Why do imaginary events matter so much, in some narratives of Alexander?

The disparity between accounts of Alexander the Great by ancient authors has proved problematic in the attempt by modern scholars to piece together the facts surrounding his life and character. Yet this issue is exacerbated further with the presence of the Alexander Romance which is believed to have begun shortly after his death and progressed through to the Middle Ages. Within these romances, the weird and wonderful creep into some of the narratives of Alexander’s life, often shifting story telling from historical chronicles to outright fantasy. Yet whilst the study of romances is unhelpful when trying to establish the
original Alexander, they are interesting insights into the culture and motives of those who
wrote them. Indeed, the work of Charles Martindale has been hugely influential in this form of study, as he notes aptly that through the constant manipulation of source material and evidence, through a multitude of cultures and motives of each author, ‘we cannot get back to any ordinary meaning wholly free of subsequent accretions.’ However, by studying these romances with this cautious approach, we can gain valuable information about those who created them and the society in which they were created, whether the narratives were created for mere entertainment or as a response to earlier works or contemporary ideals. By analysing one story in particular, the account of Alexander’s journey to the bottom to the sea, we can explore why imaginary events seemed to matter so much to some individuals within the context of the tales of Alexander.

An important note to make before delving into the fantastical story of Alexander’s journey to the bottom of the ocean is the development of the Alexander Romances and the irregularities between them. It would be wrong to assume that all of the romances have the same structure or story pattern, as the adoption of the figure of Alexander was constantly reworked and retold to suit the interests of the audience consuming them. Certainly, whilst the original Alexander Romance (usually referred to as α) is now lost to us, a single manuscript usually identified as A, dating back to c.3rd century AD, is commonly labelled as
he closest resemblance to the original α romance which no longer survives, as it has the most in common with the ancient historical accounts of Alexander’s life and actions. By providing this link to the historical writing of ancient authors such as Callisthenes and Ptolemy (also now lost to us) or even further into the Roman Empire under the likes of Arrian and Plutarch, it is unsurprising that scholars date this manuscript as the first of a long line of Alexander romances following the original α romance, as Stoneman notes that ‘different readers will seek different things from a translation: the historian will look for the possibly historical material of A’. Whilst it is hazardous to rely on the narratives of Alexander Romances to gain a more informed picture of who Alexander was, the lack of fantastical events and the resemblance to military chronicles of the A recension does set it up as a more accurate display of chronological information compared to later romances. Furthermore, the evident lack of the bell-diver episode within A, where Alexander descends in a glass jar or cage to the bottom of the ocean, is a significant point to raise before exploring this episode in later narratives, as it is clearly a later addition to the original Alexander romance of α.

The Alexander Romances are split primarily into four recensions, from the original α romance, which in turn produced a multitude of Alexander narratives that vary greatly from one to the other. The two versions of Alexander’s journey below the sea that will be explored, labelled as λ and a later C, can provide a basic example for the development and shifting narrative of this one story, and provides an insight into the interests of the authors and their respective audience. The first is The Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedon attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes (λ), which is the offshoot of the β recension, usually dated in the 3rd century AD. In this version, the tale of Alexander’s exploration to the bottom of the sea is told through the medium of a letter to his mother Olympias, as he retells the stories of the wonders of Asia during his campaigns. As noted by Stoneman, the λ recension has incorporated a large amount of legendary material deriving from these genuine letters between mother and son, which are evident in the works of ancient historians such as Plutarch. Yet whilst there is evidence of correspondence between the two, this more fantastical episode is not evident within the ancient sources, nor even the A recension of the Alexander Romance, thus suggesting that the tale was a later addition to the original
Alexander Romance. The second version of the bell-diver story to be explored, the Romance of Alexander the Great (C), derives from the γ offshoot of the β and ε recensions, and is significantly later in date, with Walter Skeat positing that it may have originally been composed in pure Northumbrian dialect between the early to mid-fifteenth century. Given that this recension of the Alexander Romance was created over one thousand years after thePseudo-Callisthenes’ λ recension, it is hardly unsurprising that, whilst the bell-diver episode is also evident within this narrative, there is a significant difference between the two accounts. On the surface the greatest difference is the mode of its expression, as it shifts from a first-person account within a letter to a 3rd person narrative, whilst also providing a slightly different account of Alexander’s journey beneath the sea. Whilst both The Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedon and the Romance of Alexander the Great will be used in this assessment of the bell-diver episode, it is important to establish the variance between the two, as they derive from different recensions of the original romance and therefore do not tell the same story. Even if sharing the common topic of the life of Alexander the Great, and sharing the same account of the bell-diver episode with uncanny similarities, the overall narrative of each romance is noticeably different to the other, which is the case for all of the Alexander
Romances which survive today. Whilst the same episode may pop up in multiple Alexander Romances, this in no way means that they should be considered the same, as their narratives are influenced by the culture of the author and intended audience, which is turn varies significantly.

