Alexander the Great's Influence on Jewish & Byzantine Identity: Comparative Analysis of He, Summaries of History

Download Alexander the Great's Influence on Jewish & Byzantine Identity: Comparative Analysis of He and more Summaries History in PDF only on Docsity! 11 Mythological History, Identity Formation, and the Many Faces of Alexander the Great James Mayer Macalester College, 2011 Alexander the Great, ruler of Macedonia and conqueror of most of the known world in the fourth century BCE, is one of the most promi- nent figures in folklore throughout the world. He has appeared in sto- ries from places as far flung as Iceland and Indonesia, and each retell- ing of the Alexander narrative also adds an additional layer of reinter- pretation to the story. In addition to relating his conquest of Persia and his march to India, the many narratives of Alexander’s life also tell of his invention of a diving suit, exploration of the Land of Darkness, con- version to Judaism, and debate with the naked Brahman philosophers in India, just to name a few myths that have entered the corpus. The purpose of this article is to explore several of these retellings and to place them in their social and political context in order to see how dif- ferent peoples used the figure of Alexander and his story to fulfill their historical needs. I will examine texts created by three different commu- nities from late antiquity and the early medieval period in order to demonstrate that although Alexander was a pagan, Macedonian con- queror, his personality and actions have been reinterpreted to impart themes important to the various communities that created them. First, I will address several Hellenistic Jewish versions of the Alexander nar- rative, then I will examine two Byzantine Christian sources, and lastly I will explore a Persian Islamic interpretation. A close reading of the sources can still demonstrate how narratives were reworked to suit the historical needs of their authors and readers, especially in response to times of crisis. The Macedonian cast his eye on him And ground his teeth together And, fuming with rage, uttered the following words: ―…Do you think you can deceive Alexander by telling These clever fabrications of mythology?‖1 12 Alexander the Great was a young king of Macedonia who conquered much of the known world in the fourth century BCE. He marched from Greece to India. He is considered one of the fathers of Hellenism, which is a term that refers to the adoption and spread of Hellenic culture and ideology.2 Following his death in 323 BCE, much was written about Alexander‘s life— both historical and popular. In one of the Greek romances written about Alex- ander (quoted above), Alexander himself claims to reject mythology as a valid source for historical study; however, even the many fanciful Alexander narra- tives can be valuable historical sources and much can be learned from mythol- ogy and folklore. Alexander has appeared in stories from places as far flung as Iceland and Indonesia, and each retelling of the Alexander narrative also adds an additional layer of reinterpretation to the story.3 In addition to relating his conquest of Persia and his march to India, the many narratives of Alexander‘s life also tell of his invention of a diving suit, exploration of the Land of Dark- ness, conversion to Judaism, and debate with the naked Brahman philosophers in India, just to name a few myths that have entered the corpus. The purpose of this article is to explore several of these retellings and to place them in their social and political context in order to see how different peoples used the figure of Alexander and his story to fulfill their historical needs. I will examine texts created by three different communities from late antiquity and the early medieval period in order to demonstrate that although Alexander was a pagan, Macedonian conqueror, his personality and actions have been reinterpreted to impart themes important to the various communities that created them. First, I will address several Hellenistic Jewish versions of the Alexander narrative, then I will examine two Byzantine Christian sources, and lastly I will explore a Persian Islamic interpretation. How do the descend- ants of peoples with whom Alexander came into contact (and often conquered) re-tell the story? How is Alexander portrayed and how does his story get used by later authors? Why do so many groups choose to redefine themselves by using Alexander the Great? Although the historicity of ancient sources are often difficult to evaluate, especially due to questions of chronology, redac- tions, and the sources‘ historical methodology, much can still be learned from their study.4 A comparison of the various myths of the Alexander narrative to the ―actual events‖ is impossible to accomplish. However, a close reading of the sources can still demonstrate how narratives were reworked to suit the his- torical needs of their authors and readers, especially in response to times of crisis. Methodology How can historians connect mythology with history and identity for- mation? These questions have attracted much attention from modern scholars and historians have theorized about the connections between mythology, memory, and identity.5 As Bell points out, identity is fundamentally linked to other people: 15 pied and subjugated the Eastern Mediterranean world and the Jews, though Romans did not necessarily view themselves as such. Although it was not a direct Hellenistic successor to Alexander the Great‘s empire, in the east Rome was very heavily Hellenized. Administration and communication were still done in Greek; Roman culture and society was dominated by Greek philoso- phies, religions, and ideas, and in many respects, Rome was seen as a direct successor to Alexander‘s empire. Although Romans went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from the Greeks, who they viewed as inferior, Roman individuals still used Alexander as a model hero and frequently used him to glorify themselves allegorically.14 Therefore, I will try to differentiate between the ―the Hellenistic period‖ and the ―Roman Imperial Period‖ though to the Jews, both periods were marked by subjugation at the hands of overlords who were connected to Hellenistic culture. Jews did not only reside in Palestine, and much of the most important literature created by Jews during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods came from the many large Jewish diaspora communities throughout the greater Eastern Mediterranean. According to ancient authors, including Josephus, there were large Jewish communities all over the world. Cities such as Rome, Sardis, Babylon (outside of the political control of the Roman Empire), and most