On Recent Books

[marcus]

I wondered whether that might be the case - but Linda Ann is usually a very careful reader, so I sort of assume that it says what she says it says ... (I've confused myself).Still, Ian Worthington is a 'respected' scholar, and some of the unsupported assertions he makes about Alexander appal me - I wouldn't let them go in an A-Level essay, nor even a GCSE! So if Adams has 'made something up', it doesn't follow that I would stop respecting him generally :-)ATBMarcus

[abm]

I know Linda Ann is a very careful reader, but as is very clear from every historical study, two very careful readers can understand a passage in two totally different ways. I'm afraid there might be a certain parallel between careful readers and respected scholars here, and indeed, we cannot exclude that Adams has strayed here.regards,abm

[amyntoros]

Despite the interesting contributions here it looks like we're not going to be able to reach any consensus so I thought I would try and go to the horse's mouth (first time I've every done anything like this), and write to Professor Adams, including in my email a link to this thread - not without some trepidation and small embarrassment, I might add, considering we're merrily questioning his scholarship.-á (And then there's my remark that "I might have become bored" with his book which I hoped he would understand in its context!)-á No worries - I received a prompt, friendly, and detailed reply from him yesterday. First of all, I erred in saying that he studied with N. G. Hammond - he met Hammond when he was a visiting lecturer and corresponded with him for the next 25 years.-á Adams' most important works can be found in the Archaia Makedonia, the papers of the International Congress on Ancient Macedonia held every five years in Thessaloniki.-á He has participated in more of these than any other non-Greek scholar and thus has more of an international reputation among specialists than a national one here, which perhaps explains why Alexander Meeus is familiar with Adams and the rest of us are not!-á That and a shared interest in Cassander!-á On to the issue of the quote from the Iliad.-á Adams first came across it in his very first Greek textbook, Crosby and Schaeffer's An Introduction to Greek, where it was the chapter heading on the Imperative Active.-á The quote is from Iliad, 3.179 "and the parenthetical remark connected to the reference was that it was 'the favorite motto of Alexander the Great'."-á As he says, "it was just too good to pass up."-á However, he told me that it is supported by Dio Chrysostom's Second Discourse on Kingship which is a rhetorical extended conversation between Philip and Alexander.-á Now, I've tended to disregard these particular discourses *because* they are rhetorical devices, but Adams states that, in his defense, Dio "preserves a good deal of genuine Macedonian material and from internal remarks from the first Discourse, Dio used Marsyas of Pella for these Discourses," something I've been unaware of until now.-á The translation of Dio that I had previously transcribed gives a somewhat different version of the motto, but is still recognizable:continued . . .

[amyntoros]

Dio Chrysostom, The Second Discourse on Kingship 2.54. (Alexander is speaking) "And so to me, father, Homer seems a most excellent disciplinarian, and he who tries to give heed to him will be a highly successful and exemplary king.-á For he clearly takes for granted himself that the pre-eminently kingly virtues are two - courage and justice.-á Mark what he says, 'An excellent king and warrior mighty withal'." While acknowledging that this may not be the only source for the quote, Adams continues (and I'll quote freely here from his email as I have his permission): "Motto"--now that your question has forced me to chase it down-- is probably the wrong characterization. It also presumes (probably too much) that there is more than just rhetoric behind this. It is toward the end of the Discourse, and unlike the other Homeric quotes, it's the sum of the argument on kingly virtue and may revolve around a genuine point. I don't know if this is the source for the characterization in Crosby and Schaeffer--there may equally be a reference in Plutarch's Moralia or a parenthetical remark in some other ancient source like Athenaeus,-á a fragment or even the Alexander Romance which would back this up. If there is a second edition of my little tome, I will emend to read something like "and according to Dio Chrysostom a favorite tag from Homer..." I think the point still stands. Alexander was deliberately acquiring the iconic markings of a public persona (e.g. Delphi, Diogenes in Corinth, etc.--which by the way shows up with Alexander in a negative fashion in the Fourth Discourse and embodies the famous encounter of Diogenes sunning himself which is also frequently used)." I find it extremely gracious of Professor Adams to take the time to respond in this manner, and I also I think it is also a great compliment to the members of this forum that he considers your comments here worthy of note!-á -á Now, I want to add something here - and many thanks to Susan Holmes for telling me this - the quote is also to be found in Peter Green's book!!-á (Have to smile about that!)-á Obviously, I never realized it was there, however it is more easily noted in Adams' book than Green's (175 pages versus 585). Here it is from page 41: "Alexander's favourite line in the Iliad shows his declared ambition, to be 'at the same time a good king and a strong spear fighter'."continued (again) . . .