Yet the Alexander romances go even further than merely adding excitement to a primarily chronicle like piece of work, as seen in the ancient accounts of his actions, by pushing the boundaries of mortal restraints and allowing Alexander to explore the depths of the ocean which, in Ptolemaic Alexandria to Middle Age Britain, would still have been an unknown to the contemporary author and reader. Within an ancient context, these stories seem to draw on similar themes of myth and legend familiar to a contemporary audience, as the tales of heroes acting beyond normal mortal capabilities are present in the likes of Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad and even within the confines of tragedy where often gods and men collide. Furthermore, Archibald notes that these descriptions of ‘Alexander in the East draw on the vogue for fantastic travellers’ tales (for instance Lucian's A True Story and Antonius Diogenes' Wonders Beyond Thule)’. 

This comment certainly demands more attention, as it would not be farfetched to assume that the fantastical events of Alexander’s journey beneath the sea could share similar elements with the tales of Lucian and Antonius Diogenes, which focus heavily on the narrative of travellers, which Alexander himself is often portrayed as being. Furthermore, the dating of Pseudo-Callisthenes in the 3rd Century also testifies to this proposition, as the 2nd century A True Story and Wonders Beyond Thule may have served as inspiration for the author of the Greek Alexander Romance. Whilst mostly speculative, it could be suggested that the alien like creatures encountered in Lucian’s A True Story, with stalk-mushroom infantries and dog-faced men who fly on the back of winged acorns, can be paralleled with the weird and wonderful creatures Alexander encounters on his journey, especially beneath the sea, as the Pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander Romance the Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedon describes an enormous fish which caught Alexander and his cage in its mouth, and managed to dragged a ship filled with 360 crew members. If this is the case, the inclusion of the weird and wonderful as a response to contemporary ancient authors was also passed down to later romances and became, in some cases, a common motif of the Alexander Romances. Certainly, even within the fifteenth century Romance of Alexander the Great, the 3rd person narration described strange fish with four legs, ‘sum ferd all on foure feete’. By assessing the Alexander Romances in the context of earlier Greek ‘novels’, which share in the creation of imaginary events, it is not difficult to propose that Pseudo-Callisthenes may have been attempting to create a work of intrigue and wonder in response to such works, only against the backdrop of militaristic narratives of Alexander created by historians. From the viewpoint of the historian this innovation is of great significance, as it becomes increasingly difficult to understand the real Alexander amongst constantly innovated and imaginary tales, as Berg notes with frustration that the figure of Alexander went on to be ‘handled and mishandled so often before it reached the eleventh century’.