importantly, Alexandria, Egypt, all had large diasporic Jewish popula- tions. Alexandria was one of the most powerful and successful cities of the world of antiquity, and according to widespread tradition, it was founded by Alexander the Great partly as a result of oracles he received during the early stages of his conquests.15 Depending on the tradition, the oracles that ―spurred Alexander‘s campaigns and bolstered his spirits‖ came from the Egyptian god Ammon, the Greco-Roman god Apollo, or the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis, and they also prophesized Alexander‘s conquest of Asia and the world.16 The texts created by Jews during the Roman Imperial period offer insight into the process of self-definition that takes place in response to the changes of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. Josephus relates Alex- ander‘s visit to Jerusalem in his Jewish Antiquities, which dates from the reign of Roman emperor Domitian and was most likely written around 93-94 CE.17 The historicity of Josephus‘s work is questionable, and most scholars agree that Alexander never visited Jerusalem.18 However, in Josephus‘s story, Alex- ander visits Jerusalem, converts to Judaism, and grants privileges to the Jews, including periodic exemptions from taxation. Upon Alexander‘s visit to Jeru- salem, Josephus has Alexander prostrate himself before the Jewish high priest and Alexander is allowed to sacrifice in temple. The Jews show him the book of Daniel, which is interpreted as an oracle referring to Alexander‘s destruction of the Persians, despite the fact that Daniel was not written until after 165 BCE, over 150 years after Alexander‘s death.19 What purpose did Josephus‘s version of Alexander‘s interactions with the Jews serve? The incident is placed within a larger discussion in Jewish Antiquities about relations between the Jews and their neighbors and archrivals the Samaritans. The two groups frequently fought each other, and in the Hel- lenistic and Roman Imperial periods the Jews often defined themselves, to 16 some extent, in relation to the Samaritans, whose practices resembled those of their Jewish neighbors but who did not worship at the temple in Jerusalem and who did not honor the high priest in Jerusalem.20 According to Josephus, the Samaritans got permission from Alexander to build a separate temple on Mount Gerizim by distancing themselves from the Jews. However once the Jews get favorable taxation privileges from Alexander, the Samaritans try to identify themselves with the Jews while trying to maintain their political and religious autonomy from them.21 It seems, therefore, that one purpose of Alex- ander‘s appearance in Jerusalem in Josephus‘s work is to draw clear distinc- tions between the Jews and the Samaritans. Josephus‘s treatment of the rela- tionship between the Macedonian conqueror and the Jews sets up a power dy- namic which not only puts the Jews above the conquering Macedonians, but above their rivals the Samaritans as well. The Samaritans come to Alexander as supplicants, and they give over to Alexander their holdings in the hope that he will ally with them and grant them the right to build a temple.22 On the oth- er hand, when Alexander comes to Jerusalem, the roles are reversed. Alexan- der prostrates himself before the high priest and honors the god of the Jews.23 However, the construction of Jewish primacy over the Samaritans from Jose- phus‘s Jewish Antiquities is not the only manner in which Jews play with the Alexander narrative. Although Josephus was writing after the destruction of the Second Temple, the temple still remained an important unifying symbol. More im- portantly, after the cataclysmic destruction of the Temple and defeat of the Jews in the First Jewish Revolt, Jews faced a real prospect of losing their iden- tity and even their existence as a people. They had no homeland to speak of and had no temple on which to focus their beliefs and rituals. Josephus‘s por- trayal of the Samaritans as imposters to the Jewish faith serves as an attempt to maintain unity in the face of chaos and understand the place of Jews in a world without a temple. Josephus was proud to say that Jews lived in all parts of the world; he viewed the diasporic nature of Judaism as a gift from God.24 How- ever, Jews needed a new approach to identifying themselves without a temple. This new approach can be seen in the effort of Jews to find their place in a world governed by outsiders — Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors. The story about the Jews‘ encounter with Alexander in Josephus‘s Antiquities paints Jews in a positive light, especially in relation to one of the heroes of the Hellenistic world. This story also allows Josephus to define Jews against a dangerous ―other‖ — the Samaritans. Josephus uses Alexander the Great as part of an effort to construct a Jewish identity that allowed Jews to retain their sense of being a ―privileged people‖ after the catastrophic destruction of much of Judaism‘s core unifying tenets. The tale of Alexander‘s visit to Jerusalem is mirrored in the γ- recension of the Alexander Romances. Similar to the story told by Josephus, the Jews are impressed by Alexander‘s military prowess and are frightened at his approach. However, also as in the story narrated by Josephus, Alexander honors the Jews by adopting their god and dedicating their gifts to him to the god of the Jews.25 Unlike Josephus‘s story, however, there are no other groups 17 against which the Jews vie for Alexander‘s patronage. Nevertheless, the im- portance of this story is similar to Josephus‘s mythical insertion: the positive treatment the Jews get from Alexander in this mythical narrative can be includ- ed in Jewish history, a useful tool for self-definition and for self-representation to other groups. More importantly, however, this story can be used as an ex- ample of how Jews interacted with Hellenism and especially the idea of being ruled by foreign, Hellenistic and Roman Imperial powers. The relationship portrayed between the Jews and Alexander, traditionally seen as the first Hel- lenistic king, shows how Jews viewed and consciously shaped their relation- ships to Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors. In the stories told both by Josephus and by the author(s) of the γ- recension of the Alexander Romance, several important conclusions can be drawn about how Jews reconciled the political reality of subjugation with their religious ideology of privilege. First, the characterization of both Alexander and the Jews, especially the Jewish high priest, need to be considered. Alexan- der descends on Jerusalem with the intent to crush the inhabitants. He is angry with them for either aiding the rebels at Tyre or refusing to accept his rule.26 The Jews are thrown into panic and pray for help. Instead of getting martial power from God, or some miraculous victory over Alexander‘s Hellenistic juggernaut, God‘s aid comes in the form of Alexander‘s mercy. Alexander is impressed by the appearance of the Jewish high priest, who is portrayed as ―in an agony of fear,‖27 but Alexander remembers a dream that contained a proph- ecy of his victories, in which the prophecy came from the ―God of whom [the Jewish high priest] has the honor to be the high priest.