Alexander historian

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Alexander historians all are ancient authors, the historical works about the life of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great have written. Most of these works, however, have not or only partially come down to us. The few (more or less complete) surviving stories of Alexander were created with a certain time lag to the events described in them.

Basically, the Alexander historians can be divided into two groups:

  • The main starting point for most of the Alexander stories (whether direct or indirect) was primarily the work of Callisthenes of Olynthus . Anaximenes of Lampsakos may have been an exception , whose Alexander story , which is now lost, was probably also written during the campaign . Callisthenes was the official court historian of Alexander who took part in the campaign and published his work successively, but in 327 BC. Was executed. The work of Callisthenes probably covered the period up to 330 BC. BC and had a great influence on all subsequent Alexander historians; it was also used by Kleitarchos (see below), who also made use of oral traditions. Furthermore, this tradition is based on the Alexander stories of Aristobulus of Kassandreia and Ptolemy . Both had taken part in the campaign, unlike Kleitarchos, for example. Ptolemy was even a close companion of Alexander and later King of Egypt; Ptolemy possibly also had access to official office documents ( ephemeris ), but this is controversial. All these works, in which Alexander was viewed very positively, are now lost, but Ptolemy and Aristobulus were both used by Arrian , who wrote a story about Alexander in the 2nd century AD.
  • On the other hand, the authors of the so-called Vulgate tradition should be mentioned, who paid particular attention to the dramatic and novel-like aspects of Alexander's life, but are therefore sometimes not very reliable. In the Vulgate tradition, Alexander is also judged negatively, which offers an interesting counter-image to the "good sources" (see above). The Vulgatatradition goes ultimately to the already mentioned Cleitarchus back served his now lost work of many later writers as a source, such as Diodorus , Quintus Curtius Rufus (who in the Middle Ages was widely read) and Pompey Trogus merely in the summary of Justinus Junianus present . The work of Clitarchus became the most popular ancient Alexander story precisely because of its dramatic representation. The Metzer epitome is also part of the Vulgate tradition . Even Plutarch made use of when you compose his biography of Alexander, who has taken approach, rather from the source material of these historians, though not exclusively; so there are also reports in Plutarch that are probably based on the "good sources". Thus Plutarch occupies a certain intermediate position.

Apparently reports were circulating soon after Alexander's death, in which his life was presented in a dramatic way and which were embellished like a novel (see the authors of the Vulgate mentioned , especially Kleitarchus). Arrian, on the other hand, endeavored to have at least a rudimentary critical review of the material. Although he did not achieve this goal in all points (the positive basic tendency with regard to Alexander is obvious), according to general research opinion his work is nevertheless the most reliable Alexander story that has come down to us, especially as far as the history of events is concerned. Nevertheless, authors such as Diodor, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Justinus must also be consulted, especially since some of these offer information and views that do not appear in Arrian and therefore represent a valuable addition to him. The term Vulgate should therefore not have a purely negative connotation, even if all sources must be dealt with critically.

Even in late antiquity , numerous reports were made about Alexander, whom not a few emperors took as a model ( Alexander imitatio ). The surviving fragments of the ancient Greek authors (such as Chares of Mytilene , Onesikritos or Ephippus of Olynthus ) are collected in The Fragments of the Greek Historians , although some works about Alexander are only known by name (see, for example, Praxagoras of Athens ).

The processing of Alexander fabric in the Middle Ages, which was largely based on the Alexander novel (in which historical reality was hopelessly distorted, but enjoyed great popularity until modern times), is no longer to be understood as writing history in the true sense. It was only in the modern age that historians increasingly dealt with the Macedonian king (beginning above all with Johann Gustav Droysen ), although the assessment of Alexander in modern research is subject to strong fluctuations.

Source editions and translations

The source editions with English translation and extensive commentary in Brill's New Jacoby are now the basis for the fragments . The editions of the surviving Alexander historians (Arrian, Curtius Rufus) are not listed here.

  • Lennart Gilhaus (Ed.): Fragments of the Historians: The Alexander Historians (Library of Greek Literature, Vol. 83). Hiersemann, Stuttgart 2017, ISBN 978-3-7772-1721-5 .
  • Waldemar Heckel , John C. Yardley (Ed.): Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History). Blackwell, Malden et al. 2004, ISBN 0-631-22820-9 .

literature

  • Elizabeth Baynham: The ancient evidence for Alexander the Great. In: Joseph Roisman (Ed.): Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great. Brill, Leiden et al. 2003, ISBN 90-04-12463-2 , pp. 3-29.
  • Albert B. Bosworth: From Arrian to Alexander. Studies in historical interpretation. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1988, ISBN 0-19-814863-1 .
  • Albert B. Bosworth, Elizabeth Baynham (Eds.): Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford University Press, Oxford et al. 2000, ISBN 0-19-815287-6 .
  • Arthur Fränkel: The sources of the Alexander historians. Kern, Breslau 1883 (reprint: Aalen 1969).
  • Nicholas GL Hammond: Three historians of Alexander the Great. The so-called Vulgate authors. Diodorus, Justin, Curtius. Oxford University Press, Cambridge et al. 1983, ISBN 0-521-25451-5 .
  • Klaus Meister : The Greek historiography. From the beginning to the end of Hellenism. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al. 1990, ISBN 3-17-010264-8 , p. 102ff.
  • Lionel Pearson: The lost histories of Alexander the Great. American Philological Association, New York 1960 ( Philological Monographs 20; online version ).
  • Paul Pedech: Historiens compagnons d'Alexandre. Callisthène, Onésicrite, Néarque, Ptolémée, Aristobule. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1984, ISBN 2-251-32622-7 ( Collection d'Études Anciennes ).

Web links