Alexander the Great: A New History. Edited by WALDEMAR HECKEL and LAWRENCE
TRITLE. Chichester and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Pp. xix + 366.
Paper, $44.95. ISBN 978–1–4051–3082–0.
Order this text for $40.45 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 2009.11.02
Alexander the Great: A New History is the third editorial collaboration to
date from Waldemar Heckel (H.) and Lawrence Tritle (T.). [[1]] Like their
earlier projects, which are (essentially) collections of conference papers,
this volume contains sixteen essays from international scholars on a
variety of topics related to Alexander, his time period and his legacy. The
publishers promise that these essays offer an “innovative treatment”
with “new approaches to Alexander’s reign.” Given the dozens of
Alexander-themed books published just in the past six years, among them
both of H. and T.s earlier edited collections, a “new” history of
Alexander, while it would be welcome, seems unlikely. But as H. puts it in
the Introduction, “newness and appeal” are “found in [the
collection’s] diversity … novel insights … [and] breadth of
coverage” (p. 1).
The “diversity” and “breadth of coverage” lie mainly in the range
of topics: from military campaigns to Court life, from Darius’ Persia to
Alexander’s mother, from sex to divinity, from Rome to Hollywood. Diverse
also are the perspectives on Alexander and his impact that this broad
representation of international scholarship offers (albeit international
representation is not innovative). In addition to their own contributions,
H. and T. have commissioned thirteen essays from twelve international
scholars; thus, commendably, fourteen institutions in nine countries are
represented. All contributions appear in English.
Although each essay can stand on its own, the volume is thoughtfully
organized to give the reader first some crucial background to Alexander’s
reign, followed by a chronological overview of major events during his
campaigns and the wars of the Successors, and then a survey of key
“problems” and other interesting thematic studies. Finally, several
essays discussing Alexander’s Nachleben—ancient, medieval and
modern—bring the reader up to present day.
The opening essay, Michael Zahrnt’s “The Macedonian Background” (Ch.
1, pp. 7–25), offers a general summary of Macedonian history to the death
of Philip II and accession of Alexander III. Zahrnt’s argument that
“Philip did not create Macedonia from nothing” (p. 7), and his claim
that Philip was “an even greater man” than Alexander (p. 25), are not
novel, as both have been made in recent scholarship (he does not cite
beyond 1999). The historical narrative continues virtually meta de tauta
with H.’s first contribution, “Alexander’s Conquest of Asia” (Ch.
2, pp. 26–52). H. confesses “without a twinge of guilt” that this is
“a very slight reworking” of a contribution to K. Kinzl (2006). [[1]]
Nevertheless, as a succinct account of Alexander’s campaign it is
engaging and meticulous. H.’s focus on policy and propaganda underscores
for the neophyte the complexity of Alexander, while the already
well-informed reader will find a challenge to long-standing interpretations
in H.’s views, for instance, on the experiment with proskynesis (p. 46)
and Alexander’s behavior at the Hyphasis (p. 49).
In “The Diadochi, or Successors to Alexander” (Ch. 3, pp. 53–68), P.
Wheatley gives a cogent introduction to “several dire problems” (p. 68)
that face scholars of this poorly documented period (cf. his contribution
to Heckel et al. (2007)). [[2]] Wheatley is unusual in bringing to the
standard discussion of Classical sources the “cryptic” and
controversial Babylonian Chronicle of the Diadochi (p. 55). His focus is on
the Successors’ conceptions of basileia and “the overarching tension
between centralist and separatist ambitions” (p. 55), which he argues
does not end with Antigonus’ defeat at Ipsus. With the historical context
thus established down to the end of the first generation (c. 281), the
reader proceeds to thematic studies.
H.’s second essay, “A King and His Army” (Ch. 4, pp. 69–82),
mirrors his recent contribution to Roisman (2003) and echoes his important
earlier publications on Alexander’s marshals. [[3]] G. Weber in “The
Court of Alexander the Great as Social System” (Ch. 5, pp. 83–98)
synthesizes recent scholarship with his arguments for the transformation of
Alexander’s court after he abandoned “the mobile camp
structure”—namely, the “new possibilities” gained from the
infrastructure of the Persian royal palaces (p. 90). But Weber
underestimates the non-Macedonian participation in Alexander’s court
prior to the return from the East. This is more than amply demonstrated by
T.’s contribution, “Artists and Soldiers, Friends and Enemies” (Ch.
7, pp. 121–40; especially 130–6), one of two essays that rehash the old
topic “Alexander and the Greeks.” While T. negotiates the gray area of
the designations pro- and anti-Macedonian, E. Poddighe’s “The
Corinthian League” (Ch. 6, pp. 99–120) revisits the vexed questions of
the League’s charter and membership.
P. Briant contributes two essays on the Persian context of Alexander’s
reign, “The Empire of Darius III in Perspective” (Ch. 8, pp. 141–70)
and “Alexander and the Persian Empire, between ‘Decline’ and
‘Renovation’: History and Historiography” (Ch. 9, pp. 171–88).
Briant synthesizes (mostly his own) earlier scholarship, and—though he
digresses from the book’s theme, for example with the archaeological
evidence for “particularly Bactrian” hydraulic structures in the 3rd
millennium (p. 150)—he argues essentially for the continuity of satrapal
administration under the Achaemenids and Macedonians. He concludes: “one
must ‘break’ the predetermined, even overdetermined, periodization
centered on the year 334” (p. 188).