‖28 There are multiple layers of power implied by this story. First, although Alexander prostrates himself before the Jewish high priest, martial power is still with Alexander, who spares Jerusalem and the Jews only through his divinely inspired mercy. However, complicating this power dynamic is the implication that Alexander‘s mercy comes from the Jewish god, who intervenes on behalf of his people. The message conveyed to Jewish readers is twofold — on the surface, it im- plies that Jews should embrace the rule of foreign kings. Here, there are paral- lels with other stories in Jewish historiography. For example, Jewish traditions dealing with the Babylonian exile and the sack of Jerusalem by Titus portray both a divinely willed subjugation of the Jews by foreigners as retribution for Jewish misdeeds.29 It is God‘s will that the Jews be in the power of others. The deeper meaning to this message, however, is that the Jews are still the ―chosen people,‖ they are just suffering temporarily and this suffering is justi- fied because it is God‘s will that the Jews be subjugated. Eventually, the Jews will have paid enough for their sins and God will favor them over foreigners in the political realm once again.30 The Hellenistic and Roman Jewish interpretations of Alexander‘s relationship to their ancestors do not simply provide precedence for foreign rule. As pointed out by many scholars, colonial subjugation of one group to another is not simply a dichotomous relationship of resistance and ac- ceptance.31 The colonized often subtly subvert the dominant culture of the colonizer for their own use, through what is often called transculturation, ―a 20 central Asia invaded Byzantium and Persia repeatedly,43 and the seventh centu- ry also saw the rise of a new threat: Islam. The many wars fought by the Byz- antines during the time these texts were created left the empire poor, physically and emotionally devastated, and on the verge of collapse. Only a daring mili- tary operation by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius saved the Byzantines from defeat at the hands of the Persians during the beginning of the seventh century. Despite Heraclius‘s victories, the Byzantines lost a string of battles to Persians and central Asian nomads, and they lost significant amounts of territory to the invading Arabs as well.44 The Byzantines viewed themselves as defenders of the true faith, Orthodox Christianity, and, like the Jews, saw themselves as a ―unique theological entity, part of god‘s design for the salvation of mankind.‖45 How did the Byzantines respond to the material and ideological crises of re- peated defeat at the hands of infidels? How do the Syriac myths about Alexan- der reflect a conflict between the reality of humiliating defeat and the ideology of divinely inspired strength, and how do the Byzantine authors reconcile this conflict? As theorized by Hobsbawm, the Byzantines invent new traditions in order to define themselves, because their old traditions lose their relevancy ―when such old traditions and their institutional carriers and promulgators no longer prove sufficiently adaptable and flexible, or are otherwise eliminated.‖46 The Byzantines look to the past to create new traditions in order to replace the old, defunct traditions. However, why do the Byzantines choose to write about Alexander in order to redefine themselves in the face of change? The Christian Legend Concerning Alexander was most likely written sometime shortly after 628.47 It spends very little time with the events of Alex- ander‘s life before he arrives in the border-lands near the unclean nations: there is much taken from the Alexander Romance tradition, and there are a few new stories. Many of the ―historical‖ events of Alexander‘s life are not present, or are severely distorted, even when compared to the other Alexander Romances. For example, the Persian king is not Darius, and the war against the Persians does not take place in Asia Minor or Persia, as it does in Arrian‘s account and others.48 Once Alexander reaches the border-lands, he learns that the area is controlled by a Persian king, and he also hears about the horrors of the unclean nations: Gog and Magog, which are here called the Huns; he hears about those beyond Gog and Magog, who are ―Dog-men,‖ and ―Menine,‖ both of whom are described as inhuman and cruel.49 Beyond these inhuman, unclean nations is the ―Paradise of God.‖ Alexander erects a giant gate in the mountain pass to prevent the unclean nations from entering the civilized lands he has conquered, and upon the gate he inscribes a prophecy.50 The main points are as follows: when the Huns conquer all the lands of the Romans and Persians, then God will open the gates built by Alexander, and innumerable kingdoms of the un- clean nations will pour out into the civilized world, and everyone will fight each other. In the end, Rome will rule all the lands, and Alexander backs this up with a quote from Jeremiah.51 As pointed out by Kevin van Bladel, The Alexander Legend combines two traditions (1) Alexander‘s build- ing of a wall in the Caucuses to hold out the Huns and (2) the identifi- 21 cation of Huns, a generic term for all Central Asian peoples, with Gog and Magog, thereby associating Alexander with the end of time and giving him the occasion to make eschatological prophecies.52 There are two important connections to make before analyzing the Syriac texts any further. The first concerns Gog and Magog, who are apocalyptic figures originally from the Hebrew Bible, who also feature in the New Testament, and who entered popular culture as symbols of the forces of evil during the apoca- lypse largely through the Alexander Romances and other associated texts.53 That Gog and Magog get conflated with the Huns highlights the religious and eschatological nature of the conflict between the Byzantines and their enemies, as viewed by the Byzantines.54 The second concerns the connection between the Greeks of Alexander‘s time, the Romans of the Roman Imperial period, and the Byzantines who created these texts. Byzantine imperial ideology con- sidered the Byzantine Empire a continuation of the Roman Empire, and in the Hellenistic world, it was common to