Alexander the Great. By KEYNE CHESHIRE. Greece & Rome: Texts and Contexts.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Pp. viii + 189.
Paper, $26.00. ISBN 978–0–521–70709–1.
Order this text for $26.00 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit
CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Online Forum 2009.10.02
Alexander the Great never seems to go out of fashion as a topic of
controversial debate. This is due as much to his inscrutable character as
to the astonishing impact of his brief life and career. These very factors
make him ideal for study in upper secondary and undergraduate curricula.
The challenge for instructors is choosing texts appropriate for students
coming to the study of Alexander for the first time, who are not yet (and
most likely will not become) either serious scholars or enthusiasts of
ancient and military history. Keyne Cheshire’s (C.) book attempts to
close the gap between two types of texts readily available, both of which
can be intimidating or confusing for those with little understanding of the
social and historical context, much less the complicated nature of
Alexander historiography. Full translations of the Alexander historians or
selective collections of sources in translation may be desirable, but the
context is largely lost on “beginners.” [[1]] Biographies of Alexander
synthesizing the ancient evidence abound, but a drawback with both
venerated standards and more recent books that take a thematic approach is
that a different “Alexander” seems to emerge from every serious book
published on the subject. [[2]] This may be well and good for scholars
interested in new insights, or even for a general readership of
enthusiasts, all of whom have likely already found their own
“Alexander” and will beg to differ. C.’s book should appeal to
instructors seeking a middle ground, who want to offer their students an
approach to the study of Alexander the Great as he appears in the ancient
texts, while at the same time encouraging students to form their own
opinions about him.
C.’s book, published in the Cambridge series “Greece & Rome: Texts and
Contexts,” is strictly speaking a “textbook” designed with the
instructional features one expects in such volumes: copious illustrations,
maps, diagrams, boxes of inserted text, etc. The stated aim of the series
is to provide students with “new” translations of extracts from ancient
sources and—what makes this volume different from other collections of
Alexander sources in translation—to set them within their historical,
social and cultural contexts. C.’s extracts are, perhaps regrettably,
restricted to passages from Arrian’s Anabasis and Plutarch’s Life of
Alexander, although students are frequently directed to other ancient
sources for comparison. For example, in reference to a passage from Arrian
(3.14) describing Darius’ flight from the battle of Gaugamela, students
are asked to contrast Arrian’s account with the versions given by Curtius
and Diodorus, as well as Plutarch (p. 82). C. does not explain why he
extracts only Arrian and Plutarch. It appears that his choice is due to the
fact that they offer a “statement of historical method,” so that “one
can readily track how these authors’ aims and perspectives shape their
accounts” (p. 4).
In keeping with the aim of the Cambridge series, C.’s approach is heavily
historiographical. He begins in the Preface with the all-important
question: “But who is this Alexander?” (p. v) and follows with the
caveat, “Conflicting ancient accounts accompany nearly every episode of
Alexander’s life…” (p. viii). In the Introduction, C. confronts the
politically volatile “Macedonian question” and provides background on
Philip II’s military reforms. He also addresses the problematic
relationship between Philip II and the Greeks, a relationship Alexander
inherited, and the “state” of the Persian empire at the time of
Alexander’s accession. Next C. presents the extracts in a chronological
progression through Alexander’s life and career, birth to death, divided
into six “Chapters” that follow standard divisions: From birth to
kingship; Into Asia; Issus and Egypt; Gaugamela to the death of Darius;
East to India; Back towards Babylon. An Epilogue summarizes the Successors
and the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms; this I find too brief to
be adequate. C.’s selection of extracts is a mix of military narrative
and anecdotal material covering many of the major events while avoiding
overlap—Plutarch’s account of one episode, Arrian’s account of
another. The translations are lucid, close to the Greek and, for the most
part, capture its nuances. [[3]]
C. effectively achieves the second aim of the book, that is, placing the
texts within their context, in large part through explanations of key terms
and phrases, which are highlighted in blue in the text with footnote-like
commentary at the bottom of each page. Admirably, these are not restricted
to persons, places and obligatory transliterated Greek words (e.g.
