No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Revisiting the Roman Alexander*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2015
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
Green (1978) overturned the standard view of Romans' desire to compare themselves with Alexander the Great. He especially criticised the too-credulous acceptance of Caesar's ‘Alexander complex’. Gruen (1998) and Martin (1998) extended Green's arguments to include Pompeius. This paper argues that in attempting to redress the balance Green, Gruen and Martin go too far. Alexander was a powerful icon in first-century BC Rome but the desire to be compared to him grew out of specific, not general, considerations. In the case of Pompeius and Caesar, emulation of Alexander was as much about competition between themselves as it was about any third party.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2013
Footnotes
*
We embarked on this joint venture after we discovered that we had independently come to a similar view by different routes. We would like to thank Erich Gruen for his gracious engagement with the paper at the conference in his honour and after it. Other scholars and friends also assisted us to refine the argument and to eliminate errors, among them Alastair Blanshard, Kai Brodersen, Bob Cowan, Jill Harries, Kit Morrell, Andrew Pettinger, Anton Powell, Paul Roche, Andrew Stiles, Martin Stone and Richard Westall. We particularly thank Paul Burton and the anonymous readers of Antichthon for their helpful and searching critiques. All errors and infelicities remain our own.
Translations have been adapted from the following editions: H. Rackham, Pliny: Natural History, Volume II: Books 3–7 (Cambridge MA 1942); D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Letters to Atticus (Cambridge 1966) vol. 5; F.W. Shipley, Velleius Paterculus: Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Cambridge MA 1924); N.H. Watts, Cicero Pro Archia. Post Reditum in Senatu. Post Reditum ad Quirites. De Domo Sua. De Haruspicum Responsis. In Pisonem. Pro Scauro. Pro Fonteio. Pro Rabirio Postumo. Pro Marcello. Pro Ligario. Pro Rege Deiotaro (Cambridge MA 1931).
References
1 Gruen, E.S. ‘Rome and the Myth of Alexander’, in Hillard, T.W.et al. (eds), Ancient History in a Modern University (Grand Rapids MI 1998) 1.178-91Google Scholar. Important studies of Alexander-imitatio in Rome include Tarn, W.W., ‘Alexander Helios and the Golden Age’, JRS 22 (1932) 135-60Google Scholar; DeWitt, N.J., ‘Caesar and the Alexander Legend’, CW 36 (1942) 51-3Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., ‘Victor and bvictus’, HThR 50 (1957) 211-47Google Scholar; Michel, D., Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar md Marcus Antonius (Bruxelles 1967)Google Scholar; id., Divus Julius (Oxford 1971); Weippert, O., Alexander-Imitatio und römische Politik in republik-anischer Zeit (Augsburg 1972)Google Scholar; Richardson, J.S., ‘Review: Weippert, Alexander-Imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit’, JRS 64 (1974) 238Google Scholar; Meier, C., Caesar, trans. McLintock, D. (London 1996) 141Google Scholar; Spencer, D., The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter 2002)Google Scholar; Kühnen, A., Die Imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik 1. Jh. v.Chr.– 3. Jh. n.Chr. (Münster 2008)Google Scholar; Spencer, , ‘Roman Alexanders: Epistemology and Identity’, in Heckel, W. and Tritle, L.A. (eds), Alexander the Great: A New History (Maiden MA 2009) 251-74Google Scholar.
2 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1 ) 191Google Scholar.
3 Green, P., ‘Caesar and Alexander: Aemulatio, Imitatio, Comparano’, AJAH 3 (1978) 1–26Google Scholar, reprinted in Classical Bearings: Interpreting Ancient History and Culture (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1989) 193–209Google Scholar. Green's paper is still widely accepted: see e.g. Malloch, S.J.V., ‘Gaius' Bridge at Baiae and Alexander-Imitatio’, CQ 51 (2001) 206-17, at 211 and 214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubincam, C., ‘A Tale of Two ‘Magni': Justin/Trogus on Alexander and Pompey’, Historia 54 (2005) 265-74, at 266Google Scholar; Pelling, C.B.R., Plutarch: Caesar (Oxford 2011) 26-8, 184, 439Google Scholar.
4 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 14–15Google Scholar.
5 Ibid. 2.
6 Ibid. 4-6; Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 187Google Scholar. Green makes his low opinion of Pompeius and his appearance very clear in other works: e.g. Alexander to Actium (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1990) 578, 658-9Google Scholar.
7 Martin, D.J., ‘Did Pompey Engage in imitatici Alexandri?’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 9 (1998) 23–51Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 183 n. 30Google Scholar.