equate the Byzantines with the Romans.55 The Byzantines referred to themselves as ―Romans,‖ as evident in the prophe- cy given in these two texts, and in other texts from throughout the Byzantine Empire.56 Indeed, there is a significant amount of scholarly disagreement over where to draw the line between the ―Byzantine‖ and ―Roman‖ Empires. I fol- low Robert Browning in his idea that the defining characterization which sepa- rates Byzantine and Roman society is the importance of Christianity in the former, and therefore use his loose date of 500 CE as the time where the transition from ―Rome‖ to ―Byzantine‖ took place, though in the eyes of contemporaries, the Byzantines were Romans.57 This prophecy inscribed on the gate by Alexander is compounded by an apocalyptic vision of God in battle; as Alexander and his troops call on God‘s help to defeat the innumerable hordes of Persians, ―the Lord appeared, coming upon the chariot of the Seraphim, and the watchers and the angels came before Him with praises;‖ his mighty presence scares the barbarian hordes and gives Alexander victory.58 Finally, in case the message has not been conveyed bluntly enough, the Persian king, while in captivity, divines the future using Zoroastrian magic. His oracle predicts exactly what Alexander inscribed on the gate: all kingdoms other than Rome will ―be laid to waste‖ and the Romans ―should stand and rule to the end of time, and should deliver the kingdom of the earth to the Messiah who is to come.‖59 The king then sub- mits to Alexander and gives Persia over to him. The Discourse of Jacob of Serugh is written a few years after the Christian Legend, and it seems to be a response to the Legend.60 It is contains many of the same stories found in the Legend, though it features more infor- mation from the Romance tradition. It also contains an even more descriptive and violent prophecy of the apocalypse delivered to Alexander by a messenger of God in a dream.61 In this prophecy, more connections are made between Alexander and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, especially Jeremiah.62 God tells Alexander he should make peace with Persia and take Persian territory. The messenger also goes into great detail about all the horrible things that will 22 happen during the apocalypse; in addition to famine, pestilence, world war, and the unleashing of the unclean nations, the prophecy also forecasts the coming of the Antichrist. The work ends with this prophecy and interprets the books of Jeremiah and Isaiah to imply that God will destroy the earth after the Anti- christ appears and Gog and Magog wreak havoc on humanity. There is no mention of a final triumph of good over evil — just the end of history. The message conveyed by these prophecies and oracles is quite shocking. In the Christian Legend, Alexander predicts Roman hegemony over the earth following an apocalyptic battle against the Huns, Persians, unclean nations, and other barbarians. The battle is framed in starkly religious terms. This is made clear by God‘s actual appearance in battle on Alexander‘s side in the Christian Legend and the connection between Rome (which of course means Byzantium at this point) and Christianity that is present in both texts.63 Furthermore, these narratives explicitly connect Alexander the Great to Byzan- tium through the prophecy about the victory of the Romans. Alexander in- scribes, So shall the power of the kingdoms melt away before the might of the kingdom of the Greeks which is that of the Romans…and my kingdom, which is called that of the house of Alexander the son of Phillip the Macedonian, shall go forth and destroy the earth and the ends of the heavens; and there shall not be found any among the nations and tongues who dwell in the world that shall stand before the kingdom of the Romans.64 According to this prophecy, the Romans are the descendants of Alexander the Great; since the Byzantines were inheritors of the imperial mandate of Rome, and also connected themselves back to Alexander the Great through their mu- tual Greekness, it establishes the Byzantines as descendants of Alexander as well. The Byzantines claim Alexander as one of their ancestors and make him their own. It is no surprise that the Byzantines of the seventh century used Alexander the Great‘s conquests as a medium for self-definition, because Al- exander conquered the very same peoples and lands that the Byzantines fought against an over during the seventh century. The Discourse also includes Alexander‘s victory over the Persians and mentions his construction of the wall to contain the unclean nations. How- ever, here there is no direct connection between Alexander‘s victories and the apocalyptic prophecies that follow. These connections are not as explicit as in the Christian Legend; however, as mentioned above, Byzantine Imperial ideol- ogy drew clear connections between Alexander, the Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire. Although the prophecies in the Discourse end with a wrathful God unleashing horrible destruction upon a wicked populace, the tri- umphs of Alexander himself are not overturned or diminished. The Byzantines still create a triumphant narrative for themselves through Alexander, and the apocalyptic prophecy is not meant to be interpreted as occurring in the time of the text‘s creation.65 Whether or not the prophecy of Alexander is meant to 25 As with the Byzantine interpretations of Alexander the Great, the Persian in- ventions serve to create group cohesion through historical representation. The Middle East during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries was marked by political fragmentation and frequent warfare. In Iran, as in the wid- er Islamic world, there was no unifying or dominant power during this time period. The lands of the Persians were distributed between a few minor ruling dynasties, which constantly fought each other, following the disintegration of the Seljuk Empire. In addition to the fragmentation caused by almost continu- ous warfare between the many shahs and beys who ruled small pieces of Iran, the Mongol invasions constituted a crisis for the Persians who inhabited Iran. At the time of the Mongol invasions, aside from being politically heterogene- ous, Iran was also socially and linguistically fragmented. Various Turkish tribes had moved into Iran and had even ruled over the Persians in various kingdoms.72 Iran had seen several dynasties rise and fall since the death of Alexander, however most were Persian in origin. Not unlike the Macedonian conquest of Persia and the rule of Alexander‘s Hellenistic successor states, the arrival of the Mongols constituted a major foreign, destructive conquest of Iran.73 The Mongol invasions of Iran occurred in