The shift from the historical account of the A recension of the Alexander romance to the introduction of imaginary events as shown in λ and C, in the form of Alexander’s journey to the bottom of the sea, is an example of the uphill struggle facing historians who attempt to understand the appropriation of Alexander within differing cultures. Certainly, Pseudo-Callisthenes’ The Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedon and the English Middle Age Romance of Alexander the Great provide evidence that whilst similar tales were passed down and adopted throughout the development of the romances, they do not travel unscathed by the interpretation and motives of different authors, as the ancient account of Alexander’s journey to the bottom of the sea shifts from an account by Alexander in a letter to his mother Olympias to a 3rd person narrative by the fifteenth century. Furthermore, whilst both romances adopt the bell-diver story, they do so under the influence of different recensions of the original romance, with λ deriving from β whilst C derives from a combination of β and ε through the γ recension, thus drawing their information from alternative source pools. In one respect, the introduction of imaginary events in The Life and Deeds of Alexander may have occurred due to an attempt on the behalf of Pseudo-Callisthenes to create a more exciting and engaging narrative of Alexander the Great, in comparison to the rather more linear historical
narratives that came before. Whether or not this was influenced by the work of previous authors, as suggested by the evidence of imaginary events displayed in Lucian's A True Story, cannot be stated conclusively, but it is certainly not improbably to suggest that Pseudo-Callisthenes’ romance was a reaction to the contemporary writers around him, therefore the innovation of the bell-diver story, and other accounts of weird and wonderful encounters, may have been the result of an interest in imaginary events and tales by contemporary Greeks, which is then passed on to later audiences. Furthermore, the adoption of the bell-diver story is one such example of the representation of an Alexander who pushes the boundaries presented to mortal men, bolstering his image as one of an adventurer who explores when and wherever he likes. By adopting this already popular view of Alexander, as suggested in the works of ancient authors such as Aeschines, the unknown parts of the world such as the bottom of the sea can be explored by an audience who are otherwise unaware, undoubtedly introducing an element of excitement. Whilst these tales of imagination to some may be viewed as fantastical fillers, the introduction of imaginary events into the narratives of Alexander the Great has had an irreversible effect on the understanding and retelling of the story of his character and actions, and if adopting the approach of Martindale’s Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, it is now impossible to read the character Alexander without the influence of these later Alexander Romances.


Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Aeschines, ‘Against Ctesiphon’, translation obtained here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0002%3Aspeech%3D3%3Asection%3D165 (adapted from Adams. C. D, The Speeches of Aeschines (London, 1919), accessed 15.03.2020).
Anon., ‘Romance of Alexander the Great’, transl. Skeat. W. W in The Wars of Alexander: An alliterative romance (London, 1886), pp. 1-283.
Lucian of Samosata, ‘A True Story’, translation obtained here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/true/index.htm (adapted from Harmon. A. M, A True Story (2017), accessed 15.03.2020).
Plutarch, ‘Alexander’, translation obtained here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0243%3Achapter%3D60%3Asection%3D1 (adapted from Perrin. B, Plutarch Lives, VII, Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar (London, 1919), accessed 15.03.2020).
Pseudo Callisthenes, ‘The Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedon’, transl. Stoneman. R in The Greek Alexander Romance (London, 1991), pp. 35-159.

Modern Scholarship:
Archibald. E, ‘Ancient Romance’ in Saunders. C (ed.), A Companion to Romance (2004)
Berg. B, ‘An Early Source of the Alexander Romance’, Greek, Vol. 14 (September, 2003), pp. 381-387.
Caughey. A, ‘‘Als for the worthynes of þe romance’: Exploiting of Genre in the Buik of King Alexander the Conqueror’, in Weiss. J, Djordjević. I and Ashe. L (eds.), The Exploitations of the Medieval Romance (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 139-158.
Greenhill. G, ‘The Legend of Alexander and His Flying Machine’, Nature, Vol. 101, Is. 2524 (1918), pp. 25-26.
Martindale. C, Redeeming the Text: Latin poetry and the hermeneutics of reception (New York, 1993).
McInerney. J, ‘Arrian and the Greek Alexander Romance’, The Classical World, Vol. 100, No. 4 (2007), pp. 424-430.
Samuel. A. E, ‘The Earliest Elements in the Alexander Romance’, Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, Bd. 35, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1986), pp. 427-437.
Skeat. W. W. ‘Introduction’ in Skeat. W. W, The Wars of Alexander: an alliterative romance translated chiefly from the Historia Alexandri Magni de Preliis (London, 1886), pp. ix-xxiv.
Stoneman. R, ‘A Note on the Text’ in Stoneman. R, The Greek Alexander Romance (London, 1991), pp. 28-32.

Stoneman. R, ‘Introductions’ in Stoneman. R, The Greek Alexander Romance (London, 1991), pp. 1-27.