T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W 1 ALEXANDER’S RECEPTION IN ROME P E L T O N E N ( J . ) Alexander the Great in the Roman Empire, 150 BC to AD 600. Pp. x + 260, fig., ills. London and New York: Routledge, 2019. Cased, £115, US$140. ISBN: 978-1-138-31586-0. doi:10.1017/S0009840X19002221 This volume, the revised version of P.’s doctoral thesis defended at Tampere University in Finland in 2017, seeks to explore the Roman foundations of Alexander’s role as a crosscultural paragon and offer a ‘detailed analysis of the different ways the Greco-Romans used Alexander, providing a model for future centuries’ (p. 2). Despite a few significant treatments of Alexander’s ‘Roman-ness’, such as D. Burton’s The Roman Alexander (2002), and some solid recent reception studies enterprises (notably K.R. Moore [ed.], Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great [2018], and A. Grafton, G.W. Most and S. Settis [edd.], The Classical Tradition [2010]), a fresh survey of this topic is most welcome. P.’s historical theorising in the introduction is almost Plutarchean, but nevertheless refreshing. Scrutiny of historical and moral exempla was, and still is, a sound, and often rewarding, pathway to historical insight – as long as good historiography is practised, and P. rightly adduces popular modern iconic figures (Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara) as analogies for Alexander’s mythography. His approach is pragmatic (p. 5), but does not oversimplify the task of evaluating history as rhetoric aimed at reinforcing ideology, and the argument that Graeco-Roman literary culture provides the raw material for his purpose is compelling. This material is systematically collected in an extremely useful appendix (pp. 228–37), which on its own is a valuable resource, and once P. has set his scene and justified his method, he offers four thematic chapters as evidence for the Roman use of exemplarity to defend various views and lines of argumentation (p. 225). Chapters 2 and 5 discuss Alexander in a Roman multicultural empire and Alexander in the Christian apologetic tradition. These bracket two core chapters exploring Alexander as an exemplum and Alexander in relations of power and influence. P. begins by establishing a fundamental hypothesis that Roman writers were bent on proclaiming the overall superiority of Roman culture, rather than making individual comparisons with Alexander, a contention that is most persuasive, given the confidence of Livy 9.17.2–5. One wonders what Pompeius Trogus might have said on this topic to moderate this sort of jingoism, but given the survival rate of Augustan prose, such reservations are probably futile. Livy’s musings may be taken as standard identity-building fare and are intensified, according to P., by authors such as Velleius Paterculus and Tacitus. Nevertheless, P. does not irresponsibly cast Alexander to the rhetorical wolves, but offers good balance with a sound analysis of Curtius Rufus, who is rightly acknowledged to be glossing over notorious Macedonian habits in his presentation of disciplined phalangites corrupted by Alexander’s infatuation with orientalism (Curt. 6.2.3). This is an extremely commendable feature of the book throughout: P. never rests with an easy shortcut, but casts a fine net over his sources and investigates the anomalies. Greek writers in the empire exhibit a converse characteristic from their Roman counterparts. P. postulates that authors such as Arrian, Cassius Dio, Diodorus, Plutarch and Appian tend to transmit a sociopolitical message, owning Alexander as a product of their own culture, and superior to Roman counterparts. Whereas Mark Antony may have been a good parallel for Roman writers, Pompey was a more apt analogy for Greek writers such as Plutarch, who subtly infers that not only did Pompey take too long for his achievements, he then lived past his use-by-date, ending tragically (Plut. The Classical Review 1–3 © The Classical Association (2019) Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 202.150.102.190, on 18 Dec 2019 at 18:01:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X19002221 2 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W Pomp. 46.1). But the discussion goes deeper here, exhibiting considerable finesse on the part of the author. It is suggested that Plutarch also excoriates the ‘wannabe Alexanders’ such as Demetrius and Perseus, who cannot live up to their idol in deed or word and who exemplify the erosion of their culture under the Hellenistic kings. This is not only insightful, but a helpful historiographical explanation for scholarly neglect of the immediate period after Alexander. The Diadochoi are sacrificed to allow Greeks living in Roman culture a worthy heritage. Likewise Jewish writers such as Josephus and the anonymous author