the 1220s, and by 1258 the Mongols had toppled the last Abbasid caliph and sacked Baghdad. The effects of the Mongol invasion on both the lands and people of Iran were calamitous. Stories of mass slaughter were commonplace; everyone who resisted saw their people massacred and cities burned. Aside from the large loss of life, the Mon- gol invasion brought social upheaval as the land was laid to waste and taxes were raised.74 In the face of such disorder and turmoil, how did the Persians find meaning in their subjugation? Like the Jews and Byzantines, the Persians needed to explain their own defeat at the hands of outsiders. Like the Jews and Byzantines, the Persians saw their victorious enemies as inferior to themselves. In this time of crisis, the Persians, like the Jews and Byzantines, turned to the figure of Alexander the Great to reshape their history and alter their collective memory in order to construct a more triumphant past upon which to build a new identity. How did the Iskandarnamah‘s portrayal of Alexander the Great alter Persian identity, and how did this shift demonstrate a response to the catastro- phes of the Mongol invasions? The two major factors in the text‘s reinterpreta- tion of the Alexander narrative which shape Persian identity and their relation to the invading Mongols are 1) the characterization of Alexander as the ideal king and as a legitimate Persian ruler, as opposed to Macedonian usurper, and 2) the portrayal of Alexander as a devout Muslim conqueror and leader. The Persianization and Islamicization of Alexander allow the Persians to claim Alexander as their own and to incorporate his deeds into their history. It also sharpened the contrast between the Persian and Muslim Alexander with the barbarian and infidel Mongols. Like the Byzantines of the seventh century, the Persians use Alexander‘s victories to construct a mythical past filled with tri- umph over their enemies. Also like the Byzantine use of Alexander, in the 26 Iskandarnamah, some of the enemies Alexander conquers are thinly veiled references to the Mongols/Huns — the enemies of the society that created the text.75 In this manner, the Persians create a ―historical‖ narrative of triumph over the powers which now subjugate them, in order to construct a new tradi- tion to respond to ―rapid transformation of society‖ which ―weakens or de- stroys‖ the previous traditions.76 The Persianization of Alexander in the Iskandarnamah is noticeable almost instantly; the author introduces a story that makes Alexander the son of a Persian king instead of the son of Phillip, king of Macedonia.77 According to the Iskandarnamah, Phillip sends his daughter to marry Dara, king of Persia. Dara has sex with her and impregnates her, but later sends her back to Macedo- nia before he knows she is pregnant because she has bad breath. Upon her return to Macedonia, Phillip conceals the origin of the child and claims it as his own in order to save the honor of his house and daughter. Meanwhile, Dara has another child, Darab (Darius), with his new queen. Therefore, Alexander and Darius, the Persian king who he defeats, are half-brothers, and Alexander is the first-born son and therefore legitimate ruler of Persia.78 The remainder of the story about Alexander‘s conquest of Persia and struggle against Darius serves to portray Darius as an unreasonable and selfish king, who does not know what is best for himself or his country. He will not listen to Alexander‘s reasonable request to end the payment of tribute from Rum (here, Alexander‘s kingdom) to Persia and refuses to accept a truce offered by Alexander in which he would retain the throne of Persia as a client of Alexander‘s, even after Alex- ander has defeated him in battle and taken his family hostage.79 Alexander, meanwhile, ―ascended the throne and he conquered the world through justice. He established good laws, suppressed heresy, and put an end to all injustice. Mankind was gladdened by his justice and equity, which brought peace to the world.‖80 The author of the Iskandarnamah sets Darius up as an unjust, irra- tional ruler and contrasts him with Alexander, who not only has the correct qualities to rule, but is also the actual legitimate ruler because he is the first- born son of Dara. Needless to say, Alexander defeats Darius in battle, and it is with the death of Darius that the Persianization of Alexander is completed. Stabbed by his own generals, Darius lies slowly dying in Alexander‘s lap and tells Alexan- der to marry his daughter, to adopt Darius‘s family as his own, and he recog- nizes Alexander as his brother. Alexander, always the model for an ideal king in the Iskandarnamah, gives Darius a proper burial in a vaulted golden tomb.81 The people of Iran accept Alexander as their legitimate ruler, and because Al- exander is the son of Dara, the nobles and elders of Iran say to him, ―May you enjoy your father‘s throne.‖82 Even Darius‘s family takes to Alexander and he quickly takes Darius‘s place as head of the family and as the legitimate king of Iran. The Iskandarnamah goes to great lengths to portray Alexander as an example of the ideal king, putting in his mouth, ―I wish to go around the world to establish proper laws wherever I go, to induce kings to righteousness and leniency towards their subjects, to leave a good name wherever I pass, and to protect my subjects from injustice and tyranny.‖83 Throughout the narrative, 27 Alexander is compared to Kaykhusraw, a mythical figure who is considered the greatest king of Persia.84 The story also twists the birth narrative of Alex- ander from the traditional stories of Macedonian or Egyptian origin into one of Persian origin to legitimize Alexander as king of Persia. In the Iskandar- namah, Alexander appears as the liberator of Persia, who frees its people from an unreasonable and illegitimate tyrant. Through the Persianization of Alexan- der, the Persians who created the Iskandarnamah version of the Alexander narrative claim him as their ancestor, assign his place in their governing myth as great Persian king instead of foreign conqueror, and therefore connect them- selves to his identity as ideal ruler. Similar to his Persianization, the Islamicization of Alexander the Great is an important characteristic of the Iskandarnamah, which not only re- defines Alexander‘s identity, but also shifts how the Persians define them- selves. Alexander is portrayed as a devout Muslim and is cast as the archetypi- cal Muslim conqueror in the tradition of the Caliphs and later Islamic warrior- kings of the Seljuk periods. When Alexander fights the Indian king Porus, who features in many of the other stories born out of the Alexander Romances, he tells his troops, ―God is on our side…for these are infidels, and if we kill them we will be ghazis‖ and when they ride into battle, they cry, ―Allah Ak- bar.