After his death Alexander the Great’s memory transcended both time and cultural boundaries, evolving into a legend that endured for centuries and inspired a vast array of historical, literary and artistic representations. The products of this tradition have long attracted considerable scholarly attention. Yet the Latin Res Gestae Alexandri Macedonis by Julius Valerius – most likely composed in the early fourth century ce – remains a striking exception: unlike other works within the Alexander tradition, it has been largely overlooked by both historians and Classicists. Precisely for this reason the volume under review is especially welcome, since it brings Valerius’ work back into focus and demonstrates its significance within the broader field of Alexander’s reception.
This collective volume comprises eleven contributions (in French, German and English), in addition to a general introduction, most of which originated as papers presented at a hybrid conference held in Vienna in July 2021. The meeting brought together an international group of scholars, including some of the most prominent specialists on both Valerius’ work and the Alexander Romance. While their approaches are broadly aligned, each essay addresses different sections and themes of the Res Gestae. Taken together, these studies help us to understand better Valerius’ style, the general premises guiding his adaptation of the Greek model and the ideological context underpinning his presentation of Alexander.
For the most part, the essays explore the intertextual connections in Valerius’ text. All the contributions converge on Wulfram’s idea that Valerius amplifies and elevates his Greek model both rhetorically and stylistically, since he is writing for a learned readership – the audience capable of recognising and appreciating the intertextual allusions he introduces (see H. Wulfram, ‘Intertextuality through Translation. The Foundation of Alexandria and Virgil in Julius Valerius’ Alexander Romance’, in: R. Stoneman, K. Nawotka and A. Wojciechowska [edd.], The Alexander Romance: History and Literature [2018]).
Wulfram’s introduction opens the book by exploring the reasons why Valerius’ work has attracted comparatively little scholarly attention and outlining the volume’s approach, emphasising Valerius’ creativity in narratological, rhetorical and intertextual terms. The subsequent chapters are arranged sequentially according to the sections of Valerius’ text that they explore.
Although I. Brenez’s chapter focuses on sections 1.13–14 concerning the origins and childhood of Alexander, it develops a broader interpretation that helps to explain the distinctive character of Valerius’ work and the reasons for its divergence from the rest of the tradition. Brenez investigates how Valerius uses the motif of Alexander’s double paternity – son of both Philip of Macedon and Nectanebo of Egypt – to construct a political allegory of civilising power. Throughout the essay she argues that this duality is not merely a narrative device but an ideological instrument reflecting the cultural ambiguities of the late Roman Empire. Valerius’ work is thus interpreted as a political text, articulating a specifically Roman – not Greek – concept of civilisation as the product of labour and order secured by a universal monarchy.
Wulfram’s contribution examines Valerius’ passages narrating Alexander’s visits to the Olympic and the Isthmian Games, together with the Pindaric allusions interwoven in them. He argues that Valerius’ engagement with Pindar goes beyond the horizon of the popular Greek models. Addressed to a cultivated Latin readership, Valerius’ narrative presupposes at least a second-hand familiarity with Pindar’s odes as well as an intellectual interest in the great Panhellenic festivals. The analysis further shows that the Olympic and the Isthmian episodes present Alexander not only as a military conqueror but also as a cultural and athletic champion.
C. Schwameis examines the two major battles between Alexander and Darius in Valerius’ narrative, comparing them in detail with the α recension of the Greek tradition. He argues that Valerius does not translate his source passively but rather reshapes it in a distinctly Romanised direction, emphasising the pivotal role of fortuna in Alexander’s victories while contrasting this with Darius’ hybris and inevitable downfall. This reworking combines historical elements from Issus and Gaugamela (as found in Curtius Rufus or Diodorus) with literary innovations, resulting in a more rational, strategic and moralising account.
M.C. Puche López analyses a specific episode (2.9.538–59) in which a disguised Persian soldier attempts to assassinate Alexander. She argues that Valerius rewrites, rather than simply translates, the source by incorporating intertextual references to Livy’s account of Mucius Scaevola (Liv. 2.12–13.2). In this way Valerius enriches Alexander’s portrayal as an ideal Roman emperor, endowed with virtus, clementia and other imperial qualities. Puche López also identifies an antithetical parallel in Book 2 (2.21.1085–109), where Alexander deceives and punishes Darius’ assassins, underscoring thematic contrasts of loyalty, courage, fortune and wisdom. While Puche López uses this latter episode as a comparative foil, S. Müller’s chapter is dedicated entirely to it. Müller shows that Valerius does not mechanically translate the story of Darius’ murderers but adapts the material for a late Roman audience, employing intertextual strategies that reshape the narrative. In this version Darius appears as a decadent ‘oriental’ king while his assassins are reduced to greedy traitors with no political agenda. By contrast, Alexander emerges both as a legitimate avenger and a cunning trickster who captures and punishes the traitors, thus reinforcing his image as an exemplary imperial figure.
