Pseudo-Callisthenes

[Efstathios]

The first variation of Pseudo-Callistenes the greek one is the older one too.it is merely a collection of letters and corespondance of Alexander.Although it is mainly fictional some of the letters or some parts might have been taken from the original letters of Alexander.

When you read pseudo-Callisthenes there is something strange about it.It is too fictional.Even for a tale.It was not common for greeks to write such fictional stories of people and places that were out of the myth or were existant and their history well known.At least i dont remember any book like this.

Aesopus wrote stories.Fictional stories.Aeschylus wrote tragedies.About fictional characters.E.t.c.But whoever wrote Alexander's romantic novel in it's initial form wrote fictional things about a real person that everyone knew his story.I mean Alexander never went to Rome.And everyone knew that.So why did someone write something like this.It is not like someone writing about a novel and adding fictional things about Alexander's everyday life,but altering well known history.

Was that considered normal back then?I do not think so.And especially for the greeks.I guess that many people when they would read this book would have maybe laughed with these parts or just considered them not worth looking at twice.Or went like "Huh? Alexander to Rome?What is he talking about?", like i did when i first read it.

So, there is something else with this book.The writer new Alexander's history very well.You can tell that from some details.So why did he alter some things?Maybe the book was intented to be something else than just a common tale?

I wouldnt be surprised if the writer was Aristotle.Some people back in those times said that it might have been Aristotle,Aesopus,Onesicritus or some others (check wikipedia for more information).And i am wondering why they would say that Aristotle might have written it.Because Aristotle wrote different types of books.Maybe they knew something about Aristotle that we dont know today?Maybe he had written other types of books also?Maybe he had a specific motivation to write something like this?Maybe this book (or the too fictional parts of it) was intended for specific people?

Can this book be coded?If it is then only a few people could have done it back then.One of them surely was Aristotle.Master of speechcraft,and written word,among his other qualities.

Just some thoughts...

[marcus]

I have to say that I've never heard it suggested that Aristotle wrote the Alexander Romance (or Pseudo-Callisthenes, if you like). I have to say that I doubt it, but it isn't an area of expertise.

You've raised some interesting questions, which I haven't considered before. I suppose one thing we must bear in mind is that we don't have an original version - in fact, if I recall correctly, the earliest version we have is from the Christian Era, and relatively late, at that. So the fact is that we simply don't know what the original version contained, or how much of the "fantasy" elements it contained.

All the best

Marcus

[Efstathios]

I have the 4 variations of Pseudo-Callisthenes in one book.The first,the greek one is dated at around 300 bc (or since Alexander's time generally) up to the 2nd,3rd century ad.It could have been written by Aristotle,Aesopus,Onesicritus,Arrian,Plutarch and some others.It was translated to latin by Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius in 3rd century ad,and that is the version that we now have as the first variation.

[marcus]

The earliest extant version of the Romance dates from the 3rd century AD - this is the version that was used by Julius Valerus.

I'm not disputing the general point that you're making, Efstathios, but bearing in mind the relative lateness of our earliest extant manuscript, we can't make too many assumptions about what was in the earliest version.

See:

• R. Telfryn Pritchard (trans.), The History of AlexanderGÇÖs Battles. Historia de preliisGÇöthe J1 version, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, 1992
  R. Stoneman (trans.), The Greek Alexander Romance, Harmondsworth, 1991

All the best

[susan]

I have the 4 variations of Pseudo-Callisthenes in one book.The first,the greek one is dated at around 300 bc (or since Alexander's time generally) up to the 2nd,3rd century ad.

I'm about to publish the Syriac version online ( I have the Ethiopic version too, but there's little sense in that). What other versions do you have ?

I think the first versions came from the 310s, from Ptolemy's Egypt - but most is much later. I don't honestly think that Aristotle was involved, but the Romance would certainly repay studying in depth. Some of it is quite sensible, then it goes completely haywire. It seems as if several sources - some straight, some fantastical, have been glued together.

To study it properly we need enough evidence, and out-of-copyright too - it's hard work if it's in books.