[amyntoros]

One more thing worthy of mention - Adams has an article called-á "The Games of Alexander" in the book Alexander's Empire: From Formation to Decay, edited by W. Heckel and P.V. Wheatley, to be published this Spring by Regina Books.-á Amazon isn't showing any information on this, and I had no more success with a Google search.-á I think this might be the publication of papers from the Alexander conference held in Calgary in early 1995.-á Definitely a book to salivate over!http://hum.ucalgary.ca/wheckel/program.htm Best regards, Amyntoros PS. Please excuse the proliferation of the word "also" in my last post. It won't let me edit it.

[Paralus]

G'day AmyntorosPositively outstanding you cheeky bugger! And outstandingly generous of Professor Adams to fulsomely respond.And I'll worry not over the "alsos" as long as you promise to return the favour over the "outstandings" above.I think Professor Adams reference to the "iconic markings" of a persona that Alexander was adopting is on the money. His father Philip was no less enthusiastic in his image massaging: the Olympic pantheon statues including his own etc. Alexander's attention to his image, or at least the way the public saw him, is indicated by the taking along of an official court historian. Evidently we were meant to be left with a "proper" rendition of Alexander's life and deeds.Most interesting link to the Calgary conference. If you surmise correctly that this is a forthcoming publication, then it will be one eagerly snapped up by myself. The material on the Diadochoi years and wars would, to me, make it worth the dollars.If you've not read it, "Alexander The Great in Fact and Fiction" (ed Bosworth/ Baynham, Oxford, 2000) is an excellent collection of articles from a symposium (similar to the 2005 Calgary get together you cite) held at the University of Newcastle here in Australia some eight years back.
[ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925 ... e&n=283155 ]

Did you ask why no annotations/ foot or chapter notes? I imagine this was this at the behest of the publisher?
Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Hi Paralus, Yes, I do have a copy of the excellent Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, although I hadn't realized it is the collected papers from a symposium. Probably means I haven't read the introduction to the book, huh? Again, yes, the reason for there being no annotations, etc., in Adams' book is that it was the publisher's decision. The format for all the books in the Library of World Biography series is the same. I checked the publisher's website and found out that they are Educational Publishers and this book (and series) is intended for the classroom - perhaps high school, given the non-use of annotations. http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academ ... 71,00.html I admit I normally wouldn't have read the book under the (incorrect) assumption that it would contain no information new to me, however, Jeanne Reames Zimmerman had recommended it on Alexandriaeschate. And here's an aside - I believe that internet etiquette demands one doesn't reproduce posts from a members-only forum, but I'm hoping that simply repeating a book recommendation doesn't offend! As it is, I finished the book yesterday and can see why she gave it a recommendation. Not being overly familiar with either early Macedonian history or events after Alexander's death (I *will* read Green's book on the latter one of these days!) I learned some interesting things not normally found in a biography of Alexander: the size and feeding of Macedonian horses . . .social and religious customs of Macedonia . . . the difference between the ethnic and political definition of a Macedonian and how this influenced Alexander's attitude to the Persians after his conquest. . the disposition of the Persian sons of the Macedonians and the 30,000 Macedonian-trained youths after Alexander's death. Now, with your interest in the Successors you probably already know the last point, but I've always wondered what happened to them. I must add that Adam's two brief paragraphs on Alexander's sexuality are an excellent summation - I could never express myself so effectively and concisely at the same time! And this applies equally to Adam's discussion of the "harmony and equality" speech at Opis and Alexander's intentions towards the Persians. Adams is succinct, yet convincing - his explanation seems so obvious that I wonder how anyone could see if differently, although one would have to read his chapter on the Macedonian background to fully ap

[amyntoros]