‖85 After conquering Porus, Alexander, ever the magnanimous victor, of- fers to restore Porus to his throne if he converts to Islam and denounces idola- try. However, Porus declines because he is a practitioner of the religion Jam- shid, who was the first idolater according to Islamic tradition.86 The conquest of Porus is just one of many struggles which get framed in religious terms by the author of the Iskandarnamah. As in the Byzantine versions of the Alexan- der narrative, Alexander‘s struggles against the monstrous and mythical people from around the world take on the qualities of holy wars and wars of conver- sion. Throughout the Iskandarnamah, Alexander either converts a newly con- quered group to Islam or kills them. He repeatedly uses the ―names of god‖ as magical powers to fight infidels.87 He travels to Mecca and not only devoutly performs the rituals of the hajj, but also purifies the Ka’bah by restoring the rightful heir to his position as chief of the city and cleans the shrine of usurp- ers.88 These are simply a few examples of how Islam finds its way into the Iskandarnamah; the entire narrative is filled with repeated references to the Qur’an, allusions to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, and Islamic folk tales.89 The portrayal of Alexander as a devout Muslim in the Iskandarnamah is one of the most amusing ways in which Alexander gets reinvented through- out history. Not only did the historical Alexander associate himself closely with the pagan gods of the Hellenistic world, he also lived around 900 years before the revelation of Mohammed and rise of Islam! However, although extremely ahistorical, the Islamicization of Alexander serves to associate Alex- ander with the Persians of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries and represents him as an enemy of the infidel Mongol invaders. By conflating the victorious world conqueror Alexander with Islam and therefore with themselves, the Per- sian creators of this narrative equate the Mongols with the many inhuman and unbelieving peoples which Alexander defeats and subjugates — creating not 30 Notes 1.Pseudo-Callisthenes and Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (London, England; New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 1991). 2.Hellenism is an extremely difficult term to define, and scholars debate its origins. I do not have the space to engage in the debate over the origins of Hellenism. For my purposes, it is important to note that Alexander is a figure who quickly becomes associated with Hellenism, and soon after his death people connect his conquests with a major advancement in the process of bringing Greek culture to the wider world. As a working understanding of Hellenism which I will use in this arti- cle, see Gruen: ―The Greeks, secure and content with their legacy, showed little inclination to learn the languages or embrace the cultures of peoples who had come under their authority…They took their superiority for granted…Hellenic culture, as the stamp of the ascendant classes in many of the cities of the Near East, held widespread attraction and appeal. …The Process of ‗Hellenization‘ is mysterious and obscure, not easily defined or demonstrated.‖ Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellen- ism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998). 3.The various Alexander myths have been explored by scholars in some depth. An overview of the many sources about Alexander can be found in Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend (New Haven [Conn.]; London: Yale University Press, 2008), and there are several works which take multiple myths and analyze them together, such as Himanshu Prabha Ray and Daniel T. Potts, Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia Aryan Books International, 2007). Many works deal with a single source and analyze it without respect to other Alexander myths. 4.For example, in the case of the Alexander Romances which will be discussed in detail later in the article, many of their sources are also removed from the events they describe, both geographically and chronologically. In addition, many of their sources no longer survive, which makes evaluation of their accuracy difficult. 5.Much scholarship on theoretical connections between myth, history, identity, and memory is based on the study of modern nationalism. However, I find much of the theory is applicable to the history of the identity formation discussed in this article. For myth, history, and identity, see E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); for the connections between memory and myth, see Duncan Bell, "Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity," British Journal of Sociol- ogy 54, no. 1 (2003), 63, and for the post-colonial theory of transculturation, see Mary Louise Pratt, "Arts of the Contact Zone," Profession 91 (1991), 33. Work on history as literature is from Hayden V. White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). 6.―[M]emory acts as a powerful cohesive force, binding the disparate members of a nation togeth- er: it demarcates the boundary between Them and Us, delineating the national self from the for- eign, alien other‖ in Bell, Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity, 70. Quote in body is from Ibid. 67. 7―Invented tradition‘ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past.‖ Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition 1. 8.Ibid. 5. 9.Bell, Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity, 66. 10.The idea of organically invented traditions versus actively cultivated inventions comes from Ranger‘s essay in Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 249. 11.See Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend Appendix I for more on the texts. 31 12.The γ-recension refers to one version of the Alexander Romance, attributed to the writer Callis- thenes (hence the modern identification of the author as ―Pseudo-Callisthenes‖), which appears in several different forms. The different recensions come from different places and include different stories, though they follow (more or less) the same basic narrative. For more on the different re- censions see Pseudo-Callisthenes and Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (London, England; New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 1991), 29. 13.Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, 194; see also Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 14.Catherine Rubincam, "A Tale of Two "Magni": Justin/Trogus on Alexander and Pompey," Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 54, no. 3 (2005), pp. 265. 