The strength of this book rests on its stimulating discussions from
“authoritative” voices, such as E. Carney’s commanding interpretation
of Olympias’ influence on her son and the consequences of polygamy in
“Alexander and his ‘Terrible Mother’” (Ch. 10, pp. 189–202). D.
Ogden, overturning Tarn’s (1948) “ahead of its time” (p. 204) look at
Alexander and sex, gives a solid discussion of the evidence for four
significant female relationships and three sexual male relationships in
“Alexander’s Sex Life” (Ch. 11, pp. 203–17). His comparison of
Alexander with Philip (p. 108) reveals that the son was more like his
father with respect to marriages and offspring than is usually
acknowledged. B. Dreyer for his “Heroes, Cults, and Divinity” (Ch. 12,
pp. 218–34) relies heavily on earlier studies; but in his grappling with
the “core question” of the contemporaneousness of Alexander’s
deification, particularly at Athens, he overlooks the important discussions
of Cawkwell and (recently) Worthington. [[4]]
The final four essays deal with the Nachleben of Alexander in literature,
art and cinema. A. Meeus in “Alexander’s Image in the Age of the
Successors” (Ch. 13, pp. 235–50) makes a strong case for Alexander’s
popularity among the successors and the “high symbolic value” of his
body and relics (p. 238). The “allusive and pervasive impact of Alexander
on the popular imagination” (p. 251), from Scipio Africanus to Hadrian,
is the focus of D. Spencer’s “Roman Alexanders: Epistemology and
Identity” (Ch. 14, pp. 251–74). Her suggestion, again a synthesis of
earlier work, is that “we read Rome’s Alexander as an inevitable
precursor to and even by-product of Roman imperialism in the late
republic” (p. 252). The discussion of Alexander’s portraiture offered
by C. Mihalopoulos in “The Construction of a New Ideal: The Official
Portraiture of Alexander the Great” (Ch. 15, pp. 275–93), although
greatly indebted to Stewart, [[5]] leaves something to be desired. For
example, where Mihalopoulos appears to challenge Stewart, as in the dating
of the Pella Alexander (given in the text p. 281 as c. 200–150, noted in
n. 25 contra Stewart’s dating of c. 300–270), she gives no explanation
for her down-dating. Among other troublesome spots, the captions for
Figures 5.2 and 15.4 are reversed. Lastly, E.J. Baynham in “Power,
Passion, and Patrons: Alexander, Charles Le Brun, and Oliver Stone” (Ch.
16, pp. 294–310) gives a splendid discussion of perceptions of Alexander
in Western culture and how the historical material has been adapted to
suit, specifically, Le Brun and Stone’s own interpretations (p. 299). She
looks at passion “both as a physical expression of emotion and in a more
broadly romantic sense” (p. 300), and at “the extent to which an
artistic vision is driven by the desires of the paymaster” (p. 300).
Inconsistency in referencing Le Brun’s paintings unfortunately makes for
some confusion.
The book also contains a chronological chart; 20 figures mostly of oft-seen
art depicting Alexander, including two color plates of the paintings of
Charles Le Brun; and a map of Alexander’s campaign routes.
This book is, on the one hand, “[a] highly informed and enjoyable
resource for students and interested general readers.” [Amazon.com] Yet
the more serious Alexander scholar will also be rewarded by rich
discussions of a broad range of topics. As a “new” history of
Alexander, however, the book is ephemeral. H. and T. do not really step
outside “the five traditional areas of Alexander scholarship: sources,
historical background, Alexander’s policies towards the Greeks and the
East, his personal relationships, and his Nachleben,” [[6]] Moreover,
there is irony in the editors’ criticism of Roisman (2003) for not
summarizing the nature of the evidence, when in the present book readers
are simply referred for this to “Bosworth and Baynham 2000 and Bosworth
2002” (p. 3 n. 5). What H. and T.’s collection of essays does offer is
a synthesis of recent scholarship and current trends that will reward both
the general and the specialized reader as well as stimulate further
discussion.
CAROL J. KING
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
[[1]] Previously: W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle, eds., Crossroads of History:
The Age of Alexander (Claremont, 2003); W. Heckel, L.A. Tritle and P. V.
Wheatley, eds., Alexander’s Empire: From Formulation to Decay (Claremont,
2007).
[[2]] W. Heckel, “The Conquests of Alexander the Great,” in K. Kinzl,
ed., A Companion to the Classical Greek World (Oxford, 2006) 560–88.
[[3]] See W. Heckel, “King and “Companions”: Observations on the
Nature of Power in the Reign of Alexander,” in J. Roisman, ed., Brill’s
Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden and Boston, 2003). 197–225; also
W. Heckel, The Marshalls of Alexander’s Empire (London and New York,
1992).
[[4]] G. Cawkwell, “The Deification of Alexander the Great,” in I.
Worthington, ed., Ventures Into Greek History (Oxford, 1994) 293–306; I.
Worthington, “Hyperides 5.32 and Alexander the Great’s Statue,”
Hermes 129.1 (2001) 129–31.
[[5]] A. Stewart, Faces of Power: Alexander’s image and Hellenistic
Politics (California, 1993).
[[6]] A. Tronson, Review of J. Roisman, ed., Brill’s Companion to
Alexander the Great (Leiden and Boston, 2003) in CR 2004.54.2: 470.
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
|