Cripes! Every time I try to edit a post I get less and less room on the page! Anyway, to continue from the previous post - one would have to read his chapter on the Macedonian background to fully appreciate it.Don't get me wrong, there were a couple of further instances where my eyebrows raised as I was reading, including an apparent conflation of Alexander's children that I think *must* be an error. However, I've decided not to make too much of this having realized that it has happened with almost every biography I've read. I mark any pages that raise questions with a little post-it bookmark and I have some books on my shelf that resemble nothing more than multi-colored hedgehog road kill!In the end though, I think that this book would be best served by being reviewed by a Pothosian who has only recently discovered Alexander. The limitations of the format mean that Alexander's history can not be discussed in great detail, leaving no room in the text for extended discussion on the various incidents we all know and love so well. It's obviously meant to be an introduction to Alexander and ought to be read and assessed by its targeted audience. I know from experience that not everyone comes to Pothos with the confidence to immediately express themselves here, so perhaps there is a silent member who'd like to introduce themselves by writing a review? :-)With best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Karen, I'm so sorry for not answering this before now. No, I didn't ask him about this particular source - I was rather embarrassed about approaching him in the first place and didn't want to present more than one question.I'm assuming that the word andropodysmos can be found in the Greek text telling of the destruction of Thebes, and that scholars are aware of its exact meaning because of other similar instances where it is used to describe the events. Then the fact that there is no recording of Alexander having killed every male over thirteen means that he did not, in actuality, do it! That's my take on it anyway. Perhaps one of our Greek-reading members here can confirm that andropodysmos is in the Greek text?Best Regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Stop the presses so I can further exonerate Winthrop Lindsay Adams (while monopolizing this thread)! Adams did tell me that there may be other sources for the Agamemnon quote and he suggested Plutarch's Moralia. A moment ago I was reading Andrew Stewart's Faces of Power and found Stewart also refering to the quote from the Iliad as being one of Alexander's favorites, giving the reference as Plutarch, Moralia 331D. This is another rhetorical exercise of course, but here again the saying is attributed directly to Alexander. Stewart's also gives the Iliad quote as "both things is he, a goodly king and a mighty spearman," while the Loeb translations differs slightly.331 C - D (On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander) And in the same spirit if ever there chanced to be in hours of ease or at a banquet a comparison of the verses of Homer, each man choosing his favourite line, Alexander always judged this verse to be the greatest of all: "Both things is he: both a goodly king and a warrior mighty." This praise, which at the time it was written another had received, Alexander conceived to be a law for himself, so that he said of Homer that in this same verse he had honoured the manly courage of Agamemnon and prophesied that of Alexander.Hmmm, and Plutarch also refers to it as a "law for himself" which is the same as calling it a motto. Now I'm *truly* embarrassed at questioning the professor directly! (It's been a fun thread though.)Best regards,Amyntoros

[smittysmitty]

Hi lindaIs it likely that Agamemnon's character epitomises manly courage? Would Alexander have identified with Agamemnon? I would have thought Agamemnon's role in the Illiad was one that characterised ruthlesness, greed, ambition, power - indeed most character traits given to Agamemnon by Homer were done so (IMO) to show the down side of monarchical rule.

[amyntoros]

Hi Smitty,Good question GÇô and IGÇÖm not sure if IGÇÖm qualified to answer it given that my perspective isnGÇÖt that of a woman (or man) living in a warrior society. I mean, IGÇÖm not raising my son to live by the sword or die by the sword so I canGÇÖt properly appreciate how the ancients viewed Homer. Take Achilles, for instance GÇô I love the stories and see how he might be admired in many instances, but my true feelings would be to tell him to stop sulking, grow up, and get out there and fight before something really bad happens to his friends! As for Agamemnon . . . well, the sources indicate that Alexander wanted nothing more than to be the king and to achieve great glory. If he was to looking to admire or emulate someone and it wasnGÇÖt the greatest warrior or a god, then I think it could be no less than a king. ItGÇÖs doubtful that Alexander would choose any of his ancestors as he was driven to excel those who came before him, and he certainly wouldnGÇÖt have considered the lesser kings that he knew. This leaves only legendary kings as likely candidates. WE may interpret Homer as meaning to show the downside of monarchical rule, but we canGÇÖt know that Alexander viewed the stories the same way. Neither Plutarch nor Chrysostom seem to share our modern opinion, after all. Reading through Dio Chrysostom again I find the analysis of Homer absolutely fascinating, but not at all how I interpreted the stories when I first read them.And btw, I canGÇÖt imagine that anyone ever approached Alexander and told him he could pick one person to emulate, and one person only, so I think itGÇÖs conceivable that he could have admired (and wanted to improve upon) more than one character. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros.Thanks for the information re the book. As you say it sounds an introductory type of book and much suited to the general reader or reader new to the subject.The history of the Diadochoi and the Hellenistic kingdoms which they established is quite fascinating - at least to me. It really is quite amazing the constant fighting, alliance making, alliance breaking, dynastic marriages, dynastic divorces and murders and GÇô most fascinating GÇô the almost disinterested air of expansion of the Romans into the Hellenistic east. Just as fascinating is the total failure of the Greeks to comprehend this singularly relentless yet distant and seemingly off-handed arbiter of their affairs.It is classic Greek tragedy GÇô alive in history GÇô reading as the Romans work the rope line of Successor monarchs lining up like lemmings to stake everything on the climactic showdowns of phalanx and legion. Green's "Alexander to Actium" is GÇô to me GÇô a tour de force and you just have to make time to read it.When you do, make sure a copy of Gruen's wonderfully titled "The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome" at hand GÇô the two go well together.Regards,Paralus.