8 Smith, R.R.R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford 1988) 58Google Scholar.
9 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 11Google Scholar.
10 Cic, . De Orat. 1.60.257, 3.29.117Google Scholar; Off 1.43.152; Quint, . Inst. 2.4.21Google Scholar; Tac, . Dial. 23.2.Google Scholar
11 Duff, T., Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford 1999) 252-86Google Scholar; id., “The Structure of the Plutarchan Book’, Class. Ant. 30 (2011) 253-9.
12 Whitmarsh, T., ‘Alexander's Hellenism and Plutarch's Textualism’, CQ 52 (2002) 174-92, at 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 The most quoted example of such behaviour is Cicero's request to his friend Lucceius (Fam. 5.12) to write a history of his consulship. For recent discussions, see Hall, J., ‘Cicero to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12) in its Social Context, valde bella?’, CPh 93 (1998) 308-21Google Scholar; Dugan, J., Making a New Man: Ciceronian Self-fashioning in the Rhetorical Works (Oxford 2005) 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 The two published examples are held by the British Museum (ref. 18670101.584) and the Museo Civico di Bologna (inv. 26445). A third is kept in a private collection (A. Burnett pers. comm.).
15 Michel, , Alexander als Vorbild (n. 1) 39–47Google Scholar; Mattingly, H., ‘Notes on Late Republican Coinage’, NC 3 (1963) 51-4, at 51-2Google Scholar; Crawford, M.H., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 733Google Scholar. Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 29Google Scholar dismisses the coin without resolving the effect of the association, especially the elephant skull cap displayed by the Ptolemies and others on their coinage, on her argument. See also Mader, G., ‘Triumphal Elephants and Political Circus at Plutarch, Pomp. 14.6’, CW 99.4 (2006) 397–403Google Scholar.
16 Against, Martin, ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 27–35Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 185Google Scholar.
17 McGing, B., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI of Pontus (Leiden 1986) 99–101Google Scholar; Hojte, J.M., in Hojte, J.M. (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Aarhus 2009) 149Google Scholar; Mayor, A., The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithridates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy (Princeton NJ 2011) 10, 41-6, 65-8Google Scholar.
18 For more extended discussions of this coin and its impact, see Crawford, , RRC (n. 15) 450-2, 734Google Scholar; Harlan, M., Republican Moneyers and their Coins (London 1995) 107-9Google Scholar; Nicolet, Cl., Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Empire (Ann Arbor MI 1991) 37-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Pompeius' third triumph, see Östenberg, I., Staging the World: Spoils, Captives and Representation in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009) 270-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with references to earlier works; on Pompeius and Hercules, see Crawford, , RRC (n. 15) 450-1Google Scholar. On Hercules/Alexander iconography, see Stewart, A., Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1993) 235-6, figs 76-9Google Scholar; on Alexander and Hercules on coinage, ibid. 79, 159, 231-6. Price, M.J., The Coinage in the Name of Alexander and Philip Arrhidaeus (London 1991)Google Scholar, catalogues coins depicting Hercules wearing the lion skin and Alexander from across the Macedonian empire, with examples from Mesembria possibly minted as late as 65 BC. Mithridates VI had also adopted the Nemean lion skin as a symbol of his Herculean/Alexandrian ancestry (Heijte, , Mithridates VI [n. 17] 146-52Google Scholar). Roman examples of Hercules on coinage figure prominently in copper alloy coins from 211-86, sometimes showing a lion's skin cap, on others the boar's skin: Crawford, , RRC (n. 15) 863Google Scholar; RRC 426 places the imagery on a denarius. Note the contrasting depictions of Hercules on RRC 426.2, commemorating L. Cornelius Sulla, and RRC 426.4, commemorating Pompeius.
19 Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 26, 36Google Scholar; Højte, , Mithridates VI (n. 17) 122Google Scholar.
20 For more detailed treatments of Cicero's defence of Archias and his oratorical strategies, see Murphy, S., The Gift of Immortality: Myths of Power and Humanist Poetics (Cranbury NJ 1997) 45–52Google Scholar; Steel, C., Cicero, Rhetoric and Empire (Oxford 2001) 94-8Google Scholar; Dugan, , Making a New Man (n. 13) 31–43Google Scholar. See also Krebs, C., ‘Magni Viri: Caesar, Alexander and Pompey in Cat. 11’, Philologus 152 (2008) 223-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Spencer, , The Roman Alexander (n. 1) 123Google Scholar. See also Gruen, , ‘Review: Spencer, The Roman Alexander’, IHR 25 (2003) 639-41Google Scholar. Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 183, 184, 186Google Scholar, skirts around the reference but does not deal with its central importance. Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 42Google Scholar, states that Pompeius was following Roman, not Alexandrian, precedents in using Theophanes as an attendant historian, which is true. However, Cicero's oratorical point rests on a known association, not the exact precedent or even reason for Theophanes’ presence in Pompeius’ camp. Cicero also demonstrates that contemporary Romans associated the cognomen Magnus with Alexander and that Cicero could play with it in a forensic setting without too much explanation. For an analysis of how the structure of Arch. 24 reinforces the comparison and its rhetorical effect, see Gotoff, H.C., Cicero's Elegant Style: an Analysis of the Pro Archia (Chicago IL 1979) 190-5Google Scholar.
