important discovery is part of a cycle of letters between Darius and Alexander which is closely similar to, though not identical with, the correspondence in the Romance.18
A separate Jewish tradition on Alexander, which described his visit to Jerusalem among other things, was also formed at an early date, and is known to us from the writings of Josephus19 rather than from the nature of any material in the Romance.
Other elements to infiltrate the tradition at this early date include, most notably, the part of Nectanebo in the story and the details of the founding of Alexandria, both of which clearly originate in an Egyptian, Alexandrian milieu. The miraculous adventures were probably in circulation early, but the date at which they were integrated into the Romance is the most difficult question about its composition.
The Alexandrian context of the Romance is important. The Romance is the product of a process of accretion, and a question that remains unanswered is whether the basic framework was already established in Ptolemaic Alexandria. My opinion is that it was.20 It can be shown that most of the elements of the Romance were already circulating then – the historical part, the Egyptian elements, the correspondence with Darius – and I believe it can be argued that the wonder-letters were also current. If so, it seems likely that they were combined into a single narrative by the end of the third century BC. If the Romance is to be dated so early in substantially its present form, it is not by any means a bizarre document for its context, though it certainly is unique.
The first of the early elements drawn on by the Alexander Romance is a Hellenistic poetic history, perhaps that of Cleitarchus, perhaps another otherwise unknown work: this would be the source of the most historical parts of the work, especially Book I of the A recension. In addition to this historical narrative in Book I, other pieces of genuine historical information are embedded in the Romance. They include the order of events around the foundation of Alexandria, and, perhaps, the list of guests at Alexander’s last supper, and even the hatred of Pausanias for Philip the doctor.21 Tales such as the taming of Bucephalus, the crows that led the way to the oracle of Ammon, and Alexander’s retort to Parmenio,22 also correspond to this historical or quasi-historical tradition.
Another element of the Romance is an ‘epistolary novel’ containing the correspondence of Alexander and Darius, which we know to have been circulating early. The letters containing the fabulous adventures constitute another cycle, and the letter on India belongs to yet another independent tradition. To these must be added a discrete account of the meeting with the Brahmans; a separate document on the last days and will of Alexander; and an
admixture of local Alexandrian tradition for the Egyptian material.
Though the episodes in these letters are quite unhistorical in character, they still derive their inspiration from matters of historical record – even such surprising details as Alexander’s penchant for disguises and the honey trees of Hyrcania (vouched for by Onesicritus, as well as later travellers).23 The narrative and correspondence in the Romance seem alike to have been devised by authors familiar with Alexander’s history but with no interest in using it other than as a starting-point for romance. The historical element, therefore, is often as fanciful as such Hollywood epics as Spartacus: characters who lived centuries apart meet cheek by jowl (for example, the ten orators in Athens), or fictional characters (Alexander’s friend Pheidon) mingle with real people (Ptolemy, Callisthenes) and join in remarkable adventures. One cannot overstress the aspect of popular entertainment in the Romance.
Many of the non-historical elements of the Romance show clear signs of early origin.
The Egyptian Tales: One of the few episodes of the Romance that not only is unhistorical in character but also has no basis in the historical record is the paternity of Alexander. In the historians’ accounts Alexander is the son of Philip, and perhaps of Ammon also, but never of Nectanebo. The idea that Alexander was Nectanebo’s son belongs essentially to Egyptian tradition, and is related to Egyptian nationalist beliefs in the return of a king to Memphis.24 Such beliefs must belong to the period soon after the overthrow of the last pharaoh, Nectanebo. In addition, the tale has a distinctly novelistic flavour, and resembles other stories in Egyptian tradition in which a god may beget a child on a mortal woman.25 It is notable that the Romance makes it very clear that Nectanebo is a mere trickster in this respect, even if his magical powers are genuine, and no sympathy is shown when Alexander murders him. The Greek author has taken the Egyptian tale but turned it into one of a somewhat ludicrous deceit, rather than the nationalist parable it would have been for the Egyptians. It provides an interesting contrast to the seriousness with which other Egyptian traditions are taken, such as the Return to Memphis or the foundation legends of Alexandria. Other features of the Nectanebo story, such as his use of wax models and divination by bowls of water, were also common in Egyptian literature of the first millennium BC.
The establishment of the cult of Sarapis by Alexander (I.30–33) is not historical, but probably a later invention of Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II to legitimate his state religion.26 The episode thus belongs to the earliest stage of the formation of the Alexander legend.
The Debate in Athens (II.1–5): This long and highly rhetorical episode appears only in the A-text of the Romance (see Note on the Text, pp. 28–32), where it is in parts corrupt, making the level of argument even lower than it may originally have been. Yet the motif of the Ten Orators being sent as hostages to Alexander appears already in Plutarch, and certainly has a historical basis.27 It will have appeared in the early histories of Alexander written in his lifetime and soon after. The identity of these ten orators is of course entirely the invention of the author of the Romance, and – on the Spartacus principle – includes characters who flourished in the late sixth century (Heraclitus) as well as the mid fourth century (Plato, Demosthenes) and the early fourth century (Lysias). A phrase or sentence of history has been turned into a fictional extravaganza.
Alexander’s Last Days and His Will: The provenance of the first section of Alexander’s will (III.32) is very plain from the heavy emphasis given to his bequests to the Rhodians. There can be no doubt that this document – in a clotted officialese quite unlike the preceding and following parts of the narrative and will – was composed in Rhodes to bolster the justice of their case in expelling the Macedonian garrison after Alexander’s death. Its function as a piece of political propaganda is sufficient to explain its omission from later versions of the Romance. A narrative that includes this essentially third-century-BC material is likely to belong to the third century BC.
