Why are there so many books written about Alexander
the Great? I have at least eleven in my personal library, and I’m sure that I
will end up buying even more.
In Paul Cartledge’s introduction to his 2005 biography,
he offers what sounds to me like a preemptive apology when he writes that “no
explanation is necessary” for why he decided to offer the world another biography
on Alexander the Great. While that may be true, it does seem as though the
thought crossed his mind, or that at the very least, he knew the thought would cross the minds of others.
Yes, Alexander the Great was, at least for a brief
moment in time, King of the World, but how important is he really in the grand
scheme of things? His empire, after all, fragmented almost immediately upon his
death. On the other hand, his influence on the so-called “known world” was
everlasting.
Most modern historians rely on three ancient texts when
writing about Alexander: Curtius Rufus’ The
History of Alexander, Plutarch’s Nine
Lives, and Arrian’s The Campaigns of
Alexander. Problematically, Rufus, Plutarch, and Arrian all lived 300 years
or more after Alexander. The one advantage these men have over modern
historians is their access to more ancient texts that no longer survive, but
consider what a disadvantage we face when we attempt to study Alexander. We’re
already 2300 years removed from his time, and we rely on primary texts written
300 or more years after his death. How certain can we be about who Alexander
the Great was?
Do historians continue to write books about
Alexander the Great, because they believe their interpretations of the ancient
texts available are really that much better than what’s been offered before?
That their interpretations will somehow bring clarity and certainty to the man
who claimed to be the Son of God (Zeus)?
How or why does uncertainty contribute to
our fascination?
“Although our intellect longs for clarity and
certainty, our nature often finds uncertainty fascinating.” – Karl von
Clausewitz
Comments
Post a Comment