“sarissa,” p. 33) but also provide commentary on social customs (e.g.
ad Arr. 2.7 “slaves and free men,” p. 45) and cryptic phrases (e.g. ad
Plut. 10 “those complicit in the plot,” p. 23). Each chapter contains
periodic colored boxes with thought-provoking questions pertaining to the
extracted passages. These are designed to launch discussion of crucial
“problems” in Alexander’s career (ad Plut. 27 “What do the
responses of the oracle’s prophet [i.e. priest of Ammon] imply about
Alexander’s parentage?”, p. 69) as well as in the historiography (ad
Arr. 4.8 “Why do you suppose Arrian uses the passive voce (‘he was
struck by the sarissa’), in depicting the moment of Cleitus’ death?”,
p. 107). And admirably, many questions do not preclude “correct”
answers (ad Arr. 7.6 “On reading this passage closely, do you believe
Alexander’s policies [i.e. 30,000 Epigoni] are an attempt to make the
Macedonian army more Persian or the Persians more Macedonian?”, p. 160).
Students are thus encouraged to think critically about the nature of the
sources and to form their own opinions about Alexander. The volume is well
illustrated with useful color maps of Alexander’s route, color-coded
reconstructions of the four main set battles, images of works of art
depicting Alexander’s life, and photographs of various locations as they
are today. A timeline of important dates is included in the Introduction.
An appendix provides brief blurbs on the ancient sources, both extant and
(selectively) lost; this is followed by a very brief list of further
reading and references highlighting some important studies in English. The
restriction to English works is understandable although the impact on
Alexander studies of scholars such as Jacoby and Berve ought not be left
unacknowledged. An easy-reference glossary of terms concludes the volume.
Unfortunately, there is no index.
C.’s book certainly has pedagogical merit. The color-coded
reconstructions of the battles at Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes
are particularly useful for sorting out the convoluted ancient narratives.
Although these reconstructions may not be historically accurate (as C.
acknowledges on p. viii), they are true to the passages extracted and
should help students not only to follow the tactics, move by counter-move,
but to form opinions about Alexander’s generalship as it is represented
in the sources. The explanations of key terms and phrases eliminate the
need for historical commentaries, which for non-classics/history majors are
likely to be tedious, though for comprehensiveness one still must turn to
Bosworth and Hamilton. [[4]] It is worth reiterating that C.’s book is
intended for upper secondary and undergraduate students, but its appeal
doubtless will diminish at higher undergraduate levels. Some instructors at
any level will be reluctant to move away from the full texts of Arrian and
Plutarch, or to omit Curtius, Diodorus and Justin from their reading lists.
Others will prefer to formulate their own questions and steer their own
course through Alexander’s life. Even so, many instructors of courses at
lower levels will be grateful for the book’s virtual self-teaching design
and for the groundwork C. has done. His book offers a topic of broad appeal
through which students can develop skills in critical thinking and debate.
Its strength lies in its presentation of an inscrutable Alexander within
his historical, social and cultural context. As for the content of C.’s
extracts, those hoping for the full military narrative will miss the
northern campaign immediately following Alexander’s accession, the
“liberation” of the coastal cities of Asia Minor, and much of the
Bactrian and Indian campaigns. Most of Arrian Book 6, in fact, is omitted,
while the map of Alexander’s route east to India and back to Babylon (p.
99) does not show his march all the way down the Indus to the India Ocean.
[[5]] What C. does offer is a well-rounded view of Alexander as both
general and man, and a balance between detailed extracts of the major
battles and sieges and extracts on Alexander’s drinking habits, manner of
dress and sex life likely to appeal to a broad range of students in upper
secondary and undergraduate courses. Most importantly, C. allows each
student to discover his and her own Alexander.
CAROL J. KING
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
[[1]] Recent selections in translation: W. Heckel and J.C. Yardley,
Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford, 2003); P.
Mensch and J. Romm, Alexander the Great: Selections from Arrian, Diodorus,
Plutarch and Quintus Curtius (Indianapolis, 2005).
[[2]] Among the venerated standards, those of U. Wilcken, Alexander the
Great (London, 1932; repr. ,1981), J.R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great
(London, 1973; pb Pittsburgh, 1974), and R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great
(London, 1973; , 2004) are still in print.
[[3]] One notable exception, ad Arr. 4.29: “Ptolemy son of Lagus, who was
a Bodyguard and leader of the Agrianians…”(my italics). For
“Bodyguard” Arrian uses the article and noun, but in reference to the
Agrianians he uses the participle “leading” without repeating the
article. Ptolemy was by this time named a Bodyguard, and on this occasion
was “leading” rather than “leader” of the Agrianians.
[[4]] A.B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of
Alexander, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1980; repr. 1995); J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch:
Alexander (Oxford, 1969).
[[5]] The impression left by both text and map is that Alexander never
reached the Indian Ocean, but left the Indus part way down and headed
across the Gedrosian desert.
If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
|