22 Spencer, , The Roman Alexander (n. 1 ) 124Google Scholar.
23 Steel, , Cicero, Rhetoric and Empire (n. 20) 94-8Google Scholar.
24 For Pompeius' portrait types and Alexander resemblances, see Michel, , Alexander als Vorbild (n. 1) 55–66Google Scholar.
25 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 5Google Scholar; Baynham, E.J., ‘Alexander and the Amazons’, CQ 51 (2001) 115-26, at 122Google Scholar. Against, , Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 185Google Scholar, who argues that the story of Pompeius and the Amazon armour had no connection to Alexander.
26 Pompeius' three triumphs over three continents were well advertised in his day. See e.g. Faustus' representation (RRC 426.3Google Scholar), along with Dio's description of his seal-ring (42.18.3); cf. Plut, . Pomp. 80.5Google Scholar. Cicero referred to the phenomenon (e.g. Div. 2.9.22Google Scholar). Other references include Prop. 3.11.35; Luc. 8.813-15, 553, 9.177-8, 599-600; Plin, . NH 2.6.13Google Scholar; Plut, . Pomp. 40, 45Google Scholar; Martial 5.74. For a complete list, see Deutsch, M.E., ‘Pompey's Three Triumphs’, CPh 19 (1924) 277-9Google Scholar, and for descriptions of the placards, see Ostenberg, , Staging the World (n. 18) 280-90Google Scholar.
27 Townend, G.B., ‘C. Oppius on Julius Caesar’, AJP 108 (1987) 325-42 at 326Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 183-5Google Scholar; Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 41Google Scholar.
28 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 185Google Scholar; Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 42-4Google Scholar. Martin and Gruen argue that a decontextualised fragment could have been part of an accusation, allegation or speech. Even if it was (and it is possible), it still points to a situation in which Pompeius or his friends played a role in associating him with Alexander.
29 Att. 2.17[37].3; 5.11[104].3; 7.7[130].3; 9.1[167].3; Strabo 13.2.3; Plut, . Pomp. 42.4Google Scholar; Cic. 38.4Google Scholar; Welch, K., “The Office aipraefectus fabrum in the Late Republic’, Chiron 25 (1995) 131-45, at 140-2Google Scholar.
30 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 4–6Google Scholar, makes a similar point, but his low opinion of Pompeius and failure to realise his continued popularity leads him to underestimate the task Caesar faced in the post-Pharsalus period. On this issue, see Westall, R., ‘The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar’, Römische Mitteilungen 103 (1996) 83–118Google Scholar.
31 Cic. Att. 12.40[281]; 51[293].2; 13.28[299].3; 31[302].3; Weinstock (1957) (n. 1) 233; Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 12–13Google Scholar; Spencer, , The Roman Alexander (n. 1) 53–64Google Scholar; Steel, , ‘Friends, Associates, and Wives’, in Griffin, M. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar (Maiden 2009) 112-25, at 123Google Scholar; Pelling, , Plutarch: Caesar (n. 3) 28Google Scholar.
32 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 13Google Scholar.
33 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 188Google Scholar.
34 Gruen, , ‘Review: Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus’, AJP 89 (1968) 487-91, at 490Google Scholar.
35 Att. 12. 23[262].1; 28[267].2; 29[268].1; 38a[279].1. On the need to take Atticus' attitudes into account when assessing the evidence in the letters, see Welch, ‘T. Pomponius Atticus: A Banker in Politics?’, Historia 45 (1996) 450-71 at 464-71Google Scholar; id., Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic (Swansea 2012) 50-7Google Scholar.