A. Ammann examines the episodes of military mutiny in Valerius’ work, comparing them with Curtius Rufus’ historiographical account. He shows that, whereas Curtius amplifies these scenes with rhetorical drama in order to underscore Alexander’s tyrannical development, Valerius tends to idealise the king and to minimise conflict in his army. Although executions and excesses are omitted, three episodes of military revolt remain, softened and adapted to a more positive narrative. Ammann concludes that, despite these differences, both authors ‘Romanise’ their material, linking Alexander’s actions to Roman values such as disciplina militaris and collective cohesion.
M. Steinmann focuses on the ‘Indian’ sections of Valerius’ Res Gestae, comparing them with Palladius’ De gentibus Indiae et Bragmanibus. He shows how Valerius reworks motifs such as the Brahman sages, miraculous waters and, above all, the monstrous Odontotyrannus, in order to glorify Alexander as an ideal conqueror within a hybrid historical-fictional framework. By contrast, Palladius emphasises the Brahmans’ ascetic lifestyle and uses the monster in a different symbolic framework. The comparison also highlights how Valerius enriches the pseudo-Callisthenic Greek romance intertextually.
R. Stoneman examines the evolution of the Letter of Alexander to Aristotle about India, preserved in several divergent versions. He compares the abbreviated account in the α recension with Valerius’ much longer Latin version, the Armenian translation and two independent Latin letters (seventh and tenth centuries). His analysis addresses the question whether these Latin letters reflect an early Greek tradition, possibly going back to the Hellenistic period, or are later creations influenced by Valerius. Stoneman argues that Valerius amplifies and Romanises the Greek model in a rhetorically ornate narrative adapted to late Roman culture. By contrast, the simpler style of the independent Latin letters shows that they cannot derive from Valerius but must reflect an earlier Greek tradition.
G. Schöffberger analyses the Candace episode (Iul. Val. 3.18–24), focusing on illusion and deception as central narrative devices. He argues that Valerius does not merely translate the Greek α recension but reworks it with sophisticated rhetorical artistry, transforming the episode into an almost self-contained novella. In Valerius’ version the interplay between Alexander and Candace becomes a subtle ‘chamber play’ (‘Kammerspiel’, p. 7), marked by dramatic irony, mutual deception and the assertion of Alexander’s intellectual superiority. The analysis highlights how Valerius amplifies psychological characterisation, narrative tension and stylistic refinement, while minimising the erotic dimension present in other traditions. By doing so, he recasts the episode in a Roman vein as a demonstration of Alexander’s political and philosophical virtues.
C.T. Djurslev examines how Valerius reworks the story of Alexander’s death. He argues that Valerius is not a passive translator but a creative author who restructures the narrative to present Alexander as an ideal Roman ruler. Key moments, such as Alexander’s reaction to the omen of his death, are recast in Roman terms. The result is a deeply Romanised Alexander, whose figure departs from the Hellenistic model to embody that of a late antique emperor, situating the work within the late Roman practice of Alexandrology, a cultural tradition of continually reinterpreting his figure.
Finally, G. Siemoneit analyses the Zacher Epitome, a drastically shortened version of Valerius’ Res Gestae, which became far more popular in the Latin Middle Ages than the original. He situates the epitomising process within the broader cultural practice of late antiquity and the Middle Ages, and, through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, demonstrates how the epitomator reduced Valerius’ text by about two-thirds, systematically omitting mythological and pagan elements, softening potentially problematic content and simplifying language and style in line with tendencies of Vulgar Latin. The result is a text that idealises Alexander, removes ambivalence and rhetorical complexity, and produces what Siemoneit calls a ‘harmless version’ (‘Harmlos-Fassung’, p. 214), adapted to a Christianised cultural environment and to the expectations of an early medieval readership.
While not every proposed case of intertextuality will convince to the same degree, taken together the contributions in this volume make a compelling case for the view that Julius Valerius crafted his Latin Alexander Romance with a cultivated readership in mind. They also help to identify the principles underlying the distinctive features that set his work apart from the rest of the Alexander Romance tradition. At the same time, the available independent evidence – such as the contorniate medallions minted in fourth-century Rome depicting Olympias with a serpent, likely intended as souvenirs for a non-elite audience – suggests that Valerius’ version of the story may also have enjoyed broader popularity among wider strata of the capital’s population (see D.N. Sánchez Vendramini, ‘Alexander the Great on Late Roman Contorniates: Religion, Magic or History?’, Journal of Ancient History 10 [2022], 262–96]).
In sum, the volume represents an important addition to the still limited scholarship on this work, one that will surely stimulate further inquiry in the field.