[marcus]

I have to say that both the books I quoted in an earlier post - Trelfyn Pritchard and Richard Stoneman - are extremely good on the Romance. Pritchard is especially good on explaining how the different versions fit together (but can I repeat that the earliest extant version of the Romance dates from 3rd Century AD - we ain't got anything earlier than that), and which versions influenced which later versions (including, for example, the Medieval French and Icelandic versions).

ATB

[Paralus]

G'day Marcus.

We do not have the original. Much theorising now argues for an original written about 309/8 in Alexandria under the auspices of Ptolemy, of course. Efsthasios has stated that such things are often witten by the Greeks for a purpose: almost all "stories" are of course.

The side bar to this is how much did Ptolemy have to do with its original content and flavour?

The Liber de Morte - that rather entertaining "closure" to the Romance - is interesting for its plans for the empire and its management. Brian Bosworth makes a compelling case for this to make little sense unless its "publication date" is 309/8: after the "Peace of the Dynasts". He describes the document as political propaganda designed to buttress Ptolemy's postion in the succession poltics now coming to the inevitable crunch of Ipsus.

I tend to agree. If the Lieber de Morte rounded out the Romance in antiquity - and was not a separate document collected and tacked on later - then the original Romance may well have had plenty to do with Ptolemy as well.

But, as Marcus says, we do not have the original.

[amyntoros]

The side bar to this is how much did Ptolemy have to do with its original content and flavour?

Quite a lot, I suspect. And I think this explains a myth in the early part of the romance GÇô one which may be quite close to the truth. IGÇÖve been looking at Albert M. WolohojianGÇÖs translation of the Armenian version of the Romance - the closest to the Greek original and the least corrupt - and what it says about the Agathos Daimon, the sacred snake and tutelary god of Alexandria.


[86] And they began to build the city of Alexandria in the middle of the plain. First the place was given a name so as to begin from there the building of the city. And a serpent used to come to those who were busy working, and it frightened the workers and put a stop to the work. Because of the serpentGÇÖs raids, Alexander came and said, GÇ£Let it be captured by the workmen wherever it is found tomorrow.GÇ¥ And upon receiving the order, they subdued and slew the beast when it came to the place which is now called Yark.(1) And Alexander asked that a shrine be built for it there, and they buried the serpent in it. And he declared that the excavation for the foundations be made nowhere else but on that same spot, where to this day the high mountain called the Albiwr(2) appears.
(1) Transliteration meaning GÇ£Place of habitation.GÇ¥
(2) Translation should probably be GÇ£moundGÇ¥.

[87] And when he had laid the foundation for most of the city, he wrote upon it the five letters: A, B, C, D, E; A, Alexander; B, the greatest king; C, of the greatest nations; D, in the place of Aramazd; E, descended and built a unique city. And there were donkeys and mules at work there. And when the shrine had been built for this divinity, he set it upon the pillar. And many serpents came out of it and slithered into the houses that were now there. For Alexander was still there on the twenty-fifth of Tubi,(1) building the city and that very shrine for the serpent. Thus, when these snakes came into the houses, the gatekeepers worship them as kindly spirits, for they are not poisonous, like wild animals, but rather, drive out poisonous beasts. And sacrifices are made to him as being of the family of serpents.(2) And they wreathed all the beasts of burden and let them rest on that day; for, by bearing burdens, they had done their share in the building of the splendid city. And the king ordered that grain be given the guards. And when they had ground the grain and made bread, this was given to the inhabitants as in time of great rejoicing. On account of this, to this day these customs are kept among the Alexandrians on the twenty-fifth of Tubi. They garland all beasts of burden, and offer sacrifices to the god, and render homage to the serpents who safeguard the home, and make a distribution of bread.
(1) This is an Egyptian division of the year corresponding to our January (Muller, p. 35, ch. xxxii, note 10).
(2) The sacrifice to Alexander as belonging to the race of serpents recalls AmmonGÇÖs apparition as a serpent.