15.See Appendix V in Arrian and P. A. Brunt, Anabasis of Alexander (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976) for a discussion of the ancient historical traditions about Alexander‘s founding of the city of Alexandria. For more on Alexandria, see the Introduction to Christopher Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997). 16.The god is Ammon in Arrian and Brunt, Anabasis of Alexander; Apollo in Plutarch and John Dryden, Selected Lives: From the Parallel Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (Franklin Center, Pa.: Franklin Library, 1982); and Serapis in Pseudo-Callisthenes and Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance; to name just a few examples. See Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Rein- vention of Jewish Tradition 197 and n. 23. 17.J. C. Edmondson, "Introduction: Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome," in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. J. C. Edmondson, Steve Mason, and J. B. Rives (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 5. 18.The passage appears in Flavius Josephus et al., "Jewish Antiquities," in, Vol. 6 (Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press; Heinemann, 1926), XI.304- XI.347, for a summary of the debate over the historicity of this passage, see Appendix C at the end of the volume. 19.For more on the anachronistic nature of the book of Daniel in Josephus‘s version of Alexan- der‘s visit to Jerusalem see Ibid. 477 n. d. 20.For more on Jews and Samaritans see Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Vari- eties, Uncertainties and Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Jewish imperialism in the late Hellenistic period is a feature of the Hasmonean Dynasty, which ruled in the late second century BCE, and Jewish-Samaritan relations are discussed briefly in 1 Macc, Michael David Coogan et al., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books : New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), when the Jews conquer the Samaritans, and in the New Testament Gospels, where the moral of the story of the ―good Samaritan‖ is to love all humans regardless of ethnicity. 21.Josephus et al., Jewish Antiquities, XI.322-326, XI.340-345. 22.Ibid. XI.321. 23.Ibid. XI.331-332. 24.Erich S. Gruen, "Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Review)," American Journal of Philolo- gy 127, no. 4 (2006), 618. 25.The brief story of Alexander‘s visit to Jerusalem in the γ-recension can be found in Pseudo- Callisthenes and Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance169-170. While there is much more content connecting Jews to Alexander in this recension, I will focus on this story as an example of the relationship between Jews and the Alexander myths in the Hellenistic world. 26.Josephus et al., Jewish Antiquities, XI.317-320 and Pseudo-Callisthenes and Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance 168-169, respectively. 32 27.Josephus et al., Jewish Antiquities, XI.326. 28.Ibid. XI.333-4. 29.For Vespasian, see Flavius Josephus and H. St J. Thackeray, The Jewish War (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997) and for the Babylonian exile see Isaiah in Coogan et al., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version. 30.Josephus does not take the implications of his depiction this far — he only leaves open the idea that the possibility for a powerful Jewish political force could exist in the future. 31.See especially John M. G. Barclay, "The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome," in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. J. C. Edmondson, Steve Mason, and J. B. Rives (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 315-332, who addresses Josephus‘s work from a post-colonial perspective. 32.Pratt, Arts of the Contact Zone, 2. 33.See Plutarch and Dryden, Selected Lives: From the Parallel Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans; Arrian and Brunt, Anabasis of Alexander; and Quintus Curtius Rufus, John Yardley, and Waldemar Heckel , The History of Alexander (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 1984); as well as Pseudo-Callisthenes and Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance for examples. Alexander supposedly received oracles at Delphi from Apollo, and Siwah (in the Egyptian desert) from Ammon. For more about paganism and Roman daily life and oracles in general, see Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). 34.My use of the oracles from Josephus to discuss subversion of Hellenistic themes by Jews is heavily indebted to Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition 197 and Barclay, ―The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome,‖ 315-332. 35.Bell, Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity, 74. 36.See Flavius Josephus and H. St J. Thackeray, Against Apion (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Har- vard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1934), and Josephus and Thackeray, The Jewish War. 37.Bell, Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity, 75-6. 38.Much has been written about the relationship between Jews and gentiles in Alexandria and the connections between this relationship and the extensive literature produced by the Jewish commu- nity in Alexandria during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. For more see Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness : Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties and Gruen, Heritage and Hellen- ism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. For connections between Josephus and the relationship between Jews and gentiles in Alexandria see Josephus and Thackeray, Against Apion and the com- mentary given in Barclay, The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome, 315-332. 39.Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition 199. 40.Ibid. 201. 41.Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend (New Haven [Conn.]; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 232-233. 42.All three texts are accessible in one volume, see Pseudo-Callisthenes and E. A. Wallis Budge, The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, (Cambridge: The University Press, 1889). 43.In Late Antiquity, the term ―Hun‖ was used to refer to central Asian nomadic people. Pseudo- Callisthenes and E. A. Wallis Budge, "A Christian Legend Concerning Alexander," in The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, ed. E. A. Wallis Budge (Cambridge: The University Press, 1889), 144 n.1. 35 tion.‖ William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004), 34.―The Mongol invasions were an unparalleled cataclysm for the lands of Iran. Where the Arabs and Turks had been relatively familiar and restrained conquerors, the Mongols were both alien and wantonly cruel.