Litrature of a different kind

[smittysmitty]

Much has been said about Alexander's relationship/knowledge of poets of his day and earlier poets, but little if any mention is given to his exposure to the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. My question is, would he have been aquainted with such works and what would be his thoughts on such matters; and secondly, if he was familiar with their work, why do we not hear of them being mentioned in the sources, when other historians have?

[jona]

That Alexander read Herodotus, can be proved - more or less. He sacrificed to the Apis in Memphis. This is indeed an Egyptian cult, but under his circumstances (conqueror seizing power), he'd better have sacrificed to Ra-Atum at Heliopolis, the protector of kingship. No pharaoh has ever claimed that his kingship was protected by Ptah and the Apis.There was no need for Alexander to sacrifice to the Apis; he did so, because he had read Herodotus.Jona

[abm]

i'm not sure, but if my memory is right, you can find more on Alexander and Herodotus in Michael Zahrnt's article 'Alexanders +£bergang ++ber den Hellespont' in Chiron 36 (1996), pp. 129-147.

[Phil]

Hello Jona,
Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm not following the logic here...

[smittysmitty]

Aristotle makes a number of references to Herodotus in some of his works , so presumably Alexander may have gained familiarity of Herodotus through him if not through his own efforts. It would be interesting to know what Alexander thought of the narratives on Macedon written by Thucydides and Herodotus; I guess we will never know!

[Phil]

Hello SmittyI was not questioning whether or not Alexander had read Herodotus, but rather how it was possible to prove that he had from the fact that he sacrificed to the god Apis. I'm interested in the reasoning behind this remark, and I was hoping that Jona could give a little more explanation of the train of thought that led to this conclusion.Phil

[marcus]

There's actually relatively little about Macedonia in Thucydides, although what there is isn't entirely complimentary in its implications (that of the Macedonians changing sides as often as the wind changed). On the other hand, knowing how successful Philip was at his political manoeuvring, the Macedonians probably found it very complimentary! :-)I imagine that Alexander was more likely to have read Herodotus than Thucydides, because of the information he would have gained about Asia and the Persians. But there were many other sources of information, too, such as Ctesias, whom I'm sure he would have known (as epitomes if not as the full texts).All the bestmarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi Marcus,I guess the reason why I raise this question is in interest to a comment made by Plutarch. Plutarch states Alexander was a lover of books, (and he probably was) and whilst in Asia, GÇÿHarpalus sent him the histories of Philistus, many of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and the dithyrambic poems of Telestes and Philoxenus.GÇÖ I was a little curious as to why Philistus was mentioned and not two of perhaps the best known historians, Herodotus and Thucydides. Philistus wrote a history of Sicily and was actively involved in the politics of the island nation during the reign of Dionysus.It may simply be a case; he already had their writings at hand LoL! The interesting point is that historical literature, in the form of prose, was a relatively new concept for the time, and was perhaps brought home best by Thucydides with his no nonsense approach to recording history. This style of writing whilst relatively new, in many ways reflected a changing of views and attitudes by many people at the time, a literary and in some sense a social revolution! ThucydidesGÇÖ account of Macedon during the Peloponnesian war, in my opinion, provides great insight into the dynamics existing between various races bordering upon their world. MacedonGÇÖs relationship with Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Thessalians, various tribes of Epirus and the Hellenes who choose to fight and colonize within these peoples lands makes for informative and tantalizing reading. The depiction of a fragmented Macedon, inclusive of territorial disputes with rival chieftains/kings, depictions of continual turmoil experienced in the Argead court as well as a historical insight into the families origins and expansionist ideals, all makes for informative reading. Now you may ask how and why this would be of interest to Alexander! To be honest, IGÇÖm not certain that it was. He may, and more likely than not, did have a better understanding of his own people/clans/nations history than what Thucydides or Herodotus could ever have! But what would have been of interest, perhaps, was the perception of others in regards to all of the above, as well as this relatively revolutionary concept in writing and thinking.
Cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,I agree with you completely.Of course, to some extent we have to take it as read that Thucydides and Herodotus were that much more 'famous' than the other historians - because at best we only have fragments of the others, and in many cases only names. Of course I'm not suggesting that Herodotus was a 'little known' author (for we know that we wasn't) - and my conviction that Alexander would have read/heard both is based on their importance as literature even in their own time.If you are able to, look for an article called "Who read Herodotus' Histories" - I don't have with me the details of the author or journal, but could get it tonight. It's a fascinating study of 'reading habits' in the Ancient World!All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi Alexander,thanks for the reference :)It sounds like the article is written in German, if so, it creates a major problem, my inability to read German. Damn, thats another language I have to learn apart from ancient greek and latin. From my understanding some of the best work on the period happens to come from German scholars.