At first it may appear to be a fabulous legend, but there are kernels of truth in this story. The festival did take place on the twenty-fifth of Tubi and continued through the centuries, and the temple for Agathos Daimon as tutelary god is a historical fact. For the ancient Greeks, a tutelary god for the city would have been a necessity and was probably established even as the foundations were being completed. In fact, the god was of such importance that the PotterGÇÖs Oracle (circa 130 BC) tells that if the Agathos Daimon leaves Alexandria, the city will be emptied. Now, AlexanderGÇÖs involvement may have been myth, yet thereGÇÖs nothing too outrageous in the tale for it to be dismissed completely. (I know that the month is questionable, but I believe the dates that Alexander spent founding Alexandria have not been confirmed without a doubt.) But truth or legend, this tale would have been used to explain the Agathos Daimon as tutelary god GÇô and the origin of the story has to date all the way back to Ptolemy.

I also believe that this is why the normally GÇ£sensibleGÇ¥ Ptolemy tells in his history of Alexander that two talking snakes were AlexanderGÇÖs guides on the journey to Siwah, while the generally more fanciful Aristobulus speaks only of crows. ThereGÇÖs another connection to snakes via AlexanderGÇÖs dream in which a snake told him of a cure for PtolemyGÇÖs sickness - which GÇ£couldGÇ¥, btw, be another invention of PtolemyGÇÖs! With the establishment of the Agathos Daimon as tutelary god AND the cult of Alexander begun by Ptolemy, the use of talking snakes in PtolemyGÇÖs history simply reinforces the godGÇÖs importance to the city itself.

My thoughts, anyway. . .

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Hello

The book that i have is from "Kaktos" publications ,a first edition which was published in 2005."Kaktos" publications currently have the largest ancient greek literature archive here in Greece.It mainly presents the variation "a" and also uses variations "b" and "c" to fill in some gaps where needed in the variation "a".

I quote from the prologue regarding to speculations about the book to have originally been written in Alexandria:

"Most researchers think that the first version of this book appeared early,maybe 100 years after the death of Alexander,at the years of Ptolemy Epifanis (205/4-181 b.c),and that it had been written in Alexandria of Egypt.We can see that from the book (A' 31-32) where the writter is familiar with the city of Alexandria.Also his persistence to the tales about the foundation and the construction of this city,as well as the various customs,is notable.

We can also see the egyptian character of this book from the egyptian traditions regarding the last independant King of Egypt Nectanevo,before Egypt's conquest by the persians.Nectanevo fled from Memfis in 343 b.c ,little time before the Persian conquest,and we dont have any other information after that.But the local tradition said that he would rise again ,even with the form of a descentant,to restore Egypt's Kingdom.At this book Alexander appears to be son of Nectanevo,something that exists only in egyptian traditions.

But this appearance of egyptian traditions in "Alexander's novel" must not lead us to the conclusion that the writter was of egyptian origin.He was probably greek,and that can be concluded by the fact that the presence of Nectanevo in the book calls forth a negative rather than a positive impression,since he is appeared to be an imposter,and his death is confronted by cruelty by his son Alexander.

So it is possilbe that a first form of this book appeared in Alexandria around 200 bc.Certainly the base of the book was historical.But it seems that history was from the beggining treated by the writter freely.So in a discussion between the 10 rhetors in Athens (B' 1-5) they appear as modern of Alexander ,and each of them lived in different time eras.Roxanne appears to be the daughter of Darius.Alexander appears to have started his campaign invading Italy and Sicelia,and then proceeding to Africa and then Persia and Asia minor,where the writter places the two greek cities Athens and Thebes!,and that shows his geographical confusion.(My note: is it possible that a greek writter wouldnt know that Athens and Thebes were not in Asia minor?)

One source that the writer possibly used for the historical features of the book may have been a hellenistic historic book about Alexander ,possibly of Cleitomachus the Alexandrian.From this book must have been the dialogue between Alexander and Parmenion and also the catalogue of the guests in Alexander's last symposium.

