The following gobbet is from Plutarch’s (C. 50 B.C.- C.120 A.D.) Alexander. It narrates Alexander’s journey to the Libyan Oracle of Siwah in 332 . The aim of this essay is to draw the possible reasons as to why Alexander went to this specific oracle its consequences and question the reliability of Plutarch’s account. Plutarch describes the conversation between the priest of Ammon and Alexander. Alexander inquired if all the murderers of his father were punished to which the priest replied that Alexander was not the son of a mortal. Plutarch also records the priest mispronouncing “O paidos “ (O son of Zeus) instead of “O paidon” (O my son). Even if Diodorus and Justin relate the same event and agree that the priest speaking to Alexander referred to him as the son of Zeus, our most reliable source on Alexander, Arrian, whose account is generally well detailed, fails to mention this. Indeed, the only mention of what was said at Siwah was that Alexander ‘heard what was agreeable to his wishes’. So why then does Arrian fail to mention the account of Alexander’s speech with the priest? One possibility would be that this speech never happened. The deification of Alexander was an important event in his lifetime, in the years before his death he was deified. Although speculation exists as to how Alexander was deified; meaning whether or not it was self-deification. Roberts suggests that Alexander encouraged many Greek cities to ‘offer him divine cult’, for which they allowed. Plutarch being a biographer and moralist had a tendency to romanticise his subject and as a consequence being subjective. One of Arrian’s principal sources was Ptolemy, who was a key figure during Alexander’s campaign and Pharaoh of Egypt followin... ... middle of paper ... ...: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol.8, No 3, pp. 349-355 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434623 (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Robert J. (2007), ‘ruler-cult’ in Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World, Ed. Robert, Oxford Reference Online:Oxford University Press.at http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t180.e1947&srn=1&ssid=1247856200#FIRSTHIT (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Robison C. (1943), ‘Alexander’s Deification’ in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp.286-301 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/291013 (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Russel D. (2010), ‘Plutarch’ in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth. Oxford Reference Online:Oxford University Press.at http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t133.e497&srn=1&ssid=1128506243#FIRSTHIT (Accessed on 22nd February 2010)
Rengakos, Antonios. Homertext und die Hellenistichen Dichter. Hermes. Einzelschriften, Heft 64. Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1993.
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715, 8th Edition, (Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012), 301.
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715, 8th Edition, (Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012), 90.
Freeman also spends enough time describing the difficulties and contradictions in the sources of Alexander's story that the reader can gain a sense of what may have happened while also still having a firm grasp of the his opinion of what he thinks is the truth. Some of the other texts briefly touched on the difficulties with the sources and the contradictions between them, but did a poor job conveying the opinion of the author, or the reliability of the various sources. Freeman also spends some time describing the history of Alexander. He touched briefly on Alexander's father, mother, and mentors and how they shaped him and to give a sense of him as a person. Without an understanding of where Alexander came from it is more difficult to gauge the validity of the disparate sources. With an understanding of who Alexander was as a person researchers can better understand his personality and then make better determinations if something seems out of character or not.
Plutarch presented history through biographical stories of the people that were important and influential during the time period he wished to address. However, after having read some of his work, one realizes that Plutarch inserts his own personal opinion and views of the people at hand into the factual documentation of their lives. For example, in The Life of Crassus, Plutarch expresses a general dislike and negative view of the man, but in The Life of Caesar he portrays the life through a lens of praise. It also seems that he uses his opinions of the people that he writes about to subtly extend moral lessons to the reader. What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch's opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar.
A Comparison of Plutarch's The Lives of the Ancient Grecians and Romans and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
Bury, J. B.; Russell Meiggs (2000). A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great
Rengakos, Antonios. Homertext und die Hellenistichen Dichter. Hermes. Einzelschriften, Heft 64. Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1993.
The imperial expansion of Rome or in simpler terms the development of the Roman Empire can be associated with the second century BC. Over a relatively short period of time, Rome immensely expanded its territory at a rapid rate. Although the victories in the Second Punic War satisfied Rome, they also motivated them to expend further into their neighbour’s territories and eventually conquer Greece and the North African coast. The Roman Empire became colossal and unstoppable within a blink of a century. Robin Waterfield’s new translation of Plutarch’s original work Roman Lives clarifies the reasons behind this sudden need to grow. The necessity in increase of the common wealth, the lack of available land for the Roman citizen, the safety precaution of having foreign allies and most importantly the constant need in being the most influential empire are among some of the reasons Plutarch provided. The lives of Cato the Elder, Aemilius Paullius, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus demonstrate specific cases of how these factors affected Rome and caused it to expand its borders. All explanations are valid however, when one looks at the larger picture it becomes clear that the prosperity of the Roman society is in the root of them all.
Howe, Helen, and Robert T. Howe. A World History: Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Volume 1. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1992. 533.
While Athens prepared for the encounter of a young man that would change their city, Plutarch exp...
*All primary documents from this text come with this preface in mind (especially that which I have bolded): In this volume, as in its predecessor, I have tried to keep both footnotes and editorial comment to a minimum, the only real problem occurring with documents written in the emerging literary English of the period. With most of these I have used modern versions, but one or two I have left in the original, to instance the spelling and form of the language. With these some notes have been necessary, but by and large they are intelligible with a little effort, and should be interesting to read. Such mistakes, as exist are of course, mine.
Diodorus and Plutarch portray Alexander with extreme amounts of arrogance because of his extravagant ideas and goals, but in Arrian’s pieces, Alexander is shown as a barbarian because of his inheritance of Persian culture.
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
Phillip Harth. Modern Philology, Vol. 73, No. 4, Part 2: A Supplement to Honor Arthur Friedman (May, 1976), pp. S45