The Wonders of the East: Much of the detail on India already appeared in Onesicritus, one of the historians who accompanied Alexander on his expedition, and was worked up in what was originally a separate work, the Letter to Aristotle on India. It is likely that the Letter originally adhered more closely to history, and its fabulous nature increased over time and was incorporated into the Romance only at a late stage of composition.28 The Land of Darkness seems to derive from accounts of the Hindu Kush29 or the Zagros Mountains.30 The duel with Porus seems based on an account of a duel with Porus’ son apparently related in some unknown source.31 Even the meeting with the Amazons is said to have been told by Onesicritus,32 though when Onesicritus gave a public reading of this episode, Lysimachus asked him, ‘Where was I at the time?’
The meeting with the Brahmans or Gymnosophists (Naked Philosophers) is treated in different ways by our sources. In Onesicritus, the fundamental source for all the Indian adventures, Alexander is represented as learning from their wisdom. In Plutarch he bullies them. In the Romance, a riddle contest, which they have no difficulty in answering successfully, is succeeded by their begging him for immortality. The picture is complicated by the insertion, in our first version and also in the third, of a work by the Christian writer Palladius, On the Brahmans,33 which has the purpose of lauding the Brahmans’ philosophy in a Christian light. But there is no doubt that this episode had a place in the earliest accounts of Alexander: a papyrus of the second century BC is now our earliest independent source.34
The Fabulous Adventures: Though many of these have no historical basis and take us into the different world of romance, some details can be traced to historical fact. The fabulous adventures may be related to Quintus Curtius’ allusion to Alexander ‘battling with woods and rivers’ (7.8.13), but in detail they derive from the Letter to Olympias, which is very brief in the earliest version of the Romance. In later tellings the letter quality of the adventures is forgotten, and the narrative becomes a third person one (though not always consistently!). Even such outlandish details as the river of sand may correspond to Arrian’s description of the river Polytimetus. The fundamental idea, that Alexander is proceeding beyond the boundaries of the known world, is expressed even in Alexander’s lifetime by the Athenian orator Aeschines: ‘Meanwhile Alexander had withdrawn to the uttermost regions of the North, almost beyond the borders of the inhabited world.’35
Discussion of the tales occurring solely in the third recension – the visit to Jerusalem, the unclean nations, the preaching of one god in Alexandria – may be omitted as these belong to the later accretions of an obviously Jewish milieu. The reference to the Book of Daniel in Josephus’ account of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem makes clear that this legend at least could not have originated earlier than 180 BC. As a corollary, the absence of this episode from the first version increases the likelihood that that version had acquired essentially its present form before 180.
All this suggests that the main outlines of the narrative could have been fully formed as early as 50–100 years after Alexander’s death. A dating of the Romance, in substantially its present form, in third-century-BC Alexandria, can be supported by consideration of the literary context of the period, with which it might at first sight seem out of keeping.
For most students and readers, Alexandrian literature means the highly cultivated, recondite and mannered poetry of Callimachus (c. 305–c. 240 BC), the highly-wrought pastoral of Theocritus (c. 300–c. 260 BC), the epic narrative of the Argonautica of Apollonius (c. 295–215 BC), and perhaps the arcane inscrutabilities of the Alexandra of Lycophron (b. c. 320 BC). Equally important for the cultural context of these works was the writing of scholars such as Eratosthenes the geographer, Manetho the historian of Egypt, and his contemporary Hecataeus of Abdera, author of Aegyptiaca. All these (except perhaps Manetho) were working in a purely Greek tradition of literature and science, under the patronage of the Macedonian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–245 BC). It is easy to forget how cosmopolitan a place Alexandria
was even in the mid third century BC, less than a century after its foundation. As in most major cities, high culture was only one aspect of a complex and varied society. From the beginning there was a sizeable Jewish community with its own districts and, to an extent, its own laws, and native Egyptians also played an important part in the city’s affairs. The researches of recent years36 have shown how the different nationalities of Ptolemaic Egypt commingled and intermarried: most Egyptians and many Greeks were bilingual. If Greek was the dominant culture, it nevertheless offered a mouthpiece and not a muzzle to writers of other racial origins.
Much important Jewish Alexandrian literature of this period was written in Greek. Several historical works are known from the third and second centuries BC,37 and there is poetry too: Philo the Elder’s epic on Jerusalem, Ezekiel’s tragedy Exodus composed in rigorously classical form. But the major work of Alexandrian Judaism is the translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, some sections of which were translated as early as 250 BC.
There are even signs of a direct influence of Jewish and other oriental literature on Greek writing. Callimachus shows some slight signs of acquaintance with other literatures.38 The very form of Lycophron’s Alexandra, a history cast as riddling prophecy, recalls the style of the Hebrew prophets. Jewish tales about Alexander must have been circulating in the third century BC though we do not see their influence on the Romance until the composition of the γ-version some time after AD 900 (see Note on the Text, p. 29). Conversely, Jewish writing also began to adopt the form and conventions of the Greek romance or romantic novella – as, for example, in Joseph and Aseneth (perhaps as early as 100 BC) as well as some of the books of the Apocrypha.
The Greek Alexander Romance Page 2