Also,in this book were used many historical and fictious texts about the life of Alexander, which at that time were published independendly,such as collections of letters between Alexander and various persons,Darius,Aristotle e.t.c."

The Armenian variation was based on the variation "a"mainly.

I must note that variation "a" which is the older one has nothing to do with a romantic novel.Nowhere in this book we see something romantic.And it has also many fictious things in it,and that's why it has been categorised as "fictious biography"

[marcus]

Just to clear something up - "Romance", in the context of a literary genre, is different from "romantic" or even "romance". It has the same source as the French for "novel" = "roman". Hence, in the Medieval period, the "Roman de la Rose" was merely the "Story of the Rose".

So the "Alexander Romance" does indeed have nothing to do with romantic novels in the 'modern' sense - it is merely the "Alexander Story" (if you like).

ATB

[Efstathios]

Thanks for the clarification.Indeed,when i heard romance i thought of something similar to "romantic".So yes,this book is a novel.

[Aspasia]

Just reading over previous posts. In relation to Callisthenes- he was to some extent Alexander's 'press-agent' as J.R. Hamilton puts it? He accompanied Alexander on part of his expedition and wrote an account of the happenings along the way. Already, we have a problem. How objective was Callisthenes in his reporting?? And when he was, we know what happened. Anyway, what happened to these accounts??? Where they destroyed, kept?? Does anyone know?

Who was Pseudo-Callisthenes? We have material that emerges around 300BC, which were at the time claimed to be the long lost manuscripts of Callisthenes. Around this time (300's) how was information being passed down and by whom?? And why was it written/ chiselled??

[marcus]

Just reading over previous posts. In relation to Callisthenes- he was to some extent Alexander's 'press-agent' as J.R. Hamilton puts it? He accompanied Alexander on part of his expedition and wrote an account of the happenings along the way. Already, we have a problem. How objective was Callisthenes in his reporting?? And when he was, we know what happened. Anyway, what happened to these accounts??? Where they destroyed, kept?? Does anyone know?

Who was Pseudo-Callisthenes? We have material that emerges around 300BC, which were at the time claimed to be the long lost manuscripts of Callisthenes. Around this time (300's) how was information being passed down and by whom?? And why was it written/ chiselled??

Lots of questions there, Aspasia ...

First, you're right, of course, that Callisthenes can hardly have been totally objective - in fact, from the fragments that we have of his work it is clear that he was very much a PR man, and wrote what was likely to put Alexander in the best possible light. Having said that, we can probably reasonably assume that most of the basic facts as he reported it were correct.

As to what happened to his account, nobody knows for sure. It is generally believed that he sent it back to Greece in installments - "our reporter in the field" as it were; although some historians doubt that it happened this way ... so we're no clearer, really. When the more populist accounts, such as Cleitarchus and even, a bit later, the Romance, became popular, Callisthenes' work rather took a back seat, and was used mainly by other writers (Strabo, Plutarch, etc.) as source material for their own works - hence the few fragments that we have.

I can't remember exactly when the Romance was designated as Pseudo-Callisthenes, but I suspect it was quite late (ie. during the Enlightenment, or some such time) that people started saying it was Callisthenes' work ... and then, once it was clear that this was rubbish, the "pseudo" bit was added.

ATB

[Taphoi]

Several fifteenth century manuscripts of the Alexander Romance attributed it to Callisthenes. The association could be much older. It is of course impossible that it is by Alexander's Callisthenes, since he was dead before Alexander's expedition was over, whereas the Romance runs right up to Alexander's entombment in Egypt. Hence modern scholars have called it Pseudo-Callisthenes.

In fact it probably doesn't have a single author at all. It looks more like a collection of older tales from sources of varying quality stitched together inexpertly to form an illusion of a continuous account. Some bits, such as the Liber de Morte and the description of Alexandria, seem to be from knowledgeable sources. It looks like it was created in the form in which we know it by a native Egyptian in Alexandria in the 3rd century AD. The rather complex manuscript history and other clues converge on that time and place.

Best wishes,

Andrew