‖ Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, 100. 74.―In some parts of the region agriculture never recovered…Where there had been towns and irrigated fields, the war horses of the conquerors and their confederates were now turned out to graze. Wide expanses of Iran reverted to nomad pastoralism…Peasants were subjected to taxes that were ruinously high…many fled the land or were forced into slavery…‖ Ibid. 103. 75.As in the Byzantine Syriac narratives, the ―unclean nations‖ are characterized as inhuman and as the ―other.‖ See for example, the description of the Zangis or other strange peoples who Alex- ander fights and defeats in Southgate and Afshar, Iskandarnamah: A Persian Medieval Alexander- Romance, 106. In the Iskandarnamah, Alexander conquers seemingly endless amounts of strange peoples, and obviously not all of them refer to the Mongols. 76.Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 5. 77.For a discussion on the various birth narratives of Alexander in the Romances, see Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend, 6-31. 78.Southgate and Afshar, Iskandarnamah: A Persian Medieval Alexander-Romance, 9-10. 79.Ibid. 11-13. Notice the Persian equation of Alexander‘s historical kingdom of Macedonia to Rome, or Rum. As mentioned above, Byzantine traditions commonly draw clear connection be- tween Alexander and Macedonia, Hellenism and the Greeks, Rome, and then to Byzantium, de- spite the anti-Greek sentiments of their Roman ancestors. Also, note that the Persians called By- zantium ―Rum‖ as well. 80.Ibid. 10. 81.Ibid. 14. 82.Ibid. 12. 83.Ibid. 11. 84.For examples of comparisons and parallels drawn between Alexander and Kaykhusraw, see Ibid. 53-54, and 65. For more background on Kaykhusraw, see n. 48. Kaykhusraw is one of the heroes (as is Alexander) of the famous Persian epic Shahnamah, the ―Book of Kings.‖ 85.Ibid. 19-20, and n. 8. 86.Ibid. 21, n. 10. 87.Another example of a struggle against an uncivilized, exoticized people which gets framed as a struggle between the forces of Islam and infidels can be found in Alexander‘s fight against the Davalpayam, who have no shin bones and use people like horses — to ride around on them, Ibid. 36-39. For the use of god‘s names as magical talismans, see one example on Ibid. 35. 88.Ibid. 40-41. 89.For example, Alexander‘s guide in the Land of Darkness on his search for the Waters of Im- mortality is the Islamic mythical figure and prophet Khidr, see Ibid. 54-59. 90.Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, 104. 36 Axworthy, Michael. A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Bell, Duncan. "Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity." British Jour- nal of Sociology 54, no. 1 (2003): 63-81. Browning, Robert. The Byzantine Empire. New York: Scribner, 1980. Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertain- ties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Coogan, Michael David, Marc Zvi Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Curtius Rufus, Quintus, John Yardley, and Waldemar Heckel. The History of Alexan- der. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 1984. Edmondson, J. C., Steve Mason , and J. B. Rives. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford University Press, 2005. Garthwaite, Gene R. The Persians. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2005. Gruen, Erich S. "Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Review)." American Journal of Philology 127, no. 4 (2006): 615-8. ———. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, Ca- lif.: University of California Press, 1998. Haas, Christopher. Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict. Balti- more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Hobsbawm, E. J. and T. O. Ranger. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Josephus, Flavius and H. St J. Thackeray. The Jewish War. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. ———. Against Apion. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1934. Josephus, Flavius, H. St J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus , and Louis H. Feldman. Jewish Antiquities. In Vol. 6, XI.304, XI.347. Cambridge; London: Harvard Univer- sity Press; Heinemann, 1926. Kaegi, Walter Emil. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 37 Katouzian, Homa. The Persians: Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Iran. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Liudprand, F. A. Wright, and John Julius Norwich. The Embassy to Constantinople and Other Writings. London; Rutland, Vt.: J.M. Dent; Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1993. MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Nagel, Joane, Eric Hobsbawm, and Terence Ranger. "Review of the Invention of Tradi- tion." American Journal of Sociology 90, no. 5 (1985): 1096-9. Plutarch and John Dryden. Selected Lives: From the Parallel Lives of the Noble Gre- cians and Romans. Franklin Center, Pa.: Franklin Library, 1982. Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone." Profession 91 (1991): 33-40. Pseudo-Callisthenes and E. A. Wallis Budge. "A Christian Legend Concerning Alexan- der." In The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, edited by E. A. Wallis Budge. Cambridge: The Univer- sity Press, 1889. ———. "A Discourse Composed by Mar Jacob upon Alexander, the Believing King, and upon the Gate which He made Against Gog and Magog." In The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, edited by E. A. Wallis Budge. Cambridge: The University Press, 1889. ———. The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo- Callisthenes. Cambridge: The University Press, 1889. Pseudo-Callisthenes and Richard Stoneman. The Greek Alexander Romance. London, England; New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 1991. Ray, Himanshu Prabha and Daniel T. Potts. "Memory as History : The Legacy of Alex- ander in Asia."Aryan Books International, 2007. Reinink, G. J., Bernard H. Stolte, and Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. The Reign of Her- aclius (610-641): Crisis and Confrontation. Leuven, Belgium; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2002. Rubincam, Catherine. "A Tale of Two "Magni": Justin/Trogus on Alexander and Pompey." Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 54, no. 3 (2005): 265-274. Russell, James R. and Minoo S. Southgate. "Review of Iskandarnameh: A Persian Me- dieval Alexander-Romance." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103, no. 3 (1983): 634-636. Southgate, Minoo S. and Iraj Afshar. Iskandarnamah: A Persian Medieval Alexander- Romance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.