IN GREEK TEXTS ON OLD ALEJANDRO
Nada más morir Alejandro surgió una especie de “historiografía de urgencia”, representada por los llamados “historiadores de Alejandro”, a los que sólo hemos conservado en forma de fragmentos; se trata de autores que escriben a caballo entre los SS. IV-III a. C.
1. El primero de ellos es Tolomeo Lago, compañero directo de Alejandro (fue su escudero, su σωματοφύλαξ), el fundador de la dinastía Tolemaica o Lágida: fue faraón de Egipto con el nombre de Tolomeo I y escribió para corregir a otros autores anteriores, a partir de sus conocimientos, obtained firsthand.
- We know something of the work of Ptolemy through Arrian. This, in S. II d. C., used it as their main source Anabasis of Alexander, opposing what was said by Ptolemy to the information of the "Vulgate" (τὰ λεγόμενα).
- Under what Arrian says, it seems that Ptolemy was interested in his work, especially by the military and political, much less by the geographical and ethnographic.
- addition, Ptolemy used the diary of Alexander's headquarters, the Ephemeris written under the direction of Eumenes of Cardia and Eritrean Diodotus.
2. Olinto Calisthenics is another important figure in this group of historians. Was the grand nephew of Aristotle. Must have been born to the 370 a. C. He accompanied his uncle to the court of Macedonia.
- worked as a writer in the service of Macedonia, thus celebrated the exploits of Alexander, who was accompanied on his expeditions in Ἀλεξάνδρου πράξεις.
- fell from grace But the question of proskýnesis, the ritual of worship, worshiping the sovereign, Alejandro copied from the Persians. Therefore, was executed in 327 a. C.
- Callisthenes be withheld from the outset that he was credited with the most influential novels of Alexander (see below). And he blamed because the fantasy elements present in that work and had to be authentic in his writings.
- That is, in the authentic work of Callisthenes and was due to present Alexander as anything more than a man.
3. Clitarco wrote to the 310 a. C., et tragic rhetoric, according to Cicero.
- chronicled the life of Alexander since the rise the throne until his death.
- is an important figure because his work (full of novelistic features) seems to be on the basis of why we called before "the Vulgate" version released in the history of Alexander, opposite or different from the accounts of Ptolemy, Arrian and the "serious historiography."
could cite at least six other writers from the so-called "historians of Alexander": Onesicritus, Aris of Cassandreia, Mytilene Cares ..
Of these Onesicritus I mean just because he, who had participated in the expeditions of Alexander, he began to write his death and made him a hero of a peculiar kind:
- The philosophical features endowed cynical.
- It is therefore regrettable that his work has not been preserved.
After the "historiography of urgency", composed shortly after Alexander's death, will be written about the king of Macedonia from different perspectives:
- sometimes be more serious (Plutarch, Arrian)
- while that, sometimes, be more popular literature.
In connection with "serious historians" we can say something about Arrian (I will not speaking of Plutarch, in relation to remind him that his Life of Alexander is highly recommended reading - is also published in several popular collections):
ARIANISM
can be read Arrian in the translation of A. Guzmán Guerra (trans.), Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander, Madrid, Gredos, 1982 (2 volumes).
born between 85 and 90 d. C. and died about 170. Age of Nicomedia (Turkey).
disciple of Epictetus, in his time was best known as a philosopher and historian. But his own philosophical works (do not talk about his edition of the Diatribes of Epictetus) are lost or retained fragments.
apparently in his fifties when he left Rome and the imperial administration (he had been consul in 130), then headed to Athens, where he had to engage in historiography: it sees itself as "the new Xenophon , and therefore writes
- Lives lost, in imitation of Xenophon model (who wrote a Agesilaus) ;
- writes his Anabasis [of Alexander] that as Xenophon, consists of seven books: it imitates the style of his model.
- Arrian notes, among most historians of Alexander, because it strives to write a story that is not fantastic and it complies with the facts.
- therefore used as sources, above all, Ptolemy and Aristobulus, Alexander's contemporaries and witnesses of what they narrate.
- Moreover, it is questionable Arrian preference for the narrative of military events and less attention to the political aspects of his character.
The introduction to the work of Arrian is this:
transcribe and I believe as true all those stories in which match Ptolemy son of Lagus and Aristobulus son of Aristobulus, both historians of Alexander, son of Philip, but of those that differ, I selected that I thought, while, more reliable and more interesting to be told. And others have written about Alexander (no, indeed, anyone who has done about as many historians, or more discordant with each other), but Ptolemy and Aristobulus, in my opinion, are the most credible, Aris for participating in the expedition along with King Alexander, Ptolemy, as well as because of that, it would have been misrepresenting the facts to him as king, more shameful than for any another. Moreover, given that Alexander was dead when they wrote each other, both were equally outside do differently to how the events occurred, porno-inhibited be expected of him or reward.
0 comments:
Post a Comment