36 Gruen, , ‘Review: Shackleton Bailey’ (n. 34) 490Google Scholar.
37 Malitz, J., ‘Die Kanzlei Caesars: Herrschaftsorganisation zwischen Republik und Prinzipat’, Historia 36 (1987) 51-72 at 56–60Google Scholar; Welch, , “The praefectura urbis of 45 BC and the Ambitions of L. Cornelius Baibus’, Antichthon 24 (1990) 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, P., ‘Tactics in Caesar's Correspondence with Cicero’, in Caims, F. and Fantham, E. (eds), Caesar against Liberty: Perspectives on his Autocracy (Cambridge 2003) 68–95, at 75-80Google Scholar.
38 Townend, Oppius on Julius Caesar' (n. 27); Welch, ‘L. Cornelius Balbus’ (n. 37); id. ‘T. Pomponius Atticus’ (n. 35) 469-70.
39 Steel, , ‘Friends, Associates and Wives’ (n. 31) 123Google Scholar.
40 Gruen, , ‘Review: Shackleton Bailey’ (n. 34) 489Google Scholar.
41 On the ideological significance of Caesar's Parthian expedition, Malitz, J., ‘Caesars Partherkrieg’, Historia 33 (1984) 21–59Google Scholar.
42 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 13–14Google Scholar.
43 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 14Google Scholar. Even the Gades story, if, as we suspect but cannot prove, it was created by Lucius Cornelius Balbus, would probably have gained currency after Caesar's death, not during his hfetime.
44 Ibid. 14. As part of the same dismissal of Caesar's Alexandrine ambitions, Green suggests that none of the evidence for Caesar wanting to establish a Hellenistic monarchy with Cleopatra should be taken seriously because of the trouble that rumours of the same desire caused Antonius a decade later. It should be pointed out that Caesar aroused such hatred that he was assassinated. The evidence should be given more weight than Green allows.
45 Stat, . Silv. 1.1.84-7Google Scholar; Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 13Google Scholar; Westall, , ‘The Forum Iulium’ (n. 30) 92-4Google Scholar. Westall, loc. cit. 88-90, argues that Alexander's shadow hangs over accounts of Pharsalus. He also reminds us (loc. cit. 86) not only that Oppius wrote works which extolled Caesar's character but that he was involved from the beginning in the design of the forum.
46 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 181, 183, 187Google Scholar. On Vellerns, Caesar and Alexander, see also Pelling, , Plutarch: Caesar (n. 3) 28Google Scholar.
47 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 188Google Scholar.
48 Adcock, F.E., ‘Caesar's Dictatorship’, CAH1 9.691-740, at 739.Google Scholar
49 Townend, ‘Oppius on Julius Caesar’ (n. 27).
50 Geizer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman, trans. Needham, P. (Oxford 1968) 251Google Scholar, argued that Hirtius was probably the author of the work, as has, more recently, Hall, L.G.H., ‘Hirtius and the Bellum Alexandrinum’, CQ 46 (1996) 411-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Our own view is that, while Hirtius might have intended to undertake the task, and might even have prepared to do so, he would have had little opportunity to do so. If he did not, then Oppius was seen as an obvious candidate to take his place.
51 Paterson, J., ‘Caesar the Man’, in Griffin, (ed.), Companion to Julius Caesar (n. 31) 139Google Scholar. See also Townend, , ‘Oppius on Julius Caesar’ (n. 27) 330Google Scholar.
52 Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 191Google Scholar.
53 Baynham, , Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor MI 1998) 76Google Scholar; Morello, R., ‘Livy's Alexander Digression (9.17-19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics’, JRS 92 (2002) 62–85Google Scholar; Spencer, , The Roman Alexander (n. 1) 106-8Google Scholar.
54 Green, , ‘Caesar and Alexander’ (n. 3) 7, 18Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘Myth of Alexander’ (n. 1) 188Google Scholar; Martin, , ‘imitatio Alexandri’ (n. 7) 26Google Scholar. On Lucan, Caesar and Alexander, see Tesoriero, C., ‘Trampling over Troy: Caesar, Virgil, Lucan’, in Walde, C. (ed.), Lucan im 21. Jahrhundert: Lucan in the 21st Century: Lucano nei primi del XXL secolo (Leipzig 2005) 205-6Google Scholar; A. Rossi, ‘sine fine: Caesar's Journey to Egypt and the End of Lucan's Bellum Civile’, in Walde, loc. cit. 238-52; Leigh, M., ‘Neronian Literature: Seneca and Lucan’, in Griffin, (ed.) A Companion to Julius Caesar (n. 1) 242Google Scholar.
55 Barnes, T.D., “The First Emperor: The View of Late Antiquity’, in Griffin, (ed.) Companion to Julius Caesar (n. 31) 283-4Google Scholar, notes that Alexander, not Caesar, is still the default comparand for the late antique period.
You have
Access
- 11
- Cited by