Applicable, of course, to the work of any Alexander historian, I find the filling of the Alexander bottle to be even more engaging when found in books of a generalized historical nature. Case in point is Oracles of the Dead: Ancient Techniques for Predicting the Future by Robert Temple. A visiting professor of history and the philosophy of science at Tsinghua University in Beijing; a member of the Royal Historical Society and Institute of Classical Studies amongst other organizations, Temple obviously has an extensive knowledge of history. That said, his brief picture of Alexander is full of the kind of rhetoric that would have delighted Demosthenes - and probably a member or two here! First he quotes only a long passage from Plutarch (Alexander 73-74) concerning omens and Alexander's return to Babylon. (I won't put the whole Plutarch passage here unless requested.) Temple then proceeds thus on page 186-187:The German historian Ulrich Wilcken's perceptive characterization of Alexander as symbolizing all things to all men exemplifies the flexibility of the Alexander myth as a significatory paradigm. Developments of this idea have led to Alexander being described metaphorically as a bottle that can be filled with any wine . . . . . . . . . During the past century, interest in theories of historiography and historical method has increased rapidly, and to extend the metaphor further, if Alexander is a bottle that can be filled with any wine, then the historian becomes the 'winemaker', blending literary skills and source study into a final bottled product. It is to this vision of historiography as a creative process that the title of this chapter refers, the process by which Alexander's story has developed and continues to hold relevance.
Ah, where should I begin with the above? There's so much that could be said but for the time being I'll leave it at this: Temple, a very fortunate man, is apparently privy to the knowledge of what was in Alexander's 'heart of hearts'. Don't you all wish you could say that?This splendid evocation of the decline of Alexander's character, and of the seedy, omen-riddled last days of his life before the fatal fever, is confirmed by the account given by the historian Arrian, who also stresses the importance of the liver's lack of a lobe, and the demoralizing effect of this fact on Alexander. The liver inspection offered the opportunity to send Alexander into the self-induced decline which his own guilty conscience required. Alexander became enraged when, for example, Cassander refused to worship him and in a rage smashed Cassander's head against a wall. Alexander wanted to be treated as a god, and pretended to himself that he was a god. But in his heart of hearts he knew that Cassander's laughter was justified. He knew also that his old teacher Aristotle was ridiculing his present pretensions to divinity, and he could not endure the feelings of guilt that these sensible people back in Greece were arousing in him. Above all, he knew that he had succumbed to vanity, that he had betrayed what was best in his own character. Hence, his increasing resort to meaningless acts of violence, his drunken fits of rage, and, finally, his sinking into a superstitious torpor and terror of omens. He succumbed to the portents in a spell of self-destructive gloom. He had lost all his bearings and is a terrible witness to the maxim that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. And the defective liver in a sacrificial animal was truly an omen.
I have other general histories from which I could quote (and most likely will at some point), including H. G. Well's An Outline of History, and A Textbook for the Middle Schools; State Textbook Publishing House, Moscow – 1935. The latter book is concerned, unsurprisingly, with the history of slaves and serfdom and Alexander is barely mentioned by name. The author, however, knows exactly how much Persian land was allotted to the Greek settlers, giving figures for simple infantry men through the guard and the cavalry!
However, IMO, nothing else is quite as devilishly entertaining as the passage from Temple's book. A book which I'm quite enjoying on other levels, I might add.Best regards,
metaphor but so be it. It always works. And the truth is that I most earnestly agree that the story of Alexander probably should be taken with that kind of observation, since probably most of it should be spat out anyway. Everyone can take the myth of Alexander and turn it into any vintage the historian or novelist wishes.