of 1 Maccabees are canvassed for signs of a devolving Alexander image. For the Maccabees author Alexander is responsible for starting the ‘rot’, as his activities led finally to the arch-enemy Antiochus Epiphanes. Somewhat different is Josephus’ Alexander, who recognises the uniqueness of the Jews, reinforcing their special status within Graeco-Roman culture, and serving as a reminder that a pro-Jewish policy is the wiser and more correct path for world conquerors. It would appear that for Jewish writers there is nothing new under the sun: expedience is sovereign, and Alexander’s image should be tailored to facilitate maximum freedom and tolerance for their culture. Most scholars when researching representations of Alexander resort to the inscrutable Alexander Romance, but P. has mined much more from analysis of the earlier historical and rhetorical narratives, and the result of this complex and critical second chapter is that P. has arrived at his goal by the deeper and more honest path. In the most illuminating of the three core chapters, ‘Alexander as a Model of Behaviour’, P. promises to transcend both the standard view of Alexander as a praiseor blameworthy example and R. Stoneman’s 2003 theory that the Macedonian was employed by the Cynics as a ‘tool for thinking with’ (Brill’s Companion to Alexander, p. 335). Indeed, he aims to demonstrate that the dichotomist view is simplistic and misleading. To begin with, the concept of Hellenic paideia as a civilising influence exemplified by Alexander in the writings of Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch (who supplies us with the most detailed account of Alexander’s childhood and education) is very subjective for these Greek writers, playing as it does to their own cultural ideals and their livelihood. Latin writers such as Quintilian and Jerome are less forthcoming, however, and do not force Alexander’s connection with Homer and Greek culture, but nevertheless do emphasise the need for quality teachers early in an aristocratic education to ensure proper moral development. Alexander’s austere pedagogue, Leonidas, may have obstructed his progress, but the choice of Aristotle as his tutor should surely have corrected this, and, anyway, Quintilian’s Aristotle would not have agreed to take on a flawed pupil. P. is attempting a very fine distinction here, but the language does not do it as much justice as it deserves. Here and elsewhere the process of some sophisticated analysis is not quite transmitted with as much clarity as is desirable, but the conclusion is undeniable: Roman and Christian writers examining Alexander are less interested in historicity than validation of their arguments and hence their professions. The literary trope of the ‘Philosopher-King’ is a key lens through which Romans viewed Alexander, and P. surveys a wide range of both Roman and Christian writers who raise the meetings with Diogenes and the Brahmans to investigate the nature of happiness and the futility of materialism. The ascetics have nothing but freedom; Alexander is burdened by empire and crippled by his moral failings. It is a heady brew for philosophers, and the Latin intellectuals exploited it to elevate themselves to the plane of past luminaries. Greek writers naturally present the king’s admiration of the sages as insightful, and praiseworthy, perhaps again reinforcing an innate cultural superiority. In his very dense final chapter P. also integrates the resonance of Christian asceticism into the conversation: Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 202.150.102.190, on 18 Dec 2019 at 18:01:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X19002221 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W 3 like their Roman Latin and Greek counterparts and forerunners, Christian writers use Alexander’s encounters with an ‘other’ reality to define and legitimise their own practices. P. saves the best for last. His conclusion is perhaps the real gem in this book, as he engages head-on with the question of what U. Wilcken deemed the quest for the student’s own Alexander (Alexander the Great [1967], p. xxix). Every scholar must (surely!) be torn between the Macedonian Maniac and the Messiah. P. has given us a grand tour of the Roman transmissions of the many-faced Macedonian and, most valuably, some language and methods to sift through their agendas. This is a thoughtful and insightful book, and no scholar of Alexander – or genuine historiographer – can afford to ignore it. I was enriched by it and look forward to watching it infiltrate the discourse of Ancient History in the coming years. University of Otago PAT WHEATLEY pat.wheatley@otago.ac.nz Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 202.150.102.190, on 18 Dec 2019 at 18:01:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X19002221